| Not dismiss but inquire. I don't know enough about Pine, but aapl/goog have had hackers battle testing their platforms for a while. I don't see how an open platform can leapfrog ahead unless aapl/goog truly are sabotaging security for "big bro" yes, cloud is a big hole, but are we hiding from the law? aapl only responds to warrant requests -- supposedly. (on a side note, afaik, aapl is building their own baseband proc, which presumably will be a good thing for security) What you said makes a ton of sense, but curious to see in practice how the security of such a device will hold up. you'd have to expect that the platform will have holes, being so new -- and that there wont be enough eyes on, not without adoption. paradox. yes, open device means far greater flexibility on security posture but this presumes a mature, battle tested tool set. (and may or may not be built on a better foundation than corporate closed phone tech -- hence inquiry) contrarily and back to my original inquiry -- i still wonder if there are fundamental design choices inherent to Pine that separate it from (or bring it on par with) commercial offerings. (besides those elucidated by you and another commenter -- thanks). for instance, physical boundaries such as a secure enclave, etc i challenge the notion about aapl and casual hackers. every non-trivial platform has bugs, whether open or closed. there isn't a way to casually own an up to date iOS device, for instance -- if one had such an exploit it would be worth a lot of money to aapl or a broker sorry for free form reply |