The number I’ve seen floating around a few places is that app users are, on average seven times more profitable than web users. Reasons include:
The app being on the device acts as a reminder to the user to interact more
It’s easier for an app to send notifications to get users to open it and interact more (Android has reduced this by requiring permission; browsers required it long before)
There are more limited options for blocking ads in an app
There are more opportunities to collect data in an app
Are there any good reasons for it, too? Security, maybe?
Security for the user? Probably not. “Security” for the developer in that they can prevent people from using the app in ways that aren’t profitable? Likely.
I did not know that it was possible to have root on GrapheneOS with a locked bootloader, but there have been ROMs with SU functionality built in, and adding their keys would be a straightforward way to have root and a locked bootloader.
There may be some other comments being unfair. People shouldn’t complain about free software someone else gives to them falling short of perfection, but we should be careful about granting random apps root permissions.
Having root is almost never a security benefit, it allows you to close one hole, but opens up 10 new more
I think it’s more like two:
If an app granted root privileges is compromised, the damage it can cause is much greater
The bootloader has to be unlocked for most approaches to gaining root; I consider it a design flaw that it isn’t easier for users to add signing keys and re-lock the bootloader
F-droid is not secure, some of the issues had been resolved, but it’s still not recommended for best practices
This is another very binary statement about security. The article addresses a number of design issues with F-Droid and concludes that most users are better off getting apps from Google Play. I don’t disagree with the design complaints in theory, but in practice it doesn’t hold up. I’ve seen people get malware from Google Play and read a number of documented cases. I have never heard of malware in the official F-Droid repository.
I’m reminded of comparing Windows to Linux 20 years ago. In theory, Windows had a more sophisticated permissions model and more reliable logging, making it potentially more secure. In practice, it took significant care to keep a Windows desktop clean, while Linux was very unlikely to be compromised.
Of course someone with high-value secrets on their device or who’s likely to be directly targeted by sophisticated threats should probably take a more conservative approach, install very few apps, and consider a hardened ROM like GrapheneOS.
I’m not complaining. I’m asking for some evidence this app is trustworthy.
Security is not binary. Having root can be bad for security, but it doesn’t have to be especially if you’re careful about what apps you grant root to, which is the point of my original comment. Having root can also be a security benefit because it offers more opportunities for detecting and blocking harmful and privacy-invasive apps, as this app does (if it’s trustworthy).
I don’t think F-Droid with the official repositories is a negative for security either; I suspect it’s less likely to contain outright malware than Google Play, and I’m sure the average app on F-Droid is less likely to be privacy-invasive. Adding random repositories suggested by strangers on the internet can be a different story, and asking who can vouch for the one suggested in this thread seems like a reasonable mitigation to me.
It’s reasonable for an app like this to need root, but also reasonable for everyone to ask for third-party verification of anything they’re granting administrative access to their devices.
Izzydroid’s security policy appears to be primarily based around automated scans that enumerate badness, and has far fewer users than the official F-Droid repository making it less likely that problems will be noticed, reported, and acted on.
Is there more reputation information about this app available?
I’m surprised users find the app store that compelling for a one-time “install” with updates not a factor. Do they cite any other reasons for wanting a different approach?
I don’t think anyone can give you good advice without knowing the reasons you’d rather not get in to.
I can think of various scenarios where some sort of minimal internet presence under your real name would be useful for social or employment reasons, but exactly what it is you’re trying to accomplish makes a big difference in terms of what tools (including corporate platforms, federated microblogging like Mastodon, a blog, or a static website) will get you the results you want.
What’s popular where you live or in your professional field matters too. For some people, not using Facebook or Linkedin specifically is unusual, but we don’t have enough information to know if that’s true for you.
Texas can however make it illegal to have drugs in your system while in Texas
I’m not sure that’s actually a crime in Texas (please link a law if you know of one), and using it as evidence of prior drug possession is legally iffy as this Ohio case shows. In your example of consuming cannabis in California before traveling to Texas, it would be an even more difficult case for Texas prosecutors.
I don’t want the parole thing to confuse the issue
It does though; parole can include restrictions like “pass random drug tests”, “don’t drink alcohol”, etc… that can’t be imposed on people without a prior criminal conviction. It’s probably best to leave parole out of the discussion entirely.
the concern is ipso facto the termination.
When it comes to an abortion outside the state, the laws I’m aware of concern travel for the purpose of abortion. An alternate purpose for the travel could be useful as a defense, but that’s best delivered by one’s lawyer after charges are filed.
The US constitution forbids states from creating ex post facto crimes, and the jurisdiction of state laws does not extend into other states. Texas cannot make it a crime to have an abortion in California, nor to have previously had an abortion in California.
Texas may be able to make it a crime to leave Texas for the purpose of having an abortion. That would make creating any evidence of the reason for travel, or providing explanations to authorities dangerous.
Unfortunately, Flym seems to be discontinued (according to its F-Droid entry). Google Play won’t install it on newer versions of Android because it’s built for older versions. I can’t use it for this use case for that reason.