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
Only because it's there. I don't think the would demand it if it wasn't offered, but once it's there imagine being in a bank and saying to management "it recommend we don't enable this security feature that works on 99.99999% of phones".

>>IshKeb+g82
As someone who used to work for a bank building applications I would say no. This is definitely a feature companies and organizations like banks would request if it wasn't available.

There are a lot of scams targeting vulnerable people and these days attacking the phone is a very "easy" way of doing this.

Now perhaps there is a more forgiving way of implementing it though. So your phone can switch between trusted and "open" mode. But realistically I don't think the demand is big enough for that to actually matter.

>>mhast+ua2
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking leads to insane situations such as the South Korean banking cartel which requires users to install several pieces of "security software"[1] which make your computer more vulnerable to security issues[2] and almost certainly doesn't protect anyone from actual fraud -- classic security theatre.

There needs to be a point where enough is enough, and locking down devices so that you cannot install programs nor practically use custom operating systems on them anymore is way past that line.

[1]: https://palant.info/2023/01/02/south-koreas-online-security-... [2]: https://ee.kaist.ac.kr/en/research-achieve/in-south-korea-ma...