Came across this interesting Medium article in my Inbox. Brief and to the point.
If anyone have seen the movies Imposter with Garry Seniece, and Enemy Of The State with Gene Hackman, will know what a surveillance state looks like. Its sad, but the masses give up their right to privacy, simply to enjoy a life with convenience. Once the Indiana Jones several ton boulder started rolling down the mountain, it can no longer by stopped, AKA, you can't put the Genie back into the bottle, AKA, were screwed.
2 Likes
I flashed Graphene OS 6 months ago to a new Pixel it works just fine. I did it mainly because I despise google's business model. I REFUSE to be their product. It's a pity that the devs and the community are "insane in the membrane". I have also used a phone in the past with e/OS which I actually prefer and is available for devices other than Pixels.
I'm loving the new Fairphone 6 from /e/.
1 Like
Google's plans are more difficult. It seems that they are working on further âlocking downâ Android, which will ultimately make initiatives such as e/ OS impossible. For this reason, I converted my old Fairphone 3 from e/ OS to Ubuntu touch (my newer Fairphone 4 also runs on e/ OS) to gain experience with alternatives.
The main hurdle is the banking apps. Unfortunately, the banks here (in the Netherlands) have completely surrendered to the US companies Google and Apple. Even banking from a PC requires a step (authorizing a transaction) via a smartphone using their own banking app. At the moment, a special bank-specific reader can still be used, but they want to phase it out. 
In fact, we in Europe should also âbreak awayâ from US hegemony in this respect.
3 Likes
It is a kind of funny but also wired that you try to move away from Google but most phones on which any Linux-based OS can run are the Pixel phones of Google.
I am willing to do the step, but would need a refurbished phone first as I fear I would mess up my current one.
...
EDIT: while writing this I see that e/OS and LineageOS offer a long list of compatible devices.
more points of attention, do not let the title mislead you ...
it is about how smartphones are tracking us all
in German
See also the thread:
I had issues using adb in GNU/Linux - only managed to put /e/OS on my old 1+ 3 using Windows 7 64-bit Pro.
Some support ...
How to Make Your Phone Impossible to Track: 13 Strategies
or
Ultimate Privacy Guide: Turn Off Location Tracking on All Your Devices | Mavigadget - Blog
or
How to turn off app location tracking on your Android phone
True, all they need is triangulation from the masts you are making a call via!
But can you prove the opposite is true, though?
Different measures are taken based on different requirements. Most people don't need to become ghosts online, but want to limit the tracking from popular applications that they need to install.
For instance, disabling location services might be enough to prevent certain apps from knowing your location all the time. Think of WhatsApp, banking apps or whatever else that you might be forced to install for whatever reason.
You might be interested in sharing some sensitive information occasionally, but not all the time.
Android's built-in work profile is an excellent way of limiting that type of tracking, by the way.
But sure, if you are up against someone with enough access to triangulate your position, you probably have bigger concerns to worry about.
2 Likes
Two points:
- Proofs only exist in mathematics. In the world, we refer to Evidence, since nothing can ever be proven non-mathematically.
- You cannot prove a negative.
Just reminded me of this excellent video from James@WAR - Bad Grammar "I don't ever say no double negatives" 
1 Like
Does exclusion count towards this? For example by saying 1 + 1 = 2 you are also negating other possibilities.
Youa re referring to a kind of logical exclusivity, which is not the same concept. In formal logic, asserting a proposition đ (such as 1+1=2) entails the negation of all contradictory propositions, but this is a byproduct of asserting đ, not an example of proving a negative through exclusion in the epistemic sense.
In regards to this:
This is a falsifiable statement. If one knows the code, they can audit it.
However, they cannot be proven to work. There may be unseen proprietary code. We can only make a determination based on the available evidence as to whether they likely work.
This is not falsifiable.
You cannot prove a lack of something.
You can presume the lack of something based on not seeing it. It is not proven, should it be hidden from or outside of your view.
This is base classical logic, however - Probably best if we do not go too far into tangents on it... My point is just that in the real world, we sometimes must accept the majority of evidence.
3 Likes
I'll take the exit right here, then 
1 Like
Oh, where is your sense of adventure...
No tangents for me during weekdays 
1 Like