Seizure is completely mitigated by having no data on the device.
If you don't see the value in not having any data physically on you, I'm not going to argue with you.
-
-
I get it. You've invested a lot of effort in making the Android trainwreck something with halfway-viable security properties..
-
If you can get vendors to follow your lead, or become a major vendor yourself, that's great. I'm not holding my breath tho.
-
You're definitely not going to convince people to move to a less secure, less usable client-server architecture.
-
Not sure how something worse than the existing baseline solves the problem of insecure products existing either.
-
Android vendors not updating their devices, breaking the security model, etc. has nothing to do with lack of options...
-
... and people buying those phones has nothing to do with lack of alternatives without those problems.
-
It has absolutely zero relevance to us too.
-
If you're simply running Android or Linux applications on the other end then 99% of the same stuff applies to it anyways...
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The data is with you if the device has access to it. Encrypted locally vs remotely with access. What's the difference?
-
Difference is you've added huge new attack vectors. Remote server, transmission in between, and usability is ruined.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.