Originally posted by twhitehead
It is a complicated situation. I rather suspect you would actually not want to live in countries that do try to do exactly what you are proposing with the internet. China for example filters the internet for your safety, yet receives enormous criticism for doing so.
I must also point out that supermarkets may not sell you poisonous food, but that doesn ...[text shortened]... ity should be demanded by regulation? If a security bug is found in iOS should Apple pay a fine?
It is indeed a complicated situation, however being complicated doesn't mean insolvable.
And China doesn't do anything close to what I want to do, I think you have misunderstood my intentions.
I must also point out that supermarkets may not sell you poisonous food, but that doesn't mean the food they sell is good for you. I think the question of whether hamburgers should be made illegal is still very much up for debate.
I do realise this, however it used to be the case in the past that food sellers could and did try to get away
with [almost literally] murder in selling 'food' that was unfit for human consumption.
You would have to really pay attention to get produce that was 'safe' to eat.
Now we have lots of regulations and enforcement systems that mean that we can have a high level of trust
that when we go to the supermarket the food you buy will be safe.
The situation we have now with technology is analogous to the pre-regulation food industry.
You can go out today and buy a 'smart TV' [or smart fridge/ electricity meter etc] that connects to your home network
and allows connection to the internet. And that device will almost certainly have no security on it whatsoever.
And when you place that completely insecure device on your network, hackers can remotely take over that device and
use it as a launch platform for internal network attacks on your computers and phones in your home.
Similarly your home router is likely also highly insecure, with no regular security updates, and can also be hacked
and used to launch attacks.
And if your network is hacked by someone taking over your smart tv, the manufacturer has zero liability for any damage
caused due to their negligence in failing to provide a decent standard of protection.
And the way the current market is heading, it is already becoming hard to get tv's that are not smart tv's.
Which means that soon you will either only be able to get a non-smart tv by buying a cheapskate crappy tv,
or by not having one at all. Rinse repeat for every other device that is becoming 'smart'.
Now look at all the services that can only be accessed, or are very inconvenient to access, without internet.
In the modern world you a almost required to have a computer with internet access.
And yet we cannot trust those who provide these 'essential' services with our privacy or security.
The market is not, and will not, provide such things.
So we must have regulations that require these companies to provide decent levels of security and privacy.
This may mean that some business models will fail, as tracking people everywhere and selling that information
is no longer legally acceptable. But those are not the only viable business models, however they out-compete
other business models in the current market as detrimental practices often do. This is why you ban them,
because that creates a level playing field for the non-detrimental business practises to thrive.
What about TV that relies on an advertising model?
That TV advertising is based on the expected make-up of the audience based on the program being shown.
It doesn't track you and invade your privacy.
But should they not be allowed to sell you (or give you) such an operating system even when the purpose is clearly stated? You seem to be saying that because users will always be ignorant, we must ban the sale of operating systems that rely on advertising as a business model.
Not quite. I'm saying that users have essentially no choice but to use one of the major OS's and that they should not
be required to sacrifice their privacy to do so.
As someone who had to 'upgrade' to Windows 10 to become familiar with it for my work, I know how much effort
it takes to disable Windows snooper stuff [assuming it's actually disabled and not lying about it] for some of it
I needed to use command line instructions.
Regular users are never ever going to be able to do that, or even realise that they should.
So yes, the manufacturers should be told that their users have a right to privacy and it doesn't matter what is in their
TOS, they are not permitted to collect or sell their users private data.
What level of security should be demanded by regulation? If a security bug is found in iOS should Apple pay a fine?
No. There will always be bugs. Apple should however pay a fine/be liable for damages if they fail to implement proper
practices for locating and patching bugs as they are discovered.
The major OS's are actually now quite good at this, and regular windows security updates, and the same for iOS and
Linux etc are the norm. However the same cannot be said for all the software you use, or all the other internet devices
that you use, are being developed.