3 ms·

When they say the privacy issues of Windows I see a double standard. Android is, to my mind, equally "invasive" as Windows, if not more. Except the fact that An

When they say the privacy issues of Windows I see a double standard. Android is, to my mind, equally "invasive" as Windows, if not more. Except the fact that Android's source code is open, they are pretty much same regarding end user experience. Yet every time Windows 10 is brought up people say privacy. Yeah, I understand that Windows wasn't like this, so people can get upset about the recent changes Microsoft is pushing onto. On the other hand Android has been like that from the beginning, so there might not be much expectation. But still I don't care Windows-as-a-service because nowadays pretty much every software I use is provided like that. It's just that the OS becamse not an exception.

vamur 10y ago
It isn't, as you can disable or replace parts of Android you don't like. With Windows you are stuck with whatever Microsoft decides.
- squarefoot 10y ago
  The best place to put spyware into is closed source unauditable software. On Windows the entire system and most well known applications are closed source, therefore not trustworthy, but on Android things are not that different: Android makes heavy use of closed source device drivers and so far any attempt to get a completely open system while keeping all the underlying iron useable has failed because most device manufacturers keep their hardware undocumented, save for Google and a few big players under NDA. The point is that security is an OR: a chain whose strength depend on the weakest link; if one closed blob can contain a keylogger, having just one in an otherwise 100% open phone still makes the phone 100% potentially not secure.
  - vamur 10y ago
    By your definition, Linux is also insecure since it depends on closed source BIOS and closed source device firmwares, as well as closed source hardware. Security is a process not a if/else choice, and Android is more secure than Windows because it is open source and you can replace Google parts. Good luck doing that on Windows.
    - squarefoot 10y ago
      The key is "potentially" and from whom the risk of exploitation comes from. Having one closed driver instead of 20 makes the system statistically a lot less prone to exploitation by the usual malware writers, but if a government or any entity with enough power wants to take advantage of that weak point to install say a keylogger, their chance of success is 100% like it would be on a system that depends on 20 closed blobs. And yes, Linux (and BSD) is also potentially insecure (or less secure if you prefer), which is the reason why the same effort who brought us a lot of quality Open Source verifiable software now should be directed towards obtaining also Open Hardware. We need to build a culture as we did with Open Source software so that people will understand the importance and associated risks.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
There is a very clear difference. The MSRP of Windows OS is over $100 or the Microsoft tax if you bought a Windows system. Secondly, you can turn off Google services when you setup an Android phone. Where is the option to turn off all Microsoft services and not have to interact with them at all?

vamur 10y ago

It isn't, as you can disable or replace parts of Android you don't like. With Windows you are stuck with whatever Microsoft decides.

squarefoot 10y ago
The best place to put spyware into is closed source unauditable software. On Windows the entire system and most well known applications are closed source, therefore not trustworthy, but on Android things are not that different: Android makes heavy use of closed source device drivers and so far any attempt to get a completely open system while keeping all the underlying iron useable has failed because most device manufacturers keep their hardware undocumented, save for Google and a few big players under NDA. The point is that security is an OR: a chain whose strength depend on the weakest link; if one closed blob can contain a keylogger, having just one in an otherwise 100% open phone still makes the phone 100% potentially not secure.
- vamur 10y ago
  By your definition, Linux is also insecure since it depends on closed source BIOS and closed source device firmwares, as well as closed source hardware. Security is a process not a if/else choice, and Android is more secure than Windows because it is open source and you can replace Google parts. Good luck doing that on Windows.
  - squarefoot 10y ago
    The key is "potentially" and from whom the risk of exploitation comes from. Having one closed driver instead of 20 makes the system statistically a lot less prone to exploitation by the usual malware writers, but if a government or any entity with enough power wants to take advantage of that weak point to install say a keylogger, their chance of success is 100% like it would be on a system that depends on 20 closed blobs. And yes, Linux (and BSD) is also potentially insecure (or less secure if you prefer), which is the reason why the same effort who brought us a lot of quality Open Source verifiable software now should be directed towards obtaining also Open Hardware. We need to build a culture as we did with Open Source software so that people will understand the importance and associated risks.

bitmapbrother 10y ago

There is a very clear difference. The MSRP of Windows OS is over $100 or the Microsoft tax if you bought a Windows system. Secondly, you can turn off Google services when you setup an Android phone. Where is the option to turn off all Microsoft services and not have to interact with them at all?