Emotional talk aside, there's not many good solution to this problem, unless of course F-Droid starts to make their own phones. But then, Librem 5 Phone was just failed few years ago, telling the story that people who care about their rights are still sensitive to how much they would pay (which is a form of rights too). Also but, there is the thing, making a phone is not easy. If you reach deep enough, you'll eventua…
Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
231–240 of 793 posts
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no such requirement for publishing a website
There is - every server host does KYC and so does every domain registrar (by law). If you're found to have provided incorrect details, it allows them to immediately remove your server or domain without notice.
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#233I really need to take the time and go with Graphene OS in this device. My bank N26 kind of still allows it, but they made it harder and harder to use with certain custom checks. Looks like in the future I need a separate banking phone and my daily driver.
The device works right now how I want it. I don't want anything to change.
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#234This is not malware. It's an official part of Google Play Services.
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does with reCaptcha: https://www.androidauthority.com/grapheneos-google-apple-app...
Yes, Google could do a lot of things, in theory. Doesn’t mean they’re doing it.
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#236Android 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.
> Android users need to switch to Graphene. Which supports only Pixel devices.
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#237I personally have seen every single older relative and non-tech friend, end up installing bloateare, spyware, and malware inadvertently - because they have no idea how anything in the tech domain works. And given the widespread popularity of Android (globally 70% vs iOS at 30% market share) and even moreso in lower income demographics, it also leads to rampant piracy of obviously non-essential apps like games and streaming (eg Spotify). In fact, even here on HN, almost everyone who has given their parents an iPhone has extolled the virtues of a secured AppStore/device and the peace of mind it brings.
While there may someday be a way to support both the average user and the HN power user, we are not there yet. It’s hard for me to outright reject Google/Android attempts to secure people’s devices.
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't tamper with your installations.
Oh? Maybe you could comment on what part of the f-droid article is wrong
I have such a phone and the "virus" has not been installed to it. There is no evidence behind this claim.
>with as many as 4 billion Android handsets and tablets estimated to have already been contaminated
This is misleading wording. It's just as true to say that as many as 1 trillion devices have been contaminated. It is state an impossible upper bound to drum up fear.
>this trojan horse runs surreptitiously in the background as a system service with full root privileges
Services in Android do not run with root privileges. Android practices the principal of least privilege where individual permissions are granted instead of giving it blanket access to everything.
>The service cannot be blocked, disabled, or removed.
This is unlikely to be true. You can most likely use "am" to disable it.
>In fact, Play Protect is itself the vector through which this virus is transmitted and installed.
This is probably false. Realistically it's going to be transmitted via the google play store like all other play service components.
>There are many things we don’t know about what to expect on September 30
>What will happen if I try to install or launch the F-Droid app?
Once active if FDroid not verified the user has to use adb or have enabled sideloading by unverified developers. If it's already installed the user can launch it.
>What will happen to all the apps I’ve installed through F-Droid? Will they be disabled? Deleted?
Nothing will happen to them.
>If apps that I rely on are suddenly disappeared, what happens to the data they contain? Can I still retrieve it?
Nothing will happen. But if Play Protect were to flag malware it manually asks you if you want to delete the app. If you delete the app the data will be lost.
Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#239Re: Android Developer Verification: Threat masquerading as protection
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
This started with phishing, poor people being tricked to install apps that then drained their bank accounts. So to resist, maybe focus on that evil? Better international cooperation, better prosecution?
> This started with phishing It didn't. Phishing is just a pretext. Google didn't care about Phishing for the first 20 years of Android. Why do they now? Because it serves as argument to close their platform a little more (which is a trend that has been going on for years).
And perhaps because ten and twenty years ago, the sums stolen were small. Now they're in the billions.