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

Android Developer Verification

android-developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–345 of 345 posts

Re: Android Developer Verification

#341

Post by pocksuppet »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #317
pocksuppet wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phone companies are required to make sure 911 works on their phones. Random people on the internet aren't required to make sure 911 works on random apps, even if they look like phones.

The comment you're replying to literally has an example of an internet calling service being fined $20,000 for not properly directing 911 calls. I guess Vonage should try to appeal the case and say pocksuppet said they're not required to do that.

Vonage sells phone services that happen to use the internet. This is not the same as being WhatsApp.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#342

Post by Muromec »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #280
Muromec wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>suddenly the company app is banned from the app store seemingly without reason. At least a few such stories have appeared on HN over the years. Which is not that unreasonable even. If a person is flagged for making scam apps, them having publishing rights in a reputable place makes taints the reputation of such place. You should be able to appeal of course and the oauth should not be towards google in the first plac…

That seems at odds with how our society is structured. We treat employees as interchangeable cogs. If someone commits a crime they are tried but their family, friends, and coworkers are not. Guilt by association without any act having been committed seems wholly incompatible with both our principles and common practices. It's even more nefarious when it comes to BigTech because you can be blacklisted without having c…

>It's even more nefarious when it comes to BigTech because you can be blacklisted without having committed any actual crime and without anything resembling a trial.

Crime is not the only thing that exists in a law. One can work in a regulated profession and lose a license for not adhering to the rules. Such person can in theory go and do something that doesn't affect the society negatively and this isn't exactly a punishment for a crime. Now if someone employs such person again after they lost their license, that new employer maybe be sanctioned as well. All of that usually comes with some kind of appeal mechanism.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#343

Post by Muromec »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #281
Muromec wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bank has to perform the authorization and identity checks, but the bank will not make them for you , they do them for themselves based on their own risk analysis. The scope of authorization could also be different based on who it's presented to. The authorization is not transitive so to say. >As an aside, I suspect that leaving it to the bank would also provide additional legal protection If it would, they will h…

> The bank has to perform the authorization and identity checks, but the bank will not make them for you We aren't talking about authorization, only about identity verification. I'm no domain expert but it is my understanding that banks provide these sorts of services. They certainly already have all the necessary information on hand both for practical reasons (security) as well as legal (KYC and AML laws). > If it w…

From the point of view of the bank the problem is usually defined as

"how do we asses a complex situation where identity of the person X is one of the signals (but maybe not the strongest one) with enough certainty to balance a probability Y of bad something happening that will cost us Z and still make money"

Most of the time Y and Z are defined because the other department said so and we trust our colleagues, dus the answer is computable (somebody somewhere has it open in a spreadsheet right now).

If you add a transitive property to the system, then, unless there is some regulatory magic that caps the possible value space of Y and Z, the answer is (by default) no.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#344

Post by lern_too_spel »

xigoi wrote: post #259
lern_too_spel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F-Droid still works the same as it did before. This just means that McDonald's can distribute its apps on its website without showing a scary warning on install on Google's Android builds.

No it doesn’t. You will now have to follow a lengthy process before being allowed to install apps from F-Droid.

[dead]

Re: Android Developer Verification

#345

Post by unsungNovelty »

binkHN wrote: post #110
ethagnawl wrote: post #12

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn't. I do not want this and imagine hardly any other power users (for lack of a better term) do. I'm already using a mostly deGoogled device but this really seals the deal. I have been longing for a true Linux phone for years and now seems like a good time to get…

Android is becoming more Apple-ized everyday; it's horrible and more and more APIs get neutered or disappear, further limiting functionality available to developers.

Even if Android is as closed as iOS, it will never be the same. Cos business models are different. Google's business is behavioural ads. Apple's is hardware. And even their software services depend on that hardware.
Post reply on HN