you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

Taking Google at their word for a moment, it's far too easy to scam the clueless masses into selecting the first one. Might work okay if it's strictly an ADB command, tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm inclined to think that's not the job of an OS vendor to prevent. Sure, put a warning label on it, but it's the user's device; once they say they know what they're doing, that should be that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The implication here is, if they implement this, is that they volunteer to assume liability, should e.g., your bank account be drained despite undergoing their forced strict lockdown on paid and owned devices.

    Fat chance, because laws are meaningless to crime syndicates

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    It might be a reasonable trade for users to make if Google assumed liability. In fact, that would be an interesting way to implement laws to discourage practices like these.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    but they could make it be google play or samsung store only as the default as a compromise

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)