• gsv@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Do I get this right? A hand full of OS devs who also sell phones form a group that attests combinations of phones and certified copies of their OSs as secure?
    Sounds like self-verifying the own ecosystem of devices and OSs in a cartel-like consortium. But wasn’t that to be circumvented? Shouldn’t the certifying body be independent of the certified products?

    I am having questions.

      • Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        “New Consortium wants to be the arbiter of which phone OSs are allowed to access basic features. Spoiler: it’s theirs.”

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          banning the thing. It’s not bad because it’s google, it’s bad because it takes away our freedom of choosing whichever devices and operating systems we want

            • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              i don’t understand the reference. We don’t want the fence built. The fence is not already there and we all have no idea of the reason it was put up. On the contrary, we don’t want it up because we know the reason. This will not help security. This will help no one