5 ms·

The fundamental problem here is application security in situations of rooted devices is non-existent. Android lacks mechanisms for apps to tell they're running

The fundamental problem here is application security in situations of rooted devices is non-existent. Android lacks mechanisms for apps to tell they're running as root too (as the root user could disable this) so you can't disable functioning on rooted devices. (Chrome OS does not have this problem, as the official builds are signed by a single authority). Newer Android versions have support for hardware DRM modules which would allow potential for some sort of nasty workaround (which may involve transcoding any images into movies), but in the general case for the wider market it's not going to work yet. Finally, this is also why the NFC stuff is generally accompanied by another isolated system, though I seem to recall early versions of that (like in the Nexus S) proved to be sidesteppable.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- fidotron 12y ago
  You are not providing for the security of those that own the content, either in the case of a movie studio or in this case the taker of the photograph. If you choose to have root, fair enough, but that decision does mean certain applications should cease to work. Simply banning all those applications from being allowed isn't really a solution at all. Personally, I prefer to carry separate devices which are rooted and not, and this strikes me as the only viable way forward. Some of your tech details are wrong btw. It is quite possible to get images on the screen which can't be accessed by the CPU, for example. Phones are not architecturally anything like as simple as desktop PCs.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
mindslight 12y ago
> Android lacks mechanisms for apps to tell they're running as root too (as the root user could disable this) so [apps] can't disable functioning on rooted devices As the owner of the device (ie the one who should have ultimate control over it), this is precisely what I want. It would be horribly broken for an operating system to do anything else! That we're not only still fighting the battle for personal computing but additionally having to defend against misguided ideas from people in supposedly technical communities is ridiculous.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fidotron 12y ago
You are not providing for the security of those that own the content, either in the case of a movie studio or in this case the taker of the photograph. If you choose to have root, fair enough, but that decision does mean certain applications should cease to work. Simply banning all those applications from being allowed isn't really a solution at all. Personally, I prefer to carry separate devices which are rooted and not, and this strikes me as the only viable way forward. Some of your tech details are wrong btw. It is quite possible to get images on the screen which can't be accessed by the CPU, for example. Phones are not architecturally anything like as simple as desktop PCs.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

mindslight 12y ago

> Android lacks mechanisms for apps to tell they're running as root too (as the root user could disable this) so [apps] can't disable functioning on rooted devices As the owner of the device (ie the one who should have ultimate control over it), this is precisely what I want. It would be horribly broken for an operating system to do anything else! That we're not only still fighting the battle for personal computing but additionally having to defend against misguided ideas from people in supposedly technical communities is ridiculous.