Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Until my aging mother can use NoScript and still understand why many websites just don't seem to work, it isn't covering the majority use cases.

This comment alludes to a UI/UX goal commonly voiced as an obstacle, that of some 'ware not being market-ready until it's "Grandmother operable". This thread, however, is a discussion of matters of digital defense. Just as with physical defense, it is the pietous responsibility of the more savvy and agile offspring to shield their elders from harm (presuming no malice by the senior party emancipates one from such duty).

Have you explained to her that NoScript intentionally breaks websites, making them not operate as the designer intended, so that the website (and by extension the underlying computer) only does what you want it to do, and not the (potentially nefarious) activities planned by the designer?

When I try explaining this to other people, even other engineers, they usually tangent into a discussion about how paranoia and an inability to trust are unhealthy. And they stand their ground in the face of mounting evidence, insisting the designer is a humble, well-meaning person like themselves, and would have no reason for doing such evil things.

True and this is also what I always mention, Noscript is really an advanced topic and everytime I've tried to make friends use it they've eventually given up.

But people who come to these lectures or cryptoparties usually have a desire to do something about their personal IT-security so hopefully they can find the motivation.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact