5 ms·

Do you like losing money?

• 0x0f_4 1y ago
  > Do you like losing money? what about us losing control over our own devices? do you like losing control over devices you paid for?
  • concinds 1y ago
    People have no "control" over their own device if they have malware on it. The weirdo incoherent tech-chauvinism of "control" and "freedom" evidenced all over this thread is one of the most obnoxious trends on HN.
    • Lucasoato 1y ago
      Would you give your car keys to a company, in fear that a thief might steal it?
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    • cesarb 1y ago
      > People have no "control" over their own device if they have malware on it. You are inadvertently reaching the true core of the question. The ones who have "control" over a device, are those who control the software running on it. Be it the bad guys (in the case of a malware-infested device), a giant corporation (in the case of a locked-down device), or yourself (when you can install and replace any software you want on the device).
      • simonask 1y ago
        Their point stands, though. The vast majority of users do not have either kind of control, so it is a very small concession to them in favor of securing their device against a malicious actor taking control. I think this is what commenters here are missing. I agree politically with the notion that people should own their devices (having full control), but the reality is not and will never be that the majority have anything but the illusion of control. Meanwhile, as these devices become increasingly necessary for people to exist at all, and the data they store becomes increasingly sensitive, the ability to theoretically install your own software is completely irrelevant compared to the risk of anything bad happening. Things that would be compromised if my phone is compromised: All private communication, bank accounts, stock portfolio, medical history, driver's license, criminal record, sexual history, grocery habits, all communication between my government and me, real estate deeds and mortgages, two-factor authentication keys, and I suppose my Steam library. Like, that's a lot. People can lose their homes. The stakes are unfathomably high here.
        • const_cast 1y ago
          The horse is driving the carriage here. Why and how is this protecting against a malicious actors? You can't skip that part. What about malicious actors that are entrenched, like Meta and even Google? Does this not strengthen them?
          • simonask 1y ago
            It's pretty clearly an attempt to establish a clear chain of trust. If you are making a malicious app, the first thing you want to do is hide your identity. It is incredibly important that users can know whose code they are running, and who is responsible for the behavior of the malicious app that destroyed their life. I can't say whether the specific implementation will be an improvement, but that is clearly the intent. Meta and Google have not shown themselves to be "malicious" in sense that is relevant to this discussions. Whatever shady practices they may or may not have is very likely entirely within the law, and they are strongly motivated to protect people's personal data, because they will not have users (i.e., their product) if their platforms are insecure.
            • const_cast 1y ago
              Meta has been shown to be malicious, up to an including violating permission controls to exfiltrate cookies from the browser with the facilitation of an android app. The only reason, and it is the only reason, you do not view Meta as a malicious actor is because they've told you many times they are not. Most Meta and Google products could be described as keyloggers or spyware. Many break permissions expectations - for example, Google apps have special privileges that allow them to circumvent some permissions on Android. In addition, both Meta and Google products are primarily ad driven, with the majority of ads being scams. Again, virtually identical to other malicious apps. Is any of this legal? Maybe, maybe not, you signed a EULA. But if all it takes is a EULA, then most android malware is not malware, and we're back at square one: play protect will not do anything. And, to be clear, this is intentional. It is not Googles intention to squander malware because they rely on malware. No malware on Android and they go bankrupt. It is their intention to further extract value out of the Google play store by leveraging their mandatory 30% cut. As well as making Android a more locked down platform and thereby more attractive to advertisers and DRM distributors.
• chii 1y ago
  Of course i care that i lose money. I dont care that google loses money.
  • estomagordo 1y ago
    Yet you expect them to act in a way that would make them lose money?
    • beeflet 1y ago
      I don't expect them to do so, but I will make them