Does it? My banking works in any browser that supports javascript, and chatting has been possible on desktops (and laptops etc.) longer than it has on phones
I've found a tablet convenient in 3 situations: Watching video, reading ebooks or displaying sheet music. (And a single tablet is rarely very good for more than 2 of these at a time.) Otherwise it's either too cumbersome or the I/O is too useless.
Correct. I am using my Dutch bank and credit card apps without any issues. Someone linked the curated GrapheneOS banking list already. If your bank does not support it, you could either contact them. If they require remote attestation, this can be implemented for GrapheneOS as well:
If the bank is very hard-nosed about it, you could consider keeping an old iPhone or Pixel (because long security updates) for banking if it is practical to do for you. 95% without big tech is also a big win. Of course, if you need to have it with you at all times, that might not be a worthwhile option.
can confirm. And there are even some pages that list banking and other apps working on GrapheneOS. It's actually very few that don't work with sandboxed Google Play API.
Which makes them so great for making difficult (often bad) decisions – it wasn't me, it was the "objective" and "neutral" "superintelligence" which I totally didn't give a suggestive prompt.
Protecting from scams isn't protection from the victim themselves. That should be obvious from the fact that very intelligent and technologically literate people too can fall for phishing attacks. Tell me for example, how many people in your life know how a bank would ACTUALLY contact you about a suspected hijacking and what the process should look like? And how about any of the dozens of other cover stories used? Not to mention the situations where the scammers can use literally the same method of first contact as the real thing (eg. spoofed).
...And the fact that for example email clients do their best to help them by obscuring the email address and only showing the display name, because that's obviously a good idea.
> Protecting from scams isn't protection from the victim themselves.
That is where we differ. It is, ultimately, the victim of a scam who makes the choice of "yes, this person is trustworthy and I will do what they say". The only way to prevent that is to block the user from having the power to make that decision, which is to say protecting them from themselves.
But the proposal here, requiring developers to register their identities, doesn't actually impact consumers at all. They still have the ability to make the decision about whether or not to trust someone.
Yes it does, especially when you remember the fact that developers are also consumers. But even if they (we) weren't, it would still impact consumers. I, android user who's completely ignorant when it comes to android development or even mobile in general, would be heavily impacted by this.
My custom youtube clients would never be approved by google. My (free) apps for watching anime and reading manga would never get approved by Google.
And something that's approved today could stop being approved tomorrow. it's up to Google / Microsoft / Apple to decide after all, they're the ones in control of our devices. If they stop liking my open-source ad-free minesweeper game, then I can't play it anymore. I'll have to download their bloated proprietary version with ads and a subscription to keep playing.
> My custom youtube clients would never be approved by google. My (free) apps for watching anime and reading manga would never get approved by Google.
Google isn't approving apps though. A developer provides identity verification and a set of apps (apk names & keys) they are responsible for. There is no verification process or approval from google. The entire process as outlined in https://developer.android.com/developer-verification is that you prove you own signing keys for an apk name.
None of these things requires "locking down phones." Every single thing you've mentioned can be done in a smarter way that doesn't involve "individuals aren't allowed to modify the devices they purchase."
Small minority? What about all the studies and statistics both from third parties and from the social networks themselves showing a direct effect on the _majority_ of users? Not that I expected a better argument from someone that crams in "leftists" as an unwarranted snide remark
Your kind is the braindead target audience for this digital crack. The audience that has a 5-second attention span and jumps on the opportunity to try the paint-huffing challenge.
reply