Sounds to me like you’re willing to give up liberties in exchange for comforts, that’s always a bad idea
Comment on Did we win?
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
If the process doesn’t include any phone home stuff, and is just a one-time cool off period to prevent scammers, this is acceptable to me. That should be enough to get potential victims to self-question, ask more knowledgeable people of what’s going on to avoid being unknowingly hacked, without being naggy everytime for users that want to do what they want.
Making a software “foolproof” will probanly invent a bigger better, fool hoping for some sort of free crypto app jumping through these hoops, but this should weed out most of the basic scams.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
I tend to favour privacy over big tech control, but I recognize we have to at least consider the cost-benefit of these tradeoffs, to live in a society. Of course I’d prefer a phone with no warnings, no nagging, if you get scammed that’s my fault and I will keep my phone that way if it means I will stay off Android 15 and de-Google my next phone. But Google’s plan is within the realm of an acceptable compromise to me because sideloading is still available to everyone without registration with Google. Each person will feel differently about it.
Taking your position to the extreme, if trading liberty for comfort is “always” a bad idea with no exceptions, you can turn off your phone and do without the comfort of it. (Only saying this because always is the word you chose to use.) To accept cellular and home internet services to communicate in the public realm requires you to give up some level of privacy, though of course it can be possible to stop a lot of the unnecessary surveillance that happens along with the necessary tradeoff.
freeman@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
No the scammer will simply point out that the warning is about scammers and not him, your friendly MS tech that called to help solve a problem you didn’t have.
Scams don’t rely on tech.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
The scammer is not going to be on the phone with the victim for 24 hours continuously.
freeman@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
He doesn’t need to.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 2 days ago
It still sets your phone in a state that marks it as security compromised. This could lead i.e. to banking apps not working. I’m not so sure about the “acceptable” state of things here.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Yeah, I take issue with that, but I don’t think it would be used if people complain to banks that reading the flag bricks the app.