The General Technology Thread

[Phase2]

We need to get a smart developer to develop an android app that will remove these permanent apps. I'd pay $5 for that app and I'm sure a lot of others would.

Facebook, Uber, Samsung Health and other Samsung apps could all go. No more worries about clutter, memory drain, apps working in the background, playstore updating, etc.

Sorry. Don't have that solution for you, but I at least have two other possibilities.

• Go into the settings and either disable or set them to not start automatically. Sorry, can't give a more specific procedure as it varies by Android version. Be sure to do a full backup first as it is very possible to toggle an important setting and disable some functionality that you need.
• ** Warning! Danger Will Robinson! ** If you are a techie, consider installing an alternate OS such as LineageOS. Very good Android clone that offers much better privacy options and doesn't come with spyware/bloatware. Again, be sure you have a full backup first.

 

[jkaetz]

We need to get a smart developer to develop an android app that will remove these permanent apps. I'd pay $5 for that app and I'm sure a lot of others would.

Facebook, Uber, Samsung Health and other Samsung apps could all go. No more worries about clutter, memory drain, apps working in the background, playstore updating, etc.

Unfortunately this isn't possible without root (admin) access. They're installed as part of the system and are untouchable by normal means. Once you do have root access, removing them is trivial. The powers that be have done a good job convincing people that root is a bad thing and only cheaters do it. There is now a whole slew of apps that refuse to run if they can detect a rooted device. It has created a cat and mouse game of detection and hiding.

 

[KLB]

The Google Pixels don't come with any Manufacturer or Carrier imposed software on them.

 

[actaeon277]

The Google Pixels don't come with any Manufacturer or Carrier imposed software on them.

for now

 

[ArcadiaGP]

But they do come with Google software.

Google is as evil, if not more, than Facebook.

 

[KLB]

But they do come with Google software.

Google is as evil, if not more, than Facebook.

All Androids come with that. Plus you can uninstall anything not necessary to run the OS.

 

[mmpsteve]

The 8-Bit Guy looks at the Tandy 1000

[video=youtube;mYHtojsaRkY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYHtojsaRkY[/video]

Our first computer: Fall, 1985. Runnin with the big dogs! Believe it had 64k ram.

.

 

[BugI02]

But they do come with Google software.

Google is as evil, if not more, than Facebook.

"All your [strike]base[/strike] OS are belong to us"

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Australia Becomes First Western Nation to Ban Secure Encryption

 

[wtburnette]

Australia Becomes First Western Nation to Ban Secure Encryption

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This has been an issue since the dawn of smart phones. It's only now an issue as facebook has fallen out of favor with the masses. If you can gain root access on the device you can remove the apps but that has been getting more difficult and arduous. Also usually comes with some kind of penalty wherin the device claims it's not secure even though it is technically more secure without facebook and other apps you don't want/use.

PCs also suffer from this but you have the power to remove the apps. For some reason phone vendors believe they have the right to tell you what third party apps you must have on your device.

I don't have Facebook on my Samsung phone either, but I would love to get rid of some of the crap that Microsoft puts on my PC (like Edge). It builds up cache and history (which gets cleared with C-Cleaner) but I don't know why it even builds up anything because I never "actively" use it. I assume it does some crap in the background or something.

 

[JettaKnight]

Australia Becomes First Western Nation to Ban Secure Encryption

I'm going with fake news on this one. (well mostly; I guess it hinges on the word "secure")

There's no ban on encryption or encrypting, just a decree that companies must turn over unencrypted data when presented with a warrant and include a backdoor. (this is where the story has merit)

Second, it hasn't actually become a law -it just probably will.

Australia is now the first Western nation to ban security, following a decision by its parliament to pass a bill forcing companies to hand over encrypted data to police upon demand. The government will be allowed to demand this without judicial review or oversight of any kind, beyond the requirement to get a warrant in the first place. Furthermore, the law requires corporations to build tools to give them the ability to intercept data sought by police when such tools do not already exist. While the bill has only passed Australia’s lower chamber, the upper chamber has indicated it will pass the legislation provided there are later votes on unspecified amendments to the current bill.

This story is a much less sensational report: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rms-to-hand-over-encrypted-data-idUSKBN1O42SR

The problem is, if you add a backdoor, you can't really control who uses it.

 

[wtburnette]

The problem is, if you add a backdoor, you can't really control who uses it.

That's the biggest issue with this type of legislation. A back door is always going to be a vulnerability and you can't always know who knows about it and therefore who might exploit it. If you give the info to the government, you can guarantee it'll leak.

 

[KLB]

Hopefully the big players just tell them to stuff it and pull out of the country.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Feds Can't Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules

Something else that needs discussion, and is another example of the law not keeping up with technology is this bit:

They could, for instance, ask Facebook to provide Messenger communications, she suggested. Facebook has been willing to hand over such messages in a significant number of previous cases Forbes has reviewed.

...and the third party doctrine says they don't even need a warrant. The third party doctrine needs to be more limited. There's a wide gap between expectation of privacy and the law.

 

[Caleb]

Anybody here uses an ultrawide monitor?

 

[T.Lex]

Only for selfies.

 

[actaeon277]

Anybody here uses an ultrawide monitor?

I grew up when 27 inch TVs were the "big" thing and 14 inch monitors were the norm.
Everything now seems "ultrawide".

 

[Caleb]

I grew up when 27 inch TVs were the "big" thing and 14 inch monitors were the norm.
Everything now seems "ultrawide".

I thought my 22" Samsung was huge when I got it 12 years ago, now wanting to replace it with something newer...

 

[wtburnette]

I thought my 22" Samsung was huge when I got it 12 years ago, now wanting to replace it with something newer...

I use an ultrawide at work and it's great for dealing with huge spreadsheets, but not much else. I prefer the 32" monitor I have on my main PC. I can put two full sized documents side by side comfortably, but it's still reasonably tall.