Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 793 posts

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#11

Post by econ »

anilgulecha wrote: post #9

I understand the frustration (I'm an avid fdroid user across many many devices). But this article comes off as childish with the virus/trojan/"malware vendor". With such an article, many (including perhaps google) get the ammo to disregard what fdroid says, by branding them as childish/not to be taken seriously. for eg: no reputable news org is going to post this. PS: https://keepandroidopen.org/ is better done.

I thought the same thing but he apparently has a point. The stated purpose covers only a tiny sliver of the capabilities. The agreement points to the TOS where it (last time I looked) says service may be terminated at any time without stating a reason. Nothing guarantees it won't be used for things other than security. And finally he has a point where it also doesn't really do much for security.

If we ask their fine search engine, the AI helpfully explains malware to be software designed to gain unauthorized access to disrupt, extort payments and/or hijack devices.

If you still think the shoe doesn't fit, imagine what would happen if one managed to create an app with the same capabilities. Google would remove it immediately for being malware. Obvious malware.

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#12

Post by thinking_cactus »

ranger_danger wrote: post #3

> How long before they designate all ad-blocking software as malware, block installation on all Android certified devices worldwide, and permanently designate all developers of this class of software as malware creators? Classic slippery slope fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope History shows that when a "slope" appears... regulation steps in, technology evolves to solve the problem, or the culture…

I alternate my thoughts frequently (which I believe is healthy), and sometimes I think we should let things take their course a bit more before reacting. It's certainly tiresome and can be pointless (some people claim 'hysterical') to fight lots of changes, not necessarily this one but some like it.

But I've come to realize there are serious downsides to letting things run their course too. Some changes are very hard to roll back (famous 'cat's out of the bag') just taking a lot of time to reverse if ever. For example, once there is a long term contractual agreement, if one parties decides to roll back they may just not be able to until the contract expires (like renting land; or worse, selling). A change in software systems for example that need backward compatibility can be quite difficult in technical and nontechnical ways.

I think people need to also keep some sympathy for the protests and let people protest more. I'm leaning more toward: if in doubt, provide visibility to a cause (even if not full support). It's okay to save yourself some energy (in particular for the most important causes). Some things might have to run their course for people to understand they were valuable, and we will probably have to eat some frogs as a consequence. Don't lose you sanity ;) (As the saying goes, "Don't you dare go hollow.")

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#13

Post by 0x53 »

anilgulecha wrote: post #9

I understand the frustration (I'm an avid fdroid user across many many devices). But this article comes off as childish with the virus/trojan/"malware vendor". With such an article, many (including perhaps google) get the ammo to disregard what fdroid says, by branding them as childish/not to be taken seriously. for eg: no reputable news org is going to post this. PS: https://keepandroidopen.org/ is better done.

I think the point they are trying to make is that in the terms of service Google says they get to define what is malware (halfway through article) so the author is trying to point out that exact danger: what happens when Google gets to randomly call things malware.

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#15

Post by ozgrakkurt »

ranger_danger wrote: post #3

> How long before they designate all ad-blocking software as malware, block installation on all Android certified devices worldwide, and permanently designate all developers of this class of software as malware creators? Classic slippery slope fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope History shows that when a "slope" appears... regulation steps in, technology evolves to solve the problem, or the culture…

This is a useless argument since there is no way to measure what case is this and what is not.

You can say "Classic slippery slope fallacy." to whatever seems like that to you.

This is an antipattern to scientific thinking as you can frame something x and then say all x are like this, look I created this framework to think about x. But in reality there is no empirical basis for this thought. And it serves no purpose other than doing more argument or winning arguments.

In the end what you wrote equates to "I don't think all of this will happen".

Chaning many possibilities makes the outcome less and less likely obviously.

Also the same principle applies to most religions I know of, for example:

- Assume there is God

- Assume it did create universe.

- Assume x

...

Then this also fits the same pattern and be called the "x fallacy" but it is useless to create an argument like this. This is useless mainly because this thinking pattern is ubiquitous in any world view.

More productive discussion might be to pick some steps in the theory they chained together and argue on that imo.

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#17

Post by stingraycharles »

econ wrote: post #11
anilgulecha wrote: post #9

I understand the frustration (I'm an avid fdroid user across many many devices). But this article comes off as childish with the virus/trojan/"malware vendor". With such an article, many (including perhaps google) get the ammo to disregard what fdroid says, by branding them as childish/not to be taken seriously. for eg: no reputable news org is going to post this. PS: https://keepandroidopen.org/ is better done.

I thought the same thing but he apparently has a point. The stated purpose covers only a tiny sliver of the capabilities. The agreement points to the TOS where it (last time I looked) says service may be terminated at any time without stating a reason. Nothing guarantees it won't be used for things other than security. And finally he has a point where it also doesn't really do much for security. If we ask their fine…

Isn’t Google going to do what Apple has been doing since forever? Or is Google somehow doing something worse?

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#18

Post by pimeys »

stavros wrote: post #14

I don't understand how this is legal in the EU under the DMA, does anyone know?

I already contacted the DMA authorities and complained how this has an effect on German diabetes communities and they replied that I am not the first one who approaches them on this and they are already investigating it.

Google is just trying how far they can push this.

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#19

Post by khurs »

Android users need to switch to Graphene.

Someone needs to create a Linux based mobile OS foundation - Google's domination is contrary to many large companies interests, and if Meta and many other such companies were approached, they may well donate large sums of money in their own strategic interests.

Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection

#20

Post by stavros »

pimeys wrote: post #18
stavros wrote: post #14

I don't understand how this is legal in the EU under the DMA, does anyone know?

I already contacted the DMA authorities and complained how this has an effect on German diabetes communities and they replied that I am not the first one who approaches them on this and they are already investigating it. Google is just trying how far they can push this.

Excellent, I emailed them too but no reply yet. Yeah, given that we should be able to choose what app store to install, this seems wildly illegal.
Post reply on HN