Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your phone is about to stop being yours

keepandroidopen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 927 posts

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#901

Post by palata »

kuhsaft wrote: post #899
palata wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators. Which can be done with a small team by building on top of AOSP, like GrapheneOS does. How is that not pragmatic?

I would group GrapheneOS with Android. If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. But considering it as a separate OS, I wouldn’t consider it mainstream. It’s not on any device by default. And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users, or 0.0064%. It might seem mainstream for the tech community, but it goes to show how…

> If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android.

Agreed, that's exactly it! The pain points of GrapheneOS/LineageOS are due to the fact that device manufacturers don't allow proper support (typically the bootloader story) and that big companies like bank choose (more and more) to ban whatever is not signed by Google (through Play Integrity). I argue that those things should be regulated.

> And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users

I think it's more than 250k, but let's go with that. There are Android manufacturers that are in the same order of magnitude. What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem. Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right?

It's not "Google vs alternative Androids": there are many Android flavours, from Samsung to Sony through Xiaomi and Fairphone. We don't tell Fairphone that they have to be mainstream before they get the right to sell Android phones.

The very reason alternative Androids are (slightly) harder to use is that they are not mainstream, so banks ban them for no reason because they can, and Google is happy to do nothing about it because those are competitors.

We need to regulate that.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#902

Post by kuhsaft »

palata wrote: post #901
kuhsaft wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would group GrapheneOS with Android. If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. But considering it as a separate OS, I wouldn’t consider it mainstream. It’s not on any device by default. And it has an estimated 250k users out of ~3.9 billion Android users, or 0.0064%. It might seem mainstream for the tech community, but it goes to show how…

> If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. Agreed, that's exactly it! The pain points of GrapheneOS/LineageOS are due to the fact that device manufacturers don't allow proper support (typically the bootloader story) and that big companies like bank choose (more and more) to ban whatever is not signed by Google (through Play Integrity). I ar…

> What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem.

We're talking about different operating systems on devices, not the same operating system on different devices. Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't.

The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn't a driver for the GPU that supports that operating system.

> Microsoft Office shouldn't be allowed to just ban Framework computers running Windows just because they don't think Framework is big enough, right?

Apple doesn't allow their operating systems to run on non-Apple devices. Likewise, Microsoft does have the right to restrict what systems Windows can run on. Any software provider has the right to limit their software's usage.

Conversely, device manufacturers have the right to restrict what operating systems can run on them. E.g. the majority of devices other than desktops and laptops.

Whether or not you should be able to run any software on any hardware is another debate. Even if you support that stance, there is a hard limit to user freedom via government regulations on hardware/software such as any RF transmitting device and cryptographic devices.

---

Google Android and iOS are regulated by governments.

With the upcoming age verification requirements made by governments (let’s not debate that here), only the corporate entities that governments can regulate will be allowed.

We can regulate to allow alternative Android OSes, but the alternatives will be ones that follow government regulations.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#903

Post by alepar »

palata wrote: post #894
fooqux wrote: post #873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is semantics. I don't know all what they say, but I'd eat my breakfast cold if the word "safety" didn't come up in the PowerPoint deck. We may have to agree to disagree on this. My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to. Maybe it's not total coverage yet, but every year more and more of our stuff only operates with verified trust through the entire process. Everything from video…

> My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to. And I agree with that, but it feels to me like it reinforces my initial point: fighting the Google flavour of Android is a lost cause. > We're already sitting here complaining about Google enforcing developer verification Which isn't a problem on alternative Android OSes like GrapheneOS. > how long until Google turns on play integrity by default Agreed…

The plan to rely on the presence of alternative OSes is only good so long as those OSes exist. They do today, but it is more of an exception rather than a rule. In a hypothetical scenario, where a signifcant portion of users switch to one of these alternative OSes, there will be an incentive to monetize.

So I'd agree there should be rules what OS should and shouldn't do. And yes, it shouldn't be a fight with an enterprise entity, which has little incentive to restrict itself. It should be a lawmaker level discussion, unfortunately they are pursuing other agendas over there.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#904

Post by fsflover »

kuhsaft wrote: post #785
fsflover wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kill switches will work independently on a compromise. Why are they moot? Also, it's possible to completely reflash the device in case of doubt. "quite easily" strongly depends on what exactly you are doing. For example, if I use Firefox with NoScript, then it is not very easy.

> The kill switches will work independently on a compromise. Why are they moot? Kill switches only work as a security feature when you activate them before you know you're compromised. But that's impossible. It's a reactive "security" feature not a proactive one. > For example, if I use Firefox with NoScript, then it is not very easy. Security vulnerabilities aren't only JS related. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/secu…

> Kill switches only work as a security feature when you activate them before you know you're compromised. But that's impossible.

Indeed, if you use the kill switches in a stupid way, you get no benefit from them. I use them whenever I want to be sure that I can't be tracked or listened to, either because of a potentially compromised device or closed modem that can connect to towers without my knowledge. In other words, they are a proactive feature. I can get 100% privacy whenever I want, independently on any software, which in principle might always get secretly compromised one way or another. Even the amazing, secure GrapheneOS!

How can you be sure your modem on GrapheneOS doesn't send your location to the mothership all the time, even in an "airplane mode"?

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#905

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #238

The author as well as commenters in this thread are claiming that people choose Android over iOS or vice versa One could argue this is false dichotomy These people are actually choosing a particular form factor with particular specifications that, more or less, only runs corporate mobile OS^1 instead of form factors that run non-corporate OS 1. Or some derivative of one that relies on the corporate distributor and re…

It's common today to own multiple computers. Not everyone uses a mobile phone for banking transactions. For those that do, nothing prevents them from using different computers for non-banking uses. Personally, I don't use banking apps and if I did I would not want one on the same computer that I use for non-commercial purposes, for example, reading HN stories

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#906

Post by palata »

kuhsaft wrote: post #902
palata wrote: post #901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you handed a layperson a GrapheneOS phone and asked them what OS was on the phone, they would probably say Android. Agreed, that's exactly it! The pain points of GrapheneOS/LineageOS are due to the fact that device manufacturers don't allow proper support (typically the bootloader story) and that big companies like bank choose (more and more) to ban whatever is not signed by Google (through Play Integrity). I ar…

> What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem. We're talking about different operating systems on devices, not the same operating system on different devices. Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock O…

> Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't.

Again, the non-stock OS works, except for the parts that cannot work because they are being actively blocked. It's not that they are not ready: they are ready, but the mainstream players are blocking them.

> The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn't a driver for the GPU that supports that operating system.

I disagree. It would be like having a computer, replacing the GPU with another GPU that is 100% compatible, but that doesn't run because the OS checks it and says "it would work, but it is not a GPU I like, so I will block it".

> Conversely, device manufacturers have the right to restrict what operating systems can run on them. E.g. the majority of devices other than desktops and laptops.

My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that.

> We can regulate to allow alternative Android OSes, but the alternatives will be ones that follow government regulations.

Sure, I agree with that.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#907

Post by palata »

alepar wrote: post #903
palata wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to. And I agree with that, but it feels to me like it reinforces my initial point: fighting the Google flavour of Android is a lost cause. > We're already sitting here complaining about Google enforcing developer verification Which isn't a problem on alternative Android OSes like GrapheneOS. > how long until Google turns on play integrity by default Agreed…

The plan to rely on the presence of alternative OSes is only good so long as those OSes exist. They do today, but it is more of an exception rather than a rule. In a hypothetical scenario, where a signifcant portion of users switch to one of these alternative OSes, there will be an incentive to monetize. So I'd agree there should be rules what OS should and shouldn't do. And yes, it shouldn't be a fight with an enter…

> In a hypothetical scenario, where a signifcant portion of users switch to one of these alternative OSes, there will be an incentive to monetize.

Which is why it's better to choose an alternative that is open source, so that when they become evil, you can switch again. It's always been like that: we're fleeing from successful companies becoming evil. What has changed is that those companies have found a way to make it illegal for us to flee, and I suggest we fight against that.

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#908

Post by kuhsaft »

palata wrote: post #906
kuhsaft wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would you say if your bank banned your Fairphone (that runs Stock Android signed by Google) just because it is a Fairphone, and "a few hundred thousands of users is marginal"? I think even the regulators would directly understand how that is a problem. We're talking about different operating systems on devices, not the same operating system on different devices. Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock O…

> Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't. Again, the non-stock OS works, except for the parts that cannot work because they are being actively blocked. It's not that they are not ready: they are ready, but the mainstream players are blocking them. > The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn…

> My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that.

Playing devil's advocate here. Why should software developers be allowed to restrict where/how their software is used, while hardware developers can't restrict where/how their hardware is used?

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#909

Post by lucb1e »

0x3f wrote: post #860
lucb1e wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had to read that sentence twice. You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. to install an apk to run software that can barely access more than a simple webpage could, than there are pe…

> more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. I don't really understand. You seem to be against the 'annoyance' of the protections, but that annoyance is precisely why the scammed count is lower, no? I certainly bel…

What I'm against is the mandatory registration to get a key signed by a party we don't elect, who controls all (soft-mandatory^1) devices that aren't controlled by the other party we didn't elect, and both are controlled by a government that we have no say in and is acting increasingly hostile towards everyone but fellow belligerents (Israel, Russia.. seeing a pattern here).

Your "it's just a bit annoying" argument seems irrelevant compared to that, even if it would reduce scams, which I have seen no evidence for or against. Did you find or come across any evidence for it?

^1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47940687

> the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders

That makes no sense. Of course the market for "scam victims" is current-earth-population.com minus one (the person doing the scamming); this is a universal constant you're comparing against

If you mean the number of people who would potentially get scammed by being told to do a dozen steps to install some app which can barely do more to aid the scam than a webpage could, then I'm interested in how you end up with those figures!

Given that maybe every 20th person is decently tech-literate and that I have yet to come across a scam where installing software on your phone is a component of it (including via google's; just any kind of mobile software installation), the way I figure the "market sizes" are about 400 million to somewhere around nil

Re: Your phone is about to stop being yours

#910

Post by palata »

kuhsaft wrote: post #908
palata wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, it's not the same as modifying the stock OS that does work with a non-stock OS that doesn't. Again, the non-stock OS works, except for the parts that cannot work because they are being actively blocked. It's not that they are not ready: they are ready, but the mainstream players are blocking them. > The hardware analogy would be closer to having a computer, replacing the GPU, then getting angry that there isn…

> My point is that they shouldn't. I am saying that it would be better for society if we regulated that. Playing devil's advocate here. Why should software developers be allowed to restrict where/how their software is used, while hardware developers can't restrict where/how their hardware is used?

Yeah it's a good question, and in the end it's arbitrary. I would say:

1. Because e-waste.

2. Because if I buy shoes, I own the shoes. If I buy an electronic device, I own the electronic device. It should not be legal to add a mechanism in my shoes that allows the manufacturer to make them stop working as shoes whenever they want.

Hardware manufacturers don't open source their firmwares because they see it as a competitive advantage (why not, sometimes). But they should allow someone else to write their own firmware. That is, they should provide minimum support for that. Right now it's not that they don't provide minimum support: they actively work on making it technically impossible to do. And the law, through the DMCA and the likes, makes it illegal to reverse engineer.

Post reply on HN