[com2kid]

> This community has pockets of people who like authoritarian control,

Alternatively, we've spent our lives helping our parents out. Last year my mom just got completely owned, total taken over of all her financial accounts. The most likely vector was that her phone was out of date and not receiving security patches anymore.

Luckily her bank's anti fraud systems kicked in before too much damage was done.

Prior to smart phones, many of us remember making monthly, or even weekly, trips to family members houses to remove malware and viruses from personal computers.

Things were bad.

[jenadine]

> my mom just got completely owned

Any evidence this was caused by "sideloading"?

[voxl]

It's a great comedy that someone comes along with a "think of my grandma!" appeal to emotion while neglecting that there is no way mom side loaded a virus and it's way more likely they opened Google chrome or some email and clicked one too many links.

[runjake]

They mentioned the likely cause in the next sentence:

> The most likely vector was that her phone was out of date and not receiving security patches anymore.

I believe these individuals are suggesting that locked-down ecosystems can be beneficial in certain situations. They help prevent regular users from compromising their device security... assuming they keep them updated...

[sophrosyne42]

You're assuming that the drawbacks of Google's peddled response are worth the alleged fix. Given that the primary malware vector for your mom's phone is the play store, this has all the hallmarks of a nonsolution: no benefit, only drawbacks.

It is the equivalent of restricting car use to paved roads only as a "solution" to car crashes.

[godelski]

  > The most likely vector was that her phone was out of date

No one is talking about stopping security patches. Your computer works fine, gets security patches, and you aren't restricted from installing any software on it.

Perhaps, as a fellow developer and a HACKER News user, you can understand that the underlying problem is the device security. Amplifying the problem is the surveillance capitalism ecosystem. Your data is valuable, to the trillion dollar companies and to hackers. Which means they need to collect that data and try to drive a fine line of giving them access but no one else. I thought we were all aware that trying to make backdoors is a foolish endeavor.

  > Prior to smart phones ... to remove malware and viruses from personal computers.

Your desktop computer is still a desktop computer. The smart phone didn't change anything there. If you're getting fewer viruses it is because either 1) the user is becoming more proficient, 2) the hackers are becoming less proficient, or 3) (the actual answer) security is getting stronger. Critical to #3 is noting that this has happened without the requirement of app stores.

I also want to stress, the enforcement of app stores is the death of phones and general purpose computers.

What makes computers (phones included) so great is that they are an ecosystem. You can't make a product for everyone, but you can make an ecosystem that can be adapted to anyone. Without programs these things aren't very useful. We're back in the old days like with the IBMs. Just remember, it took Google and Apple years before they put a flashlight app on their phones, but it only took weeks for developers. If we wait for them to build everything we're going to wait forever and won't get half the stuff we need.

  >>> You have the right to install whatever you want on your computer, regardless of whether that computer is on your desk or in your pocket. That's a hill I'll die on

It is a hill I'll die on too

[LMYahooTFY]

That's awful, but it has nothing to do with sideloading or needing locked down phones.

Apparently this idea that security and user control are a trade off has been sold pretty well, and it's bull shit. Nothing about a phone which isn't locked down to the user precludes all the security features you'd want on by default for your mother.

But I doubt you'll catch Apple or Google going out of their way to explain that. They're better off having you believe that the trade off is necessary, and you probably wouldn't miss the freedom anyway.