"Rewind to 1973. The operating system common on microcomputers was CP/M. The CP/M operating system had no environment variables. That sounds like a strange place to start a discussion of environment variables, but it’s actually important."
4,439 karma · joined April 19, 2013
My point was that this is the direction the world is moving to. Maybe it's not total coverage yet, but every year more and more of our stuff only operates with verified trust through the entire process. Everything from video games to movies to programs. We're already sitting here complaining about Google enforcing developer verification, how long until Google turns on play integrity by default? And then how long until it's the only option? It'll come if something doesn't change.
And I still agree with the post way up above that these devices are too important now. I don't care about Google's interests here.
> Well, your bank is the one choosing to prevent your from running it on GrapheneOS. That's my whole point again! We need to regulate that: it should be forbidden to ban alternative OSes!
The bank isn't banning graphene os. They're banning anything Google labels as untrusted. I think that's an important distinction. This is Google's doing. I don't have the ability to declare "this is my device and I trust it and everything on it" to the banks. And I can see Google's point in that it would be extremely difficult to do this in a way that couldn't be exploited maliciously. Are there ways for the .001 percent of people out there who understand this? Absolutely. But only if our overlords let us and even then we're back to the point that this is only for the people in the know.
Which is why I personally don't think enforcing alt OSes will help. We have it now; most people don't know and wouldn't care if they did. Play protect is the same. The amount of people this would impact is beyond minimal. However the problem isn't minimal; this is already a huge problem and it's getting bigger quickly. Giving people the keys won't fix it fast enough, or for enough people.
Tech already controls our life and that fact is only getting more worrisome. It's past time for the governments to treat this the same as electricity. Everything standardized, everything regulated, and I can plug whatever the hell I want into it. I don't want to just break free for myself. In order to really make change, my grandma needs to think of her phone like a power outlet.
This is a great discussion, by the way.
However, there's a major caveat here. Google's play protect prevents me from using some apps on my phone running graphene. My banking app is one of them. Yes I know there's technical workarounds. Yes I know they have a website (for now). But the point is, this is the direction stuff is moving. Fully signed devices from power-on through the entire stack and a flag that warns software if that breaks. Yes, it's a win for security. But I have zero control. Google has all the keys to all the doors and graphene can't do anything about it. Nor can I. And Google has very little incentive to change this.
I fear this is the direction things are moving to. Phones will be tied to our identity. Web will be depreciated as a security risk. Only one of the two options you two are fighting over fixes this: power must be taken from these mega corporations.
Purely anecdotal, I know. But still, I prefer to think that all those people discovered this practical advice and are far happier for it. I've never met one that regretted their decision.
Hard to do that when the very thing you're fighting against drastically lowers the cost of the product.
No, this is what regulation and laws are for. Too bad science and the like seem to be on the way out currently. :/
Your point still stands though.
Is there still a reason to do this?
Frankly I'm surprised to see this here. Hackers have had more than their share of hurtful stereotype applied to both our hobby and our personality. We should know better. But perhaps there's a generational divide at work there.
I think I'll pass giving them a single cent.
It's hard to say it's not X when we can't really define X.
It's a fairly commonly-held belief that certain high up individuals want the protests to escalate so that they can point to them as examples of the lawlessness they've been warning about and/or declare martial law. That's just one reason protesters have been trying their utmost to not let things escalate. People are trying to do things "the right way" through legislation as well but that's extremely slow.