Comment by why_at
8 hours ago
>On the other hand, being cryptographically locked-down is an optional feature. If you don't like it, buy a computer without that feature.
But that's the thing, where can I buy a phone without a locked-down operating system? GrapheneOS on a Google Pixel is basically the only option right now, and this still has problems thanks to hardware attestation in a lot of apps that the ecosystem forces us to use.
This is largely because Apple has dictated the direction of smartphones for the past two decades. All of our expectations for control over our phones are completely out of whack compared to other computers.
Somehow we managed to survive without the majority of society being scammed out of their life savings before Apple came in with the iPhone and locked down iOS, and yet now people are earnestly defending the notion that 90% of people should not even have access to the filesystem on their own device.
> All of our expectations for control over our phones are completely out of whack compared to other computers.
I would, sadly, challenge this. If anything, our desktops and laptops are the exception now. Phones, TVs, game consoles, set top boxes, cars, Amazon echos, ebook readers, tablets, security cameras, autonomous devices like vacuum cleaners — when I think of the myriad devices we interact with that have a computer in them, they are all as stringently locked down as possible.
> hardware attestation in a lot of apps that the ecosystem forces us to use
Only a tiny amount of apps force you into hardware attestation, and these are mostly around banking, mobile payments and the like. So just use a separate, locked down device for those (where the anti-fraud protection of a locked-down system can be a benefit) and your more open day-to-day device for mostly everything else. A hidden advantage is that the dedicated device for secure uses is not something that you're forced to carry with you; you can leave it in a secure place instead.
>Only a tiny amount of apps force you into hardware attestation
Luckily this is still true, but I'm not confident that it will stay this way. For a few examples, I've been unable to use my phone as a metro card in my city because even though it goes through the metro's app, the app redirects back to google pay. Google's own Waymo app won't work without stock OS even though all it does is call robotaxis.
>these are mostly around banking, mobile payments and the like. So just use a separate, locked down device for those
I don't think this is a very reasonable suggestion, carrying around a second phone that I use at most a couple of times a day is inconvenient and expensive. Half of the point of these is convenience and this would defeat the purpose.
The broader point is that our standards for phones are so different from everything else. I also carry around a credit card which requires no authorization to use, not to mention cash. I can have just as much personal data on my laptop if not more, so why does it have to be this way just for phones?
I was able to get Waymo to work on GrapheneOS, but it took some doing, and relies on the GrapheneOS developers hacking around the official Google Play services in some way. Waymo definitely made it more difficult than it needs to be to run this on something other than ordinary Android, and it's unclear if they did so in order to make themselves more money, or simply because doing things the official Google Android way is easier for them and they aren't even thinking about people who are trying to have a less-restricted smartphone OS.
Be sure to give apps that behave that way one-star reviews.
I just tested Waymo and my usual solution of Magisk Play Integrity Fix was insufficient, suggesting hardware-backed attestation. This is the kind of crap Microsoft was doing that inspired Google to put "don't be evil" in its mission statement. We all know how that went.
2 replies →
And what gives you the confidence that the amount of apos will stay tiny?
>Somehow we managed to survive without the majority of society being scammed out of their life savings before Apple came in with the iPhone and locked down iOS
What on earth are you talking about? People have been getting scammed since the days of AOL! What an insane perspective. It's not about total money lost from scams. It's about the amount of impact it has on the individuals who get scammed. What's the problem with Russian roulette after all? Most people playing Russian Roulette are absolutely fine! The point is that the damage done to the few people who get scammed is so high, we ought to care about their lives too. At the end of the day, it might end up being us... it probably won't, but it might.
Yes, monopolistic network effects are a problem, but that can be handled with regulation.