Again, technological measures against this kind of attacks on ownership rights fall short and are probably what conglomerates want since it keeps the tech people busy in a self-satisfying "fight" against the big corporation.
This is the social solution. It's making users aware of the issue and pressuring them to not upgrade, and in the long run pressuring legislators to forbid such monopolistic practices if the average person dislikes it.
The establishments don't want to break up monopolies! They probably made a deal to allow them have monopolies in return for total dominance (don't think it is going so well).
Nothing will be resolve via legislation when the people making the bill are the same people in the revolving doors from the transnational corporations where the bill suppose to govern. A lot needs to be altered if we want this really to serve the 99%.
It's open source... We don't need legislation; you are free to do whatever you want, and open source provides those freedoms. You just want it to be the way you want it instead of it being the way that benefits the most people.
This "fight" will always be lost, because the other side is 99% of the population and they want to stop scammers more than they want to enable you to publish software to a personal tracking device anonymously...
99% of the population doesn't fall for scam apps outside the Play Store. They don't want to stop app scammers, because they don't have any issue with them. It's only a small minority which does, and which is supposed to justify the new restrictions in Android.
No, they're not. And by saying that, you're proven why the "fight" will also result in the other side winning. Ignorant, pedantic, arrogant, and entitled technical people vs the rest.
99.9% of scams on Android/iOS happen by making people install remote assistance apps from... the "100% safe" app stores. So, no, you're completely wrong.
Of course they are edge cases. How many people do you think install third-party apps on Android? Pretty sure hardly anyone does that.
Also, Windows works pretty well with software from third-party sources, or would you forbid them in Windows as well? Sure, there are the occasional crypto scams which disable a hospital here and there, but this can arguably be prevented by not giving non-admins admin permissions.
> Of course they are edge cases. How many people do you think install third-party apps on Android? Pretty sure hardly anyone does that.
Yeah, which is why no one with any sense is going to be fighting againist this. Third-party installs on Android are largely scams. I don't think you've thought this through.
> Also, Windows works pretty well with software from third-party sources, or would you forbid them in Windows as well?
Windows is well known for being insecure compared to others. Apple have also worked to secure users against third-party apps.
> Sure, there are the occasional crypto scams which disable a hospital here and there, but this can arguably be prevented by not giving non-admins admin permissions.
Don't they use local privilege escalation attacks as part of the attack?
They don't need to do that to scam her. They already have her on the phone - they don't need the malicious app now and theyre not gonna do it because it's too much work for no extra gain.
Just point granny to the super secure Play Store and have her download anydesk and boom, now you remote control her entire phone. And you didn't even need to hire a development team to do it.
You need legislation.