Why MPs have two mobile phones(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Why MPs have two mobile phones
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56842946
34 comments
Because mobile computers are the antithesis of personal computers -- you don't get to really own and control the very expensive device you bought. That people accepted this is an example of how truly powerless (or just ignorant) consumers are.
The truth is: No one cares. I mean, very few people really care.
Mobile phones have been able to bring computation to the masses, including poor countries. PCs were a luxury item even in the Western World.
Accessibility and standardization have been the driver of this change, not customization.
After all, mobile phones are now sort of a mass product like TVs back then. No one really "owned" a TV either.
You can call these masses ignorant, but I think most just want to live a good life with a handy tool that works.
Mobile phones have been able to bring computation to the masses, including poor countries. PCs were a luxury item even in the Western World.
Accessibility and standardization have been the driver of this change, not customization.
After all, mobile phones are now sort of a mass product like TVs back then. No one really "owned" a TV either.
You can call these masses ignorant, but I think most just want to live a good life with a handy tool that works.
No one cares, until they do, and it's too late. A chain does not stop being a chain just because your master hasn't yanked it yet.
Apple pulls police-tracking app used by Hong Kong protesters after consulting authorities - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/apple-pulls-police-tracki...
Apple pulls police-tracking app used by Hong Kong protesters after consulting authorities - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/apple-pulls-police-tracki...
Good thing that Android allows side-loading apps
> allows
That word is blackli^Wblocklisted in Google developer documentation style guide.
https://developers.google.com/style/word-list
That word is blackli^Wblocklisted in Google developer documentation style guide.
https://developers.google.com/style/word-list
Yeah and those ignorant consumers pull those in the know with them into the abyss.
its not that they're 'powerless'. It's that 99.8% of people just don't care. They want it the way it is.
Well, who's "you"?
20-25 years ago, "you" (whoever was able to run software, as well as whoever had momentary physical access) got to really control the expensive device "you" (the buyer) bought. That wasn't so great for the buyer, and it would have been even worse now. That naïve security model would not do well against today's sophisticated threats.
IMO, the android/iphone state is a clear improvement, and we're not going to get another improvement until the people who dislike the current state stop confusing "you" and "you". Only then will we get enough clear thinking on the subject to work out another improvement.
20-25 years ago, "you" (whoever was able to run software, as well as whoever had momentary physical access) got to really control the expensive device "you" (the buyer) bought. That wasn't so great for the buyer, and it would have been even worse now. That naïve security model would not do well against today's sophisticated threats.
IMO, the android/iphone state is a clear improvement, and we're not going to get another improvement until the people who dislike the current state stop confusing "you" and "you". Only then will we get enough clear thinking on the subject to work out another improvement.
What does that have to do with restricting the use of screenshots?
Screenshots are made by performing an API call, or a sequence of call. Calls to that API are subject to a security model that's intended to protect the device's owner (or ordinary user) from malevolent programs or momentary users.
> Why would android even allow such restrictions to be enabled in the first place?
To enforce DRM in streaming apps, mostly; though other apps have ended up bodging that for their own purposes.
I suppose at least in the context of secure messaging or banking apps (which also do this) it makes you think twice before snapping something, but even so I think there should be a variant of whatever API which lets the user override it / disable it globally.
Only genuine security concern I can think of that it addresses is that of screen recording malware / stalkerware (assuming said malware doesn't already have root access on your device to circumvent it...), and perhaps the risk of accidentally screenshotting/capturing something sensitive like bank details while screen sharing.
To enforce DRM in streaming apps, mostly; though other apps have ended up bodging that for their own purposes.
I suppose at least in the context of secure messaging or banking apps (which also do this) it makes you think twice before snapping something, but even so I think there should be a variant of whatever API which lets the user override it / disable it globally.
Only genuine security concern I can think of that it addresses is that of screen recording malware / stalkerware (assuming said malware doesn't already have root access on your device to circumvent it...), and perhaps the risk of accidentally screenshotting/capturing something sensitive like bank details while screen sharing.
The irony of Android stopping this, and iOS allowing it is not lost on me.
iOS definitely stops it to an extent
you can’t screen record or screenshot netflix or disney+
it doesn’t explicitly block it, but the screen just comes out black or stuck on a single frame
whether that’s a feature or an exploit, I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem too unreasonable
you can’t screen record or screenshot netflix or disney+
it doesn’t explicitly block it, but the screen just comes out black or stuck on a single frame
whether that’s a feature or an exploit, I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem too unreasonable
Their are Apps that forbid screenshots on iOS as well. This isn't an Android only thing.
> I can use an external camera if I really wanted to save a copy of a communication...
To be fair, this would require the MP to have a second mobile phone. [looks at title of article] Oh. ;P
To be fair, this would require the MP to have a second mobile phone. [looks at title of article] Oh. ;P
The real problem is that not everyone gets the PM's number. If you have it, you have a chance to get special treatment like Greensill attempted. A select few people have the ear of government and will sell it, as demonstrated by the former PM.
I'm not sure we can continue like this, it's possible that we just need total openness, even if it makes the PM's private life a bit weird. Just complete pants down government, everything is visible to everyone. I don't really buy that secrecy benefits overrule the transparency benefits.
I'm not sure we can continue like this, it's possible that we just need total openness, even if it makes the PM's private life a bit weird. Just complete pants down government, everything is visible to everyone. I don't really buy that secrecy benefits overrule the transparency benefits.
There is a big difference between privacy in the PM's life and transparency in government. Note that I'm saying privacy here, not secrecy. The difference may be subtle to most people, but the difference is enough to matter.
I would argue that politics is enough of a spectacle to discourage most people from pursuing office. Suggesting that everything is visible to everyone would discourage all but the most special breed of narcissist from pursing office. While that degree of transparency may catch transgressions that the public has a legitimate right to know, it would also expose the deeply personal and leave it open to interpretation. Put in other terms: would you want the public to judge you from your apparent emotional response to a conversation with an ailing family member?
There comes a point where we have to trust our leaders judgment or, if their judgment is faulty, find other means of pursuing it.
I would argue that politics is enough of a spectacle to discourage most people from pursuing office. Suggesting that everything is visible to everyone would discourage all but the most special breed of narcissist from pursing office. While that degree of transparency may catch transgressions that the public has a legitimate right to know, it would also expose the deeply personal and leave it open to interpretation. Put in other terms: would you want the public to judge you from your apparent emotional response to a conversation with an ailing family member?
There comes a point where we have to trust our leaders judgment or, if their judgment is faulty, find other means of pursuing it.
Did the Guardian have special access to Tony Blair? But that's OK because only the descruction of the middle east was at stake.
There is definitely an aversion to email because it creates a paper trail. Messenger apps can be organized privately and not be subject to information requests. Current surveillance capitalism tech could easily keep politicians and governments 100% accountable if we turned it on them. If you live in an outwardly democratic country with strong rules about public service transparency and individual citizen privacy, but your government operates mainly with secret anonymous networks that shield members from scrutiny or accountability, you should have a problem with that.
Without public transparency, government becomes competing cells and factions (often using ethnic ties) who compete for a zero-sum pool of public money to keep their networks loyal. It can look a lot like organized crime because without transparency, that's exactly what it is. The encryption threat few people talk about is how it creates a separate government perimeter that shields them from public accountability. For example, "emergency services," are using military-style trunked encrypted radio systems with encryption. IMO, this tech decision (~20+y ago) was really a backdoor policy decision that de-facto changed the relationship of law enforcement to the public from being a service, to being an occupation / pacification / counter-insurgency operation. If you thought police behavior was a problem, wait until you see what politicians and bureaucrats with secure anonymous networks do.
What people here need to get right now is that Code is Policy. We're building it, forking it, hacking it, disrupting it, and what we reward, we will only get more of. Watching politicians use encrypted messengers is like watching chimps use cutlery. It's cute and interesting, until they figure out how to stab each other with it.
I recommend watching this issue carefully.
Without public transparency, government becomes competing cells and factions (often using ethnic ties) who compete for a zero-sum pool of public money to keep their networks loyal. It can look a lot like organized crime because without transparency, that's exactly what it is. The encryption threat few people talk about is how it creates a separate government perimeter that shields them from public accountability. For example, "emergency services," are using military-style trunked encrypted radio systems with encryption. IMO, this tech decision (~20+y ago) was really a backdoor policy decision that de-facto changed the relationship of law enforcement to the public from being a service, to being an occupation / pacification / counter-insurgency operation. If you thought police behavior was a problem, wait until you see what politicians and bureaucrats with secure anonymous networks do.
What people here need to get right now is that Code is Policy. We're building it, forking it, hacking it, disrupting it, and what we reward, we will only get more of. Watching politicians use encrypted messengers is like watching chimps use cutlery. It's cute and interesting, until they figure out how to stab each other with it.
I recommend watching this issue carefully.
[deleted]
They learn much faster than chimps with cutlery though.
I am not alone by having two phones. One personnel and one work. Knowing that the work phone I do not the phone or the data or anything.
I also guard my own phone number like a hawk.
I also guard my own phone number like a hawk.
We offer the choice to all employees, either get a company phone which we pay for or a reimbursement for the costs of using your private phone plan for work if you only want to carry one phone. We pay $ 60 / month + whatever costs you make for travel or international calling in that case.
Out of ~150 people I think 140+ choose to use their private phone for work. We had expected that to be very different.
Out of ~150 people I think 140+ choose to use their private phone for work. We had expected that to be very different.
I understand why you would want separate phones, but if you end up needing to carry two phones, it'sa big pain. Phones are pretty big these days, and finding room in your pocket(s) for two is hard. Figuring out which one to pull out when one buzzes is tricky. Charging two phones is harder than charging one. Practicality wins over privacy almost all the time, but thanks for making the option.
My approach is to use a dual SIM iPhone, and cut the work SIM off when I’m not working. It works well!
Where I work roughly 80% of people have taken a similar deal to that you described and have the two phones option. It may be because I work in infosec but two phones is nothing unusual amongst my coworkers and the industry at large.
We had expected the same to happen here, were surprised it didn't. More than half the team are developers and ops.
[deleted]
> They can also stop screenshots being taken of exchanges if they are using an Android phone.
This is terribly misleading. A Signal user can disable screenshots being taken on their own device (something like "disable screenshots on my phone when I'm using this app") but Signal makes no attempt to apply this policy to other people in a conversation. It's not like Snapchat, which attempt to block/track screenshots taken by any party.
This is terribly misleading. A Signal user can disable screenshots being taken on their own device (something like "disable screenshots on my phone when I'm using this app") but Signal makes no attempt to apply this policy to other people in a conversation. It's not like Snapchat, which attempt to block/track screenshots taken by any party.
One for work and one for their mistresses.
Does anyone else feel infuriated that apps can restrict screenshots from occurring? I can use an external camera if I really wanted to save a copy of a communication, or use a personal computer with no such limitations.
Why would android even allow such restrictions to be enabled in the first place?