Yeah, all gallery apps show the same on-device photos, the difference is where they backup/upload them, which is the part important to privacy.
Apple iCloud having the E2E encryption feature is definitely an advantage over Google Photos. All I'm saying is that neither really have much to do with the OS. Google Photos isn't even a preinstalled app on most Android phones, just one of many options you could install, same as on iOS.
Sure, but if you care about privacy at all, then surely you wouldn't use either of them anyway? You'd use Ente Photos (available for both OS), or Immich (available for both OS), or any other private solution? So this shouldn't really be a factor in choosing between Android and iOS. Same with the export point. Both have good options for photo backup, and neither Apple Photos nor Google Photos are one of them.
The concept was always bizarre to me. It's like getting a PC as part of your broadband contract. Speaking of, it would make more sense to get a phone as part of your broadband contract, my phone is 95% an internet device. That it happens to have a SIM card in it is a minor feature.
Google usually goes with the lowest common denominator solution. There is a staggering amount of people who don't know what is a file, let alone that phones have any.
CP is a name from the perspective of the consumer, CSAM is a name from the perspective of the victim. Since we want to take the side of the victim, we use the term relevant to the victim.
Battlestar Galactica might start as sci-fi but ends up as science fantasy. At some point a character comes back from the dead, becomes an angel, and much of the original mysticism becomes literal.
Ok, so it's not that they can refuse to provide a device, it's that if you voluntarily agree to use your personal device, then they have to provide compensation (for the data, etc.). Your original comment said they can refuse to provide a device, hence my confusion.
That's what I think, which is why I'm asking icedterminal where did they get the info that the employer can refuse to provide a phone, it doesn't seem right to me.
You said "No matter what app it is" which is the point of my confusion. So you actually meant "apps that use data", that's fair enough, thank you for the clarification.
your employer is still required to provide you with the tools necessary to complete your job
Yeah, that's what I thought, that the employer is required to provide a work phone if they require the usage of an app. But you are saying they can refuse as long as they reimburse data, which doesn't even help if the app doesn't use data. How is that "refusal of a legal obligation" working?
they are legally obligated to provide you with a work phone. If they refuse
This is the part that I'm not getting. So are they legally obligated or are they allowed to refuse like you say. It can't be both ways.
Reimbursement for a mobile plan? If I need to use a special authenticator app to login to my work computer, and the app is fully offline (and I only need to use it at the office where I have Wi-fi anyway, if I needed it, but I don't), then what does a mobile plan have to do with anything? I could use it on a phone without a SIM card, or a tablet that can't have one.
Yeah, but there is no separation between being able to do day to day administrative actions like installing software, and being able to do destructive actions no one should need to do unless in exceptional circumstances.
Yeah, I feel like Linux needs the equivalent of Administrator accounts on Windows. Root is the equivalent of the System account on Windows, something even power users might never encounter, because it's a level of power you shouldn't ever need.
We need users to have permission to install software and do other administrative tasks, without having permission to do very destructive actions like uninstalling core system packages. Aunt Flo should be able to install Mahjong from her distros package manager GUI, without needing dangerous root access.
Which is his fault, but also this would never happen on Windows. The power and lack of hand-holding of Linux is a great advantage for power users, but with great power comes great responsibility, and many people don't need the responsibility.
The reported found the app using permissions that are not covered by the manifest.
It didn't found them using them, it's an important distinction. It found code referring to permissions that are not covered by the Manifest file. If that code was ran, the app would crash, because Android won't let an app request and use a permission not in the Manifest file. The Manifest file is not an informational overview, it's the mechanism through which apps can declare permissions that they want Android to allow them to request. If it's not in the Manifest, then it's not possible to use. It's not unusual to have a bunch of libraries in an app that have functionality you don't use, and so don't declare the required permissions in the Manifest, because you don't use them.
It also found the app being capable to execute arbitrary code send by temu.
Yeah, which is shady, but again, there is nothing to indicate that code can go around any security and do any of the sensational things the article claims.
The Grizzly reports shows how the app tricks you into granting permissions that it shouldn't need, very shady stuff. But it also shows they don't have a magical way of going around the permissions. The user has to actually grant them.
Yeah, all gallery apps show the same on-device photos, the difference is where they backup/upload them, which is the part important to privacy.
Apple iCloud having the E2E encryption feature is definitely an advantage over Google Photos. All I'm saying is that neither really have much to do with the OS. Google Photos isn't even a preinstalled app on most Android phones, just one of many options you could install, same as on iOS.