Live data from Hacker News

Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

commonsware.com

51–60 of 311 posts

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman's fallacy is thinking every system is perfect and unbreakable and that people have a perfect understanding of software and systems (for better or for worse) People will be running pirated debugger copies if that comes to shove 99.9% of people DNGAF about OSS. They do care about doing what they need on their phone without malware/bloatware/nagware Also publishing and development are separate activities

I doubt that Stallman, of all people, thinks literally that. But systems which are breakable have ways of improving themselves, closing off the exploitable holes. So it makes sense to regard systems as being eventually unbreakable. Or at least having an unacceptably long "mean time between cracks". The game plan cannot simply be "oppressive software and hardware systems will always have imperfections so the good peop…

> I doubt that Stallman, of all people, thinks literally that

Yeah I agree his opinion is probably more balanced, however Right to read is a short story displaying characters with too much learned helplessness and too little agency so I'm just going based on what he literally put to paper

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of AOSP is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license and GPLv2 for the Linux kernel. These are FOSS licenses recognized by the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2

I think that they are pointing at that using Android in daily life in a meaningful way requires installing Google Play Services because many apps require it.

I wouldn't say that means it's not FOSS, it just means things being FOSS isn't enough to ensure things are good.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#53
While I am against the policy, Google only publishes developer's full legal name and email address if the app is monetized [0].

If the app is monetized, then the full mailing address is shared.

If money is involved, it’s fair for users to know who they’re dealing with. Developers who want to hide their personal identity can still do so legally with a shell company.

Taking it a step further, if I am going to run your code on my device, I want to know who I'm giving access to my data/cpu/hardware.

Just like with offline transactions, customers should know who they are giving money to.

----

> Google will display your legal name, your country (as per your legal address) and developer email address on Google Play. If you decide to monetise on Google Play, then Google will display your full address.

[0] - https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#54
post #27
post #3

So no F-Droid?

Fdroid signs builds with own key, so it shouldn't be a problem if they pass this verification.

It won't be a problem. . . until Google revokes their accreditation for some reason they won't explain.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#55

[flagged]

Break the law? The app mentioned isn't unlawful. Many map apps track speeding camera locations. Asking for badge numbers from a police officer is also normal. And why is a phone different from a computer? Nobody bats an eye when downloading program on computer, or visiting a website with arbitrary code. The example was recent and very clearly put the developer at personal risk. But there are many gray-zones. An app t…

Many map apps track speeding camera locations.

Heck, even one of Google's apps tracks speeding camera locations and police: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.waze&hl=en

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#56
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. I only have Linux PCs (laptops) and servers, 100% of my work and personal stuff is done there (though for work I do need to hop into MS365, Google Workspace, Zoom, etc, hooray for browsers, my final firewall between me and the walled gardens, though we can have a whole discussion on that). For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. I really must try living in…

Linux is 30 years old, and still it has a laughable percentage of desktop usage. Plus, the only reason it's even usable is because of the relentless work by thankless developers for reverse engineering device drivers. On smartphones this is orders of magnitude more difficult. How do you properly profile and debug a random modem in a phone? What about the cameras? So, how can anyone expect FOSS mobile OSs to ever exis…

> How do you properly profile and debug a random modem in a phone? What about the cameras?

This is a huge factor. Mobile chip sets (CPU/SoC, crypto enclaves, GPU modems/basebands) are buried under NDAs a mile thick, and you can't just whack an oscilloscope on the bus like its 1979. Those companies treat their opaque hardware as their defense against IP theft, they'll never, ever give it up in the current environment.

And the cameras are super complex and require a bunch of DSP and AI to even vaguely work let alone do all the headline features.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#57

This shouldn't just be "questions"; this should be a full-on opposition. Do not give them even an inch, or they'll take a mile. "debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers." - Richard Stallman, The Right to Read , 1997

Stallman's fallacy is thinking every system is perfect and unbreakable and that people have a perfect understanding of software and systems (for better or for worse) People will be running pirated debugger copies if that comes to shove 99.9% of people DNGAF about OSS. They do care about doing what they need on their phone without malware/bloatware/nagware Also publishing and development are separate activities

I wouldn't bet on hackers saving us from everything. There are 150 million Nintendo Switches in the world, and nobody has figured out how to jailbreak one without getting into the hardware and shorting some wires (and even then only on early unpatched models). I don't think its out of the realm of possibility to make a best-selling phone that stays uncrackable for the general population for its entire lifecycle.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#59

The requirement of verification to side-load any app is fascist control. It is clear as night and day. Shame on Google and Apple, it was always clear this was the end goal and next up is also your PC. Right after will come the removal off apps they don't like and there is nothing you can do about it. Stallman was right

> next up is also your PC

Already starting on macos. Gatekeeper had setting where you could allow any app. Now it is removed. While still possible to allow individual app (you need to do it after every OS update), trajectory is now clear.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#60
I know I risk being down voted remorselessly but I have to put this in context. Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok? If I only put a flyer through someone's letterbox here in the UK, I have to identify myself. If I sell a physical product I not only have to identify myself but take on serious legal liability. An author can take on a pseudonym but only via an identified publisher.

In fact that latter example might provide a solution. Set up a company willing to publish apps whilst hiding the actual developer's identity.

Post reply on HN