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.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
61 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
88591 readers
3245 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Protect the user from themselves.
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.”
MacOS is an open platform, I am glad you have to jump through a few hoops to put yourself in danger unlike windows
An "open" platform?
Edit: Of course, here come the fanboys lol it's ok. I was one of you once. You'll grow.
I can run anything I want on it, what is closed about it?
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.
Downloaded apps that are unsigned just need to be approved in settings
It is clear you don’t know what you are talking about
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.
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
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.
I saw your deleted comment
You are acting dense on purpose and equating security controls to a walled garden
You can disable the controls if you go in to system recovery mode (which will disable protections for the whole OS)
Give it up
So, you didn’t read the article
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.
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. 🙄
Or an update adds it without your knowledge…
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.