So, anyway, how do we make sure that our phones don't turn into a pumpkin on a set date? I suppose it's all shit long term, but at the very least I don't want to be forced to look for a solution before I need a new phone. So, what do you do? Can you just disable android updates somehow and it will solve the issue? Or it is already a ticking bomb that will be activated on the set date no matter what?
Android Developer Verification
71–80 of 345 posts
Re: Android Developer Verification
#72Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection. This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump…
You take a step forward.
He takes a step back.
"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#73Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection. This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump…
I recommend Cory Doctorow's talk on why this is a serious problem for society:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com...
Re: Android Developer Verification
#74What % 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…
2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1]
[^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830
Re: Android Developer Verification
#75The Android verification is such a broken experience. Recently I decided to purchase a dev account for my company, so far: 1) Provided my company DUNS number etc. once to create the payment profile. I did this some times ago, don’t remember the details but it was an involved verification process and it is marked as verified business payment profile. 2) Later on the payment step verified myself with a passport and ban…
Re: Android Developer Verification
#76A 'safe' app store would promote and prioritize open source apps compiled on public auditable runners.
F-Droid is in fact what an app store concerned about user safety looks like. Nobody gets hoodwinked into installing apps that track them or sell their data or otherwise abuse them on F-Droid.
F-Droid has not meaningfully improved since that piece was written, either. No one should use F-Droid.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#77It really seems like they are doing a lot to appease the tiny minority of us power users, adb load unaffected, one time toggle in settings to opt out, no change to alternative app stores as long as the apk was built by a verified developer. Crazy how harsh the sentiment is here, there are real people being harmed by scam apps intercepting sms one time codes and this will reduce the rate of that happening. It's not li…
Because this is a glide path to what they really want, look at Apple and running unsigned apps on your Mac, how it started, simple right click, how is it going, near impossible.
How it's going: almost everything is signed, even pirated apps.
????
Re: Android Developer Verification
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people complain about being scammed with Windows or macOS? Apparently not. So they probably also don't complain about Android. The security seems more an excuse to become more closed. Like iOS.
I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though. Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto. I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.
Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case the person who rings the bell may not be a friend.
That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable homeowner. Not checking in on every visitor would be evil, no?
I can't think of a better approach.
Re: Android Developer Verification
#79What % 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…
> What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care? 2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1] [^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830
Re: Android Developer Verification
#80Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection. This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump…
Google says they don't intend to do that, but even if I believe that's their current intention, they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. Incentives predict outcomes more reliably than intentions.
I say it's pretending because scammers are good at shifting tactics. If convincing users to install malware ceases to be the path of least resistance, they'll convince users to install legitimate remote access utilities, hand over credentials directly, or some other scheme I haven't thought up because I'm not a scammer.