No, it is not. This is moving the goalposts. The original issue is developer verification. No appreciable harm prevention can or will come from forcing devs to identify themselves.
That's because most fraud uses social tactics and LEGITIMATE tools/software.
Impinging on my property rights cannot and will not protect fraud victims.
Why do you keep harping on about ADB installs. That's not helpful. It doesn't help me install open source apps from FDroid. It's ridiculous that you think booting up a computer and using ADB is a reasonable workaround. It isn't.
How? Reading this it seems like only verified developers can skip this process. Most Fdroid developers won't be verified. I don't see where it says Fdroid would be exempt from this requirement. Would Fdroid be a verified developer?
No. F-Droid builds the apps on their server, and they cannot sign the apps with the developer's keys because that would require them to have access to the developers' Google accounts
If you enable the advanced flow as described in the Android Developers Blog, then you can install unregistered apps regardless of source. That includes apps from sources like F-Droid.
Don't be mistaken, it's the delay I'm complaining about, not how to instal F-Droid or apps through it.
It is not reasonable to advocate for ADB if the 24 hour wait is too long.
I'll copy what I wrote elsewhere. Fraud uses social tactics and legitimate tools in the vast majority of cases. Developer verification will have absolutely no effect on that.
Impinging on my property rights cannot and will not protect or help fraud victims.
Its about maintaining access to general purpose computing. There is no way to enforce laws or policies like this without removing the ability to modify the software running the computer.
Once that door is closed you can kiss 90% of what we love about computing goodbye.
They will solely be marketing and advertising platforms which you increasingly MUST use to interact with institutions private and public.
And by the way they'll be spying on and profiling on you even worse than is happening today, all fed into digital identity silos sold to anyone who wants it, including governments. Governments you like, and governments you don't.
I take your point, but it's extremely foolish to think that ensured compliance won't be sought when it's technologically feasible.
Its already illegal to show adult material to minors. If they were about enforcing laws properly they'd just do that. For instance a court ruling that adult material isnt allowed on the internet, since you can't effectively ID visitors.
Anyone could just make a fake ID though, so what did they do? Make creating fake IDs a crime. If we can lie about our age to the OS, they'll make it illegal to do that as well.
This is an obvious move to reduce computing freedom.
Yes. Because it isn't any of those 3. It's not in contravention of any long standing norm (just since the popularization of the internet), law, or long standing precedent.
And because it gives multiple groups extreme power and influence over many things.
And because those groups clearly crave that power and influence.
The internet is the new public sphere and forum, and it should not be possible except through legal judgement to bar or hinder anyone from accessing it.
If necessary, create private gated networks for adult material.
Anyway. You're clearly entrenched for some reason, so I won't waste my good faith effort any more.
You're trivializing how difficult tampering with OS internals in locked down secure boot environments can be. Just look at the state of Android custom roms. Devices that are years old can be impossible to modify the OS on.
Look at projects like byeDPI. Essentially, it's just a VPN service that runs on the phone itself.
You phone connection is passed to this VPN that modifies http-headers.
I kinda did forgot about Android, yeah. You can't exactly rewrite OS rules there. But it's no less trivial* on Android, you just have to solve it from different angle.
* assuming someone will just write the app, and share it. But since similar projects exist, it wouldn't be a reach to say that it's doable and some folks would be interested to do it.
I know most of this facts quite well. And yet I believe that the big corps actions are a desperate attempt to extract last drops of value before enshittificating themselves in the hole in the ground.
It's the laws and the FOSS that matter. You can circumvent almost anything, and – if the laws allow – you can share it freely.
I feel like we disagree on "you can't really enforce laws or policies like this without locking down the OS and hardware". In my eyes you can enforce the suggested law, without locking down on things. The law as written requires sending brackets, it doesn't require for them to be in any way to be true. It doesn't require OS to check.
I presume that if a child could get around this restrictions, they could make a choice between following them or getting around them. In my mind it's akin to "don't trespass" signs. Obviously a child could trespass them quite easily, and yet it's on parent to teach them why they shouldn't
Note that I know that we don't know yet what are the restrictions and how they could be enforced. I just don't get how we got from what we know to "lockdown all platforms must happen".
Are you aware that there are bills along similar lines in a majority of US states and at least one is reported to require using identity validating services to ensure the age is correct?
> I don't want him going close to the cars because they've LITERALLY been pumping out pollution for 10-15 minutes (those early spots are very coveted). I have to tell my son to hold his breath when we bike on the empty sidewalk past these idling cars. It all just feels very anti-social and dystopian.
Yes, I'm sure there's absolutely nothing you're doing to engender the general atmosphere of distrust...
reply