Privacy

41496 readers

344 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

292

Is there still any hope for privacy phones? 2025 and beyond (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by ComradePedro@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

162 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Google has been trying to make Android proprietary for a few years now, and that's not news, as many AOSP default apps have been abandoned over time in favor of proprietary Google ones. This was never a huge problem for me, as you can still use those apps without network access or use open source alternatives like Fossify on a custom ROM.

However, the situation is quickly getting worse, now that Google is actively trying to prevent the development of custom ROMs and taking a page from Apple's book by forcing developers to beg them for permission to release apps on the Android platform, even outside of the Play Store - giving Google full control.

Is there still any hope left for privacy respecting Android ROMs? What do you think will happen next? And what would be your suggestions for those looking for a phone in 2025?

If you have a different perspective on the situation, also please comment below!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cricket@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago

When you suggested that Android is licensed because the government restricted who could use it, that’s what you said. I don’t understand why this is confusing.

That's not what I said. What I said was that the fact that Google blocked Huawei's ability to use Android's Google Services on their devices at the government's orders meant that the they had a mechanism that allowed them to do so. Namely, the proprietary license for the Google Services. Do you dispute this exact thing, not some twisted version of what I said? I don't understand why this is confusing either.

Any other open source project is susceptible to the same fate, ergo they’re the same thing. I already explained this.

How so? Do you have any examples of an organization blocking someone from using a common open source license like GPL, MIT, or Apache License, with the possible exceptions of GPL license violations or export controls for things like cryptography, etc? The fact that Google didn't block Huawei from using AOSP most likely means that it was easier for them to ban Huawei through their proprietary license to Google Services than through the Apache License for AOSP.

AOSP is Android. This seems to be where you’re getting confused.

This seems to be where you're getting confused too. I've already explained multiple times that what I mean by "Android" is the full suite (AOSP + GPS + GMS) that an OEM would need for a mass-market phone. AOSP is not enough for that. No OEM in their right mind would try to market a mass-market phone with pure AOSP and no Google Services.