How is computer dictatorship still OK?

Ondrashek06 · 2021-03-01 20:46:02

When someone dictates that you have to update the app to a certain version at 10 AM, it just updates and you can't do anything about it. If you want to change your password, you cannot because SOMEONE has decided to not let you. Your username will always be "8374928" because that SOMEONE dictated that you have to have this as your username. If you want to update an app yourself, you just cannot.

How is this still OK? This dictatorship should be taken as a punishment, and not something that is even remotely OK.

Norwee · 2021-03-01 22:04:00

Nonsense.

2b55b5g · 2021-03-01 22:08:56

are you trolling
i can't tell

Joeyjoey65

some woman · 2021-03-01 23:13:09

"computer dictatorship" is this a low-budget 80s sci fi movie

Different55 · 2021-03-02 07:02:24

Sometimes apps need to be updated. Bugs are fixed, improvements are made, and sometimes those improvements mean that the old app can no longer work. You can't trust users to do it themselves. Users'll just smash the "nah, later" button until the sun burns out, and then you end up with WannaCry. You want a system that only does what you ask it to and are willing to take responsibility when you fail to do what is necessary on your own, install a really barebones Linux or something.

Joeyjoey65

NoNK · 2021-03-02 07:09:58

you don't need barebones linux. any sane linux distro gives you control of your computer.

Ondrashek06 · 2021-03-02 12:08:47

Different55 wrote:

Sometimes apps need to be updated. Bugs are fixed, improvements are made, and sometimes those improvements mean that the old app can no longer work. You can't trust users to do it themselves. Users'll just smash the "nah, later" button until the sun burns out, and then you end up with WannaCry. You want a system that only does what you ask it to and are willing to take responsibility when you fail to do what is necessary on your own, install a really barebones Linux or something.

That's what they're paid to do though - use their PC responsibly. They were taught basic internet safety and what not to do. If they install WannaCry, they'll be fired. They don't need to be all babysitted. I used a non-dictated PC with admin permissions when I was 5 to play flash games, and did not install any virus or malware. That's also when the ads were agressive and had no filters, so all were "YOU HAVE (1) NEW NOTIFICATION" or "YOU WON AN IPHONE CLAIM NOW!"

BoltStrikes · 2021-03-02 13:41:34

Ondrashek06 wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Sometimes apps need to be updated. Bugs are fixed, improvements are made, and sometimes those improvements mean that the old app can no longer work. You can't trust users to do it themselves. Users'll just smash the "nah, later" button until the sun burns out, and then you end up with WannaCry. You want a system that only does what you ask it to and are willing to take responsibility when you fail to do what is necessary on your own, install a really barebones Linux or something.
That's what they're paid to do though - use their PC responsibly. They were taught basic internet safety and what not to do. If they install WannaCry, they'll be fired. They don't need to be all babysitted. I used a non-dictated PC with admin permissions when I was 5 to play flash games, and did not install any virus or malware. That's also when the ads were agressive and had no filters, so all were "YOU HAVE (1) NEW NOTIFICATION" or "YOU WON AN IPHONE CLAIM NOW!"

Obvious troll is obvious

skullz17 · 2021-03-02 16:06:15

Ondrashek06 wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Sometimes apps need to be updated. Bugs are fixed, improvements are made, and sometimes those improvements mean that the old app can no longer work. You can't trust users to do it themselves. Users'll just smash the "nah, later" button until the sun burns out, and then you end up with WannaCry. You want a system that only does what you ask it to and are willing to take responsibility when you fail to do what is necessary on your own, install a really barebones Linux or something.
That's what they're paid to do though - use their PC responsibly. They were taught basic internet safety and what not to do. If they install WannaCry, they'll be fired. They don't need to be all babysitted. I used a non-dictated PC with admin permissions when I was 5 to play flash games, and did not install any virus or malware. That's also when the ads were agressive and had no filters, so all were "YOU HAVE (1) NEW NOTIFICATION" or "YOU WON AN IPHONE CLAIM NOW!"

Firing someone after the fact doesn't count as security.

Different55 · 2021-03-02 20:58:27

NoNK wrote:

you don't need barebones linux. any sane linux distro gives you control of your computer.

Needs to be at least somewhat barebones. Most Linux distros have some form of auto-update now. My Flatpaks all automatically update themselves in the background. My software center automatically downloads updates in the background so they can be installed quickly. Some distros are configured to then install them automatically on shutdown. Unless you start barebones there's likely to be something configured to do something automatically behind your back, because it's convenient. You have control to configure it all away though, that's true.

Ondrashek06 wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Sometimes apps need to be updated. Bugs are fixed, improvements are made, and sometimes those improvements mean that the old app can no longer work. You can't trust users to do it themselves. Users'll just smash the "nah, later" button until the sun burns out, and then you end up with WannaCry. You want a system that only does what you ask it to and are willing to take responsibility when you fail to do what is necessary on your own, install a really barebones Linux or something.
That's what they're paid to do though - use their PC responsibly. They were taught basic internet safety and what not to do. If they install WannaCry, they'll be fired. They don't need to be all babysitted. I used a non-dictated PC with admin permissions when I was 5 to play flash games, and did not install any virus or malware. That's also when the ads were agressive and had no filters, so all were "YOU HAVE (1) NEW NOTIFICATION" or "YOU WON AN IPHONE CLAIM NOW!"

Y'all are getting paid to use your computers?

If you're talking work computers, then you're talking basic corporate security. Nobody in any company should be treated as if they have the tiniest ounce of sense when it comes to computers. Nobody should have any ability to do damage or violate best practice. Best practice MUST be enforced in those situations because the consequences are bigger than "I need to take my computer down to the apple store." Read up on WannaCry btw, the whole thing about it was that it needed *no user interaction*. It spread automatically to and from any computer that hadn't installed their updates. Employees don't get paid to maintain their computers, they get paid to do their jobs with the computers. It's IT's job to maintain the systems responsibly, and they're the ones that set and enforce the policies you're complaining about.

Joeyjoey65, Slabdrill

Ondrashek06 · 2021-03-02 22:23:49

Different55 wrote:

NoNK wrote:
you don't need barebones linux. any sane linux distro gives you control of your computer.
Needs to be at least somewhat barebones. Most Linux distros have some form of auto-update now. My Flatpaks all automatically update themselves in the background. My software center automatically downloads updates in the background so they can be installed quickly. Some distros are configured to then install them automatically on shutdown. Unless you start barebones there's likely to be something configured to do something automatically behind your back, because it's convenient. You have control to configure it all away though, that's true.
Ondrashek06 wrote:
Different55 wrote:
Sometimes apps need to be updated. Bugs are fixed, improvements are made, and sometimes those improvements mean that the old app can no longer work. You can't trust users to do it themselves. Users'll just smash the "nah, later" button until the sun burns out, and then you end up with WannaCry. You want a system that only does what you ask it to and are willing to take responsibility when you fail to do what is necessary on your own, install a really barebones Linux or something.
That's what they're paid to do though - use their PC responsibly. They were taught basic internet safety and what not to do. If they install WannaCry, they'll be fired. They don't need to be all babysitted. I used a non-dictated PC with admin permissions when I was 5 to play flash games, and did not install any virus or malware. That's also when the ads were agressive and had no filters, so all were "YOU HAVE (1) NEW NOTIFICATION" or "YOU WON AN IPHONE CLAIM NOW!"
Y'all are getting paid to use your computers?
If you're talking work computers, then you're talking basic corporate security. Nobody in any company should be treated as if they have the tiniest ounce of sense when it comes to computers. Nobody should have any ability to do damage or violate best practice. Best practice MUST be enforced in those situations because the consequences are bigger than "I need to take my computer down to the apple store." Read up on WannaCry btw, the whole thing about it was that it needed *no user interaction*. It spread automatically to and from any computer that hadn't installed their updates. Employees don't get paid to maintain their computers, they get paid to do their jobs with the computers. It's IT's job to maintain the systems responsibly, and they're the ones that set and enforce the policies you're complaining about.

All people who use their PC as part of a job have took an interview. An interview question included "Are you able to use computers"? And they pick employees based on their total skills with PCs. Yet they still assume that people they handpicked as "being able to use PCs" do not know BASIC INTERNET SAFETY nor do they know about malware/ransomware. I am not even 18 yet I've read more than enough on what ransomware is and how it completely locks up your PC if you do not have a backup. I know how to create a backup.

When people have shown enough intelligence to be able to write meaningful code and work on a huge project, they should not be treated as 6 year olds who will download ANYTHING which is labelled as "free robux generator" or "get free V-bucks for fortnite".

Most jobs also require education - elementary school, and AT LEAST a high school that specifies on work with PCs. The FIRST computer class they take in elementary school is basic lectures on what malware is, what emails you shouldn't open, that if something seems too good to be true, it most probably is, etc. High schools that specify on it will recite the lectures again before even starting to use advanced computer programs.

While it's completely okay to have dictated school computers for the purpose of learning and as you do not know much about the internet, a site lock to lock up NSFW content and malware sites is also okay and most likely mandatory. They don't let you change your password in MSTEAMS because they'll know you'll just lose it if you do. That's OK.

But jobs require education, which is basically proving that you can work with computers without instantly installing any sorts of malware. Yet the only thing they treat you as is as a newborn that requires flashing red arrows and tutorials on how to open an app and have others just dictate most of the stuff that you do.

It should be like with "kid-secure" locks that are installed on shelves containing chemicals. As a toddler which doesn't know what a chemical is and how it is toxic to ingest, these are installed to keep you from opening it and harming yourself by drinking these. But as you grow in age, you learn what these chemicals are actually used for instead of a drink, and when you're aged enough, you'll either learn the trick used to open the lock or the parents will remove the lock as they trust you to not go in there and drink all of these.

With job computers, you have a lock present there at ALL times which prevents you from accessing what they think is "the chemicals". And "the chemicals" can be literally just a username change on a program, or a lost password recovery, or accessing a site that you need for work that has became accidentally locked. Yet they'll never remove the locks, and you won't even know the trick used to remove it as it's under lock and key -- a password.

Minimania · 2021-03-02 22:29:35

Ondrashek06 wrote:

Most jobs also require education - elementary school, and AT LEAST a high school that specifies on work with PCs. The FIRST computer class they take in elementary school is basic lectures on what malware is, what emails you shouldn't open, that if something seems too good to be true, it most probably is, etc. High schools that specify on it will recite the lectures again before even starting to use advanced computer programs

right so anybody who went to those schools that didn't have even a single lick of insight in teaching students anything about computers should be screwed out of jobs where not even every job requires a PC

Ondrashek06 wrote:

But jobs require education, which is basically proving that you can work with computers without instantly installing any sorts of malware. Yet the only thing they treat you as is as a newborn that requires flashing red arrows and tutorials on how to open an app and have others just dictate most of the stuff that you do.

so when jobs do the job of teaching their hirees themselves, you have a problem with it? It's one or the other, choose one.

skullz17 · 2021-03-02 23:00:42

Ondrashek06 wrote:

All people who use their PC as part of a job have took an interview. An interview question included "Are you able to use computers"? And they pick employees based on their total skills with PCs. Yet they still assume that people they handpicked as "being able to use PCs" do not know BASIC INTERNET SAFETY nor do they know about malware/ransomware.

That's not what's being assumed. To me it seems that there is no assumption at all, instead they acknowledge that there is a risk so they do what they can to mitigate that risk. You're the one making crazy assumptions. Your claim is that if a person does well enough in an interview to land a job, there is no chance that they mess up basic internet safety? There are many examples where the people whose literal job is to prevent these issues manage to mess it up, let alone the other employees working with computers, so your claim is easily disproven. As Diff already mentioned, WannaCry is a great example.

Ondrashek06 · 2021-03-02 23:28:21

skullz17 wrote:

Ondrashek06 wrote:
All people who use their PC as part of a job have took an interview. An interview question included "Are you able to use computers"? And they pick employees based on their total skills with PCs. Yet they still assume that people they handpicked as "being able to use PCs" do not know BASIC INTERNET SAFETY nor do they know about malware/ransomware.
That's not what's being assumed. To me it seems that there is no assumption at all, instead they acknowledge that there is a risk so they do what they can to mitigate that risk. You're the one making crazy assumptions. Your claim is that if a person does well enough in an interview to land a job, there is no chance that they mess up basic internet safety? There are many examples where the people whose literal job is to prevent these issues manage to mess it up, let alone the other employees working with computers, so your claim is easily disproven. As Diff already mentioned, WannaCry is a great example.

Nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean we have to have a completely locked down computer due to the fact.

Andymakeer · 2021-03-03 00:03:39

lol, just make your own apps or even your own computer.

There is something called "Use Terms" that most of us just click "I Agree" right away, but there is a topic called License which explicitely tells that the licensor or legal owner has the right to modify its software at any time given the user is informed of the changes.

Different55 · 2021-03-03 01:38:37

Ondrashek06 wrote:

skullz17 wrote:
Ondrashek06 wrote:
All people who use their PC as part of a job have took an interview. An interview question included "Are you able to use computers"? And they pick employees based on their total skills with PCs. Yet they still assume that people they handpicked as "being able to use PCs" do not know BASIC INTERNET SAFETY nor do they know about malware/ransomware.
That's not what's being assumed. To me it seems that there is no assumption at all, instead they acknowledge that there is a risk so they do what they can to mitigate that risk. You're the one making crazy assumptions. Your claim is that if a person does well enough in an interview to land a job, there is no chance that they mess up basic internet safety? There are many examples where the people whose literal job is to prevent these issues manage to mess it up, let alone the other employees working with computers, so your claim is easily disproven. As Diff already mentioned, WannaCry is a great example.
Nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean we have to have a completely locked down computer due to the fact.

In a corporate environment? Yes it does. Because the users aren't just imperfect, they are actively sabotaging you. Principle of least privilege. In a personal environment? What you're talking about barely exists.

hummerz5 · 2021-03-03 04:43:03

When you get into the business environment, you're beginning to run into something even more basic than technology. Whose job is it to keep things up to date? Yes, as diff pointed out, IT. Would it technically be easier (and perhaps even faster?!) if your end users were required to know how to take care of their devices and keep them secure/up to date? Why, arguably it could be. But your employees aren't there to bungle around with such nonsense. Technological advancement, etc, came about because of the division of labor. While we could expand the requirements that all people need to know to function, it's against the grain of progress.

Back into technology, it also makes sense to segment the tasks simply because your IT staff can distribute (researched?) updates and policies once, rather than having a couple hundred people do the same work.

But I do like this discussion. It's pretty obvious why the systems are necessary, but it's refreshing to argue against my secretly held beliefs, if loosely

I have to say, I'm most surprised at how Wordpress can push updates (or just disable?) for severe security updates for certain plugins.

2021-03-03 07:31:11

he's just trolling lol

Ondrashek06 · 2021-03-03 08:43:13

Different55 wrote:

Ondrashek06 wrote:
skullz17 wrote:
Ondrashek06 wrote:
All people who use their PC as part of a job have took an interview. An interview question included "Are you able to use computers"? And they pick employees based on their total skills with PCs. Yet they still assume that people they handpicked as "being able to use PCs" do not know BASIC INTERNET SAFETY nor do they know about malware/ransomware.
That's not what's being assumed. To me it seems that there is no assumption at all, instead they acknowledge that there is a risk so they do what they can to mitigate that risk. You're the one making crazy assumptions. Your claim is that if a person does well enough in an interview to land a job, there is no chance that they mess up basic internet safety? There are many examples where the people whose literal job is to prevent these issues manage to mess it up, let alone the other employees working with computers, so your claim is easily disproven. As Diff already mentioned, WannaCry is a great example.
Nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean we have to have a completely locked down computer due to the fact.
In a corporate environment? Yes it does. Because the users aren't just imperfect, they are actively sabotaging you. Principle of least privilege. In a personal environment? What you're talking about barely exists.

But it shouldn't be OK to let whoever is the dictator of your computer make it borderline unusable. My mom's computer couldn't connect to wifi and log in to the system because of outdated Java and drivers.
Dictator rules state that neither of these can be updated.
The government has made home-office mandatory, which means that you can't just show it to the dictator which has the password to unlock the computer.
So she cannot do any work which means that she would be fired, JUST due to these stupid dictator rules which make updating impossible.

2021-03-03 09:16:47

ok he's not trolling

are you in the China firewall or something? actually, your usage of the term "home office" makes me question if you're Brazilian...

your mom's workplace sounds like a big corp with a lot of red tape. I don't consider that a dictatorship, just enterprise bureaucracy

Ondrashek06 · 2021-03-03 12:20:40

0176 wrote:

ok he's not trolling
are you in the China firewall or something? actually, your usage of the term "home office" makes me question if you're Brazilian...
your mom's workplace sounds like a big corp with a lot of red tape. I don't consider that a dictatorship, just enterprise bureaucracy

Her job is basically 100% computer work. She gets documents via email, and has to edit them somehow. I don't know where she gets the numbers that she puts in or what is actually considered a "done document", yet they make the whole thing really awful. Every 5 minutes you have to input the VPN password, as a VPN is required to access the system, with ANOTHER password. So basically 2 different usernames and passwords for work, and that doesn't even include the email password.

John · 2021-03-03 13:08:56

Sounds normal. It a previous job I had to VPN in with 2FA in order to access services that also have 2FA. This seems excessive but it hardens the security of the organization's data

Different55, Joeyjoey65

Different55 · 2021-03-03 15:42:50

Ondrashek06 wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Ondrashek06 wrote:
skullz17 wrote:
Ondrashek06 wrote:
All people who use their PC as part of a job have took an interview. An interview question included "Are you able to use computers"? And they pick employees based on their total skills with PCs. Yet they still assume that people they handpicked as "being able to use PCs" do not know BASIC INTERNET SAFETY nor do they know about malware/ransomware.
That's not what's being assumed. To me it seems that there is no assumption at all, instead they acknowledge that there is a risk so they do what they can to mitigate that risk. You're the one making crazy assumptions. Your claim is that if a person does well enough in an interview to land a job, there is no chance that they mess up basic internet safety? There are many examples where the people whose literal job is to prevent these issues manage to mess it up, let alone the other employees working with computers, so your claim is easily disproven. As Diff already mentioned, WannaCry is a great example.
Nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean we have to have a completely locked down computer due to the fact.
In a corporate environment? Yes it does. Because the users aren't just imperfect, they are actively sabotaging you. Principle of least privilege. In a personal environment? What you're talking about barely exists.
But it shouldn't be OK to let whoever is the dictator of your computer make it borderline unusable. My mom's computer couldn't connect to wifi and log in to the system because of outdated Java and drivers.
Dictator rules state that neither of these can be updated.
The government has made home-office mandatory, which means that you can't just show it to the dictator which has the password to unlock the computer.
So she cannot do any work which means that she would be fired, JUST due to these stupid dictator rules which make updating impossible.

Then she should contact IT. But know that this is a great example of why you shouldn't be allowed admin access on a work PC: outdated Java and outdated drivers will not do what you say they are doing. If her computer ever worked, software aging will not suddenly cause it to stop working. A new version being released will not stop either of those things from working. Something else is the problem, and it's up to her company's IT department to fix it, not you. It's basic security, not a dictatorship.

Joeyjoey65, John

Ondrashek06 · 2021-03-03 17:41:01

Different55 wrote:

Ondrashek06 wrote:
Different55 wrote:
Ondrashek06 wrote:
skullz17 wrote:
That's not what's being assumed. To me it seems that there is no assumption at all, instead they acknowledge that there is a risk so they do what they can to mitigate that risk. You're the one making crazy assumptions. Your claim is that if a person does well enough in an interview to land a job, there is no chance that they mess up basic internet safety? There are many examples where the people whose literal job is to prevent these issues manage to mess it up, let alone the other employees working with computers, so your claim is easily disproven. As Diff already mentioned, WannaCry is a great example.
Nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean we have to have a completely locked down computer due to the fact.
In a corporate environment? Yes it does. Because the users aren't just imperfect, they are actively sabotaging you. Principle of least privilege. In a personal environment? What you're talking about barely exists.
But it shouldn't be OK to let whoever is the dictator of your computer make it borderline unusable. My mom's computer couldn't connect to wifi and log in to the system because of outdated Java and drivers.
Dictator rules state that neither of these can be updated.
The government has made home-office mandatory, which means that you can't just show it to the dictator which has the password to unlock the computer.
So she cannot do any work which means that she would be fired, JUST due to these stupid dictator rules which make updating impossible.
Then she should contact IT. But know that this is a great example of why you shouldn't be allowed admin access on a work PC: outdated Java and outdated drivers will not do what you say they are doing. If her computer ever worked, software aging will not suddenly cause it to stop working. A new version being released will not stop either of those things from working. Something else is the problem, and it's up to her company's IT department to fix it, not you. It's basic security, not a dictatorship.

How is that "basic security"? Basic security is using Windows Defender and common sense on the internet. You shouldn't need to contact whoever dictates your computer and have THEM do whatever they want with YOUR computer just to fix a basic issue that could just be fixed by not locking up 90% of the system.

XxAtillaxX · 2021-03-03 17:52:49

I think there's a good argument to be made in regards to supply chain attacks in respect to automatic updates. In an ideal world, people would have a non-permeable layer of isolation between their personal lives and their (often reckless, tbh) online activities, so as to wholly render the attack vector unattainable in the first place.

It is what it is though, people gravitate heavily towards convenience even if it is the polar opposite to maintaining security or privacy. In the US, people still hand out their social security numbers and use it for all sorts of **** that it was never intended to be used for. Banking is one, voting is another. You know when something is extremely pervasive when other unrelated systems are bent to fit it rather than the other way around.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2021-03-01 20:46:02

How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#2 2021-03-01 22:04:00

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#3 2021-03-01 22:08:56

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#4 2021-03-01 23:13:09, last edited by some woman (2021-03-01 23:15:09)

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#5 2021-03-02 07:02:24

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#6 2021-03-02 07:09:58

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#7 2021-03-02 12:08:47, last edited by Ondrashek06 (2021-03-02 12:15:03)

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#8 2021-03-02 13:41:34

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#9 2021-03-02 16:06:15

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#10 2021-03-02 20:58:27, last edited by Different55 (2021-03-02 21:01:41)

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#11 2021-03-02 22:23:49, last edited by Ondrashek06 (2021-03-02 22:33:36)

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#12 2021-03-02 22:29:35, last edited by Minimania (2021-03-02 22:31:10)

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#13 2021-03-02 23:00:42

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#14 2021-03-02 23:28:21

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#15 2021-03-03 00:03:39

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#16 2021-03-03 01:38:37

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#17 2021-03-03 04:43:03

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#18 2021-03-03 07:31:11

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#19 2021-03-03 08:43:13

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#20 2021-03-03 09:16:47, last edited by 0176 (2021-03-03 09:21:51)

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#21 2021-03-03 12:20:40

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#22 2021-03-03 13:08:56

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#23 2021-03-03 15:42:50

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#24 2021-03-03 17:41:01

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

#25 2021-03-03 17:52:49, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2021-03-03 17:53:06)

Re: How is computer dictatorship still OK?

Board footer