> This could also be considered ... I agree but you've very appropriately used the word "could" here. The gp bemoaned Google not prioritising this issue as a s

> This could also be considered ... I agree but you've very appropriately used the word "could" here. The gp bemoaned Google not prioritising this issue as a serious security concern. Whether it could theoretically be classified under security if X, Y & Z were true, due to the to-the-letter definition of access control threat models, doesn't mean that in this specific case of a consumer device, that using a browser from settings is a high severity risk. Even if it were a bypass of something like Nessus/Crowdstrike/et al (and not just consumer parental controls), it still wouldn't represent a significant threat as a simple kiosk escape in isolation. Any definition that classifies this as the gp is proposing is a theoretical nitpick, not an actual considered threat model.