/tech/ - Technology

You can use Android without Google, you can't use iOS without Apple.

That said, an iPhone will be much more secure against threats you are likely to face compared to an Android device.

>>546117

fuck off, dip shit

>>546123

Well memed! Further cementing my opinion that there aren't really strong arguments against iPhone vs Android.

> there aren't really strong arguments against iPhone vs Android.

There are, but it depends on an individual values. If people hold differing values, they aren't necessarily come to the same conclusion.

>>546126

My main criteria are:

Is the app ecosystem managed well enough that I can expect popular apps not to leak my private data / photos;

Do the inbuilt apps generally take privacy seriously. I'm ok with my searches being logged if I go through a built-in search widget. I'm not ok with my contacts being sent up to some cloud backup server without my permission;

Is my data encrypted at rest? In other words, if my phone is stolen could a hacker with moderate resources get into my data? What about a government (apparently not in the case of the iPhone);

Does my phone identify me in public? I.e. does it do bluetooth handshakes or anything of that nature with unauthorized clients in a way that they could uniquely identify me?;

Do I have reasonable control over the data on my phone? Is it possible to securely erase my phone in a "burn everything" situation? I believe so in the case of iPhone, it has built-in encryption so secure erasure can be done by overwriting the decryption key (not certain on this - any comments)?

Am I "locked in" to an ecosystem? Can I manage the data on the phone without needing special software? This boils down to "can the phone act as a USB mass storage device".

>>546135

Unless you have personally audited the Android source I don't think that's a good argument. Open-source doesn't necessarily mean more secure. Case in point: OpenSSL.

I say this as someone who occasionally audits the extensions I install for Chrome. Yes, for smaller code bases, open code bases can lead to more secure software. In larger code bases it's a weak argument because nobody has the resources to audit them. Except in the case of something like TrueCrypt, which has only just recently been audited despite being probably the most commonly used privacy application.

I would agree if you linked to a full Android code base audit that was done by an independent party. No such audit has been done, and even if it was it would have to be re-done regularly with the rate of change of the Android OS.

>>546117

>Android is open source

>iOS isn't

Well that was easy

>>

> 98.1% of al mobile malware targets Android accoding to Kaspersky [1] (yes, I know there's probably less malware on F-Droid, but this shows how poor Android's app sandboxing is)

1.) Android does, after all, run in 85 percent of all mobile devices worldwide

2.) Android apps are not sandboxed per say, each app runs as its own user, in other words, removing malware is as simple as uninstalling the fucking app causing it, as that would remove the offending user spawning processes as itself, unless the app somehow gains root access, in which case the app can be reported to Google as it shouldn't be on the Play Store

>>546140

I already posted a pretty detailed list of what I meant by botnet at >>546130 but if you want the short version, I'm asking whether it will protect my data against corporate greed and hackers, and whether it will help me maintain a reasonable level of anonymity in society.

>>546130

This is yahoo answers tier

>>546145

>Android is open source

>iOS isn't

>Well that was easy

You believe in an imaginary man that audits the entire Android codebase to detect security vulnerabilities and botnet-like functionality. I'm going to call this the Church of Stallmanology. Sorry to tell you, there is no God and nobody is auditing a multi-million-line-of-code codebase. Open source means nothing.

>>546146

Android is open source

iOS isn't

Do you have fucking brain damage or is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

I think you're an iPhone owner trying to cope with buyers remorse by making useless threads

You're buying a 2 way radio that's constantly on anyways so it really shouldn't make all that big a difference to you as far as security is concerned

>>546151

>Open source means nothing

This is true, but Free software means everything.

If you disagree then you came to the wrong image board. Please return yourself to >>>/g/

>>546153

I don't actually own an iPhone, I have an Android device but think it's very blue-pill to assume Android is better because "open source". So far in this entire thread I've seen only one reasonable argument against iphone (>>546120) which is that you can take GApps out of Android but you can't take Apple apps out of iOS. This was the only reason I could come up with either.

>>546151

If you actually think a piece of software where we cannot see the source code is safer than one with which we can because you're taking Apple's word for it, then I'm sorry, I cannot help you, it's not possible to argue with something that cannot properly use thought or reason

>>546151

Android isn't some obscure distro, it's managed by one of the richest companies in the world, deployed on billions of devices. To say it no one's looking at it is just ignorant. Other than the linux kernel, I can think of no comparative open source project of its scale.

>>546157

I think open-source software can be equal or more secure than closed-source software. As the size of the codebase grows the difference becomes smaller because nobody has the resources to audit a massive code base. Again, I actually do audit small browser plugins myself and I agree open-source is a good thing, but it's not a magic switch that makes everything safe and OK in comparison to closed source. When did you last audit your entire phone's OS? If you haven't audited it, and nobody else has, it's no different from closed source.

>>546156

>, I have an Android device but think it's very blue-pill to assume Android is better because "open source"

Then please refer to the statement I made in this post;

>>546152

>You're buying a 2 way radio that's constantly on anyways so it really shouldn't make all that big a difference to you as far as security is concerned

Smartphones are tracking devices by design, but to think you're safer using Apples shit than Android is absolutely absurd

>>546157

Unless you are compiling your own software, trusting a binary from Google is effectively the same as trusting a binary from Apple.

>>546161

I'm not arguing that iPhones are necessarily more secure than Android, just that they are not significantly more botnet. See my original comment:

> I'm not convinced that iPhone is actually more botnet than android.

Your point about a 2-way radio - that's true, but it doesn't mean I need to forfeit any semblance of privacy. There's still browser history, contact lists, and other data that I want to protect which is outside of control of the cell phone towers.

>>546162

virtually you're not wrong, but realistically, having the system being open source puts it at an advantage over software that isn't and I would certainly trust it more

The comparison you're making is complete strawman and is an unfair argument to make, it puts Android in an unreasonable scenario where somehow no custom ROM maker and nobody ago forked AOSP ever looked at any of the source code, which is far from true, it's safer to assume Android is nore audited than GNU given Androids popularity

>>546164

>just that they are not significantly more botnet.

Well then provide evidence since you are indeed the one making ridiculous claims

And trying to prove something can't be proven is a fallacy, you cannot argue against a non falsifyable claim and thus can be disregarded

Hide this shill thread guys

>>546167

> it puts Android in an unreasonable scenario where somehow no custom ROM maker and nobody ago forked AOSP ever looked at any of the source code

Casually looking at source is different from properly auditing an entire code base. It requires massive amounts of talents and resources to audit a code base as large as Android, and even then it's basically impossible to prove it as been free of backdoors or botnet-like features.

You also overestimate the talent of the people throwing together custom roms. A lot of them are truly clueless. Case in point: Cyanogenmod's exploits. I dread to think of the crap some of the smaller one-man ROMS must contain.

>>546117

>Apple doesn't support backdoors as shown in the current case involving Apple and the FBI

Are you really this retarded? Do you honestly believe that after the NSA leaks or are you just baiting?

>OPs original argument is a strawman

sage and hide guys

>OPs original argument is a strawman

sage and hide guys

>>546171

If you put any data on Apple's cloud then yeah I have no doubt they would pass that over to the government under subpoena. But they've clearly shown that if you encrypt the data on your iPhone they have no backdoors to get it back. Anyone worth their salt encrypts their data and avoids cloud services. No doubt any data stored on Google's server also would be handed over under subpoena.

>>546176

Apple is part of PRISM

>>546178

As is Google.

>>546179

Google uses open source software

You see how retatarded you are making strawman statements?

>>546181

More church of Stallmanology groupthink. I'm yet to see a compelling argument against iPhone. Anyone have any commentary other than the fact that you can remove GApps from Android and that Android is open-source, which would theoretically make it more secure if someone actually audited it (which nobody has)? Any argument at all, besides those two arguments?

Code auditing is just one part of the equation. I would argue that security and privacy are not Google's main goals for Android development. It's just another platform for their advertising machine. Apple has a much better security track record than Google.

>>546184

>>546187

We could discuss the nature of open source and it's true effectiveness and the true effectiveness of auditing

But no, instead you make a thread that starts off as a strawman and then dive into ad hominems

>>546188

Well, just go ahead and make that argument. I want to hear it. Keep in mind that I agree an audited open-source codebase is better than a closed-source one, but since Android has never been professionally audited there's no actual argument to make.

I honestly don't even know what a straw man argument is. If you think the question needs to be rephrased or clarified in some way please do suggest.

>>546117

Reading between the lines, I'm going to go ahead and say that iPhone isn't really more botnet than Android. Both phones are reasonable choices for the privacy conscious.

It's too bad most of the people in this thread went extremely meta "we'd tell you, but you've hurt our feelings", or just spewed the phrase "open source" over and over. I think this could have been an interesting discussion but obviously very few people on this board have in-depth knowledge on the subject, instead it seems to be dominated with normie-tier users who grossly oversimplify the ecosystem to "open" and "closed" without really understanding that the distinction doesn't actually matter that much.

shill delirious

>>546202

>ALSO AT THE END OF THIS ESSAY I CONCLUDE YEAH I AM RIGHT HAHA

>THANKS FOR THE TOP MARK PROFESSOR.PNG

Hey little fucker, do you know that by trying to brainwash people and making them stupid for some other party actually endangers your own live and your family's own acuity in the end? because no one will be left sane and smart enough to protect you and watchout for you

I don't care if this is your job, find an alternative, there's always another way

you're shilling people to be stupid

when in those two posts did i say anything about iphone?

your move

>>546240

>your move

Thread's already over. No more moves to make. iPhone's no more botnet than Android.

>when in those two posts did i say anything about iphone

Pretending you're not posting in an iPhone related thread where everything is assumed to be iPhone related? That's the part where I realized you are 14 years old.

>>546241

>RESOLVES TO NAME CALLING

Yep over alright, lets bump this to the top for everyone to laff @ u

>inb4 you samefag as someone else

we know every trick in the book my boy

>>546242

Hey, kill yourself poorfag.

>>546242

So, I can't call you out for describing me as a shill but all the normies in here can tell people to hide/sage the thread and name me as a shill for iPhone without any resistance?

As I said, thread over, it's 100% meta now and absolutely zero chance of a real discussion about the topic I originally posted. The onslaught of non-arguments and knee jerking shows that I was right in my initial thinking that iPhone is no more botnet than Android.

Thread over. Too bad it went to shit when we could have come to the same conclusion by having a real discussion. Speaks volumes about the type of people in this thread.

>>546135

Open source and botnet are two unrelated things though. Free software can spy on you, and it's possible that there could be proprietary software that doesn't spy on you.

Also, Android isn't fully free. It has proprietary components. What do you think is in those proprietary components? This is Google we're talking about; of course there's botnet in it.

>>546254

Replicant / omnirom remove contact with google. You're beyond help of you think iOS isn't more botnet.

if you can't compile it you can't trust it.

let me post you cripple

>>546117

>Apple doesn't support backdoors as shown in the current case involving Apple and the FBI

Ergo

>Apple doesn't want you to *believe* there are backdoors by co-opting with the legal system to show a slap on the wrist across social media and television to make fools think there's a slight distinction of which tracking device is less botnet

You fell so deep into this psyop that you turn your back on everyone else because you believe this shit over shitposting. You picked the wrong end of this stick on this OP. And to top it off you even replied that you bought an Android because it was cost-effective, which would make you no different than the millions of people using smartphones, and yet you seem to think that is no where near the same groupthink as shitposting about open source OR free software? You really arent a clever black sheep..and Let me give you a open secret OP. Open source IS NOT free software.

Android isn't GNU/Linux, its basically Java/Linux. Popular Java projects are known to be prone to dangers. as is anything that becomes popular in market share that fags like you are surprised when it happens. The infected linux mint iso is only the effects of popularity meeting the *Unix world.

Anyone who uses Android and Gnu/Linux is by very definition an apologist.

>trusting kaspersky unconditionally

>case study from 2013

>2013+3

>look guise apple doesnt have viruses and is defending us from gov xD

>meanwhile Android becomes infected xD

shit thread, shit post, and even more inane replies. Just Get the fuck out

To quote a sperg in another thread:

>For God's sake dude, if something has more libre elements than something else, then it is the lesser of two evils because it still has more freedoms than the other. Windows is basically 100% locked down, while OSX is only 50%, it's like if you got GNU/Linux and put your own proprietary sprinkling on top (ok, it's a bit more than sprinkling but still), the kernel would still be libre, coreutils would still be libre, etc, just the proprietary sprinkling on top wouldn't be libre.

The Google Apps are nothing but proprietary sprinkling on top.

I thought android viruses were a meme

>>546137

Who was talking about security?

Dear God, why macfags are always change the subject.

>>546151

open source means one thing

that people can read it that's all

if it's not specified you cannot change the code source or redistribute it.

Android is shit because it stripped users from the freedom of uninstalling software in it or changing it.

>inb4 someone says you just have install cyanogenmod

cyanogenmod should not be even existing because when you fucking buy something you should have the right to do whatever the fuck you want to do with it

Plus samsung is incapable of making devices that aren't using firmware blobs so if you want to use a completely free os you have to sacrifice some functionality. like wifi

But since I'm not a cuck and that I value freedom I use replicant.

>>546164

>Your point about a 2-way radio - that's true, but it doesn't mean I need to forfeit any semblance of privacy. There's still browser history, contact lists, and other data that I want to protect which is outside of control of the cell phone towers.

Don't be so sure

From wikipedia:

>In March 2014, Replicant developers found and

>closed a backdoor present in a wide range of

>Samsung Galaxy products that allows the

>baseband processor to read and write the

>device's storage,

It is believed that other major manufacturers embed comparable technology

>>546254

>>546135

the point is that with proprietary software you don't even stand a chance defending from the vendor.

Replicant (a fully FLOSS Android distro) users are as safe as they want to be, even safe from Google. iOS users will never be safe from Apple:

https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html

I'm not >>546135 and I don't like Android btw.

>>546117

https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html

What do you actually mean by "botnet". This meme has gone too far, the meaning of that word is completely diluted in /tech/'s meme culture

>>546117

>Apple doesn't support backdoors as shown in the current case involving Apple and the FBI

So you're either stupid, ignorant or try to spread disinfo.

https://archive.is/fjrHD

>botnet

This word doesn't mean anything and anyone who uses it instantly admits to being an underage tech illiterate mememaster. People who do have some idea of what they're talking about use specific terms like adware, spyware, malware, and backdoor (which is not the same thing as an exploit).

>>546894

Your source doesn't support your claim.

Apple doesn't support backdoors. That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerabilities in the code that law enforcement can take advantage of.

>>546869

they discovered Samsung Knox dude, autistic fucks

>hurr muh scary backdoor!

The pricessor reads the device storage for unauthorized software and flips a warranty bit, big whoop

>>546898

Botnet is memespeak for anything that phones home to a parent company or the government. It has a definite meaning that has never changed. It's different from adware and spyware in that it's typically widely recognized as harmless and legitimate, as opposed to some form of unwanted malware that ends up on your computer unintentionally.

>>546140

>The Linux kernel and most of the GNU tools haven't been audited either.

So the whole philosophy has failed.

"Botnet" has lost all meaning

>>546125

>self admitted shilling.

i wonder who's behind this post.

>>546135

/thread lol

It's literally impossible, maybe even illegal to show ios sourcecode to the public.

And users couldn't tell whether the next update contain backdoor or not, it's also impossible not to update if you want a functioning phone.

Using ios is like walking in a maze filled with gay parade aidsman that'll enrich your pooper if you refuse to update.

>>547592

well, uh, even though there are millions of employed eyes with varying organizational and political associations on the code, no official "security audit" has been announced to my knowledge, so it's the same as a handful of apple employees double checking for goto fails!