zlacker

>>joseph+(OP)
This story with restricting users is a similar one to Manifest V3 in Chromium.

But we don't have anything like FF as an alternative to go from Android. Especially considering banks require "certified OS".

>>zx8080+E7
I switched to a Linux smartphone because I've had enough of the duopoly.

I also switched banks so I can use my bank card as the 2FA device, similar to CAP. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_Program

>>Hackbr+Wd
Probably in the long run the only way to go will be to own/carry two devices. A long supported phone with stock firmware and apps you are "forced" to use to interface with the world around you, and a second Linux portable machine where you have your freedom.

>>jwrall+Dm
No, it's not "long supported" phone fallacy.

Google and by extension banks, are claiming that the phone on, Android 9, without security updates AT ALL since 2009 is perfectly safe and secure to use.

Meanwhile, really well locked OS, hardened so well some of the improvements were later picked up upstream (both by Google and Apple), running _the_ latest AOSP version and releasing new security updates within hours is not considered safe and secure, despite assuring full chain of trust (including locked bootloader, verified boot, etc).

This is what Play Integrity does.

Of course Android supports better scheme, hardware attestation, but od course Google enforces their iron grip on the ecosystem, and instead uses the outdated, flaved system that certifies only the devices with preinstalled Google services running in the privileged mode. Snooping on everything you do and have.

Thats the reason.

>>subscr+2u
When 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.

>>bakugo+1K
The irony is those are the same words Android users say about Apple & iOS.