I suspect that especially banks have paranoid lawyers that probably don't understand the situation entirely, and perhaps because of that, mandate that all means have to be used to prevent non-official builds from being used, so that they cannot be sued (for some reason) if "something" goes wrong. Though I don't know if they are consistent and also apply the same reasoning to phones that don't have active security updates any more.
replyI feel like "the lawyers told us to do something stupid for no legitimate reason" is just one part of a bureaucracy trying to blame another part for the fact that the bureaucracy itself is doing something stupid for no legitimate reason.
replyWhile you’re correct there’s also no ambiguity about who has the final say in that scenario. The lawyers always win out.
replyThis is objectively not true because there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed. In turn this implies that the others are doing something which is different but possible, and the scoundrel companies could be doing that too.
replyEven if the something is no more than engaging less fatuous attorneys.
> there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed
replyYes, because that particular set of lawyers haven’t said it has to be blocked. Doesn’t mean my statement that lawyers have final say is “objectively not true”.
> This is objectively not true because there are companies, even banks, where this level of stupidity has not prevailed.
replyAll it takes for this to happen is the lawyers not knowing.