[fluidcruft]

I don't know that sounds pretty dumb on the whole. The key challenge is determine who is at fault in the event of a breach. I don't think it's reasonable to hold companies responsible for privacy while also requiring them to allow privacy to be invaded.

[JoshTriplett]

The current situation is that banks regularly require the use of an unmodified, unrooted Android or iOS device, which reinforces the duopoly and makes it impossible for anyone to compete. (Even emulating Android doesn't help, as emulated Android won't pass the checks banks do to make sure you don't have control of your device.)

That situation is not acceptable. Got something better than insults like "pretty dumb" to say about how to resolve this abuse of the two-player oligopoly in the mobile phone market?

[fluidcruft]

I actually did explain specifically why it was pretty dumb and you ignored that point completely.

[JoshTriplett]

You are uncritically repeating the party line from banks who claim it is necessary for security, without giving any rationale or supporting evidence, and coupling it with an insult.

[fluidcruft]

The "party line" is not that holding companies accountable for security and also requiring them to be insecure is inconsistent.

[JoshTriplett]

The incorrect party line is that allowing rooting and running your own OS and apps is insecure.

Meanwhile, those same banks have websites.

[fluidcruft]

Have you tried using your web browser to buy gas or ride the bus?