[simonask]

Their point stands, though. The vast majority of users do not have either kind of control, so it is a very small concession to them in favor of securing their device against a malicious actor taking control.

I think this is what commenters here are missing. I agree politically with the notion that people should own their devices (having full control), but the reality is not and will never be that the majority have anything but the illusion of control. Meanwhile, as these devices become increasingly necessary for people to exist at all, and the data they store becomes increasingly sensitive, the ability to theoretically install your own software is completely irrelevant compared to the risk of anything bad happening.

Things that would be compromised if my phone is compromised: All private communication, bank accounts, stock portfolio, medical history, driver's license, criminal record, sexual history, grocery habits, all communication between my government and me, real estate deeds and mortgages, two-factor authentication keys, and I suppose my Steam library.

Like, that's a lot. People can lose their homes. The stakes are unfathomably high here.

[const_cast]

The horse is driving the carriage here.

Why and how is this protecting against a malicious actors? You can't skip that part.

What about malicious actors that are entrenched, like Meta and even Google? Does this not strengthen them?

[simonask]

It's pretty clearly an attempt to establish a clear chain of trust. If you are making a malicious app, the first thing you want to do is hide your identity. It is incredibly important that users can know whose code they are running, and who is responsible for the behavior of the malicious app that destroyed their life.

I can't say whether the specific implementation will be an improvement, but that is clearly the intent.

Meta and Google have not shown themselves to be "malicious" in sense that is relevant to this discussions. Whatever shady practices they may or may not have is very likely entirely within the law, and they are strongly motivated to protect people's personal data, because they will not have users (i.e., their product) if their platforms are insecure.

[const_cast]

Meta has been shown to be malicious, up to an including violating permission controls to exfiltrate cookies from the browser with the facilitation of an android app.

The only reason, and it is the only reason, you do not view Meta as a malicious actor is because they've told you many times they are not.

Most Meta and Google products could be described as keyloggers or spyware. Many break permissions expectations - for example, Google apps have special privileges that allow them to circumvent some permissions on Android.

In addition, both Meta and Google products are primarily ad driven, with the majority of ads being scams. Again, virtually identical to other malicious apps.

Is any of this legal? Maybe, maybe not, you signed a EULA. But if all it takes is a EULA, then most android malware is not malware, and we're back at square one: play protect will not do anything.

And, to be clear, this is intentional. It is not Googles intention to squander malware because they rely on malware. No malware on Android and they go bankrupt.

It is their intention to further extract value out of the Google play store by leveraging their mandatory 30% cut. As well as making Android a more locked down platform and thereby more attractive to advertisers and DRM distributors.

[simonask]

I'm sorry, but I don't think it's reasonable to equate the shady business practices of organizations like Meta to crypto-blackmailing malware.

[const_cast]

That's just one type of malware - spyware is also malware.

The only difference between a malicious app exfilitrating your cookies through an exploit and Meta exfilitrating your cookies through an exploit is you trust Meta won't use your cookies to impersonate you, steal your browser sessions, drain your bank account, etc.

But that's just pure trust. Meta could easily have a leak - Experian had a leak and people lost millions of dollars.

[concinds]

Exactly.

"Free" devices exist. Linux computers. Linux phones. No codesigning, minimal sandboxing, none of that "malevolent" stuff from macOS/Windows/Android. Knock your socks off. You have a choice. Ideologically wanting everyone's devices to be like this is not sensible.

This isn't like anticompetitive behavior (bundling, lock-in, fees) where "you have a choice" is irrelevant because corporate power should be minimized and competition and consumer surplus should be maximized. Tradeoffs between security and nerd-fantasy "freedom" are valid.

I still remember that piece about the tween girl getting her nudes exposed because of a RAT. True "freedom" with technology, for non-nerds, means being able to use technology to pursue your passions, learn singing, fashion, dancing, without having to be terrified that this computer might destroy your life. That's "freedom" for 99% of folks. But the high-empathy folks here will respond "user error", "personal responsibility", "you should have known not to click that". You aren't entitled to be care-free, to have a life, to pay no attention to boring nerd stuff. Become a dead-inside geek like us, you bottom-quintile person, or else.