3 ms·

> The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. Let me fill in the justification then: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/0

> The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. Let me fill in the justification then: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-bans-ad-blockers-from-the-play-store-except-all-those-ad-blocking-web-browsers-apparently/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-b... https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used-by-hong-kong-protestors/ https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used-by-... https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/ https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/ Edit as reply: They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. (Or more accurately, walled gardens, but where the user has the key to the garden gates, and can install alternative repositories/app stores). With all that, it takes a downright reckless degree of trust in corporations that have already betrayed that trust many times, to believe their motives in locking down ever more computing platforms are to benefit the user, and that this continual retreat of user freedoms won't end badly.

nodamage 6y ago
I'm not exactly sure how you think these examples justify the author's claim, can you elaborate? Cause it seems like what you're doing is the equivalent of pointing to an example of someone killing another person and then saying "gotcha! see how the existence of police and murder laws don't completely prevent murder?" The underlying question is does the walled garden approach improve the security and privacy of the overall ecosystem compared to the non-walled alternative, not whether it leads to 100% perfect security and privacy (which is an unobtainable ideal).
nodamage 6y ago
> They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors also sometimes enforce control unrelated to security. But, the original claims were that "your security and privacy aren't really protected" and "the main point of these security measures is to enforce control". Your examples don't really support these (much stronger) claims. > And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. I'm not really sure how that follows? I suppose you could argue that the various linuxes have fewer malware problems but I suspect that's more a function of demand than anything else. I'm not sure how other Android ROMs are relevant? In any case neither of those examples address the issue of privacy. (As in mechanisms to help prevent "rogue" apps from exfiltrating your private data via abuse of legitimate APIs.)

nodamage 6y ago

I'm not exactly sure how you think these examples justify the author's claim, can you elaborate? Cause it seems like what you're doing is the equivalent of pointing to an example of someone killing another person and then saying "gotcha! see how the existence of police and murder laws don't completely prevent murder?" The underlying question is does the walled garden approach improve the security and privacy of the overall ecosystem compared to the non-walled alternative, not whether it leads to 100% perfect security and privacy (which is an unobtainable ideal).

nodamage 6y ago

> They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors also sometimes enforce control unrelated to security. But, the original claims were that "your security and privacy aren't really protected" and "the main point of these security measures is to enforce control". Your examples don't really support these (much stronger) claims. > And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. I'm not really sure how that follows? I suppose you could argue that the various linuxes have fewer malware problems but I suspect that's more a function of demand than anything else. I'm not sure how other Android ROMs are relevant? In any case neither of those examples address the issue of privacy. (As in mechanisms to help prevent "rogue" apps from exfiltrating your private data via abuse of legitimate APIs.)