991–1000 of 1001 posts
I'm not sure how I feel about this. My gut instinct is that opening these things can lead to a ton of malware and fake app stores, which will lead to a not-insignificant number of people being victimized. I'm also annoyed that the EU produces effectively 0 innovative tech, and subsequently has very suppressed tech salaries, but is so ready to regulate the American companies that make the world go 'round.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that’s really how it rolls out, doesn’t it also mean that Safari wasn’t viable on itself and nobody wanted to use it in the first place ? Apple is no underdog anymore, if their browser couldn‘t compete on its own merit I won’t be crying a river over it. Firefox, while mired with its own problems, is another story; but I don’t see Mozilla losing from this decision.
Safari is possibly the biggest competitor to chrome, since Firefox is falling out of use. It’s important for the ecosystem to have a strong competitor who isn’t dependent on google
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I am in the camp of apple allowing side-loading, i am not a fan of monopolistic regulations like this. It opens all kind of questions, like 1. What devices have to comply? 2. Who decides what device has to comply? Should playstation open their system too. What about a niche bank transaction signing device that internally uses an android capable hardware. Is this illegal now? 3. What about a car infotainment sys…
Most car infotainment systems ship with Linux, just they don't let you change it, which might be a GPL violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, it's so easy to write something like this, but... > No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security. You don't know anything about me. How can you possibly make the call on what makes me secure or not? Not being able to install malware... that is by definition more secure than being able to install malware. > If you'r…
> Not being able to install malware Not being able to drive is also much safer than being able to drive. Not having internet access is also much safer than having it. Not getting out is also much safer than getting out.
Not being able to install malware is safer.
Maybe you should be able to, as an adult, decide to install it, or, as you say, decide to drive dangerously.
…but you can’t argue you aren’t safer if you choose not to drive (or install malware).
Driving is dangerous.
It’s safer to not be able to drive.
The argument the parent post made was that you are no safer not being able to drive.
Which is wrong. Categorically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe’s requirement of those pesky cookie notices have killed the joy of surfing the net. Every goddamn site has this stupid cookie popup show up. It is like playing whack-a-mole. They should have instead only allow necessary cookies and marketing and other cookies should be part of signing up for a specific service and not just visiting the website. The thought is noble but the implementation sucks.
EU requirement was to inform users on how the data collected about them will be used and give them a choice. Cookie notices was the industry response, ignoring the spirit of the law and complying at a minimal rate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Besides, I'm glad to see interoperability mentioned there, perhaps one day we could text from one messenger to another one without being held back by the owner. By forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? And that interoperability entailing the possibility of passing messages to government eavesdropping schemes? Sounds like a utopian paradise!
> forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? Why assume that requirement? For E2E encrypted messaging services all that needs to be shared are public keys for interoperability to work. In the case of middleman encrypted messaging you already trust the provider not to sell you out. If they interoperate then you trust N providers, where N is the number of providers engaged in a part…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fine, just stay on the default settings then. This however isn't a reason for the rest of the world to accept this. And since the power in the market is highly concentrated and all of it is moving more and more in this direction, regulation enforces these alternative options now. All this does is regulate the power the provider of a product has over their customer. This does not ruin the walled garden for the…
That's fine, just stay on the default settings then. I agree in principle, but I worry that we end up in the situation where if you need to use a particular app, you can only get it from a third-party store that you don't trust. (Something gross like Facebook starting an app store.) Or course, this is mostly a result of Apple being greedy. If they had acted like a good steward of the platform rather than trying to ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
This is nonsense. Users would be free to stick to the Apple app-store and apps. What it means is those that wish to install from alternative locations, can. Competition in the app store space is a good thing. Competition generally is a good thing. This is what it is about. Scaremongering this kind of nonsense to suppose walled-garden ecosystems (that primarily benefit the gardener, not the plants) is a stretch. It's…
And that will be great news to scammers, hackers and criminals that have been easily plaguing their malware and trojans on infected Android for years to do the same on iOS apps to go all open season on the platform.
> Competition in the app store space is a good thing. Competition generally is a good thing. This is what it is about.
Exactly. Is that why you have chosen to not use a Linux phone? Maybe the competition outside of Android and iOS is not competing hard enough and instead resorted to shutting down and giving up and had to scream and cry at Google and Apple for being so successful.
> Scaremongering this kind of nonsense to suppose walled-garden ecosystems (that primarily benefit the gardener, not the plants) is a stretch.
Scaremongering? Why is it that over the space of 8 years Android has been plagued more by ransomware [0], malware, and attacks delivered by sideloading? [1] than iOS has? Bringing the same security ills and problems found on Android devices into iOS can only result in creating more problems than solving them.
> Congratulations to the EU indeed, for the right reasons.
Nope. Not so fast.
We will see MORE of the same problems found on the desktop in iOS and the greatest targets are frequent users in mobile banking, cryptocurrency wallets, etc to steal from. None of what I said is 'nonsense', 'scaremongering', etc as it is already happening on Android.
[0] https://blog.knowbe4.com/evolution-of-mobile-ransomware
[1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/roaming-manti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As one example, making "core messaging functionality interoperable". How exactly does that work with end-to-end encryption? Quite simply: it doesn't. It can only work the same way as iMessage interoperates with SMS, by throwing away security.
That's plainly not true. There are hundreds of open protocols able to establish encrypted connection, including some dedicated to instant messaging. There's literally zero benefit that Apple, Google, FB or whoever is able to offer with their in-house implementation.
Some optimists here telling that all messenger might follow a certain "standard" for transmitting encrypted messages. And in fact some messengers might, but this standard will be the lowest common denominator, i.e. the weakest security protocol all know.
For p2p model generating secure private key is paramount. Can this be guaranteed by every peer operating in a chat? Not unless they all made by the same team with high security standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's plainly not true. There are hundreds of open protocols able to establish encrypted connection, including some dedicated to instant messaging. There's literally zero benefit that Apple, Google, FB or whoever is able to offer with their in-house implementation.
For two messengers operating on two different encryption protocols the only way to talk to each other is to introduce an intermediary, which will decrypt and then re-encrypt messages, thus throwing p2p model out of the window. Some optimists here telling that all messenger might follow a certain "standard" for transmitting encrypted messages. And in fact some messengers might, but this standard will be the lowest com…
Or they simply could agree on solid common exchange protocol. There's no requirement to support crappy encryption. Just to open communication with your service.
We've dozens of functionality identical, incompatible proprietary protocols, because each corporate schmuck wants their own walled garden, to squeeze a few more cents.
Why should we agree to that?