Default encryption on Lollipop not happening after all.
Announced early in 2014, still not implemented as of 2015, slanted for a later release in the "near future".
Fragmentation is real, as it seems.
>Fragmentation is real, as it seems.
close, but no cigar.
it's actually simpler, google profits from lack of privacy, not privacy
if you wanna know the true reason, follow the money
It shows the company's intention, its priorities.
We all know Google is all about ads, but with choices like this, you start worrying if every single default/choice made by the OS is at your expense, for the advertisers' benefit.
You think that NSA's #1 partner, Google, would add encryption to everything???
You people actually thought this was gonna happen??
HAHAHAHHAHAHAH HAH HHHA HAHAHA
You fucking morons.
Google would never fuck over NSA!
You guys are reading too much into this. Yes, Google and privacy should never go in the same sentence together, as you are their product, and your information is payment for the services you use.
Having said that, this is probably because google sucks at software (see every android release, and all those over hyped, over promised projects like butter and Volta) and can't get encryption to work properly without slowing the phones down to a crawl. If you want encryption, go with iOS or Samsung (Knox). Maybe Windows phone, but I'm not sure if they allow encryption.
>no other competing OS offers full disk encryption. your reasoning is flawed.
What do you mean?
iOS since 3.0, with the iPhone 3GS, offered full encryption.
Same with some Symbians I think.
>my blind hatred for a mobile platform means it doesn't have features I'd rather it didn't
>I'll forget that NSA and even Obongo are slamming Apple for using end-to-end encryption to prevent eavesdropping
>I'll also forget they've encrypted the user partition in iOS since 4.0
>Better also forget that the fingerprint reader stores only salted hashes in a separate SoC as opposed to every Android fingerprint solution which stores your fingerprint in what's essentially plaintext
Android isn't secure.
If you want a picture of how secure it is - check ANY government agency in ANY country - notice how noone is using Android?
No Security, can't be bound to Exchange/ActiveSync, Can't be remote wiped by Exchange, can't be remote wiped period.
>want privacy and security? use iOS.
hahaha, nice try.
>Why would they keep the option if encryption stops them?
Because they 90% of people don't tamper with defaults. Especially those buying 100$ devices en masse.
So, why not add something that gives you marketing material and looks good on paper, since people won't use it to cause you any issues?
>And why would the encryption stop them from spying?
I don't even...
Not all parts of the OS are granted access to all parts of the filesystem.
And that's especially true for userspace apps.
But more importantly, physical access to the phone.
Someone having physical access to your phone is not that unusual (losing it, having it stolen, etc.) like with PCs.
With good enough encryption, a stolen phone is a paperweight.
>There are still millions of handsets with Heartbleed and master key vulns out there.
Yeah but that's the phone manufacturers/carriers fault for not pushing newer Android versions to their users, not Google's.
>With good enough encryption, a stolen phone is a paperweight.
I don't get that logic. It isn't a paperweight considering you can just sell it for parts or potentially figure out a way to reinstall the OS right?
Being paperweight has 2 advantages:
1. Nobody gets your pictures, messages, contacts, etc., that are stored in your phone
2. If you combine encryption with activation, the thief cannot use the phone, its value drops a lot (used scrap parts), and there's not much incentive to steal them, against other phones.
There was a study, how iPhones were the most popular theft targets, but the incidents fell over 50% after iCloud lock/activation.
Not that it should be iCloud exclusive, such methods can be used by everyone.
It's not just iCloud. iPhone has secure enclave on chip and it also has a full encryption engine. Everything you save on an iphone is encrypted with two keys (hardware key unique to the device and you password). Once you send the kill signal to an iOS device, the firmware itself locks down and you can't do shit with it. You can salvage screen, case, battery, camera etc... everything else is done for.
This is also great when cops confiscate your iphone... just have someone send a kill signal. There have been dozens of cases of this happening already.
With ios8, even if cops have your phone, they can't extract any of your data without a password. With ios7 and under, email, sms and contacts was the only thing not encrypted so if forensics could bypass the password, those could be recovered. Not after ios8 however.
There isn't a single solution currently on market that can extract ios8 locked phones. if you can create one, you'll become a millionaire overnight.
>I think he's saying that just because there is nothing available to the public, that doesn't mean that none exist.
Oh right... the God hypothesis... the Russell's Teapot hypothesis.... the Ayyliens hypothesis....
trying to prove a negative is fucking pointless.
If there was a solution, there would be a company out there charging $1m contracts to do it.They wouldn't have to disclose how either. They could just charge big bucks for it.
But guess what, there's no one doing that and there are billion dollar security companies who sell forensics equipment and software who cannot offer this solution.
FBI director is still bitching about this and is threatening that he will use national security letters to force companies to eliminate or weaken security.
oh you idiot. the code is stored inside the chip and it's not recorded anywhere. you'd have to reverse the whole chip to find out the code. that could clot you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
>and it's not recorded anywhere
What ever makes you sleep at night.
> not voluntary turning encryption ON