3 ms·

I said Dunning-Kruger because you seem to be advocating doing Internet Research and following "reputable" pop suggestions of security solutions. This is the equ

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
        Throwing out dubious security advice, especially as a lemma for downplaying legitimate concerns, requires backing it up with details. If you don't want to have tedious discussions, the sooner you supply those details the better. FWIW you were the one who said you were going to stop replying, but apparently you care just enough to dig your heels in on the content-free part of your argument, but not enough to actually fill any details of what you're trying to advocate.

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
        Throwing out dubious security advice, especially as a lemma for downplaying legitimate concerns, requires backing it up with details. If you don't want to have tedious discussions, the sooner you supply those details the better. FWIW you were the one who said you were going to stop replying, but apparently you care just enough to dig your heels in on the content-free part of your argument, but not enough to actually fill any details of what you're trying to advocate.