Hacker News Reader

Comment by vekatimest | Hacker News Reader

I thought that was just for unlocked bootloaders, I've never encountered issues having sideloading enabled.

Weirdly enough I've yet to encounter a "major" app that objected to LineageOS, microG, or an unlocked bootloader. I'm sure they exist but it seems at least some of the big players in the US aren't so unreasonable about it.

From a security perspective it makes sense. If an app actively abuses such information it would be easy enough to hide it in a future build. The only way around that is an attestation scheme such as SafetyNet.

Depends on where you are

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/uob-dbs-introduce-new...

Weird. I've experienced the issue with various apps getting upset when another one is displaying over it. I like to have a little YouTube video playing in a popout and some buttons will refuse to press when this is present. I can't imagine this plays well will magnifiers or other assistive tech, but I understand their worry that a malicious developer could contrive to make you click a wrong button by covering the relevant context.

As for getting upset about sharing a phone with unapproved apps, I think this is a failure of sandboxing. The app should see as much of the phone as I want it to and no more.

Really don't know how it works. There are many reports of people just clicking one link and the entire phone gets taken over, bank accounts drained.

These days banks have KYC and should know who finally gets the money. Even across borders except perhaps in North Korea etc. for those countries that don't co-operate entire SWIFT system must be blocked.

But for some reason they try other things, blame users but never claw back

Sadly this blame-shifting isn't even new.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E

Reply on news.ycombinator.com