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

A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

enaix.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 185 posts

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#131

Post by supermatt »

closeparen wrote: post #52
asimops wrote: post #3

While it is technically feasible, it is not a good idea to try and find a technical solution to a people/organisation problem. Do not accept the premise of assholes. I hope we can get the EU to fund a truly open Android Fork. Maybe under some organisation similar to NL Labs. --- edit --- Furthermore, the need for a trustworthy binary to be auditable to a certain hash or something would make banning this a simple task…

The same EU that's doing Chat Control?

It appears that you are an American who has conveniently forgotten about FISA, EARN IT, CLOUD act, PATRIOT act, LAED, etc, etc, and wants to take a dig at the EU for what, exactly? NOT passing Chat Control? Seriously..

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#132

Post by ipaddr »

ForHackernews wrote: post #125
igor_akhmetov wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desperation for what exactly? More control?

They are trying to stop crime, including sex/drug trafficking and child exploitation. If you want to have an intellectually honest debate, you need to be clear that private communication apps do make it more difficult for police to conduct legitimate investigations. You do yourself no favours painting all politicians as power-hungry caricatures.

So do private in person conversations. Going the route of North Korea putting two way speakers in each house would help make those conversations available to the government. Think of all of the child exploitation you could stop by removing any sense of privacy. Of course they would figure a way around this and everyday citizens would have to deal with the lack of privacy but at least they thought of the children so we should keep voting them in.

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#133

Post by saubeidl »

wqaatwt wrote: post #126
saubeidl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except the are a couple degrees of separation between the democracy part and in the running the EU institutions. That's what parliamentary democracy means, yes.

No, of course not... In parliamentary democracies the parliament is elected directly and is generally sovereign (optionally constrained by a constitution or some set of basic laws and powers delegated to regional governments and such). In no way does that describe the EU. It has no equivalent body. Its imitation “parliament” is extremely weak and barely has a say in who forms the closest EU has to a “government”.

But the parliament isn't the government in a parliamentary democracy.

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#134

Post by torstenvl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #96
torstenvl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not have a platform monopoly on smartphones the way Microsoft did on PCs.

Microsoft was convicted of monopolizing the market for IBM-compatible PCs, i.e. not Macs. Which makes a lot of sense, because you couldn't run Windows on a Mac nor MacOS on PCs from the likes of Dell or IBM, and you couldn't run third party software for Macs on Windows or vice versa. By contrast, you could run various types of Unix on a Dell, and run Windows software on OS/2 or DOS software on DOS competitors other t…

This is utterly irrelevant. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

It remains objectively inarguable that Apple does not have a platform monopoly on (ARM-compatible) smartphones the way Microsoft did on ("Intel-compatible") PCs.

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#135

Post by Lindby »

asimops wrote: post #3

While it is technically feasible, it is not a good idea to try and find a technical solution to a people/organisation problem. Do not accept the premise of assholes. I hope we can get the EU to fund a truly open Android Fork. Maybe under some organisation similar to NL Labs. --- edit --- Furthermore, the need for a trustworthy binary to be auditable to a certain hash or something would make banning this a simple task…

It would be hard to find manufacturers to use it. None of the existing Android phone manufacturers would be able to release phones with this fork without also abandoning the official Android platform on all markets. Google are very strict with this in their tos. You cannot release devices using non official Android builds without losing your right to use GMS and Android Brandice on your other Android devices.

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#136

Post by supermatt »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #11
asimops wrote: post #3

While it is technically feasible, it is not a good idea to try and find a technical solution to a people/organisation problem. Do not accept the premise of assholes. I hope we can get the EU to fund a truly open Android Fork. Maybe under some organisation similar to NL Labs. --- edit --- Furthermore, the need for a trustworthy binary to be auditable to a certain hash or something would make banning this a simple task…

> I hope we can get the EU to fund a truly open Android Fork. How are things in the EU on whether it's legal to buy a SIM card without showing ID?

There is no such requirement in the EU - it is entirely up to the individual country.

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#137

Post by wqaatwt »

saubeidl wrote: post #133
wqaatwt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, of course not... In parliamentary democracies the parliament is elected directly and is generally sovereign (optionally constrained by a constitution or some set of basic laws and powers delegated to regional governments and such). In no way does that describe the EU. It has no equivalent body. Its imitation “parliament” is extremely weak and barely has a say in who forms the closest EU has to a “government”.

But the parliament isn't the government in a parliamentary democracy.

Yes, and? It forms the government and can dismiss it.

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#138

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

ForHackernews wrote: post #125
igor_akhmetov wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desperation for what exactly? More control?

They are trying to stop crime, including sex/drug trafficking and child exploitation. If you want to have an intellectually honest debate, you need to be clear that private communication apps do make it more difficult for police to conduct legitimate investigations. You do yourself no favours painting all politicians as power-hungry caricatures.

If chat control is a good-faith effort to stop crime, why can't Android developer verification be a good-faith effort to stop cybercrime?

If politicians are not all power-hungry caricatures, is it possible that the same is true for businesses?

Android has millions of users worldwide, many of whom are far less computer-literate than HN users. I think it's very reasonable for Google to put speed bumps in front of malware developers trying to distribute through the Play Store. If you're a half-decent dev, $25 is nothing compared to the opportunity cost of your time in developing your app.

This whole thing seems to be a fairly recent announcement on Google's part, so it's unsurprising they're still hammering out details for hobbyist devs? How about making constructive suggestions for ways that Google can protect ordinary people without stopping power users?

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#139

Post by [deleted] »

supermatt wrote: post #131
closeparen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same EU that's doing Chat Control?

It appears that you are an American who has conveniently forgotten about FISA, EARN IT, CLOUD act, PATRIOT act, LAED, etc, etc, and wants to take a dig at the EU for what, exactly? NOT passing Chat Control? Seriously..

[deleted]

Re: A theoretical way to circumvent Android developer verification

#140

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

supermatt wrote: post #131
closeparen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same EU that's doing Chat Control?

It appears that you are an American who has conveniently forgotten about FISA, EARN IT, CLOUD act, PATRIOT act, LAED, etc, etc, and wants to take a dig at the EU for what, exactly? NOT passing Chat Control? Seriously..

It's interesting how so many online discussions of internet privacy devolve into nationalist chest-beating. I'm beginning to suspect that people don't inherently value privacy all that much -- they just want to brag about how their country is the most private.

Recall that the premise of this thread is that the EU should sponsor an alternative to Android. The EU vs US question isn't really topical, since no one suggested that the US government should sponsor an alternative to Android instead.

Post reply on HN