3 ms·

No, it's still not ok to track hardware IDs even (especially) for that reason: https://developer.android.com/training/articles/user-data-ids https://developer.a

• Avery3R 7y ago
  How else would you do the tracking?
• hombre_fatal 7y ago
  The most damning thing your link says is that it's not a best practice.
  • yorwba 7y ago
    The best fit is probably the "Anti-fraud: Enforcing free content limits and detecting Sybil attacks" use case, since that is about preventing a single user from creating multiple accounts. (Although the content limit for a banned account is to stop it from producing more content, not consuming it.) The official recommendation: Use: Instance ID or GUID. On Android 8.0 (API level 26) and higher, SSAID is also an option, as it's scoped to the app-signing key. Why this recommendation? Using a GUID or Instance ID forces the user to reinstall the app in order to circumvent the content limits, which is a sufficient burden to deter most people. If this isn't sufficient protection, Android provides a DRM API, which can be used to limit access to content, includes a per-APK identifier, the Widevine ID. So I guess best practice in this case means they should use DRM instead.