this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
966 points (98.4% liked)
Privacy
9699 readers
291 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Security should not control us, we should control security. In other words, this is not the right solution.
There's a middle ground between complete disregard and complete lockdown. If you've got a better solution to scammers that isn't going to drain your battery, invade your privacy, or hog up resources, I'm all ears. Grow up a little and maybe stop being so "me" centric.
Tone it down. Do you still want to be nurtured by the big corporations like them being your mommy? A solution is already out there, it is called secure boot. Google has unnecessarily convoluted the boot chain, and even the OS VM.
Do you think UEFI on a smartphone is a bad idea?
Also, the Android VM is not even necessary, it just makes development cumbersome, cross-platform compatibility worse, and I could go on.
It's not for me. It's for the tech illiterate. Secure boot doesn't stop you from granting remote access apps from running.
Security at the userspace level should be taken care of by the company behind the apps.
You mean the side loaded app anyone could make to allow remote device use of a phone if you install it?
No, take an example of a 2FA mandatory authentication for a bank transaction, security taken care at userspace.