zlacker

"Displaying an angry warning message" is one of the tools we've used for decades, and never with much success.

>>cedill+(OP)
You just have a flawed definition of success.

By allowing people to shoot themselves in the foot after ignoring a unmistakable warning, you are helping teach the foolish to be more careful in the future. Making mistakes is the best way to learn something.

>>djrj47+i1
People who just ignore big banners will just tell you that "they have been hacked", as if getting hacked is like a weather phenomenon. They won't even connect them getting hacked with the big red banner.

If they even notice, that is. It's just as possible that they play open relay for a year before they move to a new phone because their battery is always dying so fast for some unknown reason.

>>djrj47+i1
The end result is people just buy iPhones and perceive them to be more secure.

>>Gigach+G9
Who cares? It's their choice.

>>Gigach+G9
https://sideloadly.io

>>cedill+M1
Right, but the whole point of warnings is to make people be more careful on average than they would otherwise be.

What reason do you have to believe that this goal wasn't achieved?

>>cedill+(OP)
So what's wrong with that? You get warned, you ignore the warning and get hacked, that's on you for being dumb enough to download stuff from some shady website. Plus, Android is supposed to have decent isolation and permission controls, unlike desktop OSs like Windows or Linux (not counting Snap/Flatpak) where software can read your entire disk or any arbitrary file and send it via the internet.

Plus, you are not required to do that, you can just stick to Google Play and trust what Google approves there. But no need to lock down others because of your recklessness.

>>cedill+(OP)
Fuck em. If you ignore a warning, let nature take its course. We don't need to child-proof everyone's home.

>>arielc+0u
Exactly this. I want a big toggle that I can turn on in developer settings (perhaps make it more involved than that, but you get the gist) that says "I acknowledge that from here on in I am responsible for my data and I hereby absolve Google and other interested parties from responsibility should I blah blah blah..."

Why the hell can't I use my rooted device for payments? It's my goddamn money at risk.

>>samwhi+Ku
My Pixel phone warns me before allowing free installs (I refuse to call it "sideloading") from any app for the first time. And others like Xiaomi show (or used to show) a more prominent warning you had to read with the consequences, waiting at least 10 seconds to enable the option.

Plus the whole "banks need to protect you by ensuring your device" is stupid when cards are protected only by a PIN, and the app also requires some form of biometry to unlock it, which is to encrypt the underlying tokens. Banks should protect your money on their end, with clients having their responsibility to keep safe their stuff, whether that's their card or phone. It's a stupid premise itself, and it's lazy engineering.

>>arielc+0u
Is the point of the warning to avoid liability or to actually inform the users? If you tell people everything causes cancer (instead of only saying when you've verified it doesn't), soon enough they're going to stop caring when you say stuff like, "don't eat asbestos, that causes cancer". I think a "checkmark" system makes more sense—for verified accounts/developers, put a checkmark near their name, and for unverified ones, have nothing. There's no reason to cause alarm when 99% of the time the alarm is misfounded.