alt Hacker NewsWhen companies like Google talk about a device being "secure", they don't mean secure from malicious third parties, they mean secure from the user. The device is considered "secure" if the user cannot do anything with it that Google does not approve of.
Replies
This is my exact feeling. Louis Rossman talks so much about this (YouTube). I think the only secure device now is a dumb phone.
I am really learing to live life without the internet anymore. Between the lock in, the privacy risks, and just the hassle, it is easier to act like I am living back in the 1990's and just get used to the "inconvenience" of life without a smartphone. I can leave my smartphone in a faraday bag and just pull it out when I need it, or just wait to be in wifi. (I am homeless living in a minivan so this makes it much harder for me.)
I just do not know how much this will effect GrapheneOS or I would get a Pixel 9a. It seems like it will not, at least for the older phones.
At least we still have linux (for now).
But more and more computer technology is looking like a trap.
If anyone has any recommendations for a dumb phone that will work with AT&T please let me know.
That's it. It is a device secure for Google to:
* Enforce Hardware-DRM * Enforce PlayServices * Enforce apps which don't circumvent their business model e.g. YouTube-Downloaders ("Watch my ad again...") * Payment fees from PlayStore
Taking a look at the dangerous crap in the official Play Store confirms that. It is full of awful and dangerous apps. It was never about the security of the user.