• Cryxtalix@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sideloading must always remain available, but I feel like restricting the ability to unlock sideloading might be potentially beneficial. There have been reports of people getting their bank accounts emptied after sideloading some random app and giving it accessibility permissions. Preventing people from granting such permissions on impulse with a more tedious unlocking process could potentially benefit some.

    Of course people will disagree. Why should we be inconvenienced for some idiots? It comes down to how willing you are to be inconvenienced for the safety of these people I guess. I already know I’ll probably be downvoted given the tech inclined crowd on lemmy these days, but I personally wouldn’t mind performing an adb command or smth. I won’t have trouble doing it, but retirees won’t be able to give away their retirement funds in less than a minute.

    • 001100 010010@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well think of it this way:

      The one of the common ways for someone to get their (windows) computer hacked is to get tricked into executing a .exe file. Hey why not block programs unless they are approved by windows? Let’s call it Windows 10 S, S for Secure! (/sarcasm)

      I mean maybe we could compromise a bit and hide the sideloading behind the developer options. Not connecting to a computer and ADB, just behind the developer menu. Most people don’t even know how to get that menu, and the people who sideload will either already know it, or can easily find out after a quick internet search. As long as there is an option, I’ll be able to find it.