Warning: This directive might be misunderstood, and some articles contain information that could be false.
Edit to add some more context and discussions:
Warning: This directive might be misunderstood, and some articles contain information that could be false.
Edit to add some more context and discussions:
Allowing whatever company your phone comes from to retain as much control over your device as possible, if I had to guess. Standard corpo stuff, most likely.
Aka OS that has a back door built it
of course, but what’s their rationalization?
For EU, I’d guess some lie about user safety that simultaneously allows for tighter monitoring and control over people. After all, people in Catalonia already gotta deal with paranoid police thinking everyone with a google pixel might be a criminal and potentially having malware installed, so who’s to say it’s not similar in other regions?
For companies, same thing, minus the paranoid police. Wouldn’t be surprised if they’re using paranoid police as a means to achieve that goal, though.
it feels like a weird departure from previous eu policies protecting privacy and right to repair… i was really happy when the forced apple to have an alternative store, and forcing phone companies to have a universal charger…
as an american, i was jealous of a lot of these….
forcing a company to lock a phone down more doesn’t make sense with that….
…
i guess you can still buy a phone with an unlocked boot loader from america and switch over the sim….
or buy one of them pure linux phones like pinePhone…. but that probably still sucks for non-coders….
….
also, incidentally, iPhone and the Pixel have both proven to be difficult for the police to extract information from, probably largely due to full integration of software and hardware…
i wonder if they finally worked out a good back door deal with apple….