Comment on Anyone else guilty of this?
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 weeks agoIf it was primarily done for security then it was a massive fucking failure. But I maintain that security was merely a secondary concern.
Comment on Anyone else guilty of this?
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 weeks agoIf it was primarily done for security then it was a massive fucking failure. But I maintain that security was merely a secondary concern.
NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
What reason do you think? Also what makes you think it was a failure? Seems pretty successful to me.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
The app store and permission model hasn’t stopped malicious code from making it onto users devices. So if security was the concern, I’d say that’s a failure. But I think the primary concern was control. Control by manufacturers (And eventually, thereby states) of what people see and do on their phone. Make sure they have to pay for access to features. Easily surveil what they do.
NotANumber@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Your confusing different parts of the system here, and showing a lack of understanding of the security and privacy concepts involved.
Stopping malicious apps is not the point of the permissions model or of the file structure. It’s meant to restrict what malicious apps can do, not prevent them from being installed. It applies to side loaded apps just as much as ones from the play store. Malicious code ending up on users devices does not make that system a failure, as that was never the aim.
As for spying, the permissions model makes that harder as apps can’t just access all the files made by the other apps. These kinds of mechanisms also exist on desktop Linux via flatpak and snapcraft for similar reasons. Mandatory and discretionary access control is important for both security and privacy. The two are not at odds here, they are in fact very much aligned.
The app store part is separate and not at all what was being discussed. That is meant to stop malicious apps from getting onto devices. In the case of Apple this is definitely also about control, but android has always allowed third party apps and sideloading.
Google’s own services and Apple’s own services are part of the OS and potentially have access to things others don’t so can very much engage in spying. That could be said of any Android manufacturer with their own ROM. You can do whatever you want if you made the ROM, android permissions model be damned.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Sorry, I thought you were the kind of person who could handle a little casual disagreement. I don’t mind that you think security was the primary purpose of phone OS app land, but everything I’ve watched phone companies do over the past 20 years demonstrates to me that a desire for control was the main intent. You don’t have to agree.