Discussion in 'malware problems & news' started by Minimalist, Jul 9, 2014.
I love how that's also the stance of every single company that has a product when you ask about another product from another company. "You don't need their junk, you only need our junk!"
They sound a little like Apple during the time they more or less said OS X was immune to malware so don't bother. But they thankfully don't say that anymore, i'm sure Google will open their eyes eventually.
I wish people would stop assuming that "vulnerable to malware" automatically implies "needs third-party antivirus software."
Too bad, people don't want to stop.
I responded in a parallel discussion over in the ESET Forum, in case anyone's interested in that response: Mobile Anti-Virus "Not Needed".
In short, I suppose it comes down to whose opinion you trust more when it comes to your security and privacy: Google or your security software vendor.
I think we can distill it further. I'd say it comes down to whether consumers (individuals, businesses, ...) recognize how critical it is that they, themselves, be able to have and practically apply their own opinions. Which is to say, be able to control which vendors, tools, addons, services... if any... are involved and in what specific ways they are involved. Without this, we simply cannot have security in any meaningfully comprehensive sense of that word.
Separate names with a comma.