4 ms·

> I'm sorry, but this reads as straight up Dunning-Kruger. No offense, but I'm not sure you understand what Dunning-Kruger is if you think that. > Care to sug

> I'm sorry, but this reads as straight up Dunning-Kruger. No offense, but I'm not sure you understand what Dunning-Kruger is if you think that. > Care to suggest any articles about these "easier sandboxing solutions" Did you even try searching? > Popular articles on Android security are just as likely to rot your brain as they are to inform you. Key words in my original statement: reputable. sources. I'm sorry, but you seem like you want to argue just for the sake of arguing. You also give off the vibe of being an armchair security expert, and as someone that does security professional as has for my entire career, I'm not really finding you to be credible. Same as someone screaming that security by obscurity doesn't work because they read it somewhere an heard other people say it. The point was simply that there are decent sandboxing solutions that are easy to find, and will protect you sufficiently from untrusted third party apps that are not trying to root your phone, but trying to exfil as much data as possible. That's it. And that remains true. Not really interested in discussing this further though, since I don't think this is a productive discussion. Cheers.

mindslight 3y ago
I said Dunning-Kruger because you seem to be advocating doing Internet Research and following "reputable" pop suggestions of security solutions. This is the equivalent to rolling your own crypto - anyone can create a system that they themselves are satisfied is secure, and that's effectively what you're doing by mashing up random security apps with a proprietary Android distribution. These "decent sandboxing solutions" are all just front ends to Android Work Profiles. Trusting Work Profiles on a proprietary distribution is similar to just trusting the proprietary distribution as is - especially when most distributions have blobbed "Play Services" with backdoors into the OS. So in my opinion this isn't a particularly good path to go down to achieve trustable security, just as adding a bunch of band-aids to Microsoft Windows won't get you something trustable. And really, my overarching point is that the current state of secure user-representing Android is nowhere advanced enough in capabilities, auditing, or adoption to say that anyone can "just" do some things to be protected from the surveillance industry.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > "reputable" pop suggestions Do you know what reputable means? Then why are you so obviously twisting the meaning of what I am saying to fit your argument?
  - mindslight 3y ago
    No, I don't. The word has many meanings, especially these days. And it's doing a lot of work in your argument.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Reputable simply means of good repute. Having good reputation. I.E. being credible and having credibility. In the context of tech savvy users, it wouldn't refer to the 'pop' articles you refer to.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        As I said, the word is doing most of the work of your argument. I can totally see someone saying the exact same thing you are, and then pointing to some throwaway article on some popular Android news site and calling it reputable - in an earlier comment you indicated that these reputable articles can be found by "searching", which with how search engines tend to work these days is like the exact opposite of reputable. And as I've said for the nth time now, you could end this abstract discussion with a link to like anything concrete. I addressed your specific reference to Island and Work Profiles in general, which you have just ignored. I myself use Shelter on Graphene, it has its place. But using Work Profiles on a black box proprietary Android distribution just seems like adding a false sense of security.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > As I said, the word is doing most of the work of your argument. It's really not. Saying it twice doesn't make it so. You just decided to make an issue of it for some reason. > then pointing to some throwaway article on some popular Android news site and calling it reputable - in an earlier comment you indicated that these reputable articles can be found by "searching", which with how search engines tend to work these days is like the exact opposite of reputable. I expect a tech savvy user to understand the difference between a garbage site and a reliable, reputable site. > And as I've said for the nth time now, you could end this abstract discussion with a link to like anything concrete. How about you just stop replying? Why keep it going this long when we clearly disagree? I find such behavior baffling. If I wasn't interesting in putting in time to provide links before, given the tone of this discussion, why do you think I would be now?

mindslight 3y ago

I said Dunning-Kruger because you seem to be advocating doing Internet Research and following "reputable" pop suggestions of security solutions. This is the equivalent to rolling your own crypto - anyone can create a system that they themselves are satisfied is secure, and that's effectively what you're doing by mashing up random security apps with a proprietary Android distribution. These "decent sandboxing solutions" are all just front ends to Android Work Profiles. Trusting Work Profiles on a proprietary distribution is similar to just trusting the proprietary distribution as is - especially when most distributions have blobbed "Play Services" with backdoors into the OS. So in my opinion this isn't a particularly good path to go down to achieve trustable security, just as adding a bunch of band-aids to Microsoft Windows won't get you something trustable. And really, my overarching point is that the current state of secure user-representing Android is nowhere advanced enough in capabilities, auditing, or adoption to say that anyone can "just" do some things to be protected from the surveillance industry.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> "reputable" pop suggestions Do you know what reputable means? Then why are you so obviously twisting the meaning of what I am saying to fit your argument?
- mindslight 3y ago
  No, I don't. The word has many meanings, especially these days. And it's doing a lot of work in your argument.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Reputable simply means of good repute. Having good reputation. I.E. being credible and having credibility. In the context of tech savvy users, it wouldn't refer to the 'pop' articles you refer to.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      As I said, the word is doing most of the work of your argument. I can totally see someone saying the exact same thing you are, and then pointing to some throwaway article on some popular Android news site and calling it reputable - in an earlier comment you indicated that these reputable articles can be found by "searching", which with how search engines tend to work these days is like the exact opposite of reputable. And as I've said for the nth time now, you could end this abstract discussion with a link to like anything concrete. I addressed your specific reference to Island and Work Profiles in general, which you have just ignored. I myself use Shelter on Graphene, it has its place. But using Work Profiles on a black box proprietary Android distribution just seems like adding a false sense of security.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > As I said, the word is doing most of the work of your argument. It's really not. Saying it twice doesn't make it so. You just decided to make an issue of it for some reason. > then pointing to some throwaway article on some popular Android news site and calling it reputable - in an earlier comment you indicated that these reputable articles can be found by "searching", which with how search engines tend to work these days is like the exact opposite of reputable. I expect a tech savvy user to understand the difference between a garbage site and a reliable, reputable site. > And as I've said for the nth time now, you could end this abstract discussion with a link to like anything concrete. How about you just stop replying? Why keep it going this long when we clearly disagree? I find such behavior baffling. If I wasn't interesting in putting in time to provide links before, given the tone of this discussion, why do you think I would be now?