all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 1 year ago

No...get off google

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    My main question would be: does it include protection from Google itself?

  • source
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Huh, seems more about locking Chrome down but doesn't touch on Webviews.

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

    Still better than nothing. Not sure how I feel trusting Google to keep my data secure, but on its face I think it's a good thing. It should be used in conjunction with other good opsec practices, but having tools available to more people is a good thing. This assumes that it actually does what it says it does on the tin.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The simple answer for me is no. Anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Google is moving to enhance security for users who are at a higher risk of targeted attacks, such as journalists, activists, and public figures. They are implementing this under the guise of security.

    Additionally, they appear to be seeking to protect the ecosystem against open-source developers and outside developers who choose not to use Chrome, the Play Store, or other Google-based offerings, effectively reinforcing the operating system to maintain control over the Google monopoly.

    Google's reference to Apple is an admission of their plans in my opinion although I believe there is more to this which I won't go into.

    Once APP is activated, many non-Google applications are blocked from accessing Google services, which can hinder the use of alternative apps that users might prefer. My question is: wouldn't the focus on monitoring and restricting access to accounts lead to concerns about surveillance and the extent to which Google monitors user behavior to enforce these protections?

    It sounds like a slippery slope to me.

  • source