If only banks cared about state-of-the-art security.
In reality, banks couldn’t care less. They only care about checking boxes and don’t consider where these boxes come from; every unchecked box is a risk.
Did the latest sham "security audit" say that root is bad? They'll block it.
> They have a fork of an old version of GrapheneOS merged with LineageOS. They heavily marketed it as being based on GrapheneOS, but it's a very outdated version. Their devices don't have remotely comparable privacy, security, usability or app compatibility to official GrapheneOS.
>> They heavily marketed it as being based on GrapheneOS
Claim not found in article. If it was so heavily marketed, that would be in the announcement since they're mentioning other partners (Threema, Proton, the extra app store it ships...), and definitely on the product page (no mention of /graph.*/ there either)
Edit: found the specs button. It says the OS is based on AOSP (Android open source project)
Searching for "site:punkt.ch grapheneos" returns results that don't exist anymore. Articles are linked in the thread which supports this as well.
> They repeatedly said they forked it from GrapheneOS in their media interviews and marketing. They didn't keep following along with our improvements and have shifted away from presenting it that way, partly because we requested it.
And that also matches what is claimed here, they used to market based on this, they don't anymore.
your scenario here doesn't really make any sense. one you're conflating getting married with staying together. you could get married and then divorced. two, such a bet wouldn't make sense since it could easily be rigged (and indeed this is what happens with sports betting).
again, if someone says they know the winning lottery and they don't play, they're unserious. nearly impossible to rig, high payout - outcome is of interest to layperson.
The idea was that I figured you’d consider that some things are valuable in ways that don’t involve money. Unfortunately I think the conclusion here is that you actually truly believe that there is nothing that cannot be bet if a suitable market could be formed for it. Of course, I should have realized this, because by placing bets in general you are in fact taking a financial position in the concept of betting markets.
I am sorry, but I don't follow — are you saying that Chat Control is a solution to any of these problems?
It achieves the opposite. Undermining encryption under the pretext of "think of the children" won't end well. It only creates more national security risks.
