Exercise 1: Why "Allow" Isn't Automatically Informed Consent — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHAT THIS CHAPTER SAYS
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "technically possible isn't the same as genuinely
consented to. A user clicking 'Allow' because a support agent told
them to, without actually understanding what that agent can now see
or do, isn't informed consent in any meaningful sense."

THE GAP BETWEEN THE ACTION AND THE UNDERSTANDING
------------------------------
Clicking "Allow" is a technical action that grants access - but consent
in any meaningful sense requires the person granting it to actually
understand what they're agreeing to. A user following an instruction
("click Allow so I can help you") without being told what that click
actually grants - full screen visibility? mouse and keyboard control?
- has performed the technical action without the informed understanding
that's supposed to accompany it.

WHY THIS DISTINCTION MATTERS PRACTICALLY
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "explain plainly, before starting - will you see
their whole screen or just one window? Will you only be able to look,
or will you be able to move their mouse and type? Say it before they
grant access, not after." The fix isn't a different technical
mechanism - it's explaining, in plain language, exactly what the
access being requested actually allows, before the user grants it, so
their click reflects an actual, informed decision rather than blind
trust in an instruction.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It explains the specific gap between performing a technical action and
genuinely understanding what it grants, and connects that gap to the
chapter's own concrete recommendation for closing it - explaining
scope and capability before the user consents, not after.