> Um, why do crime statistics have to come from the perpetrators rather than from the victims? The victims report the crimes, duh.
You asked for (quoting) "Exactly how many people have fallen for the scam, out of all computer users". Not every crime is reported, duh.
> Anyway, you spent a lot of words avoiding my question
Nope. I can't answer the question because it's non-answerable. If you believe that nobody has ever fallen for phishing, Nigerian-prince, etc. etc. scams, well, I don't know what colour the sky is on your world, but it's not the same as on mine...
If you further believe that allowing everyone root access to devices that are also linked directly to their bank accounts, social security numbers, driving licenses, etc. etc. Then again, sky colour becomes an issue.
You seem technically savvy. I do not believe you are typical of the average phone user. I think the restrictions in place are a necessary tragedy of the commons, to prevent the destruction of trust in the system as a whole.
As I said, YMMV, and I'm not saying I particularly like the situation, just that I think it's necessary, and opening up everything to everyone is a foolish, idealistic, and hopelessly naive idea.
> You asked for (quoting) "Exactly how many people have fallen for the scam, out of all computer users". Not every crime is reported, duh.
Not every crime is reported, but it's indisputable that a lot of crimes are reported. So give me a statistic, any reported statistic.
> If you believe that nobody has ever fallen for phishing, Nigerian-prince, etc. etc. scams, well, I don't know what colour the sky is on your world, but it's not the same as on mine...
How do you know this, except from reports by victims? That's what I'm asking for.
And once again, you haven't explained the mechanism by which vendor lockdown prevents this scam. However many or few victims there are of the scam, precisely zero of them are helped by vendor lockdown. I'm not going to stop asking how to explain how vendor lockdown is event relevant here.
> If you further believe that allowing everyone root access to devices that are also linked directly to their bank accounts, social security numbers, driving licenses, etc. etc.
This is hand waving, and it's not clear how root access by the owner of the device somehow exposes userland data to criminals. Moreover, all of this data is on desktop computers, and it's mostly fine.
As I said, I don't care about the current OS situation, I think it's actually pretty well reasoned out. I'm not spending my time tracking down statistics for you to "prove" some point to some other person on the internet.
$700k a year as an excuse to lock down over a billion smartphones? Not to mention that once again, this is an email scam, and thus vendor lockdown is irrelevant and doesn't prevent it.
It appears that you're the one believing whatever you want to believe, despite the empirical facts. The problem is that proponents of vendor lockdown always make gross exaggerations to defend it, pure fearmongering.
You asked for (quoting) "Exactly how many people have fallen for the scam, out of all computer users". Not every crime is reported, duh.
> Anyway, you spent a lot of words avoiding my question
Nope. I can't answer the question because it's non-answerable. If you believe that nobody has ever fallen for phishing, Nigerian-prince, etc. etc. scams, well, I don't know what colour the sky is on your world, but it's not the same as on mine...
If you further believe that allowing everyone root access to devices that are also linked directly to their bank accounts, social security numbers, driving licenses, etc. etc. Then again, sky colour becomes an issue.
You seem technically savvy. I do not believe you are typical of the average phone user. I think the restrictions in place are a necessary tragedy of the commons, to prevent the destruction of trust in the system as a whole.
As I said, YMMV, and I'm not saying I particularly like the situation, just that I think it's necessary, and opening up everything to everyone is a foolish, idealistic, and hopelessly naive idea.