369
Google breaks promise to provide 10 years of updates to Chromebooks (www.osnews.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I get their reasoning but it fucks over a lot of people without the finances to always buy a brand new google devices and who absolutely need that kind of security.

Really grinds my gears because in the end it means only the moderately wealthy really get the benefit.

I have a pixel 6a I got refurbished and I dont have options but to make it last as long as I can and I've already had to change the battery manually once myself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I think the problem is they need pretty fancy hardware to do what they do; that's why they're only offering to support the Motorola flagship phone (soon?), and not the cheaper models. This is what I've heard anyway, and it's certainly plausible since expanding their base would be in their interest.

    Depending on exactly what your security requirements are, you might be just as well off with some other phone/OS combo, acknowledging that anything else is a stepdown--I think GOS is the most secure phone out there.

    I also notice my inner senior Fox News viewer complaining about people having high end phones who legitimately should not; but, at any rate, maybe you could buy a Pixel 11 off one of those people next year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (3 children)

    Honestly, I'm really less worried about myself and more worried about people in more dangerous situations where the cost of such a thing dwarfs even the cost to me. There's tons of people out there who are being actively monitored by their governments and they simply can't afford it. Like all the dirt poor immigrants being deported to countries they have never been to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I think in instances like that, you're better off avoiding technology altogether.

    I was thinking of joining a pro-immigrant group but decided against it since it seemed largely performative/social, but I remember one of them inviting me to SMS them my signal user name. Like, what? But even if the technical side of security is top notch, infiltration would be trivial...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    But even if the technical side of security is top notch, infiltration would be trivial…

    Yeah really bad opsec all around in a LOT of these groups, but I'm not really sure how you organize without a means of communications. I think collective ownership of the means of communication is just as important to laborers as collective ownership of the means of production.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

    Well, since nothing any of these groups are doing is even illegal, operational security is nice, but really not necessary. But even if you have the technical aspects conquered, there's no effective way to vet people for being True Believers that wouldn't simultaneously doom your organization to low membership and paranoid infighting.

    And if anyone is doing things that are illegal, organizational silos were a thing even before the internet was a glimmer in Al Gore's eye, see: terror cells. The Battle of Algiers is a great movie that goes into how it works.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent