Secure for who, and from whom?

Remote Attestation and Developer Verification both make Android OS and platform more secure against malicious actors that would want to defeat the guarantees the platform gives, guarantees that enable secure digital services.

Yes, this includes protecting the banking services and DRM media services and advertising platforms from malicious actors like you and me, who pose a real threat to the revenues of the aforementioned players, by:

- Expecting banking to do security right on their own side, instead of outsourcing it to mobile platform and society at large (like with "identity theft" trick);

- Enjoying entertainment and education in ways the vendor or IP owner does not like or can't be arsed to support, and thus not spending extra on the inferior ways that are supported;

- Not looking at the ads.

Same is with Chat Control. Chat Control improves security of the society against threats such as sexual predators who want to hurt children, or citizens who disapprove of how the current ruling class is governing the people. To effectively provide that security, Chat Control in turn relies on a secure OS and platform providing secure digital services - in particular, secure against those malicious actors that would want to circumvent Chat Control protections.

Is the larger picture clear now? Security technologies are not inherently good, they're morally ambivalent. They're "dual-use". It's important to consider their deployment on a case-by-case basis, always asking who is being secured, and what are the actual threats they're being secured from.