And none of that information is available unless you explicitly give the app permission.
On the other hand using standardized APIs, a web page can access everything you mentioned except for contacts
On the other hand using standardized APIs, a web page can access everything you mentioned except for contacts
The sandboxing inside of apps is mostly an illusion.
Sandboxing on the web is fairly good because it has to be. The holes deliberately punched in app sandboxing are the problem.
Rather than
Else quit
It’s not rocket science.
[1] https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/connectivity/blue...
Walled gardens with their HOA-like behaviors are bad in theory, but sometimes the gangsters in the streets are much worse.
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist:
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious.
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54.
<https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...>
There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership>
The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
Using force outside prescribed circumstances, beyond necessity, or to serve perverted ends (e.g., benefiting a specific politician, bureaucrat, or political supporter or special interest) would be a capricious use.
Again, read Weber's definition, and I strongly recommend listening to David Runciman's explanation. I came across it long after coming to a similar conclusion myself, he addresses virtually all my own understandings and concerns especially clearly.