1417
don't let google alter the deal (thelemmy.club)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.world
185 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Security should not control us, we should control security. In other words, this is not the right solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    There's a middle ground between complete disregard and complete lockdown. If you've got a better solution to scammers that isn't going to drain your battery, invade your privacy, or hog up resources, I'm all ears. Grow up a little and maybe stop being so "me" centric.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    Tone it down. Do you still want to be nurtured by the big corporations like them being your mommy? A solution is already out there, it is called secure boot. Google has unnecessarily convoluted the boot chain, and even the OS VM.

    Do you think UEFI on a smartphone is a bad idea?

    Also, the Android VM is not even necessary, it just makes development cumbersome, cross-platform compatibility worse, and I could go on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    It's not for me. It's for the tech illiterate. Secure boot doesn't stop you from granting remote access apps from running.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Security at the userspace level should be taken care of by the company behind the apps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •