Looking at recent Samsung devices, is Google Services Framework really that integral to the security of my device that I must be forbidden from disabling that package? Isn't there an alternative way to achieve a comparable level of security, but without slurping up my personal data?
The consequence of security does not have to be a complete loss of control, nor the inability to prevent in a practical way the collection of our personal data.
Not to mention the whole security argument falls apart when perfectly fine Android devices are left without security updates 2-3 years after purchase.
I’m still on the fence about whether that justifies their protocols. I think I actually lean toward “no”, but I’ve also lately become keenly aware of the difficulty of even simple things like keeping everything up to date, and my lack of real insight into what those updates include. If I’m effectively trusting them anyway, might as well trust them to get it to me ASAP, right?
I’m also enough of a realist to assume there’s a Fight Club style “A times B times C > X” reputational/financial risk logic going on here. If there’s few enough of the devices out there, it’s probably cheaper to apologize (legally, as in settle).
They create products, which they offer for sale. People can freely choose to purchase those products or not.
Apple has opinions about how to make products, which are embodied in the products they offer for sale. Other companies have different opinions. This is how a market is supposed to work.
I don’t think we should talk about Apple as if they are a government taking away freedoms. It confers too much authority upon Apple and too much victimhood upon customers.
They patently did contribute to the erosion of freedoms that people fundamentally used to have with their hardware.
We shouldn't be talking about Apple like a government, but the government should probably be regulating this a bit better;
And the problem with a single signature authority, as we're seeing in China, is being murdered by an illicit state, or undergoing active discrimination in many other ways even in most western countries.
It's like saying "Why should we have knives? It's only a matter of time until $popular_social_media comes along and tells people to cut off their index fingers and before long there's a significant proportion of users who can't point anymore".
That's not the case for smartphone (etc) users.
If a knive could be built which allows to cut food, and protects you from cutting off your index finger, wouldn't that be great?
Most users will leave the default settings if they don't have an active need to change them. Easily usable (and understandable) tools and interfaces prevent most needs from arising in the first place.
Concrete example: The root account on many Linux distros is disabled by default. I've never felt the need to enable it, because sudo does everything I need. Secure default, useful tools, unlockable system.
Historically we haven't had either of those things. Poor design and implementation led to bad choices by clueless users. The resulting mess is used as an excuse to restrict freedoms. The cure is arguably worse than the poison.
Now what? Millions of users have to wipe and restore their phones or throw them away and buy new ones because someone's app trashed the phone? That would cripple Apple