13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always. However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware. The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices…
We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#992Earlier quoted context omitted.
For now, but Google wants to take that option away.
Actually, no, they don't quite plan to take that away yet. In this sub-thread, we're talking about installing 3rd-party apps without having an Apple Account or a Google Account as an end-user of the device. What Google has recently proposed to trial next year in just 4 countries, is blocking of unverified apps, but all apps you install from Aurora Store are verified and signed directly through Google, so, they will n…
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#993Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, no, they don't quite plan to take that away yet. In this sub-thread, we're talking about installing 3rd-party apps without having an Apple Account or a Google Account as an end-user of the device. What Google has recently proposed to trial next year in just 4 countries, is blocking of unverified apps, but all apps you install from Aurora Store are verified and signed directly through Google, so, they will n…
Aurora Store and FDroid are not verified apps. In a world where Google is restricting your ability to sideload apps, how likely are they to get verified, or remain verified?
First of all, it's simply a trial, a whole year from now, in Sept 2026, and only in 4 mid-sized countries around the world.
Second, they'll only be verifying developers, not users. They won't be reviewing the apps any more than they already do today. They already do scan all third-party apps, which is partly why people are upset about the needless doxxing of the devs.
Also, as far as I understand it, an app store like F-Droid already does app signing on behalf of other developers, to ensure funny stuff couldn't simply slip through undetected, so, as such, F-Droid probably already "owns" the Aurora Store and all the other apps you can download through the F-Droid app store, so, it would be my expectation that even in those 4 countries in Sept 2026 during the trial, you could still sideload the same apps the same way I do today.
In turn, the apps installed by Aurora Store are signed by the Play Store; this ensures that the private data cannot be hijacked through modified updates of the app, since the developer profile won't match. So, there's no concern there, either, since everything is signed.
Basically, it's not a good precedent, but at the same time, nothing will really change at least for my own workflow (as a non-publisher), where I don't install anything outside of F-Droid or Aurora Store anyways.
Keep in mind, it's still just a trial. And even if it goes worldwide in 2 years in 2027 (which is still a big if), it's still FAR more consumer-friendly than anything Apple has ever allowed on iOS in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#994Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I am feeling like technology is being used as a authoritarian trap.
Always has been... pertinent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Plus it's ridiculous to apply collective guilt in any form by blaming later IBM management, given that anyone involved with 1940s German IBM is long dead by now.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#995Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me the point where the law needs to intervene is the bank or the school. You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you to an app from a particular company, whether it's Google or Apple or anyone else. You should be able to access their functions using any client that supports the appropriate open standards (such as web browsers). Similarly, if the school is going to ha…
If it is a public school, the state should “intervene,” but really it isn’t an intervention, it’s the state’s school they should fix their stupid policy. For the bank, I don’t really see why it would be preferable to intervene with the bank vs the tech company. Either way the state will have to impose on a private company. > You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you t…
What for? Online banking worked perfectly fine on standard web browsers over HTTPS for years before smartphones became popular, why should that change now?
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#996Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but in the phone space the sacrifice is too much. You often times forgo the ability to even participate in many aspects of society, e.g. banking. It's not your typical "rough around the edges open source alternative", it's just not even a comparison.
Can’t you do banking on the web via your phone? Same as desktop users?
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#997Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is a public school, the state should “intervene,” but really it isn’t an intervention, it’s the state’s school they should fix their stupid policy. For the bank, I don’t really see why it would be preferable to intervene with the bank vs the tech company. Either way the state will have to impose on a private company. > You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you t…
>An OS should be mandated to come with a browser than supports some locked down functionality What for? Online banking worked perfectly fine on standard web browsers over HTTPS for years before smartphones became popular, why should that change now?
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#998Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged. Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed
This happens already in dating apps. https://www.vice.com/en/article/banned-from-dating-apps/ Date didn't go as well as the other person was hoping? They can report you to the app, some tired and overworked support person in an emerging market bans you, they keep whatever cash you already spent on bonus likes and your multi-month subscription, no refunds. And you can never sign up from the same Google/Apple account,…
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#999Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if they ban you for a reason, you're screwed. Granted, the ban may have been warranted, but you're essentially put into a societal prison with no due process or recourse.
Let's hope people remember this and don't cheer the precedent when it's set against "undesirable" like it was with Alex Jones. It always starts like that.
Lol.
Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
#1000I think we really need to discuss whether IP/copyright protections were a mistake. A LOT of our "modern" problems stem from IP protections. Whether that be not being able to own media, right to repair, DRM, censorship, a lot of monopolistic behavior, medicine prices, etc. And no wonder, IP protection is government sanctioned monopoly, and it is generally recognized that monopolies are bad; is it such a surprise that…
Except GrapheneOS, I suppose, but it's still riding the coattails of Android. Police in some places assume you're a drug dealer and arrest you if you have it, so it does qualify as "dark web".