[DonHB]

You're spot on in terms of the need for a business model. Copperhead's mistake was that their model was similar to Blackphone in that they imagined selling their reconfigured phones to governments and individuals. But that's a dead end, IMO.

One reason I like Purism is that I've heard interviews with their executives, and they are business people, not just hobbyists. They have identified a market segment (privacy enthusiasts) and are systematically developing products that check all the critical boxes that privacy enthusiasts care about.

As far as app availability goes, one great thing about targeting privacy enthusiasts is that they are much less concerned with the Google Play Store and mainstream apps.

The other thing I like about Purism is that they are not trying to do what Essential did. They focus on cash flow instead of scale and are not raising money for the Librem phone until they have product-market fit.

It's still a high risk endeavor, much riskier than BlackBerry Mobile. But it's also not doomed, like Essential was, by relying on an impossible business model.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

How does PureOS facilitate controlled sharing of information? A system that works as well with family videos as with ISV's software should be the goal. BlackBerry has made some progress in this area with Workspaces already. It isn't generalized to work with any IP and is an application intended for businesses like law firms that share a lot of documents. This concept for sharing IP should obviate the need for switching between personal and business spaces as both BB10 and Android require and eliminate the restrictions of a single employer model.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

That's the issue. Since we all operate outside of the Apple walled garden, access to Android apps is the key to making any platform successful - certainly in the way that Don is intending to use it.

Privacy is limited to the apps one chooses to use - which means it doesn't matter what the underlying kernel is.

Well some of us find the Apple walled "garden"... a functional, safe and beautiful place to be.

[conite]

Well some of us find the Apple walled "garden"... a functional, safe and beautiful place to be.

Yes, I'm sure.

But I'm speaking in the context of this discussion. IOS isn't really an option here.

[DonHB]

Am I wrong that iOS doesn't have something similar to workspaces in Android? Are workspaces included with AOSP?

[conite]

Am I wrong that iOS doesn't have something similar to workspaces in Android? Are workspaces included with AOSP?

BlackBerry Workspaces is just encrypted cloud storage. I fail to see what this brings to the overall privacy discussion.

[DonHB]

Android for Work and Balance create a personal space and a workspace and each have their own apps and data. Has this changed with Android? If not this makes use awkward. For example, as far as I understand, this makes a calendar view which combines a person's work and personal schedule impossible. What I am suggesting makes the need for separate spaces unnecessary. I was wondering how iOS handles keeping work and personal information separate.

Workspaces allows a business to specify who has access to encrypted documents with other businesses using Workspaces. I believe this requires key management among these businesses.

[conite]

Android for Work and Balance create a personal space and a workspace and each have their own apps and data. Has this changed with Android? If not this makes use awkward. For example, as far as I understand, this makes a calendar view which combines a person's work and personal schedule impossible. What I am suggesting makes the need for separate spaces unnecessary. I was wondering how iOS handles keeping work and personal information separate.

Workspaces allows a business to specify who has access to encrypted documents with other businesses using Workspaces. I believe this requires key management among these businesses.

Now you're talking about something else.

Containerisation has nothing to do with BlackBerry Workspaces - which is just BlackBerry's version of an encrypted cloud storage service (like DropBox).

So now you want your proposed device to have an EMM container? Why? Who do you want to relinquish control to?

[Elephant_Canyon]

Yes, I'm sure.

But I'm speaking in the context of this discussion. IOS isn't really an option here.

Realistically, neither is QNX.

[DonHB]

Now you're talking about something else.

Containerisation has nothing to do with BlackBerry Workspaces - which is just BlackBerry's version of an encrypted cloud storage service (like DropBox).

So now you want your proposed device to have an EMM container? Why? Who do you want to relinquish control to?

No. I would like a uniform means to control sharing of IP (software and data). Something to work on for a future QNX release.

Privacy should be about controlled sharing. Something more transparent than BlackBerry Workspaces Email Protector. Conceptually like DRM but for the rest of us (and businesses) with more granular control. It should replace the file system as persistent storage and not be layered on the OS with Apps. However, apps should be created to allow sharing through other OSes.

[conite]

No. I would like a uniform means to control sharing of IP (software and data). Something to work on for a future QNX release.

Privacy should be about controlled sharing. Something more transparent than BlackBerry Workspaces Email Protector. Conceptually like DRM but for the rest of us (and businesses) with more granular control. It should replace the file system as persistent storage and not be layered on the OS with Apps. However, apps should be created to allow sharing through other OSes.

Let's forget that these disparate technologies only seem relevant by their names and/or what they do in other specific spheres, what is it you are actually trying to accomplish? You wish to ultimately run an existing Android app on a device that isn't able to leak personal info?

I use an app called Island, which engages the container capabilities of Android for Work. On the "other" side of my device, I use a dummy Google account, use a VPN, and do not store my contacts or any other personal info.

I flip back and forth as I choose. But you can setup your whole device that way if you prefer.

Is this not easier than trying to reorganize the entire mobile firmament?

"On the Island, you can:

* Isolate app, for privacy protection.
* Clone app, for parallel running.
* Freeze app, to completely block its background behaviors.
* Hide app, for various reasons.
* Archive app, for potential future use on-demand.
* Use VPN only on one side, or different VPN on both sides."

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Let's forget that these disparate technologies only seem relevant by their names and/or what they do in other specific spheres, what is it you are actually trying to accomplish? You wish to ultimately run an existing Android app on a device that isn't able to leak personal info?

I use an app called Island, which engages the container capabilities of Android for Work. On the "other" side of my device, I use a dummy Google account, use a VPN, and do not store my contacts or any other personal info.

I flip back and forth as I choose. But you can setup your whole device that way if you prefer.

Is this not easier than trying to reorganize the entire mobile firmament?

"On the Island, you can:

* Isolate app, for privacy protection.
* Clone app, for parallel running.
* Freeze app, to completely block its background behaviors.
* Hide app, for various reasons.
* Archive app, for potential future use on-demand.
* Use VPN only on one side, or different VPN on both sides."

You really ought to do a write up, of all your privacy tweaks...

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Something to work on for a future QNX release.

QNX doesn't need it... as most the data stays on a users device and is only connected to via the UI on the car.



You need to forget about QNX on phones... BlackBerry has.

[DonHB]

Is this not easier than trying to reorganize the entire mobile firmament?

I think this could go beyond mobile. Could the security breaches that have become so prevalent be due to the continued use of a 50 year old operating system design that focused on restricting access to information instead of how to share it?

[conite]

I think this could go beyond mobile. Could the security breaches that have become so prevalent be due to the continued use of a 50 year old operating system design that focused on restricting access to information instead of how to share it?

So now we are going beyond mobile too? Still for the price of a bag of chips?

Let's add a complete foundational transformation on top of an entirely new platform.

[bb10adopter111]

How does PureOS facilitate controlled sharing of information? A system that works as well with family videos as with ISV's software should be the goal. BlackBerry has made some progress in this area with Workspaces already. It isn't generalized to work with any IP and is an application intended for businesses like law firms that share a lot of documents. This concept for sharing IP should obviate the need for switching between personal and business spaces as both BB10 and Android require and eliminate the restrictions of a single employer model.

You can use all of the tools available on Linux for access control and security. But, let's be honest. The whole idea of using a single device for home and work is inherently flawed, especially on a desktop OS like Linux. The user can always find a way to move information from one compartment to the other on any OS. The work/mobile controls are only really effective for preventing automated or remote attacks, and that can be accomplished on Linux with a zero trust model that requires reauthentication by the user.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[bb10adopter111]

I think this could go beyond mobile. Could the security breaches that have become so prevalent be due to the continued use of a 50 year old operating system design that focused on restricting access to information instead of how to share it?

That's what zero trust models are all about. But they can be implemented on any OS. Don't confuse architecture with implementation.

You seem focused on the building materials rather than on the design when it comes to privacy and security.

Fundamentally, every one of the OSes do EXACTLY the same thing. The only difference is in the implementation choices. Controlled OSes (Windows, Mac OS, iOS, Android, BB10, etc.) have proprietary features and specific implementations, but technically, they could all replace each other if that was desired.

Linux and open forks of Android, on the other hand, are free and open, and can be modified as desired, at the cost of not being fully compatible with app stores and other proprietary services.

Focus on requirements first, then choose the best OS for the task, but realize that you'll need a much stronger business case to convince Google, Apple, Microsoft, or BlackBerry to change their policies.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[DonHB]

That's what zero trust models are all about. But they can be implemented on any OS. Don't confuse architecture with implementation.

You seem focused on the building materials rather than on the design when it comes to privacy and security.

Fundamentally, every one of the OSes do EXACTLY the same thing. The only difference is in the implementation choices. Controlled OSes (Windows, Mac OS, iOS, Android, BB10, etc.) have proprietary features and specific implementations, but technically, they could all replace each other if that was desired.

This is the problem. The abstractions the operating systems provide have not substantially changed in fifty years. When operating systems' model still in use today were created it was about use of resources for computing and security (not privacy). Now it is about communicating (as opposed to telecommunications: AT&T and *nix) and communicating is about sharing IP (personal and commercial/business). Because of this the security model needs to be rethought which facilitates privacy.

Linux and open forks of Android, on the other hand, are free and open, and can be modified as desired, at the cost of not being fully compatible with app stores and other proprietary services.

Focus on requirements first, then choose the best OS for the task, but realize that you'll need a much stronger business case to convince Google, Apple, Microsoft, or BlackBerry to change their policies.

Continued layering of functionality on existing systems adds complexity to the OS and the software layered above it. Maybe software developers think continued complexity will guarantee them their jobs? I keep thinking Rube Goldberg.

Perhaps, I am misinformed, but only BlackBerry among this list seems to not make mining of customer data and its sale its business model. There should be a way to monetize this sharing (when it is commercial). It could remove any question if a member of the sharing economy is an employee because of decentralization.

[bb10adopter111]

This is the problem. The abstractions the operating systems provide have not substantially changed in fifty years. When operating systems' model still in use today were created it was about use of resources for computing and security (not privacy). Now it is about communicating (as opposed to telecommunications: AT&T and *nix) and communicating is about sharing IP (personal and commercial/business). Because of this the security model needs to be rethought which facilitates privacy.

Continued layering of functionality on existing systems adds complexity to the OS and the software layered above it. Maybe software developers think continued complexity will guarantee them their jobs? I keep thinking Rube Goldberg.

Perhaps, I am misinformed, but only BlackBerry among this list seems to not make mining of customer data and its sale its business model. There should be a way to monetize this sharing (when it is commercial). It could remove any question if a member of the sharing economy is an employee because of decentralization.

Again, you're confusing tools with functions. There is absolutely nothing in QNX/BB10 that makes it more secure or private than Android, from a technical standpoint.

Think if it this way. If you take two different hammers from different manufacturers, and use one to hit someone in the head, and the other to build a house for a family in need, does that make one hammer better than the other?

It would be great to see a phone designed with privacy as a focus, but we don't need new software tools to do it. Linux's 1s and 0s work exactly the same and QNX's.

Focus on the house, not the tools. Then try to find a company to build your vision, or start one yourself.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[conite]

Perhaps, I am misinformed, but only BlackBerry among this list seems to not make mining of customer data and its sale its business model.

And how'd that work out for them in mobile?

Look, there is nothing that BB10 brings to the table that existing, actively developed platforms don't already have.

Anyone can build a privacy-focused OS out of any modern platform, but there is no demand for such a thing. You can't get privacy and the apps people actually want at the same time.

Use the tools and processes available to minimise harvesting, but the moment you cross the threshold and break apps, then you've shot yourself in the foot. You can already get there with Android.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Perhaps, I am misinformed, but only BlackBerry among this list seems to not make mining of customer data and its sale its business model. There should be a way to monetize this sharing (when it is commercial). It could remove any question if a member of the sharing economy is an employee because of decentralization.

And BlackBerry almost went broke and got out of the smartphone business....

You need to look at Purism and their PureOS, I believe they might be what you are looking for. You'd have more sucess supporting their efforts than getting Google to change who they are, or getting tiny BlackBerry to invest in smartphones again.

Me... I think Android or iOS is just fine. Little tweaking and some precautions I'm not too worried about them.

If you are really worried about identity protection.... sign up for LifeLock. Or contact your government representative and ask him to change the way the world works.

[DonHB]

Again, you're confusing tools with functions. There is absolutely nothing in QNX/BB10 that makes it more secure or private than Android, from a technical standpoint.

Think if it this way. If you take two different hammers from different manufacturers, and use one to hit someone in the head, and the other to build a house for a family in need, does that make one hammer better than the other?

It would be great to see a phone designed with privacy as a focus, but we don't need new software tools to do it. Linux's 1s and 0s work exactly the same and QNX's.

Focus on the house, not the tools. Then try to find a company to build your vision, or start one yourself.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

AOSP, maybe but not retail Android. But is Linux easier to gut and incorporate a new security model? Once done it makes the choice of Linux spurious because it loses the benefit of compatibility. Also, I somewhat liken IoT to PCs in the '80s. There is potential there to remake computing and have it influence the industry. This is different though in that with PC's OS migrated down to microprocessors. Windows NT remade VMS and Linux remade *nix. You could argue original Windows NT was an improvement over VMS. I am not sure it could be similarly argued that Linux was an improvement over BSD/Solaris or SVR4 (I am behind in my knowledge of new Linux releases). Attempts to remake OSes in the middle '90s failed and it would be difficult to argue that Microsoft did not have a role in this. This century not much new has been attempted.

[TrumpetTiger]

AOSP, maybe but not retail Android. But is Linux easier to gut and incorporate a new security model? Once done it makes the choice of Linux spurious because it loses the benefit of compatibility. Also, I somewhat liken IoT to PCs in the '80s. There is potential there to remake computing and have it influence the industry. This is different though in that with PC's OS migrated down to microprocessors. Windows NT remade VMS and Linux remade *nix. You could argue original Windows NT was an improvement over VMS. I am not sure it could be similarly argued that Linux was an improvement over BSD/Solaris or SVR4 (I am behind in my knowledge of new Linux releases). Attempts to remake OSes in the middle '90s failed and it would be difficult to argue that Microsoft did not have a role in this. This century not much new has been attempted.

Just wanted to say preach on, brother Don! Some of us have got your back.

[bb10adopter111]

AOSP, maybe but not retail Android. But is Linux easier to gut and incorporate a new security model? Once done it makes the choice of Linux spurious because it loses the benefit of compatibility. Also, I somewhat liken IoT to PCs in the '80s. There is potential there to remake computing and have it influence the industry. This is different though in that with PC's OS migrated down to microprocessors. Windows NT remade VMS and Linux remade *nix. You could argue original Windows NT was an improvement over VMS. I am not sure it could be similarly argued that Linux was an improvement over BSD/Solaris or SVR4 (I am behind in my knowledge of new Linux releases). Attempts to remake OSes in the middle '90s failed and it would be difficult to argue that Microsoft did not have a role in this. This century not much new has been attempted.

Are you familiar with the OSI standard model? (en.wikipedia.org/OSI_model )

Because you seem to be proposing that we remake the entire OS just to change the presentation and application layers. It's possible to change everything related to privacy and how data is managed without touching the kernel and the core OS components.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[conite]

AOSP, maybe but not retail Android. But is Linux easier to gut and incorporate a new security model? Once done it makes the choice of Linux spurious because it loses the benefit of compatibility. Also, I somewhat liken IoT to PCs in the '80s. There is potential there to remake computing and have it influence the industry. This is different though in that with PC's OS migrated down to microprocessors. Windows NT remade VMS and Linux remade *nix. You could argue original Windows NT was an improvement over VMS. I am not sure it could be similarly argued that Linux was an improvement over BSD/Solaris or SVR4 (I am behind in my knowledge of new Linux releases). Attempts to remake OSes in the middle '90s failed and it would be difficult to argue that Microsoft did not have a role in this. This century not much new has been attempted.

I still don't get what the kernel has to do with any of this.

[app_Developer]

Again, you're confusing tools with functions. There is absolutely nothing in QNX/BB10 that makes it more secure or private than Android, from a technical standpoint.

Think if it this way. If you take two different hammers from different manufacturers, and use one to hit someone in the head, and the other to build a house for a family in need, does that make one hammer better than the other?

It would be great to see a phone designed with privacy as a focus, but we don't need new software tools to do it. Linux's 1s and 0s work exactly the same and QNX's.

Focus on the house, not the tools. Then try to find a company to build your vision, or start one yourself.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

This should be pinned somewhere. Especially the hammer analogy.

Every word of this is true.