> Because iOS software, backed by iPhone hardware, actively prevents a customer from installing any software on an iPhone outside of the App Store, it does also prevent attackers from installing malicious software. Because the App Store has rules about how applications (outside of their own) can access customer data, if Apple discovers a competitor like Google or Facebook is violating its privacy rules it can remotely remove their software from iPhones, even internal corporate versions of software owned by Google or Facebook employees.
This is a bit inaccurate; first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone and also because the apps pulled there did not go through the App Store, they were actually sideloaded using enterprise deployment. Apple does have the ability to remotely disable applications downloaded from the App Store, but to my knowledge it has never used this ability.
> These companies have built very sophisticated and secure defenses all in the name of protecting you from the world outside their walls, yet in reality the walls are designed to keep you inside much more than they are designed to keep attackers out. The security community often gets so excited about the sophistication of these defenses backed by secure enclaves and strong cryptography that their singular focus on what those defenses mean for attackers blinds them from thinking about what they mean for everyone else.
I mean, all you have to do is look at the things that are implemented to see that Apple's goal in many cases is to protect their software, not you. There is custom silicon in every recent iPhone that does nothing but stop modification of kernel code, even in the face of code execution and arbitrary read/write in EL1: interesting from an academic standpoint, but if you stop and think about it for more than a second it's entirely useless for actually protecting users.
"Apple's goal in many cases is to protect their software, not you."
Seems like it is easy to trick the public into confusing one goal for another.
There seems to be an implicit rule in the Apple software scheme: Apple itself is "pre-certified" as trustworthy. Not only at the time point of hardware purchase, but endlessly into the future.
The user of course cannot revoke that "certification". The way these systems are structured today, the user effectively cannot decide after purchase "Thanks Apple, I got this. I'll take it from here." This is sort of implicit trustworthiness of hardware vendor as software vendor also underlies the contemporary concept of "updates". There is no genuine (viable) option for the user to say "no, thank you". Saying no would be deemed as ill-advised for a variety of reasons.
The one-time hardware purchase is transformed into an ongoing dependent relationship that can be, and in fact is, exploitive. Its primary reason for existence is as you suggest not to "protect" or otherwise benefit the user, but it can be contrued that way.
> "the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone"
Source?
Apple's App Store has in fact a really good track record for stopping malware from reaching phones. Some mallware still got in, but AFAIK Apple has reacted promptly on discovery, and it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that their track record has been "spotty", and as implied, useless, because it isn't.
There are thousand of Windows PCs infected by botnet malware, per day.
Yes, if you'd remove the App Store, iOS devices would still be more secure because of the sandboxing. What Apple does however is a multi-layered approach to security. Which is why iOS devices are in fact the safest devices for consumers on the market.
You and I may not like it. I actually think Apple should allow third party sources, just like Android. But let's not pretend that there aren't security benefits to their App Store.
> There is custom silicon in every recent iPhone that does nothing but stop modification of kernel code, even in the face of code execution and arbitrary read/write in EL1: interesting from an academic standpoint, but if you stop and think about it for more than a second it's entirely useless for actually protecting users.
Every single malware (or jailbreak) wants to modify EL1 code, it's not just interesting from an academic standpoint.
> This is a bit inaccurate; first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone
Spotty relative to what? The App Store hasn’t had a 100% perfect record, but it’s pretty darn close to it. I really can’t think of any other software distribution channels for general purpose computing devices (including the open web) that have had a better security track record than the App Store
Why is it useless for actually protecting users? Is it easily circumventable or is it just that there are simpler attack vectors that don't require modifying kernel code?
Speaking as an Android user, the usefulness of the eco-system is undeniable and leaving that is too much friction for most, even for those who do care about privacy.
I think in addition to the focus on hardware, one approach should be to provide the tools to the users for more control. Provide a rooted phone by default. Add tools that let me see what my phone is doing behind the scenes. Give me option to turn-off some of the things I don't like (e.g. an app is sending analytics to some domain, let me turn that part off without turning off the whole app in a relatively simple way). Help with planned obsolence by providing updates etc and so on.
Basically give back some control of jail/castle to the users without asking them to leave it completely.
Edit: one more thing, please add NFC. Going back to carrying boatload of cards again is not an option.
As a freedom-, privacy- and also security-aware person, I disagree quite strongly. Phones should by default provide a way for people to modify their phone as they see fit but they should definitely not be rooted by default. The reason being that root access is, well, the root of all evil. Practically nothing has advanced end consumer device security in recent times as much as Apple and Google enforcing a secure boot chain (in particular: read-only root file systems), implementing heavy sandboxing and cutting down[0] on apps' permissions. All this is worth nothing if apps can obtain root and do whatever they want.
People often claim Linux (as a desktop OS) is secure. It's not by any standard. All the apps you use in your day-to-day tend to have full file system access to all your personal files and full network access. You've merely been lucky so far that you (hopefully) haven't gotten pwned by any rogue application.
I'm eagerly awaiting a time when my root file system will be read-only, my entire boot chain will be verified[1] and all my day-to-day applications will be fully sandboxed and only very few of them have network access.
[0] Granted, one might argue whether this is actually what Google has done.
It will be great to have more players in the smart phone OS domain so I hope this makes it big. On the other hand, the downside of taking the security and privacy of your phone into your own hands, is that ... you’ve taken the security and privacy of the phone into your own hands.
I’m happy to pay Apple to do it for me because my phone is nowhere near my main or most important computing device and I also quite like that they poke google and Facebook in the eye from time to time. Sure, Apple is just a profit driven enterprise like the rest but their business model is directly related to keeping users happy at least for some value of users and happy.
The only downside for me is that I can’t write an app for my device because I haven’t bought into the Apple computer ecosystem.
> I’m happy to pay Apple to do it for me because my phone is nowhere near my main or most important computing device
But for millions, their mobile device is their main or most important device, whether it runs iOS, iPadOS, or Android.
It can be their main device, with one example being Apple's divisive "What's a computer" ad. Another example is those that rely on mobile, due either to cost or lack of physical space for a desktop or laptop.
For others, their mobile is the most important, likely because that's where all their messages, contacts, location history, and more, resides.
That last one is big for me. I like using an iphone and I have an idea for a nice app but I do not like macbooks. I have tried them a few times and just do not like macos as much as linux. Now I can't work on my app idea because apples policy is you buy all apple products or things just don't work properly anymore.
Our personal computing devices should have the same sort of protections and affordances that our homes have. We should have an expectation of privacy and control over our domain. We should have the rights to build, repair, and more.
If we're not leasing a phone or leasing a house, if we are owners of the phone or the house, then we should have full control to every aspect of it.
But that, unfortunately seems to be the thinking behind most companies these days...that consumers don't own their phones, among other things, in fact most manufacturers seem to want to get onto thr bandwagon, they lease right to use them.
I'm fully in agreement with you though. Phones and most end consumer devices should not be treated as leased devices.
I may need to pay for a service to fully use said device, mobile data, wifi, etc. But those services should not be locked into one provider and should be seperate from the manufacturers.
Limits on repairs and modification should be few and a void warranty should be the steepest penalty. Modifying or repairing a device should not be grounds to have that device bricked at the whims of a manufacturer.
While I agree with this, I fear it requires legislative action. Third party doctrine effectively says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy (in the US) if data is transferred to a third party voluntarily.
That means most cloud or other "hosted" systems (which smart devices and phones have become near inexorably tied to, for the average user) offer users no expectation of privacy.
To regain this, you'd have to avoid backups to the cloud, or using any hosted service... Not easy for most users when it comes to email, or even storage. That seems to be the first logical step.
(And yes, I know end to end encryption can help, but usability is the issue for users here - end users aren't good at remembering long high entropy passphrases, or keeping bits of paper with recovery keys safe without being lost)
I think librem/purism has a point when you look at it isolated. But when looked at it holistically it completely missess the point. You can put in all the kill switches you want and sure thst will benefit in some small way but until the users data is with Apple/Google/Fb etc it dosnt matter Largely Which phone you use As you are still very exposed. Until that problem is solved (users truly owning their data) everything is simple a bandaid fix. Sure purism/librem might be a slightly better bandaid than what is offered by current vendors But it remains a bandaid never the less.
The reality today still is that you can’t have greatly useful tools and it’s super powerful functionality separated from where and how it’s data is stored. Until that is separation comes all these security and privacy issues can’t be solved at its root.
Once you look at it holistically you see it’s not just a hardware issue that you are dealing with. You are dealing with a much larger and complex set of issues: user caring about privacy; development of standards and tool that allow vendor agnostic data portability that still are as powerful as google sheets or say maps or keynote etc; pervasiveness of such tools as if only a small population of users are using those tools they are not very useful; business model that supports sustainable monetization of such tools so business can continue to provide such tools.
It’s quite complex and kill switches and secure hardware can’t solve for thst. At least not alone.
I know multiple people who use voice assistants like Alexa that are effectively wiretapping their house. When asked how they feel comfortable with that, they say, "Well, my phone's already compromised anyway..."
I think people do care about privacy, but right now they just don't see any practical way to make it happen. The root of it all is the smartphone itself, because "Don't use a smartphone" is not a serious option.
> The reality today still is that you can’t have greatly useful tools and it’s super powerful functionality separated from where and how it’s data is stored. Until that is separation comes all these security and privacy issues can’t be solved at its root.
Not sure what you mean here, sounds very vague. The operating system? PureOS is endorsed by the FSF. Cloud storage? Purism does not force into it and you can use Nextcloud.
> business model that supports sustainable monetization of such tools so business can continue to provide such tools.
One of the goals of Purism is to influence the phone industry.
> development of standards and tool that allow vendor agnostic data portability that still are as powerful as google sheets or say maps or keynote etc
GNU/Linux with its packages?
> pervasiveness of such tools as if only a small population of users are using those tools they are not very useful
> Your security and privacy aren’t really protected inside these walls because the main point of these security measures is to enforce control, security against attackers and protecting your privacy is mostly marketing spin.
The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. I'm not sure why we should assume it is true when two decades of history of malware on Windows (and to a lesser extent, Android) clearly demonstrate the problems with having no walls at all.
The irony of course being that this article itself is a marketing piece for this company's product.
Is it just me or does this feel to be written in a FUD marketing style? Very strong focus on fear in the writing and what seems like cherry picked examples.
Then again I have learned to have a defensive and negative reaction to anything that even smells like marketing so it's hard for me to tell anymore.
The target market for a Librem phone is people who are hardcore about privacy and/or computing freedoms, who are probably motivated at least partially by fear.
Yes this is marketing, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad. We should support competition in this industry, and any kind of attempts they put forth to market themselves. Especially for things that "hackers" care about.
There isn't enough competition. Don't try to ruin it for the little guys.
In Sweden, all users are locked to whatever OS:s our mobile ID verification app BankID [1] supports. Yes you can opt to use a physical 2fa device to log onto your bank, but you're missing out on 99% of the digital banking infrastructure.
So, even if I'd like to order one, I won't. The friction is too great.
I don't need much from a phone, and just about any Android-capable phone would work for me, as far as OS and hardware capabilities go. The thing that's going to keep me tied to a Google-controlled phone for the indefinite future is Google Fi. I'm not aware of any other cell service plan that does what Fi does: $20/mo base, $10/gig after that (with everything from 6G-15G at no additional cost, after which you either get unlimited throttled data, or can start paying $10/gig for again). And the most important part of that (for me) is that it's the same price no matter where you are in the world. I haven't been traveling this year, but normally I would, and there's no other way I know of to use my phone internationally for so little (at least not without constantly swapping SIMs and changing the phone number).
An alternative to making your phone is castle is not building your castles in the air. Don't use your phone as your primary computing device. You'll never be allowed to own your phone because it's a radio transmitter and it has a license, not you. You cannot own or control it.
I just want a phone with full Windows 10 that is as customizable as desktop computers are. Phones are very powerful nowadays. There's no reason for them to have the same limitations as 10 or even 5 years ago.
Windows 10? I don't even want that on my computer, let alone my phone. Of course a mainstream Linux OS (with real desktop+mobile convergence) would be quite nice, and both Purism and the pmOS community are working towards making that possible.
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.”
Except in a "State of emergency" in Victoria, Australia, in this present day.
> illustrates how Apple markets their castle’s defenses as protecting the castle residents when in reality it’s about controlling all that goes on inside the castle.
.. which ensures best in the market protection of the castle residents, for which they happily pay premium.
> The biggest threat to most people ends up not being from uninvited hackers, it’s from the apps Apple and Google do invite in that capture and sell your data.
Thats completely wrong. Apple does not make money on users data. They sell protected, private devices and services. Google is direct opposite.
Without commenting on the overall thesis, it's inaccurate to say that if Apple removes Fortnite from the AppStore that it is also removed from users phones.
Anyone who has already purchased Fortnite via the AppStore can still use it on their phone, in whatever version they had downloaded prior to the removal.
My phone is not a home. It’s a filament in a fabric of affordances. I rely on others to support those affordances. I pay for some of them with money. I don’t want a castle. I want a society.
Your phone contains records of all the actions you take with those affordances. What you are looking at, who you are talking to, messages you've sent, inside and outside apps, plus a time series of sensor data that position you and can give audio/video of you at all times...it is foolish not to treat access to this device with great care.
Yes, the phone is your castle, and the castle is breached.
By design. Whether that's by your phone automatically backing up your data to the cloud, or whether that's because your OS decides to roll out a 'track and trace' update to be used by governmental agencies, or any number of other possibilities.
Privacy cannot be regained by petitioning Google, Apple or the government for the features you think you should have - ie total control, repairability, headphone sockets, etc. You are the product.
When it turns out our own phones are snitches, the answer is to get out. Why stay in a breached castle? And these snitches can't get stitches. The only answer I see it to ditch the phone.
This is the content that really gives me hope. I think Purism is doing great work. But somehow I can't stop thinking that they are too small, and that these companies striving for user privacy and user choice should unite to make the fight against the Duopoly (Apple&Google) easier. I hope one day we can see a curated AppStore, ruled by an alliance formed by companies like Purism (e.g. Huawei -> HarmonyOS, Samsung -> TizenOS), but which doesn't impose what to install (people can opt-out without jail-breaking, like described in the article).
I want to like their phone, but this will be a lot like using Linux on the desktop in the 90s. Software won’t be available and it will get in the way of anything productive I need to do.
[+] [-] saagarjha|5 years ago|reply
This is a bit inaccurate; first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone and also because the apps pulled there did not go through the App Store, they were actually sideloaded using enterprise deployment. Apple does have the ability to remotely disable applications downloaded from the App Store, but to my knowledge it has never used this ability.
> These companies have built very sophisticated and secure defenses all in the name of protecting you from the world outside their walls, yet in reality the walls are designed to keep you inside much more than they are designed to keep attackers out. The security community often gets so excited about the sophistication of these defenses backed by secure enclaves and strong cryptography that their singular focus on what those defenses mean for attackers blinds them from thinking about what they mean for everyone else.
I mean, all you have to do is look at the things that are implemented to see that Apple's goal in many cases is to protect their software, not you. There is custom silicon in every recent iPhone that does nothing but stop modification of kernel code, even in the face of code execution and arbitrary read/write in EL1: interesting from an academic standpoint, but if you stop and think about it for more than a second it's entirely useless for actually protecting users.
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|5 years ago|reply
Seems like it is easy to trick the public into confusing one goal for another.
There seems to be an implicit rule in the Apple software scheme: Apple itself is "pre-certified" as trustworthy. Not only at the time point of hardware purchase, but endlessly into the future.
The user of course cannot revoke that "certification". The way these systems are structured today, the user effectively cannot decide after purchase "Thanks Apple, I got this. I'll take it from here." This is sort of implicit trustworthiness of hardware vendor as software vendor also underlies the contemporary concept of "updates". There is no genuine (viable) option for the user to say "no, thank you". Saying no would be deemed as ill-advised for a variety of reasons.
The one-time hardware purchase is transformed into an ongoing dependent relationship that can be, and in fact is, exploitive. Its primary reason for existence is as you suggest not to "protect" or otherwise benefit the user, but it can be contrued that way.
[+] [-] bad_user|5 years ago|reply
Source?
Apple's App Store has in fact a really good track record for stopping malware from reaching phones. Some mallware still got in, but AFAIK Apple has reacted promptly on discovery, and it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that their track record has been "spotty", and as implied, useless, because it isn't.
There are thousand of Windows PCs infected by botnet malware, per day.
Yes, if you'd remove the App Store, iOS devices would still be more secure because of the sandboxing. What Apple does however is a multi-layered approach to security. Which is why iOS devices are in fact the safest devices for consumers on the market.
You and I may not like it. I actually think Apple should allow third party sources, just like Android. But let's not pretend that there aren't security benefits to their App Store.
[+] [-] thatfrenchguy|5 years ago|reply
Every single malware (or jailbreak) wants to modify EL1 code, it's not just interesting from an academic standpoint.
[+] [-] spideymans|5 years ago|reply
Spotty relative to what? The App Store hasn’t had a 100% perfect record, but it’s pretty darn close to it. I really can’t think of any other software distribution channels for general purpose computing devices (including the open web) that have had a better security track record than the App Store
[+] [-] kgabbott|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] syshum|5 years ago|reply
Everything Apple does is in service of that goal.
This is why they are hardline on AppStore policies, and why they are hardline against Independent repair.
Any PR they have about protecting the user is just marketing
[+] [-] nodamage|5 years ago|reply
Can you elaborate on this with more detail about what you're specifically referring to?
[+] [-] noisy_boy|5 years ago|reply
I think in addition to the focus on hardware, one approach should be to provide the tools to the users for more control. Provide a rooted phone by default. Add tools that let me see what my phone is doing behind the scenes. Give me option to turn-off some of the things I don't like (e.g. an app is sending analytics to some domain, let me turn that part off without turning off the whole app in a relatively simple way). Help with planned obsolence by providing updates etc and so on.
Basically give back some control of jail/castle to the users without asking them to leave it completely.
Edit: one more thing, please add NFC. Going back to carrying boatload of cards again is not an option.
[+] [-] fsflover|5 years ago|reply
Librem 5 is rooted. It's basically just a Desktop computer in the form-factor of a phone.
> Add tools that let me see what my phone is doing behind the scenes.
Everything is open source. You have all the power to study what your phone is doing. Standard GNU/Linux tools should work.
> Give me option to turn-off some of the things I don't like
Everything is free software, you can change it as you like. Also, there is no analytics by default: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHcHi0TBFv4
> Help with planned obsolence by providing updates
Lifetime updates are promised. Even if the company dies, the community can support the phone, since it's FLOSS: https://wp.puri.sm/posts/librem-5-longevity-solving-the-prob...
> Edit: one more thing, please add NFC. Going back to carrying boatload of cards again is not an option
Unfortunately, not in the first version. One step at a time.
[+] [-] codethief|5 years ago|reply
As a freedom-, privacy- and also security-aware person, I disagree quite strongly. Phones should by default provide a way for people to modify their phone as they see fit but they should definitely not be rooted by default. The reason being that root access is, well, the root of all evil. Practically nothing has advanced end consumer device security in recent times as much as Apple and Google enforcing a secure boot chain (in particular: read-only root file systems), implementing heavy sandboxing and cutting down[0] on apps' permissions. All this is worth nothing if apps can obtain root and do whatever they want.
People often claim Linux (as a desktop OS) is secure. It's not by any standard. All the apps you use in your day-to-day tend to have full file system access to all your personal files and full network access. You've merely been lucky so far that you (hopefully) haven't gotten pwned by any rogue application.
I'm eagerly awaiting a time when my root file system will be read-only, my entire boot chain will be verified[1] and all my day-to-day applications will be fully sandboxed and only very few of them have network access.
[0] Granted, one might argue whether this is actually what Google has done.
[1] https://safeboot.dev.
[+] [-] otterlicious|5 years ago|reply
Going back to carrying boatload of cards again is not an option.
Google Pay doesn't (officially) work on rooted phones.
There are lots of other things like that, which is why it makes a lot of sense to ship phones not rooted, while still making it easy to do so.
[+] [-] birksherty|5 years ago|reply
https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacyLua
[+] [-] mvlpn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hevelvarik|5 years ago|reply
I’m happy to pay Apple to do it for me because my phone is nowhere near my main or most important computing device and I also quite like that they poke google and Facebook in the eye from time to time. Sure, Apple is just a profit driven enterprise like the rest but their business model is directly related to keeping users happy at least for some value of users and happy.
The only downside for me is that I can’t write an app for my device because I haven’t bought into the Apple computer ecosystem.
[+] [-] 29083011397778|5 years ago|reply
But for millions, their mobile device is their main or most important device, whether it runs iOS, iPadOS, or Android.
It can be their main device, with one example being Apple's divisive "What's a computer" ad. Another example is those that rely on mobile, due either to cost or lack of physical space for a desktop or laptop.
For others, their mobile is the most important, likely because that's where all their messages, contacts, location history, and more, resides.
[+] [-] Polylactic_acid|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghostpepper|5 years ago|reply
It seems a lot of people are happy to pay Apple to assume that role for their main computing device too.
[+] [-] fouc|5 years ago|reply
Our personal computing devices should have the same sort of protections and affordances that our homes have. We should have an expectation of privacy and control over our domain. We should have the rights to build, repair, and more.
If we're not leasing a phone or leasing a house, if we are owners of the phone or the house, then we should have full control to every aspect of it.
[+] [-] grawprog|5 years ago|reply
But that, unfortunately seems to be the thinking behind most companies these days...that consumers don't own their phones, among other things, in fact most manufacturers seem to want to get onto thr bandwagon, they lease right to use them.
I'm fully in agreement with you though. Phones and most end consumer devices should not be treated as leased devices.
I may need to pay for a service to fully use said device, mobile data, wifi, etc. But those services should not be locked into one provider and should be seperate from the manufacturers.
Limits on repairs and modification should be few and a void warranty should be the steepest penalty. Modifying or repairing a device should not be grounds to have that device bricked at the whims of a manufacturer.
[+] [-] g_p|5 years ago|reply
That means most cloud or other "hosted" systems (which smart devices and phones have become near inexorably tied to, for the average user) offer users no expectation of privacy.
To regain this, you'd have to avoid backups to the cloud, or using any hosted service... Not easy for most users when it comes to email, or even storage. That seems to be the first logical step.
(And yes, I know end to end encryption can help, but usability is the issue for users here - end users aren't good at remembering long high entropy passphrases, or keeping bits of paper with recovery keys safe without being lost)
[+] [-] quietthrow|5 years ago|reply
The reality today still is that you can’t have greatly useful tools and it’s super powerful functionality separated from where and how it’s data is stored. Until that is separation comes all these security and privacy issues can’t be solved at its root.
Once you look at it holistically you see it’s not just a hardware issue that you are dealing with. You are dealing with a much larger and complex set of issues: user caring about privacy; development of standards and tool that allow vendor agnostic data portability that still are as powerful as google sheets or say maps or keynote etc; pervasiveness of such tools as if only a small population of users are using those tools they are not very useful; business model that supports sustainable monetization of such tools so business can continue to provide such tools.
It’s quite complex and kill switches and secure hardware can’t solve for thst. At least not alone.
[+] [-] cthor|5 years ago|reply
I know multiple people who use voice assistants like Alexa that are effectively wiretapping their house. When asked how they feel comfortable with that, they say, "Well, my phone's already compromised anyway..."
I think people do care about privacy, but right now they just don't see any practical way to make it happen. The root of it all is the smartphone itself, because "Don't use a smartphone" is not a serious option.
[+] [-] knocte|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NotUsingLinux|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fsflover|5 years ago|reply
Not sure what you mean here, sounds very vague. The operating system? PureOS is endorsed by the FSF. Cloud storage? Purism does not force into it and you can use Nextcloud.
> business model that supports sustainable monetization of such tools so business can continue to provide such tools.
One of the goals of Purism is to influence the phone industry.
> development of standards and tool that allow vendor agnostic data portability that still are as powerful as google sheets or say maps or keynote etc
GNU/Linux with its packages?
> pervasiveness of such tools as if only a small population of users are using those tools they are not very useful
Yes, we need open standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard. Do you imply that until everything is an open standard, we cannot have a GNU/Linux phone?
[+] [-] tempodox|5 years ago|reply
Edit: Seems to be just a typo. I thought it was some obscure acronym and couldn't find a definition that made sense.
[+] [-] nodamage|5 years ago|reply
The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. I'm not sure why we should assume it is true when two decades of history of malware on Windows (and to a lesser extent, Android) clearly demonstrate the problems with having no walls at all.
The irony of course being that this article itself is a marketing piece for this company's product.
[+] [-] marcinzm|5 years ago|reply
Then again I have learned to have a defensive and negative reaction to anything that even smells like marketing so it's hard for me to tell anymore.
[+] [-] alfiedotwtf|5 years ago|reply
It’s bang on. You don’t own your iOS or Android phone, you’re renting a platform, which you be deplatformed without recourse.
[+] [-] dmurray|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fragsworth|5 years ago|reply
There isn't enough competition. Don't try to ruin it for the little guys.
[+] [-] notemaker|5 years ago|reply
So, even if I'd like to order one, I won't. The friction is too great.
[1]: https://www.bankid.com/en/
[+] [-] neom|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caymanjim|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superkuh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keenmaster|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zozbot234|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henry_bone|5 years ago|reply
Except in a "State of emergency" in Victoria, Australia, in this present day.
[+] [-] nuker|5 years ago|reply
.. which ensures best in the market protection of the castle residents, for which they happily pay premium.
> The biggest threat to most people ends up not being from uninvited hackers, it’s from the apps Apple and Google do invite in that capture and sell your data.
Thats completely wrong. Apple does not make money on users data. They sell protected, private devices and services. Google is direct opposite.
[+] [-] __d|5 years ago|reply
Anyone who has already purchased Fortnite via the AppStore can still use it on their phone, in whatever version they had downloaded prior to the removal.
[+] [-] pas|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtth|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megous|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feralimal|5 years ago|reply
By design. Whether that's by your phone automatically backing up your data to the cloud, or whether that's because your OS decides to roll out a 'track and trace' update to be used by governmental agencies, or any number of other possibilities.
Privacy cannot be regained by petitioning Google, Apple or the government for the features you think you should have - ie total control, repairability, headphone sockets, etc. You are the product.
When it turns out our own phones are snitches, the answer is to get out. Why stay in a breached castle? And these snitches can't get stitches. The only answer I see it to ditch the phone.
[+] [-] james412|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siwatanejo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rptr4|5 years ago|reply