Cameras and microphones that have no physical disconnect. Virtual keyboards. NSA subsidies for cheap phones sold in poor areas. Zero visibility or access to OS components without special steps.
Windows let users install and run any junk binary to their appdata folder by default. That’s why cryptolocker got real popular around 2010. Granted this isn’t supporting my point, but admin is not required in a lot of instances.
I guess I’m saying I disagree with your disagreement. Non-mobile is far more secure. My desktop and laptops do all of the stuff you listed as mobile capabilities.
Again, the government surveillance aspect is more of a privacy issue. Yea, I hate how intrusive the government is, but, from a purely security perspective, if your threat model isn’t targeted surveillance by the government (which for most people, that’s not their threat model), if you think about how much technical knowlege the average person has, a smart phone does a better job protecting them from the every day security threats than a computer.
NSA subsidies for cheap phones sold in poor areas.
Cheap smartphones are subsidized by the “recommended apps” screen that phone manufacturers add, that app developers/publishers paid for so that their app is listed during the phone’s set up process, that’s why they are so cheap.
Drawing a distinction between privacy and security is kind of nonsense in this context. While they are technically different, they’re only different in the way that an apple and a fruit are different. Privacy is an aspect of security.
If your privacy was violated in any other context you would not feel secure.
This. There is no practical reason to separate privacy and security in this way.
If bad actors can access your data without your consent, it doesn’t matter if you call it a breach of privacy or security. It’s still a breach. At best, playing semantics like this allows a corp to claim a system filled with backdoors is “secure”. Utter marketing nonsense.
Cameras and microphones that have no physical disconnect. Virtual keyboards. NSA subsidies for cheap phones sold in poor areas. Zero visibility or access to OS components without special steps.
Windows let users install and run any junk binary to their appdata folder by default. That’s why cryptolocker got real popular around 2010. Granted this isn’t supporting my point, but admin is not required in a lot of instances.
I guess I’m saying I disagree with your disagreement. Non-mobile is far more secure. My desktop and laptops do all of the stuff you listed as mobile capabilities.
Again, the government surveillance aspect is more of a privacy issue. Yea, I hate how intrusive the government is, but, from a purely security perspective, if your threat model isn’t targeted surveillance by the government (which for most people, that’s not their threat model), if you think about how much technical knowlege the average person has, a smart phone does a better job protecting them from the every day security threats than a computer.
Cheap smartphones are subsidized by the “recommended apps” screen that phone manufacturers add, that app developers/publishers paid for so that their app is listed during the phone’s set up process, that’s why they are so cheap.
Drawing a distinction between privacy and security is kind of nonsense in this context. While they are technically different, they’re only different in the way that an apple and a fruit are different. Privacy is an aspect of security.
If your privacy was violated in any other context you would not feel secure.
This. There is no practical reason to separate privacy and security in this way.
If bad actors can access your data without your consent, it doesn’t matter if you call it a breach of privacy or security. It’s still a breach. At best, playing semantics like this allows a corp to claim a system filled with backdoors is “secure”. Utter marketing nonsense.