Link to release notes My opinion is that this is a theoretically useful feature but I zero confidence that Google will approach it correctly(from a user experience standpoint). That would have...
My opinion is that this is a theoretically useful feature but I zero confidence that Google will approach it correctly(from a user experience standpoint). That would have been a very simple - a message only after which it would be enabled, along with making the time configurable.
It it also touches on the much larger issue of how much control Google has over the "open source" Android(technically correct, the best kind of correct except among others, this case) and mainly the ecosystem around it.
Forcibly enabling it by default is the correct move from a legal perspective, actually. If it required a consent popup, or especially if it wasn't enabled by default, it could be argued that the...
Forcibly enabling it by default is the correct move from a legal perspective, actually. If it required a consent popup, or especially if it wasn't enabled by default, it could be argued that the person who set up the device was intentionally impeding law enforcement by enabling it.
I'm not sure what jurisdiction you're referencing. If it's the US, State of Utah v. Valdez determined that a person isn't required to give police the passcode to their phone under the 5th...
I'm not sure what jurisdiction you're referencing.
If it's the US, State of Utah v. Valdez determined that a person isn't required to give police the passcode to their phone under the 5th amendment.
I don't understand your concern here. What negative impact does this have on your use of your phone? Every phone app I've ever used autosaves its state, so even if it reboots you don't lose anything.
I don't understand your concern here. What negative impact does this have on your use of your phone? Every phone app I've ever used autosaves its state, so even if it reboots you don't lose anything.
Generally device autonomy. I wish the standard would have been a very simple no unauthorized internet connections and no unauthorized software changes. That should not be that much to ask for....
Generally device autonomy. I wish the standard would have been a very simple no unauthorized internet connections and no unauthorized software changes. That should not be that much to ask for.
Specific cases fall outside mainstream smartphone use but I don't think an intentional surprise restart is acceptable for a device the user owns.
Just to be clear, this is after 3 days of complete phone non-use. Generally if I don't unlock my phone for 3 days, the battery is dead anyway. I can't think of a situation where I would want my...
Just to be clear, this is after 3 days of complete phone non-use. Generally if I don't unlock my phone for 3 days, the battery is dead anyway.
I can't think of a situation where I would want my phone to be on after 3 days of non-use, except in kiosk-type applications, and in those cases I wouldn't have a PIN set up anyway.
Just to throw out there my use case. I kept my old Android phone after upgrading and I use it to play white noise/forest type sounds in my bedroom all day for my cats who like to chill and nap in...
Just to throw out there my use case. I kept my old Android phone after upgrading and I use it to play white noise/forest type sounds in my bedroom all day for my cats who like to chill and nap in there. It sits on a wireless charger and I never have to touch it. I think it's been playing for 3+ months now.
This is definitely an edge case and to be fair the release notes do say "Enables a future optional security feature" implying I can opt out. If that's the case then I'll probably be alright.
Considering that we've all just gotten used to the fact that Chrome and Firefox simply stop operating and require a reboot now... it seems that we're being forced into the era of not owning the...
Considering that we've all just gotten used to the fact that Chrome and Firefox simply stop operating and require a reboot now... it seems that we're being forced into the era of not owning the software on your device. They'll decide when it updates and what new "features" you're getting.
Have we? I assume we're talking mobile. Maybe I don't browse much on my phone using browsers (usually specific apps), but I've never had any app on my phone ask for a reboot. Not disagreeing,...
the fact that Chrome and Firefox simply stop operating and require a reboot now...
Have we? I assume we're talking mobile. Maybe I don't browse much on my phone using browsers (usually specific apps), but I've never had any app on my phone ask for a reboot.
Not disagreeing, asking for more info - maybe something I missed :)
It's a regular occurence for me now to see Chrome's little sad folder icon, or Firefox's RESTART TO CONTINUE USING FIREFOX on both PC and MacOS. It's weird that my phone is less likely to do...
It's a regular occurence for me now to see Chrome's little sad folder icon, or Firefox's RESTART TO CONTINUE USING FIREFOX on both PC and MacOS.
It's weird that my phone is less likely to do silent updates for apps than my PC.
This is less Firefox and more your OS, IMO. My lInux install updates when I tell it to. It'll do the same "Restart to continue" bit, but web browsers are complex enough that I can forgive that,...
This is less Firefox and more your OS, IMO. My lInux install updates when I tell it to.
It'll do the same "Restart to continue" bit, but web browsers are complex enough that I can forgive that, especially because the update is on my schedule instead of Microsoft's or Apple's
"Restart to continue using Firefox" appears when Firefox is updated while running. It takes hardly any time to restart the browser, and you can change your settings if you don't want it to update...
"Restart to continue using Firefox" appears when Firefox is updated while running. It takes hardly any time to restart the browser, and you can change your settings if you don't want it to update automatically while in use.
Firefox on Windows has the following options:
Automatically install
When Firefox is not running
Check for updates but let you choose to install them.
On Linux updates are handled through your package manager.
Defaulting to automatic updates for a browser is the right thing to do for the average user. They're a huge attack surface and many users with low tech literacy habitually decline every update prompt if given the option, unknowingly making themselves vulnerable to tons of security flaws over time.
It's always a balance between letter users do what they want and the overall experience. For browsers, auto-update is understandable. Browsers aren't just normal apps - they are the first line of...
It's always a balance between letter users do what they want and the overall experience. For browsers, auto-update is understandable. Browsers aren't just normal apps - they are the first line of defense against the horde of destruction known as the public internet. It's a portal to a dimension of unspeakable horrors.
That is to say, security bugfixes on browsers is a big deal - it's the difference between browsing like normal and having your bank account hacked.
Users, both casual and knowledgeable, are all prone to make poor risk assessments for browser update health. Sometimes it's best to just do it for them.
Yeah, I'm usually very much on the side of user autonomy and control over their devices, but I also think that auto-updates, at least for certain things like browsers or phone OSes, are a good...
Yeah, I'm usually very much on the side of user autonomy and control over their devices, but I also think that auto-updates, at least for certain things like browsers or phone OSes, are a good thing. The general layperson absolutely does not understand basic cybersecurity steps (see people complaining about 2FA online all the time) and would probably not manually update super often, if at all. At the very least, security updates are probably not a bad thing...
Personally don't think there is any actual balance in mainstream update practices in general, simply one side leveraging their position. General acceptance of forced updates makes it significantly...
Personally don't think there is any actual balance in mainstream update practices in general, simply one side leveraging their position.
General acceptance of forced updates makes it significantly easier to push any kind of anti features, especially since feature updates are force pushed alongside security fixes.
I am not saying the security argument is invalid but rather that it had dominated the opinions on updates to the point that any concerns are mostly brushed aside instead of weighted against it.
Interesting, I realize the article says this'll be rolled out without notification, but about a week ago I got a notification recommending I restart my phone and that by doing so I'd be allowing...
Interesting, I realize the article says this'll be rolled out without notification, but about a week ago I got a notification recommending I restart my phone and that by doing so I'd be allowing my phone to restart automatically in the future...Or, something to that effect. I can't remember the exact details, and because I'm lazy and don't like my device telling me what to do, I simply ignored the prompt.
Some phones have had that ability for years, for different reasons, often saying it improves performance. It can help with security too, though, which is the more common reason now.
Some phones have had that ability for years, for different reasons, often saying it improves performance. It can help with security too, though, which is the more common reason now.
Really surprised to see several comments presenting this as an unwanted feature and annoyance. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this has been standard on GrapheneOS for a while. It's extra...
Really surprised to see several comments presenting this as an unwanted feature and annoyance. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this has been standard on GrapheneOS for a while. It's extra security in the event of loss/theft and doesn't impact normal phone usage whatsoever. I have mine set much lower than this supposed default and have never even noticed it. If you were to not unlock your phone for 3 days and have it auto reboot, you'd still just unlock and use it as normal. Even if this somehow ended up not being configurable, I think there are next to no downsides to this feature.
Since this is a change to play services, looks like the solution will be to use a sandboxed play service (like on Grephene OS). Or maybe microG can do something similar without having to install a...
Since this is a change to play services, looks like the solution will be to use a sandboxed play service (like on Grephene OS). Or maybe microG can do something similar without having to install a brand new OS.
Link to release notes
My opinion is that this is a theoretically useful feature but I zero confidence that Google will approach it correctly(from a user experience standpoint). That would have been a very simple - a message only after which it would be enabled, along with making the time configurable.
It it also touches on the much larger issue of how much control Google has over the "open source" Android(technically correct, the best kind of correct except among others, this case) and mainly the ecosystem around it.
Forcibly enabling it by default is the correct move from a legal perspective, actually. If it required a consent popup, or especially if it wasn't enabled by default, it could be argued that the person who set up the device was intentionally impeding law enforcement by enabling it.
I'm not sure what jurisdiction you're referencing.
If it's the US, State of Utah v. Valdez determined that a person isn't required to give police the passcode to their phone under the 5th amendment.
If there's a warrant, that's different.
I admit that I don't have all that much law knowledge but this seems honestly insane. Which jurisdiction are you referencing here?
I don't understand your concern here. What negative impact does this have on your use of your phone? Every phone app I've ever used autosaves its state, so even if it reboots you don't lose anything.
Generally device autonomy. I wish the standard would have been a very simple no unauthorized internet connections and no unauthorized software changes. That should not be that much to ask for.
Specific cases fall outside mainstream smartphone use but I don't think an intentional surprise restart is acceptable for a device the user owns.
Just to be clear, this is after 3 days of complete phone non-use. Generally if I don't unlock my phone for 3 days, the battery is dead anyway.
I can't think of a situation where I would want my phone to be on after 3 days of non-use, except in kiosk-type applications, and in those cases I wouldn't have a PIN set up anyway.
Tiny note that I don't think changes your point: If your phone is plugged in, it'll still reboot in the three days.
Just to throw out there my use case. I kept my old Android phone after upgrading and I use it to play white noise/forest type sounds in my bedroom all day for my cats who like to chill and nap in there. It sits on a wireless charger and I never have to touch it. I think it's been playing for 3+ months now.
This is definitely an edge case and to be fair the release notes do say "Enables a future optional security feature" implying I can opt out. If that's the case then I'll probably be alright.
Considering that we've all just gotten used to the fact that Chrome and Firefox simply stop operating and require a reboot now... it seems that we're being forced into the era of not owning the software on your device. They'll decide when it updates and what new "features" you're getting.
Have we? I assume we're talking mobile. Maybe I don't browse much on my phone using browsers (usually specific apps), but I've never had any app on my phone ask for a reboot.
Not disagreeing, asking for more info - maybe something I missed :)
It's a regular occurence for me now to see Chrome's little sad folder icon, or Firefox's
RESTART TO CONTINUE USING FIREFOXon both PC and MacOS.It's weird that my phone is less likely to do silent updates for apps than my PC.
This is less Firefox and more your OS, IMO. My lInux install updates when I tell it to.
It'll do the same "Restart to continue" bit, but web browsers are complex enough that I can forgive that, especially because the update is on my schedule instead of Microsoft's or Apple's
It means you have to restart Firefox, not your entire computer. It's still annoying, but your comment about "requiring a reboot" is inaccurate.
"Restart to continue using Firefox" appears when Firefox is updated while running. It takes hardly any time to restart the browser, and you can change your settings if you don't want it to update automatically while in use.
Firefox on Windows has the following options:
On Linux updates are handled through your package manager.
Defaulting to automatic updates for a browser is the right thing to do for the average user. They're a huge attack surface and many users with low tech literacy habitually decline every update prompt if given the option, unknowingly making themselves vulnerable to tons of security flaws over time.
It's always a balance between letter users do what they want and the overall experience. For browsers, auto-update is understandable. Browsers aren't just normal apps - they are the first line of defense against the horde of destruction known as the public internet. It's a portal to a dimension of unspeakable horrors.
That is to say, security bugfixes on browsers is a big deal - it's the difference between browsing like normal and having your bank account hacked.
Users, both casual and knowledgeable, are all prone to make poor risk assessments for browser update health. Sometimes it's best to just do it for them.
Yeah, I'm usually very much on the side of user autonomy and control over their devices, but I also think that auto-updates, at least for certain things like browsers or phone OSes, are a good thing. The general layperson absolutely does not understand basic cybersecurity steps (see people complaining about 2FA online all the time) and would probably not manually update super often, if at all. At the very least, security updates are probably not a bad thing...
Personally don't think there is any actual balance in mainstream update practices in general, simply one side leveraging their position.
General acceptance of forced updates makes it significantly easier to push any kind of anti features, especially since feature updates are force pushed alongside security fixes.
I am not saying the security argument is invalid but rather that it had dominated the opinions on updates to the point that any concerns are mostly brushed aside instead of weighted against it.
I assume custom ROMs are also gonna be cooked?
Interesting, I realize the article says this'll be rolled out without notification, but about a week ago I got a notification recommending I restart my phone and that by doing so I'd be allowing my phone to restart automatically in the future...Or, something to that effect. I can't remember the exact details, and because I'm lazy and don't like my device telling me what to do, I simply ignored the prompt.
I do wonder if that was related, though.
Some phones have had that ability for years, for different reasons, often saying it improves performance. It can help with security too, though, which is the more common reason now.
Really surprised to see several comments presenting this as an unwanted feature and annoyance. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this has been standard on GrapheneOS for a while. It's extra security in the event of loss/theft and doesn't impact normal phone usage whatsoever. I have mine set much lower than this supposed default and have never even noticed it. If you were to not unlock your phone for 3 days and have it auto reboot, you'd still just unlock and use it as normal. Even if this somehow ended up not being configurable, I think there are next to no downsides to this feature.
Since this is a change to play services, looks like the solution will be to use a sandboxed play service (like on Grephene OS). Or maybe microG can do something similar without having to install a brand new OS.
GrapheneOS actually had the auto-reboot feature built-in for a very long time. It's configurable there though.