If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the software company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of?

like xiaomi did, in the past at least. if you can reinstall the official software, you can receive service under warranty

My point here is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to legally require a software company to

phone manufacturers are hardware companies first and foremost

It’s fair for them to flash the original software as part of any diagnostic or service process

only fair if it does not come with any data loss. so basically not actually fair

and what will store the authentication information, safely, if not a password manager? and don’t say that everyone will have a hardware security token

Because webauthn does not give anything that a proper password manager couldn’t automate anyway

the pin is a per-device thing, you need to set it up first to use it

won’t fix the problem.

won’t fix the problem.

honestly, with that level of carelessness or stupidity they really shouldn’t use a smartphone

honestly, with that level of carelessness or stupidity they really shouldn’t use a smartphone

that’s roughly what I experience too. It’s like if they would see a colorful pane of glass, but could not make a distinction between the “boxes” on the screen

on the contrary

doesn’t need to remember the master password if you set up an unlock PIN. Actually I think maybe it’s a bad idea to let them remember the master password, because they may just type it in everywhere expecting it to work…

surveillance cameras out in the forest? what a time to be alive! say bye bye to privacy even out in the nature, because everything must be watched

maybe the most raw form of corporate media

well not sure if fixable

there is no way to verify the downloaded package before installation.

also I generally deem both webusb, and chrome’s broader filesystem access apis dangerous, partly because a vulnerability in the website permission checking code with this permission is much worse than with e.g. the camera.
but the more realirealistic problem is that its just too easy to grant a random website so deep permissions to your device, either by accident, by habit or because the user does not understand what is happening. just a click or two and you have just granted a ransom website full access to your drive. with webusb, they can even write a bootable anything to your pendrive.

my concern here is not that you cannot make sure that the graphene website will only do what it needs to, but that the feature exists at all, because of all the other websites. I sincerely bless mozilla for not implementing these.

oh google pay, I see. but that’s not NFC’s fault, it’s useful for other things too.

speaking about it, I’m not sure google pay will work. but I never used it, so I don’t know for sure, but there’s this suspicion after what banks do

that’s the spirit

LOS has privacy issues though, if I remember correctly. like, default DNS server is 8.8.8.8of google, assisted gps contacts a global server of I think qualcomm to speed up getting a GPS fix, and others I don’t remember now

If someone finds your phone can’t they just tear it apart and read the storage with external tools?

that’s not the problem that BL locking solves. this is solved by storage encryption. BL locking solves 2 other problems:

• helps keeping stolen phone from being wiped, though maybe it’s not 100%
• makes it much harder to plant malware on your phone while it’s not with you