> What about things like malware not being able to steal all of your accounts from your device?
The android (or apple, or whatever) security model doesn't stop that. Malware will perpetually be one zero day away from having root.
It is true that those security models do a decent job of stopping users from shooting themselves in the foot, at least in certain ways. The way they go about it isn't of value to me though.
> > I can never be confident that I'm not being watched.
> Most operating systems have implemented features to let you know when the camera is being used.
Obviously I am referring either to the author of the OS or to the device vendor here (which one depends on the scenario being considered). In either case you can't rely on that party to voluntarily report their own wrongdoing. Hence my reference to a code auditing arrangement.
> > Ad tech is a massive industry.
> Adtech is not spy tech. And it doesn't work by seeing everything you do.
I don't know if you're delusional or interacting in bad faith but either way it doesn't seem we're going to get anywhere when you're saying things like this. It is plainly obvious that there are all sorts of motivations for spyware to exist.
A fairly simple proof is it currently exists, it was created, someone was motivated to do that.
> I fail to sympathize when these "detriments" are antisocial things like being unable to cheat in games or being unable to pirate copyrighted works.
The long term detriments are things like living in an authoritarian panopticon and needing permission from unelected corporate overlords to run any particular app, all on a device that (in the future) you absolutely depend on to perform even basic functions in society. Computer security and the BigTech anti-user security model are entirely different things that you are intentionally conflating here. Your world view resembles a cardboard cutout manufactured at a business strategy meeting.
The android (or apple, or whatever) security model doesn't stop that. Malware will perpetually be one zero day away from having root.
It is true that those security models do a decent job of stopping users from shooting themselves in the foot, at least in certain ways. The way they go about it isn't of value to me though.
> > I can never be confident that I'm not being watched.
> Most operating systems have implemented features to let you know when the camera is being used.
Obviously I am referring either to the author of the OS or to the device vendor here (which one depends on the scenario being considered). In either case you can't rely on that party to voluntarily report their own wrongdoing. Hence my reference to a code auditing arrangement.
> > Ad tech is a massive industry.
> Adtech is not spy tech. And it doesn't work by seeing everything you do.
I don't know if you're delusional or interacting in bad faith but either way it doesn't seem we're going to get anywhere when you're saying things like this. It is plainly obvious that there are all sorts of motivations for spyware to exist.
A fairly simple proof is it currently exists, it was created, someone was motivated to do that.
> I fail to sympathize when these "detriments" are antisocial things like being unable to cheat in games or being unable to pirate copyrighted works.
The long term detriments are things like living in an authoritarian panopticon and needing permission from unelected corporate overlords to run any particular app, all on a device that (in the future) you absolutely depend on to perform even basic functions in society. Computer security and the BigTech anti-user security model are entirely different things that you are intentionally conflating here. Your world view resembles a cardboard cutout manufactured at a business strategy meeting.