this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
114 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

88590 readers
3002 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I think Apple is shining light on an important reality here:

In the modern era, the populace is practically required to use technological devices that it is unreasonable to expect them to fully understand. So, rather than leave the consequences of that lack of understanding to fall on them with a shrug, it is better for everyone if those devices and their makers do their best to help them by limiting the impact of their ignorance of that particular technological niche.

In that vein, I feel that it is long overdue to apply "the principle of least privilege" and a "defense in depth" philosophy to home computing devices and operating systems. Compartmentalizing data and functionality behind fine-grained permissions with verbose, plain speech descriptions of what those permissions are for, along with what should and should not be requesting those permissions, would go a long way to prevent these sorts of data abuses. It would also help to limit how much damage viruses and malware could do if installed.

For example. I'm frankly struggling to come up with any valid use cases for full disk access on a computer beyond file backups. I'm sure there are some, but almost nobody would need to use them, so a dire, flashing warning seems in order.

It is clear that sane regulation of unscrupulous software behavior won't be forthcoming any time soon, but even then, you still should lock your doors even though trespassing is illegal, metaphically speaking. "Trust but verify," one of the only good statements out of Ronald Reagan's mouth.

[–] Seimhe@lemmy.world 1 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago)

The apps i use have to request disk access which i can approve or not. I always assumed that meant problems like this were not possible. I think many of us have been under a false impression because of this. I assumed the other apps were secured, which was foolish of me, I admit.

[–] Ashrakal@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Good change.

  • It helps the less tech savvy users,
  • It actually forces developers to write their app properly.

Software should not operate at a privileged level “just in case”, but rather have a well-defined functional boundary.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It's not clear exactly what Apple is going to impose here. In principle, trying to ensure users understand the implications of a permission is good. In practice, Apple is famous for keeping users from making decisions they might reasonably want to make on phones, and it's starting to creep into the Mac; installing an app Apple hasn't signed requires the command line, for example.

[–] phailhaus@piefed.social 2 points 44 minutes ago

Apple also has a history of requiring excessively scary permission requests for things that Apple apps do without prompting. They abuse the permission system to foster a sense that Apple products are safe and any competitor is dangerous.

[–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Protect the user from themselves.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

All of computing beyond programming with switches is “protecting the user from themselves.”

“Why use a language? Aren’t you able to perfectly program in binary? I’m not going to waste time building something just because you’re stupid.”

[–] finley@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

So, you didn’t read the article

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I read the article, and I think DickHertz's comment is pretty much right. The article's example illustrates the point:

For example, Inc. columnist Jason Aten recently discovered that Meta's Muse AI assistant somehow had synced his entire local Messages database and was using those messages as context for its tasks.

Aten did not understand that the Messages database is stored on the disk (presumably) unencrypted and readable by anything with full disk access. He got a result he didn't want because he did not understand the implications of granting that permission, and Apple seeks to add more friction to the process to protect users from making that mistake.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 1 points 29 minutes ago

Even if it was encrypted, it could be unlocked because with full disk access it can read the local private key, which probably doesn’t need a passphrase because it’s be a pain in the ass for the user to retype that every reboot or more

Starting to see why you shouldn’t let any corporate AI loose on your daily driver yet?

[–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, I read it. That’s kind of the point. Apple’s adding more guardrails because people will click Allow on damn near anything without thinking about what they’re actually giving access to. 🙄

[–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 points 26 minutes ago

It’s also because Apple’s permissions are hilariously monolithic. A lot of their permissions are set up as an all-or-nothing event, instead of allowing granular control. Full disc access is a great example, where a user should be able to grant access to specific folders and files on an as-needed basis. But that’s not the default behavior. The default behavior is to just go “hey do you wanna give this app access to everything?

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Or an update adds it without your knowledge…

[–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 points 25 minutes ago

Apps can’t add permissions via an update. If an app adds a new feature with an update that requires a new permission, the user will be prompted the first time the app tries to use that new feature.

[–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think an app could give itself Full Disk Access without the user explicitly approving it, even during an update.