21–30 of 907 posts
99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers. This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.
99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers. This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.
I've got my Linux smartphone running and ready to go. VWYF, folks. I'll take shitty software and poor battery life over digital authoritarianism every single time. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Which brand do you suggest ? Google wants my apartment lease to let me distribute free games, so I just won't support their platform. This is not about security, it's about control.
Has anyone seen Andy Rubin publicly comment on Google's stewardship of Android? I wonder what he thinks about his creation and the way its evolving.
https://contact-the-cma.service.gov.uk/wizard/classify
It's very simple to submit a complaint.
No matter how this turns out, I'm sure GrapheneOS will make a smart effort. https://grapheneos.org/ But long-term, Android is such a massive code base, and was designed more for surveillance and consumption, than for privacy&security and the user's interests. I think getting mainline Linux on viable and sustainable on multiple hardware devices is warmer, fuzzier foundation. (Sort of a cross between Purism's work on t…
The problem is for developers. Abandoning Android for Linux is not viable for software developers who need to eat. Sure, we can use Linux smartphones ourselves, but if the software we make has a grand total of three people who ever lay eyes on it, that's less than ideal. And given how The Year of the Linux Desktop has gone, I think it'd be strongly preferable if we managed to stave off the tightening of control over…
As I said in the other thread: Australian users of alternative app stores should make a complaint to the ACCC: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us-or-report-an-iss... In the past, they forced Steam to implement proper refund policies, and they are currently suing Microsoft about the way subscribers were duped into paying more for "AI features" they didn't want.
Tell them to lodge a designated complaint to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC).
ACCC complaints are designed for individual grievances while a designated complaint from a designated complainer is supposed to address "significant or systemic market issues that affect consumers in Australia".
99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers. This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.
99% of all car accidents with real world consequences are caused by licensed human drivers, ergo, all licensed human drivers should be removed from roads.
Same argument. It's true, and simultaneously, it skips right past all of the ramifications of the proposal, even when the ramifications conceivably result in more harm than the original problem did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writable memory, you should be able to load your own program and manufacturer may not use technical measures to stop you. The goal of regulation would be preventing of creating digital waste, vendor locks and allow reusing the hardware.
Of course, features like theft prevention won't work, so the user should be able to waive this right.
Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models. The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writabl…