> By installing Onavo, millions unknowingly granted Facebook full access to their digital activity. App usage, browsing habits, and precise timestamps were silently collected. Facebook VPN didn’t just observe its own users - it tracked behavior across rival platforms like YouTube, Amazon, and Snapchat.
> ... Engineers exploited Onavo’s infrastructure to install a root certificate on phones, masking Snapchat’s servers to decrypt user activity.
This is an obvious security hole that should never have existed, but the fact that Facebook eagerly exploited it, while abusing VPNs for tracking and enterprise certs for sidestepping app store privacy rules, shows the threat landscape.
https://www.analyticsinsight.net/news/when-facebook-used-vpn...
Two companies can't own all of computing.
Smartphones are the internet for most people, and two companies have installed comprehensive paywalls and distribution gateways.
It's unnatural how large and complete their monopolies are.
Call your legislator and demand web installs without scare walls and hidden developer flags. With no phony restrictions on app type, technology choice, JIT/runtimes, or UI adherence.
We need complete freedom on mobile.
And this is still how people get desktop software.
I don't remember being forced to use a randomizer for downloading executables...
Actually, people are more likely to install random apps from an app store, because the OS promotes that behavior.
Technically alternative stores exist on Android.
On IOS you can argue customers are paying for security.
Stopping Billy from downloading a key logger is a corporate choice Apple makes.
If you need to install random binaries from the internet your free to buy android device or a cheap computer.
iOS reduces the attack surface.
You have to navigate five settings menus deep to enable the ability to even install them, and after that the OS scares you into thinking it'll turn your phone into a grenade.
Unless you're 0.0000001% of users, you will never do this.
Google knows what they're doing. It's the tyranny of defaults.
Most people are stupid.
In the modern era getting access to your personal phone let's an attacker have access to your identity, finances, etc.
A better approach would be real sandboxing, but let's not get our hopes up.
Game developers like Epic would certainly like to pay less money to Apple and Google than they pay to Nintendo and Sony (and Microsoft for the Xbox game store), but what's the legal argument for terminating Apple and Google's walled-garden game store businesses? And doesn't Android already allow sideloading?
> Smartphones are the internet for most people, and two companies have installed comprehensive paywalls and distribution gateways.
The web is the internet for most people, and neither Apple nor Google have installed paywalls and distribution gateways for third-party web pages. (Apple does restrict browser engines, but ironically that might be the only thing preventing a chromium monoculture.)
Phones are used for everything in life. Finding jobs, finding romance, ordering food, paying for things, navigating. You can't even pull up a menu at a modern restaurant without a phone.
Phones are the entirety of computing for over 50% of Americans. Are we going to let two companies own the entirety of that and tax it?
Imagine if our cars were like phones. When you take your Honda out for a spin, if it couldn't visit certain destinations. Or if your car taxed McDonalds (which passes the cost onto you) every time you stop by. Imagine if it shoved its view of what it wants you to see in front of you, forcing you to take detours or miss your objective entirely. That's what our lax regulatory environment has allowed to happen to computing.
What web sites are you seeing that are blocked on Android (or is is just an issue in Chrome?)
Have you tried turning off "Safe Browsing"?
It's arguably a legitimate safety feature, but I believe you can turn it off and visit any web site.
I think sites presenting forged or expired SSL certificates are blocked (probably a legitimate security feature), but it may be possible to add them manually if desired.
Consumers largely don't care and are not interested in esoteric concepts like free software. I would be careful about dictating how things should work.
Do you know how difficult it is to exercise your freedom to install software on an Android?
Both of these companies know what they're doing. They've co-opted computing and have locked it down and owned it.
Download the APK, open it, and tap past the warnings?
https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-install-apks-31494/
Isn't that about the same difficulty as installing an app from a .zip on Windows or a .dmg on macOS?