Comment by Klonoar

9 months ago

The comment you're responding to includes the line:

> The move, developed in partnership with Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency, is designed to prevent fraud and malware-enabled scams.

Your comment seems to disregard it and instead lay this entirely at Google's feet as if they're seeking anti-competitive behavior - but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame?

(Note that I am explicitly not endorsing the move. I think sideloading should be left mostly untouched.)

9 comments

Klonoar

Reply
azalemeth  9 months ago

Singapore is far from a nation known for free speech or to pick the side of liberty should it come into conflict with security. I've no doubt whatsoever that approved apps on a CTS "hardware backed" remote attestation phone is more secure. It's also possible to remotely own such a device unambiguously, and provides a central place where apps can be taken offline. It's win win from the point of view of a security agency. It's not from mine.

m4rtink  9 months ago

Isn't the Singapore government pretty authoritarian? They might have other motivation than just pure user security.

soulofmischief  9 months ago

> Your comment seems to disregard it

Because it's irrelevant.

> but if this was driven by a government, does Google really deserve all the blame?

Of course. If the government ordered Google to assist in a genocide against some demographic, and Google goes along with it, it doesn't matter if the government is also evil. Google is evil for playing ball.

And we don't have to speak in hypotheticals. Both Google and Amazon are actively engaging in tech-assisted genocide.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nim...

I have boycotted Amazon for a while now and I'd boycott Google too if it wasn't so pervasive in my professional life.