How the term is used here In this channel's material, the iron triangle appears in Alex Komoroske's discussion of computing architecture and security. His formulation: a safe system can have only two of these three things at once: 1. Untrusted code 2. Sensitive data 3. Network access He uses the triangle to explain the architectural trade-offs of the platforms we already live with [^bb2c42aa-478f-5c9a-ac26-e83a54c63127@1771]: - The web: untrusted code + network access, but no sensitive data. - The app store model: sensitive data + network access, but all code vetted centrally (a gatekeeping that starts as a 30% tax). Why it matters Komoroske's favorite historical counterexample is the file system: multiple apps working on the same data, coordinating without any single app owning your life — evidence that the triangle can be broken. Tools like information flow control and confidential computing, in his argument, would enable wild, interesting things impossible today, leading toward what he calls contextual flow control [^bb2c42aa-478f-5c9a-ac26-e83a54c63127@1771]. - A safe system can have only two of: untrusted code, sensitive data, network access. - The web and the app store each pick different two of the three. - Breaking the triangle — via information flow control, confidential computing, or the file-system precedent — is the leverage point for user-aligned, non-aggregating architectures.