Android developer verification: Early access starts
android-developers.googleblog.com
android-developers.googleblog.com
Manually installing an app via adb must, of course, be permitted. But that is not sufficient.
> Keeping users safe on Android is our top priority.
Google's mandatory verification is not about security, but about control (they want to forbid apps like ReVanced that could reduce their advertising revenue).
When SimpleMobileTools was sold to a shady company (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38505229), the new owner was able to push any user-hostile changes they wanted to all users who had installed the original app through Google Play (that's the very reason why the initial app could be sold in the first place, to exploit a large, preexisting user base that had the initial version installed).
That was not the case on F-Droid, which blocked the new user-hostile version and recommended the open source fork (Fossify Apps). (see also this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45410805)
The only way to fight is to indoctrinate the next generation, at home, and in school, to use FOSS. People tend to stick to whatever they used in childhood. We the software engineers should volunteer in giving speeches to students about this. It is much easier to sell ideologies to younger people when they are rebellious to the institutions.
And I tried to tell my kids. And it failed mostly.
But in the long run (a decade), what is exceptional and proprietary will become common FOSS. And everybody will benefit.
I cannot think of a more detached and idiotic ruling than that.
One mandated be the establishment and one mandated by visions and freedom.
But it would be a great start.
On my work laptop I am mandated to use Windows 11 but I run (and when I have time) I develop FOSS.
How does Google know if someone has sold off their app? In most cases, F-Droid couldn't know either. A developer transferring their accounts and private keys to someone else is not easily detected.
F-Droid is quite restrictive about what kinds of app they accept, they build the app from source code themselves, and the source code must be published under a FLOSS license. They have some checks that have to pass for each new version of an app.
Although it's possible for a developer to transfer their accounts and private keys to someone shady, F-Droid's checks and open source requirements limit the damage the new developer can do.
1. The Android OS does not allow installing app updates if the new APK uses a different signing key than the existing one. It will outright refuse, and this works locally on device. There's no need to ask some third party server to verify anything. It's a fundamental part of how Android security works, and it has been like this since the first Android phone ever release.
2. F-Droid compiles all APKs on its store, and signs them with its own keys. Apps on F-Droid are not signed by the developers of those apps. They're signed by F-Droid, and thus can only be updated through and by F-Droid. F-Droid does not just distribute APKs uploaded by random people, it distributes APKs that F-Droid compiled themselves.
So to answer your question, a developer transferring their accounts/keys to someone else doesn't matter. It won't affect the security of F-Droid users, because those keys/accounts aren't used by F-Droid. The worst that can happen is that the new owner tries injecting malware into the source code, but F-Droid builds apps from source and is thus positioned to catch those types of things (which is more than can be said about Google's ability to police Google Play)
And finally,
> How does Google know if someone has sold off their app?
Google should not know anything about the business dealings of potential competitors. Google is a monopoly[1], so there is real risk for developers and their businesses if Google is given access to this kind of information.
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+google+a+monopoly%3F&udm=...
F-Droid is not just a repository and an organization providing the relevant services, but a community of like-minded *users* that report on and talk about such issues.
Maybe that's the mistake right there?
It is a good practice only as long as you can trust the remote source for apps. Illustration: it is a good security practice for a Debian distro, not so much for a closed source phone app store.
They don't know if the person who signed the app is the developer, but should the app happen to be a scam and there is a police investigation, that is the person who will have to answer questions, like "who did you transfer these private keys to?".
This, according to Google and possibly regulators in countries where this will be implemented, will help combat a certain type of scam.
It shouldn't be a problem for YouTube Vanced, at least in the proposed form. The authors, who are already idendified just need to sign their APK. AFAIK, what they are doing is not illegal or they would have been shut down long ago. It may be a problem for others though, and particularly F-Droid, because F-Droid recompiles apps, they can't reasonably be signed by the original author.
The F-Droid situation can resolve itself if F-Droid is allowed to sign the apps it publishes, and in fact, doing that is an improvement in security as it can be a guarantee that the APK you got is indeed the one compiled by F-Droid from publicly available source code.
These are not compatible, but only because the first half is simply false. Allowing a developer to send updates is not "good" but "bad" security practice.
Which shows that the whole 'security' rigmarole by google is bullshit.
But this costs money, and the lack of it is proof google doesn't really care about user security. They're just lying.
funnily enough, I am installing google drive for computers right now (macOS), I had to download a .pkg and basically sideload the app, which is not published on the Apple Store
Why the double standard, dear Google?
You mean install the app? The fact that Apple and Google wish to suggest that software from outside their gardens is somehow subnormal doesn't mean other people need to adopt their verbiage.
Somebody tell them that I do not want to be kept safe by Big Brother.
Curation (and even patching) by independent, third-party volunteers with strong value commitments does protect users from this (and many other things). Code signing is still helpful for F/OSS distributions of software, but the truth is that most of the security measures related to app installation serve primarily to solve problems with proprietary app markets like Google's Play Store and Apple's App Store. Same thing with app sandboxing.
It's unfortunate but predictable when powerful corporations taint genuine security features (like anti-tampering measures, built-in encryption devices, code signing, sandboxing, malware scanning, etc.) by using them as instruments of control to subdue their competitors and their own users.
It was shady as fuck on Kaputa's part, especially given ZipoApps is an Israeli adware company, a.k.a. surveillance company, and given Israel's track record with things like using Pegasus against journalists/activists or blowing up civilian-owned beepers, this should automatically be a major security incident and at least treated as seriously as the TikTok debacle.
Kaputa should be extremely ashamed of himself and outted from the industry. I and many others would have gladly paid a yearly subscription for continued updates of the suite instead of a one-time fee, but instead of openly discussing such a model with his userbase, he went for the dirtiest money he could find.
Why not let the user decide
Letting someone else decide has potential consequences
Using F-Droid app ("automatic updates") is optional, as it should be
"Automatic updates" is another way of saying "allow somone else to remotely install software on this computer"
Some computer owners might not want that. It's their decision to make
I disable internet access to all apps by default, including system apps
When source code is provided I can remove internet access before compilation
Anyway, the entire OS is "user-hostile" requiring constant vigilance
It's controlled by an online ad services company
Surveillance as a business
The problem is the vast majority of users want this on by default; they don't want to be bothered with looking at every update and deciding if they should update or not.
Given the frequent complaints about the former, the notion of "permission" is dubious
That's actually possible, though app stores need to implement the modern API which F-Droid doesn't seem to do quite well (the basic version of F-Droid (https://f-droid.org/eu/packages/org.fdroid.basic/) seems to do better). Updating from different sources (i.e. downloading Signal from GPlay and then updating it from F-Droid or vice versa) also causes issues. But plain old alternative app stores can auto-update in the background. Could be something added in a relatively recent version of Android, though.
If this Verified bullshit makes it through, I expect open source Android development to slowly die off. Especially for smaller hobbyist-made apps.
there cannot exist an easy way for a typical non-technical user to install “unverified apps” (whatever that means), because the governments of countries where such scams are widespread will hold Google responsible.
Meanwhile this very fact seems fundamentally unacceptable to many, so there will be no end to this discourse IMO.
But that kind of privacy based security model is anathema to Google because its whole business model is based on violating its users' privacy. And that's why they have come with such convoluted implementation that further give them control over a user's device. Obviously some government's too may favour such an approach as they too can then use Google or Apple to exert control over their citizens (through censorship or denial of services).
Note also that while they are not completely removing sideloading (for now) they are introducing further restrictions on it, including gate-keeping by them. This is just the "boil the frog slowly" approach. Once this is normalised, they will make a move to prevent sideloading completely, again, in the future.
It could be an alternative SMS app like TextSecure. One of the best features of Android is that even built-in default applications like the keyboard, browser, launcher, etc can be replaced by alternative implementations.
It could also be a SMS backup application (which can also be used to transfer the whole SMS history to a new phone).
Or it could be something like KDE Connect making SMS notifications show up on the user's computer.
so no, it's not necessary at all. and many apps identify OTPs and give you an easy "copy to clipboard" button in the notification.
but that isn't all super widely known and expected (partly because not all apps or messages follow it), so it's not something you can rely on users denying access to.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ars+technica+playstore+malwa...
This blog post is specifically saying there will be a way to bypass the gatekeeping on Google-blessed Android builds, just as we wanted.
> But that kind of privacy based security model is anathema to Google because its whole business model is based on violating its users' privacy.
Despite this, they sell some of the most privacy-capable phones available, with the Pixels having unlockable bootloaders. Even without unlocking the bootloader to install something like GrapheneOS, they support better privacy than the other mass market mobile phones by Samsung and Apple, which both admittedly set a low bar.
If they are concerned about malware then one of the obvious solutions would be safe guarding their play store. There is significant less scam on iphone because apple polices their app store. Meanwhile scam apps that i reported are still up on google play store.
Then you'd have the other "screaming minority" on HN show up, the "antitrust all the things" folks.
can you imagine the outrage from all the exact same people who are currently outraged about develeloper verification if google said they were cutting off any third-party app access to SMS/RCS?
Just look at everything they've done to break yt-dlp over and over again. In fact their newest countermeasure is a frontpage story right beside this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45898407
But having seen how things work at large companies including Google, I find it less likely for Google's Android team to be allocating resources or making major policy decisions by considering the YouTube team. :-) (Of course if Android happened to make a change that negatively affected YouTube revenue, things may get escalated and the change may get rolled back as in the infamous Chrome-vs-Ads case, but those situations are very rare.) Taking their explanation at face value (their anti-malware team couldn't keep up: bad actors can spin up new harmful apps instantly. It becomes an endless game of whack-a-mole. Verification changes the math by forcing them to use a real identity) seems justified in this case.
My point though was that whatever the ultimate stable equilibrium becomes, it will be one in which the set of apps that the average person can easily install is limited in some way — I think Google's proposed solution here (hobbyists can make apps having not many users, and “experienced users” can opt out of the security measures) is actually a “least bad” compromise, but still not a happy outcome for those who would like a world where anyone can write apps that anyone can install.
Google is not rolling this out to protect against YouTube ReVanced but only in a small number of countries. That’s an illogical conclusion to draw from the facts.
If I'm going to live in a walled garden it's going to the fanciest
I beg to differ:
> In early discussions about this initiative, we've been encouraged by the supportive initial feedback we've received.
> the Brazilian Federation of Banks (FEBRABAN) sees it as a “significant advancement in protecting users and encouraging accountability.” This support extends to governments as well
> We believe this is how an open system should work
Google isn't "hinting" that they're doing this under pressure, that announcement makes it quite clear that this is Google's initiative which the governments are supportive of because it's another step on a ratcheting mechanism that centralizes power.
> because the governments of countries where such scams are widespread will hold Google responsible
Your comment is normalizing highly problematic behavior. Can we agree that vague "pressure from the government" shouldn't be how policies and laws are enacted? They should make and enforce laws in a constitutional manner.
If you believe that it's normal for these companies and government officials to make shadow deals that bypass the rule of law, legal procedures, separation of powers and the entire constitutional system of governance that our countries have, then please drop the pretense that you stand for democracy and the rule of law (assuming that you haven't already).
Otherwise we need to be treating it for what it is - a dangerous, corrupt, undemocratic shift in our system of governance.
What, the same way they hold Microsoft responsible for the fact that you can install whatever you want in Windows?
Obviously, there can exist an easy way for a non-technical user to install unverified apps, because there has always been one.
Assuming this is true (ignore if you disagree), why is that? Is it that PCs never became as widespread as phones (used by lots of people who are likely targets for scammers and losing their life savings etc), or technology was still new and lawmakers didn't concern themselves with it, or PCs (despite the name) were still to a large extent "office" devices, or the sophistication of scammers was lower then, or…? Even today PCs are being affected by ransomware (for example) but Microsoft doesn't get held responsible, so why are phones different?
The era of United States companies using common sense United States principles for the whole world is coming to an end.
Of course there are no good options for open hardware, but that is a related but separate problem.
There is absolutely nothing "natural" about trading your pile of government promises for the right to call government men with guns and sticks if you are alienated from the option to physically control an object. Your natural right is to control what you can defend.
Rights are what we decide them to be. Or rather, what people in power decide them to be, i.e. people who hold and issue large amounts of government promises, and recruit and direct the most men with guns and sticks.
Do what you please and get enough people to do it with you, and no one can stop you.
Note that adding "full stop" pointlessly to the end of sentences does not strengthen your argument.
You’re still missing the point the comment is making: In countries where governments are dead set on holding Google accountable for what users do on their phones, it doesn’t matter what you believe to be your natural right. The governments of these countries have made declarations about who is accountable and Google has no intention of leaving the door open for that accountability.
You can do whatever you want with the hardware you buy, but don’t confuse that with forcing another company to give you all of the tools to do anything you want easily.
You can also view this as a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Unverified apps and sideloading is actively abused by scammers right now.
> Meanwhile this very fact seems fundamentally unacceptable to many, so there will be no end to this discourse IMO.
I get that viewpoint and I'm also very glad an opt-out now exists (and the risk that the verification would be abused is also very real), but yeah, more information what to do against scammers then would also be needed.
Moreover, it's not possible to provide a path for advanced users that a stupid person won't use by accident, either.
These are what drive many instances of completely missing paths for advanced users. It's not possible to stop coercion or accidents. It is literally impossible. Any company that doesn't want to take the risk can only leave advanced users completely out of the picture. There's nothing else they can do.
Google will fail to prevent misuse of this feature, and advanced users will eventually be left in the dust completely as Google learns there's no way to safely provide for them. This is inevitable.
That immediately takes the pressure off people who are being told that their bank details are at immediate risk.
I actually think you might be wrong about this? Imagine if Google forced you to solve a logic puzzle before sideloading. The puzzle could be very visual in nature, so even if a scammer asked the victim to describe the puzzle over the phone, this usually wouldn't allow the scammer to solve it on the victim's behalf. The puzzle could be presented in a special OS mode to prevent screenshots, with phone camera disabled so the puzzle can't be photographed in a mirror, and phone call functionality disabled so a scammer can't talk you through it as easily. Scammers would tell the victim to go find a friend, have the friend photograph the puzzle, and send the photo to the scammer. At which point the friend hopefully says "wait, wtf is going on here?" (Especially if the puzzle has big text at the top like "IF SOMEONE ASKS YOU TO PHOTOGRAPH THIS, THEY ARE LIKELY VICTIM OF AN ONGOING SCAM, YOU SHOULD REFUSE", and consists of multiple stages which need to be solved sequentially.)
In addition to logic puzzles, Google could also make you pass a scam awareness quiz =) You could interleave the quiz questions with logic puzzle stages, to help the friend who's photographing the puzzle figure out what's going on.
I guess this could fail for users who have two devices, e.g. a laptop plus a phone, but presumably those users tend to have a little more technical sophistication. Maybe display a QR code in the middle of the puzzle which opens up scam awareness materials if photographed?
Or, instead of a "scam awareness quiz" you could could give the user an "ongoing scam check", e.g.: "Did a stranger recently call you on the phone and tell you to navigate to this functionality?" If the user answers yes, disable sideloading for the next 48 hours and show them scam education materials.
- install remote desktop software
- run commands in the windows terminal
- withdraw cash from the bank
- lie to the bank teller about their purpose
- insert their cash into a bitcoin ATM at a gas station
- ignore warnings about scams which appear on the screen of the ATM
- insert the scammers bitcoin address into the machine
It isn't a stretch to imagine they could convince the victim to install adb and sideload an app.
I'm surprised they didn't think of doing that sooner.
Warning about scams is fine, as is taking steps to make it harder, but once you start trying to completely remove the agency of mentally sound adults "for their own good" then we have a problem.
This is either a move towards tighter control of the platform or a government request. And somewhat ironic, given that iOS is being pressured to be a bit more open.
But it is perfectly fine to sell crypto and other complex financial assets to kids and other people that do not know they are from apps in the Play store.
If "safety" takes control from you then it is implemented. If real safety puts profits in danger then it is fight against. Quite a dystopia.
And also, I'm the owner of my device. Not my country.
Autocratic Albania banned by law ads on YouTube so if you are in Albania (or your VPN is - wink! wink!) you get to watch YouTube without ads legally
I, too, hate those autocratic countries were government act for the good of the people, instead of ruling in favour of greedy billionaires
I'm sure some private actors (for example, banks) would love that smartphones are as tight as possible (reason: [0]). Perhaps the same reason applies to Google [1]. But no, "Brazil" isn't demanding that from Google.
[0]: consider that some virus (insecure apps, for example) could somehow steal information from bank apps (even as simple as capture login information). The client might sue the bank and the bank might have to prove that their app is secure and the problem was in the client's smartphone.
[1]: the client, the bank etc might complain to Google that their Android is insecure
In ye goode olde times, the US would have threatened invasion and that would have been the end of it.
Half /s, because it actually used to be the case that the US government exercised its massive influence (and not just militarily) onto other countries for the benefit of its corporations and/or its citizens... these days, the geopolitical influence of the US has been reduced to shreds and the executive's priorities aren't set by doing what's (being perceived as being) right but by whomever pays the biggest bribes.
Seems more appropriate.
Imagine a situation in which a frightened, stressed user sees such a message on their screen. Meanwhile, a very convincing fake police officer or bank representative is telling them over the phone that they must ignore this message due to specific dangerous emergency situation to save the money in their bank account. Would the user realize at that moment that the message is right and the person on the phone is a thief? I'm not so sure.
How many virus infections and scams was Microsoft held responsible for? What about Red Hat, or Debian?
And at least let Google plainly state this, instead of inventing legal theories based on vague hints from their press releases, to explain why their self-serving user-hostile actions are actually legally mandatory.
This argument is FUD at this point.
Sovereign governments have ways to make clear what they want: they pass laws, and there needs to be no back deal or veiled threats. If they intend to punish Google for the rampant scams, they'll need a legal framework for that. That's exactly how it went down with the DMA, and how other countries are dealing with Google/Apple.
Otherwise we're just fantasizing on vague rumors, exchanges that might have happened but represent nothing (some politicians telling bullshit isn't a law of the country that will lead to enforcement).
This would be another story if we're discussing exchanges with the mafia and/or private parties, but here you're explicitely mentionning governments.
Not really. It should, but Google operate in a bunch of contries without proper rule of law.
This is the unsurprising consequence of trying to hold big companies accountable for the things people do with their devices: The only reasonable response is to reduce freedoms with those devices, or pull out of those countries entirely.
This happened a lot in the early days of the GDPR regulations when the exact laws were unclear and many companies realized it was safer to block those countries entirely. Despite this playing out over and over again, there are still constant calls on HN to hold companies accountable for user-submitted content, require ID verification, and so on.
The government(s) have to treat the middlemen as middlemen. Otherwise they are forced to act as gatekeepers.
security = 1/convenience
security = 1/freedom or agencyThe word "sideload" made it sound like you're smuggle something you shouldn't onto the system. Subtle word tricks like this could sneak poisons into your mind, be watchful.
Side loading was getting something to work because it should when the system hadn't caught up to the fact that it should work.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/CNET_Do_It_Yourself_IPo...
I happen to remember "sideload" as a term of art for some online file locker sites to mean saving it to your cloud drive instead of downloading it to your computer. A cool usage, but it never caught on.
I think nomenclature as it exists in the PC software universe is closest in spirit on all fronts, in describing running software as, well, running software, and describing installing as installing. While a little conspiratorial in tone they're not wrong that "sideload" pushes the impression that controlling what software you run on your phone should be understood as non-default.
The buried lede:
> a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification
So a natural limit on how big a hobby project can get. The example they give, where verification would require scammers to burn an identity to build another app instead of just being able to do a new build whenever an app gets detected as malware, shows that apps with few installs are where the danger is. This measure just doesn't add up
> We are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified
Also this will kill any impetus that was growing on the Linux phone development side, for better or worse. We get to live in this ecosystem a while longer, let's see if people keep damocles' sword in mind and we might see more efforts towards cross-platform builds for example
Sure, they'll keep building it forever — this is just a delay tactic.
Wow, this really pulls back the veil. This Vendor (google) is only looking out for numero uno.
As long as this is a one-time flow: Good, great, yes, I'll gladly scroll through as many prompts as you want to enable sideloading. I understand the risks!
But I fear this will be no better than Apple's flow for installing unsigned binaries in macOS.
Please do better.
I highly doubt this is your "top" priority. Or if it is then you're gotten there by completely ignoring Google account security.
> intercepts the victim's notifications
And who controls these notifications and forces application developers to use a specific service?
> bad actors can spin up new harmful apps instantly.
Like banking applications that use push or SMS for two factor authentication. You seem to approve those without hesitation. I guess their "top" priority is dependent on the situation.
> And who controls these notifications and forces application developers to use a specific service?
Am I alone in being alarmed by this? Are they admitting that their app sandboxing is so weak that a malicious app can exfil data from other unaffiliated apps? And they must instead rely on centralized control to disable those apps after the crime? So.. what’s the point of the sandboxing - if this is just desktop level lack of isolation?
Glossing over this ”detail” is not confidence inspiring. Either it’s a social engineering attack, in which case an app should have no meaningful advantage over traditional comms like web/email/social media impersonation. Or, it’s an issue of exploits not being patched properly, in which case it’s Google and/or vendor responsibility to push fixes quickly before mass malware distribution.
The only legit point for Google, to me, is apps that require very sensitive privileges, like packet inspection or OS control. You could make an argument that some special apps probably could benefit from verification or special approvals. But every random app?
I think a better compromise would have been for google to require developer verification, but also allow third party appstores like f-droid that don't require verification but still are required to "sign" the apks, instead of users enabling wide-open apk sideloading. that way, hobbyists can still publish apps in third party stores, and it is a couple of more steps harder for users to fall for social engineering,because they now have to install/enable f-droid, and then find the right malicious app and download it. The apk downloaded straight from the malicious site won't be loaded no matter what.
Google can then require highlighting things like number of downloads and developer reputation by 3rd party appstores, and maybe even require an inconsistent set of steps to search and find apps to make it harder to social engineer people (like names of buttons, ux arrangements, number of clicks,etc.. randomize it all).
What frustrated me on this topic from the beginning is that solutions like what I'm proposing (and better ones) are possible. But the HN prevailing sentiment (and elsewhere) is pitchforks and torches. Ok, disagree with google, but let's discuss about how to solve the android malware problem that is hurting real people, it is irresponsible to do otherwise.
- 1: Separate verification type for "student and hobbyist"
- 2: "advanced flow" for "power users" that allows sideloading of unverified apps - I imagine this is some kind of scare-screen, but we'll see.
F-droid doesn't want to track number of installs because that is an invasion of privacy.
> require developer verification, but also allow third party appstores like f-droid that don't require verification
Now you've moved the problem from Google gatekeeping apps to Google gatekeeping app stores. We don't want either.
I shouldn't need an internet connection just to make an app for a device I own.
But having done it, I'm actually pretty impressed with the existing security. At least on my S24, you have to both enable sideloading at the system level, and enable each specific app to be allowed to "Install other apps" (e.g. when I first tried to launch the APK that I had downloaded from Firefox, I received a notification that I would need to whitelist Firefox to be allowed to install apps. I decided no, and instead whitelisted my File Manager app and then opened the APK through that).
I then installed F-Droid, allowed it to install other apps, installed NewPipe, and then toggled back off the system-level sideloading setting. NewPipe still works, and I don't think anything else can install. This satisfies my security paranoia that once the door to sideloading is opened that apps can install other apps willy-nilly. Not so.
So I really don't see what this new initiative by Google solves, other than, as others have said, control. The idea that somehow all user security woes come from sideloading apps and they would somehow be safe if they simply stuck strictly to the Play Store is patently untrue, given the number of malware-laden apps currently lurking in the Play Store.
Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months.
I'm cautiously optimistic though. I'm generally okay with nanny features as long as there's a way to turn them off and it sounds like that's what this "advanced flow" does.
absolutely no. this is for the user side. but if you're a developer who is planning to publish the app in alternative play store/from your website, you have to do verification flow. please read the full text.
Still, it seems like good news, so I'll take it.
Anyway, I am already planning for a future in which Google does not feature as prominently as did until now. Small steps so far ( grapheneOS ), but to me the writing the wall is unmistakable. Google got cold feet over feedback and now they can allow things.
When negative publicity ends, they will start working towards further locking it in again. I am personally done with passively accepting it. It might be annoying, but it degoogling is a simple necessity.
This. Currently I am still a paying Google customer for a few things running my freelance side business. I am in the process of migrating my data out of Google Drive and migrating my photos out as well.
Next step is taking back control over my email infrastructure. Especially as google nowadays sorts quite a relevant number of important mail to spam, while allowing more and more crap to pass into my inbox.
Also they one sidedly raised the price because they now have AI included. Fuck them - I am not using their shitty AI and I did not buy that. I am using AI daily - just not the crap product Google shoved down my throat.
garpheneOS/postmarketOS are next on my list. As I have a tertiary device around, I will during the dark months ahead set this up and see if it fits my needs.
With Arch now my daily driver (except for the main job), I plan to use way less US tech vendor crap. There are so many beautiful and not to difficult to use OS solutions out there, easily hostable on servers inside a more sensible jurisdiction.
Also currently working on a solution to get around the enshittified YouTube experience. Without it becoming an unreasonable effort to still watch the interesting things on my big screen in the living room. But automated AI audio translations did this in for me. I already find the automated title translations to be abhorrent - now, having had the absolute shit experience of starting a video and having it dubbed by an awful AI voice was just a bit too much for me.
Real sideloaders (F-Droid users, etc.) know at setup time that that's how they'll be using their phone, so it works for them. But ordinary users who are targets for sideloading malware will become a lot less attractive if attackers must convince them to wipe their phone to complete the coercive instructions.
Aliexpress has a similar approach to protect their accounts from takeovers. If you change or forget your password, all your saved payment methods are erased. This makes the account less valuable to an attacker, at the cost of a little pain to authentic account holders.
I'm not too worried. My employer should be, though.
If it's a one time unlock, eg like developer mode then hopefully it'll just work.
If it's a big long flow per install... Yikes, that's not much better than adb install
> 13. For a period beginning on the Effective Date through June 30, 2032, Google will [...] and will continue to permit the direct downloading of apps from developer websites and third-party stores without any fees being imposed for those downloads unless the downloads originate from linkouts from apps installed/updated by Google Play (excluding web browsers).
6 days ago the court expressed skepticism as to the proposal and announced that they'd have a hearing, with testimony from expert witnesses, as to whether it would prevent the market harms that the original injunction was trying to cure [2].
Today Google announces this, effectively confirming that they're backing down from their requirement that third party app developers pay google prior to distributing their apps.
Nothing (yet) is explicitly tying these together, but I can't help but suspect that this move is in large part being made to convince the court that they're actually intending to honour this portion of the proposed injunction even though Epic would have little reason to enforce it.
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
Google mentions about being on a call, and being tricked into handing over codes. So why not use signals and huristics to decide?
If user is on a call, block any ability to install a shady app. Implement a cool down before that functionality is restored (say 24 hours). It can also detect where the user is based to add additional protection (such as mandating the use of play protect to scan the app before it's activated and add another cool down regardless).
There's lots of ways to help protect the user but it's wrong to ultimately control them. The real world is full of scary dangers that technology is trying to solve but is actively making things worse (such as computerized safety systems in cars).
Ultimately, the user is responsible and whilst it's palpable Google would want to reduce harm in this specific way, we know authoritarian governments would also love to be able to dictate what software people can run. The harm to democracy is simply too great in favor of saving a few people's money.
You will not be able to use any of your banking apps without first removing all of those...
We need alternatives, this will not work and is a risk to freedom/democracy for all of us.
Switzerland is implementing a digital ID[1]. It will be made available to the most common devices and is open source. However Google and Apple can just remove it, what then?
I just can't see any good reason for it but my banking app has invested more work into detecting any possible hint of rooting than into its UX. It's absurd.
Sincere question: do you have any evidence for this?
I don't see anything in the article that backs it up, and your asserion seems to be at odds with the description of a side load capability for "risk tolerant" users. What you describe would certainly break much of the usefulness of side loading for me.
I certainly don't trust Google, or underestimate their capacity for duplicity. I'm just not sure about the outcome you describe.
* "Android Developer Verification Proposed Changes" by agnostic-apollo (https://github.com/agnostic-apollo), Termux app (https://github.com/termux/termux-app) developer: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/459832198 via https://old.reddit.com/r/termux/comments/1ourtxj/android_dev... (old.reddit.com/r/termux/comments/1ourtxj/android_developer_verification_discourse/)
* Search for "Smartphone-1 to Smartphone-2" "adb tcpip 5555" in "Motorola moto g play 2024 smartphone, Termux, termux-usb, usbredirect, QEMU running under Termux, and Alpine Linux: Disks with Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) Partition Table (GPT) partitioning": https://old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1j2g5gz/motorola_mot... (old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1j2g5gz/motorola_moto_g_play_2024_smartphone_termux/)
* Search for "termux-adb" in "Motorola moto g play 2024 Smartphone, Android 14 Operating System, Termux, And cryptsetup: Linux Unified Key Setup (LUKS) Encryption/Decryption And The ext4 Filesystem Without Using root Access, Without Using proot-distro, And Without Using QEMU": https://old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1jkl0f8/motorola_mot... (old.reddit.com/r/MotoG/comments/1jkl0f8/motorola_moto_g_play_2024_smartphone_android_14/)
It's not an option, even if they pretend it to be one: if I click the text "install without scanning", nothing happens. I must accept the big button that uploads the app for a scan. It's none of their business.
ADB is no alternative for me, because it's easier for me to send a websocket command to my 9 devices (mostly dashboards) so that they download the file and start the upgrade process, so that I then only need to press the "upgrade" button manually on each device. Remove the dashboards from the walls, just to plug an USB cable in them, to upgrade the apps?
Do the changes here do anything for F-Droid?
One thing which can immediately improve security is forbidding SMS read access forever. Just like Apple does. No App should be able to read SMS.
2. Went to the settings and about pyone sceeen
3. Tapped the thing 5 times to activate developer mode
4. Activated installing from third party sources despite the warning there
5. Installed the APK
May I suggest the problem is not that this is possible, but a lack of education? If your father is the type that would jump into the bathtub with a toaster because someone on whatsapp told them to do so, I am afraid it is not the existence of toasters that is the issue.
On a side note, it is technically very feasible to help antivirus and security software makers to lock down phones for people who would benefit from it. For example, you could have a strict whitelisting approach for vulnerable users (e.g. elderly, bitcoin entrepreneurs, annoying kids, Google engineers) who prefer it that way, making installation of arbitrary software impossible. Giving up choices voluntarily is fine, taking away choices by force is not fine.
Why did your father enable installing APK packages from third party sources? That's a setting buried deep inside the developer settings, which themselves have to be activated with a very arcane manipulation
I disagree - one feature in KDE Connect that is super useful is being able to forward your notifications, including your text messages. This would also harm non Android smartwatches, such as the recently revived Pebble.
[0] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-and...
It's my tool. Mine. I'll do with it as I please.
I agree there are issues. But preventing installs aren't the answer, just like removing all windows and doors from a house isn't the answer to neighbourhood crime.
I'd be more inclined to say the problem is allowing apps to be funded by advertising. If all apps were paid apps, and using personal data in any way was immensely, "thrown in jail" illegal, then you'd find yourself approving access to contacts, SMS, Pii quite rarely.
It would really stand out in such a case.
"What?! I've been using my phone for 10 years, and some app wants to see my contacts. Why?? No one reputable asks for that, ever!"
So much of the problem with the internet is that Pii is paying the way.
On GrapheneOS, when I install anything, it flat out asks me if I want to give it internet access at all. SMS could be the same way. Off by default, try to grant it, big warnings.
At a certain point, if you have big warnings saying "Are you serious?!" and people turn it on, it entirely ends up being the end user's fault.
So you do know - inform users, increase privacy,...?
Our right to choose install software on our own devices should not be encroached because over-trusting elderly follower scammers instructions.
We can protect people like your dad with an opt-in system like parental controls. Have a responsible family member lock the system down however you deem fit.
Then let me decide which apps can access the internet, and which app can access which domain names / IP addresses.
Because it feels like there are a lot of DATA THIEVES out there, selling my data to companies you work with.
We call them Firewalls on the PC.
Other schemes include impersonating sex workers to lure victims into nude video chats, then persuading them to install an app that harvests private content and contacts for blackmail.
This is how loss of autonomy always happens in every sphere: make an argument that it's for their own safety that individuals are losing autonomy, and the entity gaining control is superior in knowing what's best, and is taking control only out of the goodness of their heart.
If someone tricks you into handing over the keys to the kingdom, the solution isn't to remove your door.
We don't cater the most stupid in society.
Google should just ban all apps that use SMS 2FA codes for login.
If Android is open source, why can't/won't a community fork it? Graphene OS exists but many folks claim Netflix and banking apps do not work with it (despite allowing logins from any common desktop browser)?
If all widely-accepted phone operating systems are de-facto proprietary, what does this say about the current phase of society?
What choice do non-billionaire/millionaire humans have for living in a single-planet society where technology is so highly integrated (and the inherent non-consensual compromises)?
What If the little people are going to get squeezed even more?
Troubling questions.
Android in practice is full of proprietary blobs, stuck on old kernel versions, and the hardware is barely supported. Lots of downstream crap from the vendors not playing nice. Most devices running Android are instantly doomed to be e-waste. You can look through devices postmarketOS supports, and anything without mainline kernel support and most stuff working is basically e-waste unless someone puts in a lot of work for that particular device. It's a little bit like how modern GPUs don't work without blobs in the kernel anymore and you have to go back to Haswell era or older for things to work with all free software, but the state of smartphones is a few steps worse than that due to their locked down nature.
Pretty much any OnePlus device (other than ones still too new) seems to be a good bet for decent software support (both LineageOS and pmOS). Though annoyingly stuff like the 3G shutdown makes a lot of the earlier models unusable as actual phones these days. At least they can still be computers. Not quite e-waste.
Things have been going bad since then. Closing of root access, closing of software, youtube not working in split screen etc. All the changes make me think of Android as more and more repulsing. Recent changes like removing old software from the store because they didn't update API and now this... Google stop being evil
You think this is evil? :-)))
Watch what happens as they can't grow by 10% per year and their share price tanks in 5-10 years.
> "Google come to their senses on this"
it's
> "Google was forced to their senses on this"
Google goes on to say how taking away one of your last remaining rights is good for you, if you like it or not.
It is clear to everyone why Google is partnering with governments around the world to remove our rights to installing apps. Laws are not on your side and must be reevaluated on an individual level to move forward. You decide your own terms, you have the power.
Only we can stop this together.
Other thoughts on how you could make a coercion resistant power user toggle? I'm very excited that Google's thinking about offering this because it gives me faith that just because I chose to be in a minority, I won't be relegated.
On the flip side, I was so shaken by the original announcement that would kill off F-Droid that I've been very actively looking into building my own mobile device that runs Linux. I purchased the components for a Hackberry Pi that I'm hoping to build in the next couple of months, but knowing that Android won't kill off F-Droid entirely is heartening.
To make it even harder, they could also require a verification code from your phone manufacturer, or the package of your device, which makes it impossible to automate the switch into power-user mode.
I don't agree that this is something that should be restricted to "advanced" users, even. One of the basic freedoms that protects users from the unilateral control of the developers, is other developers (like me) being able to patch apps and distribute them to friends and family, without making a public fork or meeting play store requirements. Take for example, youtube revanced. If I want to help my friends by making a private f-droid or obtainium repository, to save them the trouble of going through the (legal!) process of patching and updating the app themselves, right now I can do this. If this requires going through a lengthy process instead, that may or may not be detectable by apps that will then choose to cease to function (this has happened with rooting), my ability to help friends and family as someone with the know-how and experience gets reduced significantly. There's many things that don't fly on the play store, such as the completely legal NewPipe, AdAway, and Termux applications, and while I can sign up for the developer verification, it's not clear to me under what circumstances the verification can be terminated.
First of all, there is principally no good reason why adult people should be patronized by Google or other companies and kept from installing the software they want to install. Limitation of numbers just means that I cannot publish my .apk and let users install it freely. However, anyone who is allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, or get a motorcycle, should also be allowed to install whatever application they want. It's a matter of basic individual freedom.
Second, the majority of reasonable users cannot be restricted from using their device as they wish just because a small minority falls for scams. A minority of people also drink themselves to death, die in motorcycle accidents, or smoke. There is nothing wrong with taking risks and taking responsibility for one's own life. We don't need for-profit corporations to hold our hands.
Third, if they believed their own arguments, then they'd make certain functions such as intercepting SMS messages and installing a custom keyboard subject to stricter requirements with potential developer verification and keep the OS open and free otherwise. This would be a piece of cake since the technical infrastructure is already there on Android. The fact that they don't clearly indicates they're hypocrites and want to control users and developers, make 3rd party app stores harder or impossible, control which apps they "allow" as part of anti-competitive behavior, and possibly extract some extra cash from developers in the future.
It's a pity how private computing is destroyed and that's the reason we all have to use inferior web apps until browsers are closed down in the same way in the name of security theater.
However, I think there are other things they should do as well (in addition to the other things) if they want to improve the safety, such as looking at the apps in Google Play to check that they are not malware (since apparently some are; however, it says they do have some safeguards, so hopefully that would help), and to make the permission system to work better (e.g. to make it clear that it can intercept notificatinos; there are legitimate reasons to do this but it should require an explicit permission setting to make this clear).
"Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months. "
This is old rule: you don't need to take over control of all the people, you just need to take over those two-three suppliers that are covering all the people. If for example new politician Tronald Dump will take seat in 2035 in USA and they will try to push their agenda to other countries, they will take over the LLM, phone and OS providers, namely OpenAI, MS, Apple, Google. That's all to control to have the souls ruled all over the world. If something must vanish, will vanish. Like in the Ministry of Truth
That seems like a severe security bug in Android APIs or sandboxing or something else.
> bad actors can spin up new harmful apps instantly
Why are harmful apps possible at all?
No, this is the permissioned API that makes KDE Connect work, which makes Apple's Continuity look like a toy and that also lets me programmatically filter notifications.
See for example Apple detecting if a user is typing on a keyboard while in a fullscreen website, and then blocking the website. Yes it's as crazy as it's sounds.
This is exactly the right thing to do and the best possible outcome. Google is correct that arbitrary Software installation can be harmful to users, especially those with limited technical knowledge. At the same time there are many users who want to install software freely and should be able to do so.
The compromise of a clear and unambiguous warning of the potential dangers, which the user is then allowed to accept, seems very good and the right thing to do.
this is a misleading title. they only allow side-loading unverified apps only on fewer devices.
> Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands.
Or am I misreading your comment?
Marketing at work, I am not giving away my ID to publish an app on an alternative app store, like F-Droid.
Google is abusing their "gatekeeper" status, like Apple does.
Sounds like just trying to save face, they didn't have a language of "we're only _MAYBE_ stopping everyone from installing non-verified apps" back then. They were quite adamant.
But happy that they're dropping the craziest part of this in any case. Won't stop me from investigating Graphene OS and other options when getting my next handset though, the previous move surely caused a jolt in my interest.
I'm really over third parties telling me that my safety is their priority. Unless you're transporting my body (ie, airline, ride share, etc), then I really don't need you to be looking out for my safety. See the problem is: when you do look out for my safety, you do it by giving yourself control over my life that is not healthy for either of us.
Let my safety be my concern, and the functionality of your product can be your top priority.
Two key announcements:
> we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified.
> We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements.
I think it was mentioned somewhere else that that account type would require manually authorising each individual installation, so it'd still be useless for small freeware developers, who are only in it for the fun, too, but want to give away their software to everybody who might find it useful.
I'm not naive to think its not happening today, whats probably new is them admitting to it.
How long does it take them to use that info to drop ban hammer on the user accountd for using apps like newpipe and hide behind reasons like violation of TnCs.
> Google will allow users to sideload Android apps without verification
Which seems to be false. As far as I understand, Google still requires verification.
Verification sounds great on paper, but if this turns into “prove you’re a real dev by jumping through 12 forms of bureaucracy,” it’ll just push more talent to sideloading and open platforms.
Still, if Google actually nails this — transparent, fair, and fast — it could be the first time in years Android feels safer without feeling locked down. That’d be a plot twist I’d love to see.
Mercedes will allow drivers to carry passengers without verification.
Sounds silly, doesn't it?
Ford will allow drivers to carry passengers without verification.
Sounds silly, doesn't it?
I see here and there some comments about someone was scammed, etc… Lack of knowledge of users is not a good reason. They still will get scammed, in a different way, but outcome will be the same.
On PC one can install whatever want - and nobody is blaming OS for it.
"You should open up the tool, put no restrictions, and yet ensure that it is safe and secure" is an impossible task for anyone.
It is hard to to trust anyone who starts communication with an obvious falsehood. Users beware.
So they haven't actually changed anything yet, but they say that they will "in the coming months."
I believe they will push responsability onto OEM.
So if I want to release a free android game my options are.
A: Hope Google doesn't change course again.
B: Give Google a copy of my apartment lease,
Would be too hard for them to ya know actually implement sandboxing which would prevent this.
Anything aside from full bootloader access means I'm renting my device.
Too late now though.
I guess that makes me a cybercriminal, doesn't it.
I assume the results of my actions and I accept that if something bad is going to happen, it's my fault. I am fine with that.
I want the same kind of freedom on my phone, a device I own and I payed for with my own money. I am not smarter when using the PC and dumber when using the phone. I want to be able to opt out of verification and install whatever I want.
1) announce decision that will make everything even worse
2) wait for negative opinion
3) announce walking back on the decision
4) observe general sense of relief
The only way this can be stopped is to make it costly to even announce "decisions making everything worse"
Lets not celebrate prematurely and let us wait for more details on whats actually changing both technically and process wise. We should demand more clarity and should not wait to discover it after the implementation at which point it is hard and nearly impossible to push back against.
We don't want to be in a situation where they technically make it possible but make it practically impossible to install apps outside playstore.
Can I use FDroid?
Recently I wanted to find a good app to manage my shopping lists as well as keep an ordering of this list so that I could run through the supermarket more efficiently. I really hate backtracking the supermarket to get some item on my list that I forgot was in a spot I'd already been. Of course, it had to work offline-first and I didn't mind a bit of configuration.
Everything on Google Play Store was some cloud-integrated garbage app. The only app that came even close was an app on F-droid called Aisleron, which lets you manage both your home stock and supermarkets in terms of "aisles" of products, flipping easily between what is in stock and what is needed and then managing an aisle-based sorting of these products per supermarket that I frequent.
Great App! However, I worry that this app would never have been released had Google considered actively blocking the author from creating legitimate and highly useful pieces of software like Aisleron.
Sorry, *allow*? ALLOW?
I'm sorry. My device. My software. My customer or friend. You don't have the right to insert yourself into the process. Very kind of you to ALLOW me to do something you have no involvement in whatsoever.
Like everything google do the real reason for the plan is to let google insert themselves unwanted into someone elses business so they can extract money from other people's work.
I would bin my android phone now if the alternatives weren't even worse,
/Old man laughing at "cloud" that is my baremetal.
But it does not say (or I can't find it) how to JOIN the waiting list. Does anyone know how?