> They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security.
That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors also sometimes enforce control unrelated to security.
But, the original claims were that "your security and privacy aren't really protected" and "the main point of these security measures is to enforce control". Your examples don't really support these (much stronger) claims.
> And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens.
I'm not really sure how that follows? I suppose you could argue that the various linuxes have fewer malware problems but I suspect that's more a function of demand than anything else. I'm not sure how other Android ROMs are relevant? In any case neither of those examples address the issue of privacy. (As in mechanisms to help prevent "rogue" apps from exfiltrating your private data via abuse of legitimate APIs.)
That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors also sometimes enforce control unrelated to security.
But, the original claims were that "your security and privacy aren't really protected" and "the main point of these security measures is to enforce control". Your examples don't really support these (much stronger) claims.
> And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens.
I'm not really sure how that follows? I suppose you could argue that the various linuxes have fewer malware problems but I suspect that's more a function of demand than anything else. I'm not sure how other Android ROMs are relevant? In any case neither of those examples address the issue of privacy. (As in mechanisms to help prevent "rogue" apps from exfiltrating your private data via abuse of legitimate APIs.)