267
Apple will update Macs to protect users from AI agents with full disk access (mashable.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 80 points 1 month ago (8 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago

    Yeah I love meta saying “it’s impossible if you’ve denied it access.”

    If the user gave it a task and it decided the easiest path forward was just to read his messages, that’s no different than OpenAI agents breaking protocol to find the fastest path to their goal, regardless of side effects (assuming the “permission” was just a request from the LLM rather than a request for full disk access in general from the meta app).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (6 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    installing an app Apple hasn't signed requires the command line, for example

    It doesn’t, but it does make a scary popup, and requires the user to know to go to settings to find the section to override that popup.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    installing an app Apple hasn’t signed requires the command line, for example

    Yeah this is the reason I've avoided Macs for so long. I get giving the user a warning but not providing any sort of prompt to override the warning, and hiding it in a terminal command is ridiculous .

    There was also one time I tried to simply turn off Bluetooth and it was just like "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that". And I was like WTF, absolutely not .

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [+] 36 points 1 month ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I think the issue is that it becomes an everything or nothing. some people want to give apps access to their own documents but don't realize their are also giving access to things like their chat messages, cookies, etc.

    If they aim to provide a more granular approach while still allowing full access to those that need it, Im ok with that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • [–] 30 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    Protect the user from themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month 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.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    So, you didn’t read the article

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (3 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (6 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. 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    That really depends on how you design the pop-up dialogue. If it looks like a standard EULA, yeah, most people will just skip reading. If you darken the screen, and use large, flashing warnings with a short and clear info about the limited amount of cases for such a dangerous permission to be ok, they will for sure look closer.

    Late Edit: And make sure you don't fatigue your clients with a permanent spam of warnings! Holy fuck, MS with their UAC really had to learn that one the hard way. If every single software installation and change of system settings warns you of proceeding then the warning becomes useless (and these warnings were actually one of the first things i deactivated on fresh installations exactly of that issue)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Or an update adds it without your knowledge…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 1 month ago* (10 children)

    MacOS is an open platform, I am glad you have to jump through a few hoops to put yourself in danger unlike windows

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    An "open" platform?

    Edit: Of course, here come the fanboys lol it's ok. I was one of you once. You'll grow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    I can run anything I want on it, what is closed about it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Being able to run a program on an OS is the bare minimum. Anything not signed by Daddy Apple, you have to add an exception. The moment the exceptions are no longer enough to "protect the user against themselves," you can't do a thing. Why? Because it's a fully closed, walled platform.

    It's like being in prison and being told you're free because you can walk in the yard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Downloaded apps that are unsigned just need to be approved in settings

    It is clear you don’t know what you are talking about

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    You own the keys? It is actually extremely clear that you have no clue about what you are talking about. Re-read what I said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I read it, none of makes sense to anyone that understands how computer work

    You argued I couldn’t run anything I wanted, I proved you can

    Go learn how an operating system works

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    No. I said the platform is closed. Not that you could not run anything. I argued that while you still CAN run whatever you want, that does not make it an open platform. Apple is one flag away from removing that right from you, and you won't be able to do jack shit about it if (when) they do. And thank you, but I know very well how a computer works. I also happen to know macOS very well too, and you, you just don't my friend. You understand marketing.

    It's ok. Not arguing more than that with a fanboy. I was one of you back in the days. You'll eventually understand. In the meantime, good luck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Tbh that makes sense cause I saw crazy stories of AI deleting important files

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    If we’re ever going to have a proper framework for governing agents, it will include utilities in most abstraction layers (to include, importantly so, the OS).

    I’ve had an interesting idea on using TreeOS to help make something a little more natively AI-agent safe. It’s a project on my back burner right now. Something about making changes branch-able and version controlled by default, copy on write by default, … I need to really think it through more.

    I was thinking an agent should be like a user too. A first-class entity to be managed, but probably ephemeral in nature. Not a static user. Probably more like a permissions set that arbitrary agents can be associated with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent