i dont have google logged into my moto android phone. i haven't changed the stock messages/dialer which regularly nag me about "connected features" and "sign in" and i always reject that... point is, they "keep nagging" until you accept and then say "well the user accepted".

why should location require sharing data with google? why? why should i not be able to stop google location sharing and continue using location based apps?

I don't want to be prevented from using my device to its full potential because of what some teenagers might do. Sure, throw up some scary warnings to try to save the kids, but in the end I want control over the device I'm physically holding in my hands. I'm not going to spend $99/year to install apps any more than I'll spend $18/mo on heated seats.

s/device/gun

I agree.

Not a relevant comparison and makes me wonder why I even comment here

- phones cannot be used as weapons during a shooting

- guns don't require a monthly subscription to use bullets not approved by the manufacturer

etc

>phones cannot be used as weapons during a shooting

Theoretically, a phone can absolutely be used as a component of the triggering mechanism of a rigged up firearm.

Yes, there are even extant regulations around that.

The ATF will consider anything that meets the definition of a firearm rigged with an electrically actuated trigger a machine gun by default due to being readily convertible to being fully automatic.

That you don't have the creativity or will to go down these rabbit holes does not in any way mitigate their existence.

More so if you swap change device to gun.

I mean, I agree with you, but that's kind of a non-sequitur? The reason I want control over my software/hardware is not the same as the reason I want to own a firearm.

that's not why Apple locks down the iPhone. They lock it down to make more money through the app store by not facing competition. They say they lock it down to protect users to distract attention from their rent seeking behavior.

Banning side loading for everyone is hardly the solution here.

Then i'm not sure what the solution is.

I would say that we can have different devices for different peoples' needs; I personally want the ability to purchase a device with an absolutely locked-down state where no unauthorized or unaudited code can be ran, and currently iOS gets pretty close to that for me. But that is being taken away by laws like the EU's new sideloading law. Even if, after this is passed, I go out and make my own phone that serves my interests, I am forced to limit how many I sell if I want to keep it operational.

> I personally want the ability to purchase a device with an absolutely locked-down state where no unauthorized or unaudited code can be ran, and currently iOS gets pretty close to that for me.

No one is forcing you to run any "unauthorised" code. What you suggest is that, because you don't want to side load stuff, no one should be allowed to? Doesn't make much sense to me, to be honest.

My threat model is an evil maid attack, ie. someone watches over your shoulder as you enter your passcode, then steals your phone from your hotel room and sideloads malware (that hides the fact that it's been sideloaded).

I'm sure it's possible on Android to install enterprise management or MAM solution that locks down side-loading, locked behind some custom password (not the regular password that the maid would see)