271–280 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
last time I walked into the bank to do something, they tried to peddle their app. I giggled and said no, their developers don't understand security. my phone is rooted and their app won't work.
It's their security and not your security, don't mix up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for calling out fascist behavior when it is spotted, but let's not muddy the waters further. This word is already denatured enough. This is not fascism, this is just a rational move from Google in a market economy. It feels like every time something like this happens, Americans rediscover what capitalism is and implies, then blame it on "human nature", "greed" or "fascism".
Google's stated reason for doing this says nothing about it being for market reasons, but rather for "security".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be one of the people running an ungoogled phone, but my bank refuses to have an app that runs on an ungoogled OS for "security"
My bank blocks my mobile with Lineage OS, and it's not even possible to login to the web site without the mobile app. Absolutely pathetic. Now I have to keep my 4 year old phone with 2 year outdated Android to access the bank application. Which deemed more safe then my mobile with latest security updates. Haha
I run a Google'd OS for now but I haven't used my bank's terrible app in years and years. I use their terrible website via desktop mode instead.
I wonder if this would give Epic cause against Google? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple If Google controls verification, then Google - not Epic - controls who can distribute Android apps on the Epic store.
But I was wrong about them even ever attempting something like this so who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely getting data on your usage in some part, or most likely, pushing notifications reminding you about the particular brand, so you'll keep spending the money there.
Then the app gets no notification permissions. Also why does a gas station app need to send notifications? :)
(Don't know for sure, wouldn't use one myself.)
I know I risk being down voted remorselessly but I have to put this in context. Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok? If I only put a flyer through someone's letterbox here in the UK, I have to identify myself. If I sell a physical product I not only have to identify myself but take on serious legal liability. An author can take on a pseudonym but only via an identified publisher. In fact that latter ex…
> Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok? It should be everywhere, no matter the place or the platform.
The fact the question was phrased in that way is disturbing. How far the loss of personal freedom has been normalized. Like the term "side loading", it's an insult to general-purpose computing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft has the problem that nobody likes them or trusts them, which makes it hard to get people to use their platform in a context where they're not the default.
Windows Mobile was great and people loved it at the time. Most people I knew in 2007/2008 were laughing at how the iPhone was an expensive toy phone because you couldn't even install apps or use MS Exchange. Of course, the problem for MS was that Apple (and Google) quickly closed those gaps, and they just simply had better overall products.
But that wasn't the problem.
The iPhone and Android became popular because they were, respectively, good and "good enough" but free, and both Apple and Google had a good reputation at the time. Users were willing to buy those phones and developers were willing to make apps for them because they didn't expect those companies to screw them. The screwing only happened after they were no longer the underdogs and the network effect was already established.
Microsoft doesn't cast as an underdog and everybody expects them to screw you as soon as they get the chance, so not enough people were willing to give them the chance.
They could have overcome that to their own benefit if they would have bound their future selves from enshittifying the platform. Don't make "Windows Phone" under a proprietary license, make an actually open source Android fork which is an open platform like Windows instead of a closed one like iOS, but provide seamless integrations with the Microsoft cloud services instead of the Google ones. Write code that makes it work as well with Windows PCs as iPhones do with macOS. Make two phones yourself: a $999 Surface Phone with iPhone-quality hardware and a $199 one with basic hardware but nevertheless 12 years of security updates to get the low end of the market, provide something for kids/students and make it cheap for developers on the fence to get a device with your platform and make apps that integrate with your cloud services. You're not trying to sell an operating system, you're trying to take Apple's margins on the high end hardware and Google's cloud services revenue from the mass market.
But that's not what they did, and getting people to trust them with a closed platform wasn't in the cards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To continue with the text of the rest of the section (with the footnotes present in the original removed): If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at you. That does not mean you're an “evildoer” or “sinner” for running a nonfree program. When the harm you're doing is mainly to yourself, we hope you will stop, for your own sake. Sometimes you may face grea…
Thanks, I wasn't trying to cherry pick or anything. But I don't think that the full text changes the substance of what is laid out in the first couple of paragraphs. The FSF (and by extension Stallman) refrains from calling the user names if he chooses to use nonfree software, presumably because they recognize that freedom must include the freedom to run any software at all, even if they consider it harmful. But they…
Because with each single person who decides to run a particular non free software, that's a tiiiiiny bit more vendor lock on, a tiny bit of control lost, of power, freedom, given up.
And when enough people do this, what happens? Look at Google. Look at the post you're on. You tell me - what happens?
He's not wrong at all - it's just uncomfortable. This is a side effect of capitalism or maybe humanity. Its nothing you or I can single-handedly solve, or cause. But we each contribute to it a tiny amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. Google pixel, Garmin watches, even Samsung watches. Or using a bank that supports NFC payments (not using Google Wallet). GrapheneOS Foundation raised this practice with European Commission because it unfairly penalises secure and safe competition giving instead a lie to the developers and banks that ancient, unsafe, vulnerable platforms are more secure.
Fidesmo Pay is another option, though the bank support is limited: https://fidesmo.com/consumer/fidesmo-pay/ Basically it’s a passive variant of smartwatch payments: you can pay with a ring, or bracelet, or a mechanical watch. The cheapest option is this plastic thingy (currently out of stock): https://eu.k-pay.com/product/mavericks I’m thinking about implanting one into my hand :^)
On the one hand, I approve of self-administered biohacking.
On the other hand, you might need a Faraday glove to prevent tap to pay shenanigans by folks with a mobile card reader who bump check you.
I would not do this type of biohacking myself, but if you go down this path, look into how NFC skimmers work, because that and compromised card readers and unauthorized tap to pay events on portable card readers is a threat vector. I have heard that Google and Apple are working to roll out tap to pay from card to phone and phone to phone, which could allow folks to skim your NFC device to run an unauthorized transaction.