This already exists for businesses with Samsung Knox / Android for Business. No it's not a full OS but it fits all of their needs and separates data. Having one OS in a "vm" on a phone sounds horrible UX wise.
This already exists for businesses with Samsung Knox / Android for Business. No it's not a full OS but it fits all of their needs and separates data. Having one OS in a "vm" on a phone sounds horrible UX wise.
[0] https://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/closed-b...
I had to use a profile for my banking app to isolate it from all my personal apps, instead. But it seems that Google doesn't' even care that much about the multi-profile functionality, as it seems to crash quite often and has other issues. I imagine they don't put it through a lot of Q&A with each new Android release.
Even so, having to change between profiles often just to get that kind of isolation is quite frustrating.
Without strong controls about what they can do, we are always at the whim of what they might do. Google feels like a fairly bipolar company from the outside, because they present two faces depending on who they are dealing with, end-users or companies looking to advertise.
As an end-user, Google knowing all the little details about everything I do and many places I go (because analytics JS, G+ button inclusion, etc) is disconcerting. For a company looking to advertise, them not doing this all of a sudden would be disconcerting, and they would probably look to some other company that is doing so. It isn't just Google. Facebook knows a startlingly large amount about you too.
I'm increasingly convinced this is one of those places where the market is failing us because the negative externalities are mostly hidden. Those are good places for targeted regulation. I wouldn't be entirely appeased, but a law about the ability to review all information collected about you from a company and strong controls about the access, sale and use of this information would go a long way towards making me less worried about Google (or whoever) changing quite a bit in the next decade and selling off the information.[1]
Because think about it, how far away are Google, Facebook and the umpteen other ad agencies with complex profiles of you from usurping the credit bureaus?
1: Maybe what we need is an interesting billionaire to buy a lot of personal information on all the U.S. politicians from one of the less public agencies and publish it. I'm sure we would get a law passed in record time.
But do you honestly see an outcome where information is not collected at all? Because I don't, so as I see it we need to put the correct incentives in place to not only make it less likely but to handle when it inevitably does.
Maybe a fine up to $X per account leaked with a soft cap (but absolutely no less than $1 or $2 per account) is levied. Losing 1 million accounts would hurt, so companies would make real decisions about what and when to collect data for liability reasons, and protect it better in many cases when they did.
Well, it's a question of what one is willing to pay. Me, I'm willing to pay actual U. S. dollars to Apple to get that same functionality without giving up (and perhaps I'm naive here) privacy. Personally, I like that well-defined transaction. The transaction that has taken place between yourself (and to some degree, me) and Google is much more fuzzy. Today Google does this with your data, but tomorrow? You call it "adjusting the service", I call it "getting more creepy". No right or wrong, you're happy, I'm happy, but from my POV there is a vast gulf in the price paid for the two competing services.
The instant Apple starts doing Googly stuff, I'll dump them for the real thing. But I'll betcha Apple is quite aware of this.
Instead of having companies own data (Google/Facebook), all data resides in public databases. This would work for services that do not need sensitive data and can be anonymized, such as what videos do I watch, what words I type/search, etc.
This would help both privacy (I know what data is being recorded) and help small competitors thrive.
I believe most android people are doing this with users.
Since Android is now up to the task of docker (kernel 3.10+), it would be very nice to see apps sandboxed with permissions exposed via networked APIs.
Then it is impossible for an app (sans exploit) to access private data, and simple for the OS to route certain apps to certain data sets (ie, fake contacts for apps that shouldn't need your damn contact to begin with).
CyanogenMod accomplished some of this through various methods, but they were detectable. If you build it this way, it should be entirely undetectable.
The sandbox doesn't do the isolation that docker can. It uses user isolation like I mentioned. The difference is that Binder is Java on top of the kernel, while docker is isolating from the kernel itself.
Without access to the service, it is impossible, sans-kernel-exploit, to escape the permissions jail, or even tell if you are in a permissions jail if someone gives your app fake contact information by routing it to a different service.
Docker isn't perfect. It had a serious CVE recently. I'm certainly not saying it is absolutely better. I'm just saying that I think they are fundamentally different and that process level isolation is superior to user level isolation.