zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
Meaning to use your device you need to have a contractual relationship with a foreign (unless you are in the US) third party that decides what you can or cannot do with it. Plus using GrapheneOS is less of an option every day, since banks and other "regulated" sectors use Google Play Protect and similar DRMs to prevent you from connecting from whatever device you want. Client-side "trust" means the provider owning the device, not the user.

Android shouldn't be considered Open Source anymore, since source code is published in batches and only part of the system is open, with more and more apps going behind the Google ecosystem itself.

Maybe it's time for a third large phone OS, whether it comes from China getting fed up with the US and Google's shenanigans (Huawei has HarmonyOS but it's not open) or some "GNU/Linux" touch version that has a serious ecosystem. Especially when more and more apps and services are "mobile-first" or "mobile-only" like banking.

>>arielc+542
I think Play Integrity is the fundamental issue here, and needs to go. That's the crux of the issue.

Allowing apps to say "we only run on Google's officially certified unmodified Android devices" and tightly restricting which devices are certified is the part that makes changes like this deeply problematic. Without that, non-Google Android versions are on a fair playing field; if you don't like their rules, you can install Graphene or other alternatives with no downside. With Play Integrity & attestation though you're always living with the risk of being cut off from some essential app (like your bank) that suddenly becomes "Google-Android-Only".

If Play Integrity went away, I'd be much more OK with Google adding restrictions like this - opt in if you like, use alternatives if you don't, and let's see what the market actually wants.

>>pimter+V42
Banks seem to actually "want" Play Integrity. At least they act like it. I bet they would like for normal online banking on user-controlled devices to completely go away.

>>avhcep+X52
Of course they do, and of course they would. Banks are in a crazy legal position where they are financially liable for user stupidity. If my bank account gets breached, it doesn't matter that I didn't take any reasonable security measures, the bank will still have to refund me. If the bank could say "you didn't follow our recommended security practices to use a PW manager and MFA or passkeys, so it's a FAFO situation for you," then they wouldn't be pushing for this stuff. But they can't do that because the government doesn't allow them to.

There is even government regulator pressure now for financial services to be liable for cases where the user legitimately authorizes a transaction to a party that turns out to be a scammer. Of course the banks want to watch your every move and control your devices. They would be stupid not to given the incentives.

>>termin+vv2
I understand all that but I don't see how that's any less secure than a browser.

>>parine+eB2
My bank doesn't allow access through a browser. It has to be the app or else you have to travel to their HQ in person (I guess) and close your account.

>>immibi+eE2
Can I ask what bank and why on Earth you continue to give them your business?

I guess I'm unusual in that I've been using an "online" only bank for 20 years (back then it wasn't so online... I had a stack of UPS overnight envelopes for check deposits), but I cannot imagine patronizing a bank that won't let me log in and do basically anything from a browser.

>>0xffff+5L2
I have never seen a bank that allows mobile deposits from a browser. I have always seen it require an app.