Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ok.

And how about making every citizen constantly carry an always-on device from the USA full of sensors and permanent internet access?

And how about basing all infrastructure on these devices, so that nothing works without them?

And how about not letting a software ecosystem flurish, so that when robots (cars, humanoid robots, weapons ...) take over, all of them will be controlled by US software?



All this doesn't mean your back-end should be based on something like Microsoft Windows Server with MS Sql Server. Or modern equivalent of serverless Windows Azure.

Russians (and everyone closely watching) started that transition almost painlessly in 2014.

Have your own search engine. Have your own payment system. Base your infrastructure on open-source.

You know, be sovereign, not dependent.

The users switching from iOS to Android is just the last mile.


> The users switching from iOS to Android

Google collects 20 times more telemetry from Android devices than Apple from iOS (therecord.media)

816 points by gormandizer on March 30, 2021 | 445 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261


Android does not mean Google services are involved... (I know it does for most, but not for all =)


Only if you're able to reinstall the OS, and only if you gave your money directly to Google (to buy a Pixel).


This is factually wrong. All Chinese manufacturers sell Android phones without Google services.


And without tracking?


That would require banning US services. As the European industry (held down by bureaucracy) does not stand a chance to build solutions that can compete.

It seems like this is not on the horizon yet. And in the times of AI, it would probably result in a huge productivity hit.


> All this doesn't mean your back-end should be based on something like Microsoft Windows Server with MS Sql Server.

Why the hell not?

From a technology perspective (i.e., data/information theory/performance/what HN should be about), MSSQL is really, really hard to beat in a big enterprise ecosystem. This isn't because of decades of prerequisite evil dealings that make it a morally incompatible offering, but because it's been so thoroughly exposed to every possible use case that yours would certainly flow nicely.

I've been watching a lot of otherwise really compelling ideas and high energy teams get turned into complete shit due to these ideologies. I can understand a EU tech startup being hesitant toward US-based technology, but in 99% of the cases I hear about, it's a purely American tech company with zero international presence that is making a bunch of noise about how much they hate whatever domestic/paid/"closed" offerings.


If you believe that the USA has the only government that wants to surveil its citizens, then you should open your eyes. The US possibly has more restrictions on directly surveilling its own citizens (within the US) than any other country.

That pesky Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights keeps getting in their way, so they've created ways around it, such as allowing allied nations to do the surveillance for them.

Every government in the world has mandates that require a surveillance capability. This has been the reason that satellite constellations cannot route traffic directly from user-to-user, but instead must route through "hubs", at a cost of doubling the required, but precious bandwidth.


You’re not wrong, but your point doesn’t diminish the point of the post.

Maybe we should discuss one topic at a time so we can make progress somewhere without the implication that progress that isn’t everywhere is progress nowhere?


> making every citizen constantly carry an always-on device from the USA full of sensors and permanent internet access

I hope it gives at least some boost to GNU/Linux phones. Librem 5 is my daily driver, and it feels amazing despite its drawbacks.

Related:

'The tyranny of apps': those without smartphones are unfairly penalised (theguardian.com)

676 points by zeristor 1 day ago | 784 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43137488


> And how about making every citizen constantly carry an always-on device from the USA

Screw that, every EU politician have an iPhone or Android phone, loaded with apps from Meta, X, Tiktok and what have you. Step one should be for our politicians to put some sort of emphasis on their own privacy in relationship to the US, Russia and China.


And then fund a lot of talking instead of a lot of doing.


That comes on top


Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone, an android alternative has always existed


Android devices run a Google OS and report data to Google. Apple's privacy claims are not actually impressive when inspected, however Android is far, far worse when it comes to privacy violations. It doesn't really matter than the phone itself might be manufactured by a 3rd party. In fact, it could be worse; your data could be excessively leaked to both Samsung and Google, rather than merely Google.


At least with Pixel you can install GrapheneOS.


After giving your money directly to Google.


This is such a bad argument, because for a functional modern smartphone (for non nerds) you need to get into bed with either Apple or Google.

The way out of this is not expecting consumers to install fdroid. It’s putting in place proper regulations to preserve privacy and security for EI societies.


The way out is fixing "you need to get into bed with either Apple or Google" which is the root of the problem.


> It’s putting in place proper regulations to preserve privacy and security

That ship sailed so long ago. Not only because national security demanded warrantless backdoors, but because our companies now control regulation. If Tim Cook or Elon Musk take issue with some pesky demands for open architecture or security audits, they complain to Trump and resolve it via EO. Any protest is already quashed. Phone owners who don't actively resist hold no leverage against their OEM.

Stuff like F-Droid and PostmarketOS is the solution to this particular problem - people just don't want to admit it. It's easier to give up essential liberty, purchase temporary safety, and demand that you deserve security along with it too. Too few people realize that personal freedom is a necessary precondition to personal safety.


Unless you're using Graphene or similar, you're still plugged into a US corporation when using Android.


No matter if you use iPhone or Android - in both cases a US company has full control over it.


Define "full control" for those of us with GrapheneOS installed, pretty please.


So a different American company?


[flagged]


Can you please stop breaking the site guidelines so we don't have to keep banning you?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Can you help me understand how I've broken the site guidelines? Both my comment and the parent's are good faith discussions cut along the same rhetoric this site has tolerated for years. None of the responses are even taking this into flamewar territory, it's a black-and-white pastiche of security versus obscurity.

> so we don't have to keep banning you

My account has five karma, Dan. One downside of uncommunicated permanent bans is that it precludes the leverage you ordinarily use to encourage reform.


Your GP comment broke at least these:

"Don't be snarky."

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> One downside of uncommunicated permanent bans is that it precludes the leverage you ordinarily use to encourage reform

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. It seems simple to me though: if you'd stop breaking the site guidelines so repeatedly and badly then we'd be happy not to ban you again, and if you won't stop doing that, we have little choice.


How can iPhone have a monopoly if android exists without redefining the term monopoly? Serious question.


I think it would be very reasonable to redefine the term monopoly (or "anti-competitiveness") so that it encompasses the closed technical platforms that dominate the 21st century.


Sure, but you can't do that legally without an act of congress, and the DOJ only (in theory) prosecutes when laws are broken. Redefining what a monopoly is doesn't really help in a courtroom.


It's called duopoly, and it's not much different.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: