De-centralization and open source was always the better way. Technology started on this path and the corporate powers have done everything they can to sabotage and destroy open tech.
Been this way with every new tech I reckon. See also DVD burners and DRM/regional codes.
Yeah, I find it funny that people don't remember DVD DRM. I guess it wasn't noticeable to Americans, but you move from Latvia to the UK and suddenly all your movies are duds. You can at least use a VPN today to circumvent this bull shit in many cases, no such luck back then.
P.S. What was even worse for people living in xUSSR countries is that part of DVDs came from Russia (region 5) and part came from Europe (zone 2, because many xUSSR countries were assigned zone 2). The same was true for DVD players. So it was always a puzzle what to buy. Fuck this shit.
The problem you are describing is not malware or viruses. They’re just the tools.
The problem is capitalism, which turns everything free into something on which a profit can be made
That's why Foss will always be better, and we need to support these developers. They also need to protect their software better from capitalist ghouls that will profit from it for free
Protecting FOSS is impossible, there will always be a company that uses your codebase, credits you and includes advertisements to your program.
We need to make using FOSS projects the default and using the corporate options as the backup option.
What I mean is better licenses that make sure you get paid if companies profit from it, and harsher penalties for those that get caught infringing the license
Such a license wouldn't fit the free software or the open source definitions, but I find it interesting that there has been a small, yet apparently growing, group of people unsatisfied with our current open licensing, for different reasons, and proposing new ideas and concepts that wouldn't fit these definitions.
Aggressive capitalism coupled with user ignorance is the main issue. The advice still remains don't install all this shit, but people growing uo with smartphones have bought in to this idea that it's reasonable for Google to spy on your every move, so why not every other app?
So many users have no idea how their devices work - even an inkling - now what apps do, how to keep devices secure and private, and what happens with their data. Business has taken advantage of that - people want things to "just work" so business use that as a way to abuse users and make every app a trojan horse for data mining.
Even Google, Apple etc privacy settings are bullshit - they're just figleafs of psuedo privacy that enable them as the platform makers to dictate the terms.
I switched away from Windows to Linux on PC, and I use FOSS alternatives on my Android device (even considering replacing android with FOSS system - difficult with some work essential apps unfortunately). But even if you stay on windows/android there are plenty of things users can do to protect themselves - they just don't know how or worse can't be bothered by the whole issue.
I think i read somewhere that the cia said they dont install bugs anymore because now ppl do that themselfs.
Yeah, I've read a bunch of articles over the last few years about how a lot of law enforcement agencies are finding that instead of getting a warrant and doing a bunch of surveillance they can just buy people's private data from a data broker and get more info than they would have been able, or allowed, to gather if they'd gotten the warrant.
It's also a lot easier to do it in software, since you don't need to splice wires and leave physical traces like you would have had to do in the day.
A well-configured charger or Flash drive can do that job for you, and can spread itself.
Yes, since most modern chargers and cables have internal chips to communicate capabilities with for things like fast-charging. It is not difficult to have the chip identify itself as something else, and execute a payload.
A common attack method is to have it show up as a keyboard, and execute a series of key-sequences when connected to a computer (like opening and executing things through a command prompt).
It is also why you should try and avoid plugging random USB cables/chargers into your phone/computer when out and about, since you don't exactly know if the other end is what it appears to be.
I don't know enough about the charger thing to comment on how viable that might be for an attack vector.
But you're definitely right about plugging your mobile device into random ports. Either set your phone to by default only charge and not communicate, use a charge-only cable, or only use your own power bank/charger when away from home and you don't fully trust where you are...
So I’m pretty averse to getting new apps and giving them location permissions.
Just cause of this comment I went it and looked at the location permissions, holy shit so many apps had it that shouldn’t have. Like Apple home… wtf does it need location for, it uses wifi…
If there's anyone here that cares about their privacy and doesn't know this already:
If you have a choice between accessing the website through a browser and installing an app, use the browser. Browsers (typically) at least try to protect the types of information that gets sent, whereas there are much fewer restrictions (again, typically) for apps.
Everyone wants you to install apps because apps (typically) get access to much more data.
The worst is many of these apps are just websites repackaged as apps. They just want the elevated access being an app gives them.
Whoa. I hope it was my fake Limp Bizkit song because a couple friends and I actually did this around 2000.
My fellow americans, I would once again like to say I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Yeah, when I was setting up my first smartphone there was a very weird moment where I had to go against a lifetime of training on laptops and desktop PCs and just immediately invite every single app to fuck me up the arse if I wanted it to function as anything more than an expensive telephone with a fancy screen. But invite them up my arse I did.
Reminds me of that Futurama clip from over 20 years ago where Fry is on the internet and a literal mob of advertisements surround him.
It was considered best practice to never install anything
In what universe? You might as well never turn on your computer.
Yeah this post makes a good point but sounds a little like the writer did not experience what they claim to. WeatherBug was buggy slow bullshit and everyone installed it anyway. it was only people who noticed details who saw how sluggish it made your PC. To this day I've never heard a single person talk about it getting your location being a problem, until now. That's a good point I guess but I just don't think it was on many people's radars.
I installed all kinds of stuff, but the metric was if it slowed down my PC or especially my games. That'd get me to uninstall, run antivirus and/or anti-malware, or even totally reinstall Windows real quick.
Exactly! We weren't yet used to companies spying on us and computers were on the slow side anyhow
Yeah, I would install anything that just used 0 resources when it’s not running. But that’s not what malware does
It really feels like the OP didn't have older people in their life with browsers with 3 or more toolbars that you had to service every other month. 😅
People clicked yes to everything. Just like they do now. Nothing has changed.
Before clicking yes just meant ruining your sandbox which was your computer. You can’t just have a bad PC today, instead you get your data leaked and become a target for scams.
In this universe. I didnt want to have 10 fucking different toolbars for my browser. You had to see the correct download button, so that you get your wanted download plus malware/viruses. If you got the wrong you got a lot of malware xD
shit like this is why im going to eventually create my own little internet island.
Dw, i'm going to rule over it like a dictator, no democracy here :)
I have a theory that this is the next iteration of Internet. A private internet linked by vpn over the public Internet. Probably already exists in some form over Tor or in dusty Pirate communities. All we need is a no-commercial-entities clause and a Yahoo clone and we could rock like it's 1994!
oh i've already got that part setup. I'm talking about exposing it to the wider world so i can create my own little internet cult.
by this logic AAVs equivalent for ads will come into existence in a couple years... maybe its already here.
In what fucking universe is this even remotely true? I don't know about you guys, but around those places, in early 2000's, internet access was extremely fucking expensive, so most software was peer-to-peer shared, not even by torrent, but on CD's or floppys, or local neighborhood ad-hoc and internal ISP networks. And the way it got there was mostly from shady CD stores around the corner, where owners paid fortune to download shit and made it back selling it, or PC journals with CDs where they were just filled it up to a brim with whatever garbage they had to boost value.
And there was no access control whatsoever. A literal spyware with full access to your system, that only puts a purple fucking gorilla on your screen, that runs around and does absolutely fucking nothing? Sign me the fuck in. If your virus did something even something remotely useful, like show weather and currency rates, then you could rest assured that it would infect every single computer in the country.
If you were savvy, though, what you'd do is forever sacrifice 50% of your CPU and RAM to the anti-virus and pray to fucking gods you don't touch anything newer than the last version of it you have. Because anything uncaught can and will infect absolutely everything and anything the computer has access to. And your only option would be to just nuke the entire system with all of your data because because any backups you make would also get infected.
Even later, when broadband got cheap and widely available, the internet was for a long time a complete shit show. Remember Flash? Every single ad and every other site used Flash. That shit, along with java applets, was equivalent to automatically downloading and executing any app you see, before you actually even see it. It was also filled with shit like rapidshare and depositfiles, with questionable content and ads on ads over ads, as there was a financial incentive to spam that garbage everywhere and bury anything half-legit under it.
Kids these days really got it easy. See an app requesting something you don't think it needs? Just say no. Us, boomers, didn't have such a luxury. By the time you suspect anything shady going on, it was already too late. There is a downside, though, that manufacturers control what you can and cannot do. It took, like, almost a decade for trivial things like screen recording to even be possible on Android, and things like CheatEngine are straight up impossible. But hey, I'd say that's a reasonable price to pay for not being completely paranoid.
in early 2000’s, internet access was extremely fucking expensive, so most software was peer-to-peer shared, not even by torrent, but on CD’s or floppys, or local neighborhood ad-hoc and internal ISP networks
Uh no. I was there. In 1995 or 1996, I may have still used a shareware CD-ROM, or some less-legal compilation CD-ROM, but in the 2000s the most common way to install software by far was to download it over the internet.
And there was no access control whatsoever. A literal spyware with full access to your system, that only puts a purple fucking gorilla on your screen, that runs around and does absolutely fucking nothing? Sign me the fuck in. If your virus did something even something remotely useful, like show weather and currency rates, then you could rest assured that it would infect every single computer in the country.
I think the point of the post is that back then people were warned against installing bonzi buddy and such, and we were told to install software only from trustworthy sources. Spyware software rightfully flagged such software as malware too. Nowadays, there are appstores full of banal apps which harvest much more personal information about you than bonzi buddy ever did and we're not batting an eye about it, and even though we have "Access control" we just happily click accept when our calculator wants to read our emails, and we've accepted it as a normal way of doing things.
Uh no. I was there. In 1995 or 1996, I may have still used a shareware CD-ROM, or some less-legal compilation CD-ROM, but in the 2000s the most common way to install software by far was to download it over the internet
I've pulled up some historic data and it looks you're right and I've underestimated how much "my place" lagged behind the world at a time. Of course, if you've had unlimited access in 1996 that makes sense. For me, I have an artifact from the past right in front of me - a router manufactured in 2008, still chugging along, which I've bought when the first truly unlimited plans hit the market, so it made sense to share a connection rather than having a separate account with ISP for every family member. It was only 64k, though, so not downloading a car movie or a game at those speeds. The gray networks persisted all the way into mid 2010s as far as I know.
I think the point of the post is that back then people were warned against installing bonzi buddy and such, and we were told to install software only from trustworthy sources. Spyware software rightfully flagged such software as malware too
Might be another cultural difference, but this is not at all the experience I've had. In fact, just the other day I myself had to spin up a VM to launch a some random-ass app from, of all things, a CD that was handed to me, though this is quite a bit out of the ordinary. But I'd say the attitude didn't change, people are still just as likely and to launch random shit from a USB drive as they were to insert random CD's. And while AV software has improved, people are now less likely to use it. Defaulting to windows defender, which, in personal experience, is only good at catching pirated copies of microsoft software and nothing more. Or relying on google/apple, which is also problematic.
Just out of curiosity, by the way, how many people from your circle do you think have the "Allow app installs from Unknown Sources" checked? For me, that'd be at least a third of them.
Nowadays, there are appstores full of banal apps which harvest much more personal information about you than bonzi buddy ever did and we’re not batting an eye about it, and even though we have “Access control” we just happily click accept when our calculator wants to read our emails, and we’ve accepted it as a normal way of doing things.
To me it sounded like the initial post was glorifying how good it was then versus how bad it is now, while missing on all of the technical progress that happened. Sure, apps collect much more data than they ever did. But on the other hand, bonzi buddy was more than capable of stealing all of your money and nuking your device. In my eyes, it is more important than people giving away their personal info by being careless.
As for the carelessness, though, I don't think that's a tech nor a new problem. People just never ask "why?" and "what for?" nearly as often as they should. Even if sometimes this is literally a question of life and death, most people don't even care to ask...
Is this an Android issue I am too iOS faithful to understand?
Never seen a calculator ask my location. Most apps will ask nothing besides notification privileges, and will generally explain themselves fairly well before even attempt to ask for anything else. Walled gardens DO have some advantages, it seems.
Default iOS is leagues ahead of android in regards to privacy and security. Massively so.
You need to install a third party OS to get something comparable on Android. Those are mainly limited to Pixels phones made by an advertising company for the purpose of generating more advertising opportunities.
It seems to me that convincing yourself that suffering constant and persistent attempts at data harvesting, malware infection, and other forms of exploits is a small price to pay NOT to be part of an alleged brainwashing cult is just as much of a cult as you believe me to be part of.
Android has the same permissions, if a weird app asks for location you deny it. Its not common ime.
Sure, as long as you're not an idiot and at least somewhat computer literate of course.
But the problem is that it appears that Android has fostered an entire ecosystem in which even asking for ludicrous levels of permission is totally acceptable, whereas doing anything like that on the App Store is a bannable offense. You're simply not going to get your app through the review process unless you provide a clear and reasonable explanation for why each permission is necessary, and state your privacy policy openly so as not to mislead users.
Like it or not, Apple does actually take these things seriously, and it sure does help cut down on the level of unnecessary frustrations I have to deal with when using my phone.
I don't know man. Putting the word "privacy" on a billboard doesn't mean that you take it seriously. Marketing agencies basically listen to every conversation you have and there's at least one application that accesses your location all the time on each platform. I used to go crazy thinking about these topics but there is simply no avoiding it, so I gave up.
To me iPhones are 🤏 this close to being a feature phone so I will keep my Android. You give the same data to Google by using their services anyway. 🤷♂️
I have ios apps that refuse to work without precise location even though its not necessary. I don’t find it much different but i do avoid garbage.
Android apps are much more likely to ask for permission. There is very little moderation involved on the all store. Apps asking for unnecessary permission is very common.
@MacNCheezus @Interstellar_1 Earnest question - do you read the ToS on the apps on your phone? I know Apple recently has gotten on a pseudo-privacy kick as of late (they were having a bit of a public-facing slapfight with Facebook over it) but the apps may be collecting usage data and using the ToS to say they can. Apps like Spotify and GMaps are *bad about this*.
Does anyone really ever have the time for that? I'll leave it to the journos who being paid to look for a juicy scoop to tell me when they put something utterly egregious in there.
And yes, Google IS notoriously bad, but you know what, I don't HAVE to use their apps on my phone because Apple Maps is actually fairly good these days (and far more privacy focused, supposedly they process your data in a way that makes it impossible for them to create a comprehensive location profile, but I digress).
But you know, if you're worried about such things, I literally can't thing of a worse thing to do than to run an entire OS that is literally made by an advertising-based spyware company. If you run stock Android, you're basically trusting Google with root access to your entire digital life. If you think Google Maps is bad, handing them your entire phone on a silver platter is definitely far worse.
@MacNCheezus I'm not denying this, just figured I'd bring up that there's a lot that can go towards failing you, privacy-wise.
Apple has it's own host of problems (third-party repair lockouts being high on the list of them when I think about it) but if privacy is the primary concern they seem pretty good.
Sure, the OS is closed source and so is the review process, you kinda have to trust them to actually do what they promise. For everyday normal life stuff, it's likely safe enough though. Obviously, if you're a spy or a whistleblower operating in some high stakes scenarios, you'll probably want something else, but you also probably don't want Android unless it's been seriously hardened (i.e. something like Graphene).
I used to be the kind that would have downvoted this comment, but every android update has me eyeing apple more and more. If there were an equivalent to Tasker, I'd switch in a heartbeat.
Since I don't use Android and never have in the past, I'm obviously not familiar with the app and only took a quick look at its Play Store page, but it looks like Apple's Shortcuts app might be at least somewhat similar to that (but likely a bit more limited).
