Look, I get it. Warning labels prevent avoidable deaths, and rules like the ones mandating the labeling on the bags are written in someone’s blood.

That said, there are billions of us at this point, and there were over a billion at the time of the example we’re using. While it may sound callous, a number like dozens against that backdrop is so statistically insignificant that we may want to see how many people might have died as a result of creating and placing millions of liters of warning ink on billions of bags and make sure that didnt have even more lethality.

The point I’m making is that some warnings and protections can be more onerous than they are helpful, and while a child dying or being harmed is tragic, reactionary response worsening conditions for everyone that is still alive can be, too. It is important to carefully measure safety and security against the harms it may cause, or you’ll end up with widespread safety bans and everyone rolling around in impermeable bubbles.

I dont know the fine details in Australia’s particular case beyond this article and maybe some others I vaguely remember, but it is wise to be very wary of villains wrapping themselves in the “save the children” flag while they strip away people’s privacy and security. I have 4 Flock cameras in my neighborhood to “protect the kids”, but they’re also protecting the brutal social hierarchy, which kills tons of kids.

I hope, for the sake of our species, that the statistic you’re citing was a spurious correlation. It’s just this side of “water is wet”.

I don’t think you have to be so critical of yourself. Everyone here uses things every day that they have incomplete or maybe even even no understanding of how parts of it work. Its just a reality, maybe an unfortunate one, of the level of technological advancement we’re at and how we’ve incorporated it into our societies.

Nothing says “we’re the good guys” quite like having to lavishly bribe the public not to hate and obstruct your every move.

I fear this may be some of the same thinking that got us mandates for manufacturers to put warnings not to suffocate yourself on plastic bags.

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.

At least your partner is the one you most need to have and benefit from listening. Your privacy can easily be compromised by close associates. Best of luck to you; you’re not doing anything wrong. Its not you that’s the downer, it’s the circumstances you’re describing.