12 ms·

Google Play rejected Tor Browser update with security fixes

334 points by ikeboy 6y ago

ikeboy 6y ago
>This release updates Firefox for desktops to 78.6.0esr and Firefox for Android to 84.1.0. This release includes important security updates to Firefox for Desktop, and similar important security updates to Firefox for Android. >Note: This update is not available on Google Play at this time because the update was rejected during the review process. We are appealing the rejection and working with Google so this update is available as soon as possible. This was published a week ago. As of today, the latest version available on Google Play is still outdated.
curiousgal 6y ago
This is the beauty of Android, you can just grab the apk and you're good to go.
- Causality1 6y ago
  It worries me that one day Google is just going to decide to remove that feature from a future version of Android for "security". 99 percent of users won't notice or care.
  - izacus 6y ago
    I keep being told on HackerNews that Apple's model of total control is so much better for all the users and it helps not ever having to care about software quality. So that would then be a good thing, right? RIGHT?
    - Causality1 6y ago
      I don't know, I'm still applying ointment from when Google decided nobody using Android 9 could ever need an app to scan for wifi more often than once every thirty seconds. Not like they operate their own fleet of wardriving vehicles that continuously scan and map access points.
      - ylyn 6y ago
        Isn't this an option in the developer settings?
        Causality1 6y ago
        The option to turn rate limiting off was added in Android 10.
        iggldiggl 6y ago
        The problem is they're fixing one thing and breaking another. While Android 10 might have sort of "fixed" the Wifi scanning issue, it started enforcing the half-baked Scoped Storage implementation, which creates its own share of problems. I think things have become a bit more saner with Android 11 in that regard (though there might still be some pain points left), but instead the next random thing Google has broken is that you can no longer replace the default camera app - unless whatever random app you might be using specifically whitelists your favourite third-party camera app, you can no longer use it other than in standalone mode (i.e. if I understood things correctly, the same hare-brained situation you were in until very recently on iOS with regards to the default browser or other default apps).
        Causality1 6y ago
        For God's sake just split android into Home and Pro editions already. Feels like every year they have a lower and lower opinion of their users.
    - Findeton 6y ago
      I can say Apple's model is not better for me and that's why I use Android. If Android didn't let me basically control my own phone, I would switch to a libre phone even if it was shit.
    - RamRodification 6y ago
      Yes, according to people who prefer Apple's model it would probably be a good thing. Opinions differ on this you know. Don't be that guy.
      - izacus 6y ago
        Well, most of the tech media and people commenting on this site are "those guys" who always publicly and loudly criticize Android for being different from iOS. Repeatedly.
    - derefr 6y ago
      Apple’s model is better for Apple users; Android’s model is better for Android users. That’s, presumably, (part of) the reason they use what they use.
    - junipertea 6y ago
      It's a good thing as long as there is a viable alternative to it.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      So, you are replaying to somebody concerned that Android may become like iOS on the future by claiming that the concern means iOS is better?
    - dantheman 6y ago
      You can have different choices - one that's closed and one that's open -- both have advantages and disadvantages. I like the android ecosystem but I understand the apple one too. I can choose which one I'd like to be in.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Actually yes, the only apps I sideload on Android are the ones I develop.
    - ragnese 6y ago
      It's the same crowd that keeps telling us that we shouldn't want root on our phones. It's better that some corporation somewhere has root to your phone, but not you.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    Just the way the functionality's in there now shows it's treated as a second class feature. It's buried down in the special access settings labelled as 'install unknown apps and granted or removed on a per app basis. Notably, the google play store is not on this list. The whole setup makes installing apps from other sources obtuse and 'scary' to the average user. I'm not sure how say an app from f-droid is more 'unknown' than an app from the play store myself. Then of course, just to install f-droid, I have to download it, allow installing apps from my file manager, which comes with some scary popups, then I have to again enable the setting for f-droid, again after some scary popups. The goal really does seem to be do make the idea of installing software one acquires outside the 'official garden of known apps' to be something terrible and scary nobody should ever want to do.
    - lima 6y ago
      > The whole setup makes installing apps from other sources obtuse and 'scary' to the average user. ...yes? It's not a bug, it's a feature. For the average Android user, it SHOULD be obtuse and scary to install apps from a third party source. Power users can still use a third party app store.
      - VRay 6y ago
        yeah, I want to believe in the fundamental competence of humanity, but then I think back to all the browser toolbars I used to see on random people's computers..
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - grawprog 6y ago
        How is it any more 'scary' installing an app from a website than the play store? There's plenty of malware on the play store. I'd actually be willing to bet you're more likely to install some malware from the play store than from an apk you get off a website or alternative store. It's a tradeoff for freedom vs a false sense of security. On android at least, the walled garden approach hasn't seemed to stop malware, the majority of which, comes from the play store. All it's done is teach users to blindly trust apps just because they come from a supposedly trustworthy source. If anything it's taught people to think less about security and the kinds of apps they install. It's on the play store right? Must be ok.
  - haunter 6y ago
    But then you should just fork it and add it back? Isn't that the point of the whole custom ROM scene (Lineage, Mokee, AOSP etc.)? Adding features and support for phones.
  - mrastro 6y ago
    They won't. Allowing APKs is useful from a legal point of view because it allows competitors to theoretically distribute their own apps (unlike Apple). It's why Google has a stronger defense in the Epic Games' case than Apple imo.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  But you can't install over an existing app from Google Play. You need to uninstall the app, lose your data, then reinstall with an apk. Edit: above is wrong at least for Tor Browser, you can install over an existing Google Play installation. And the many users who downloaded from Google Play (over 10 million installs per Google Play data) never get notified that there's a security fix being held up in review.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    I don't think this is correct? Can't you install any prod build regardless of source as long as you sign it with the prod credentials (and do not opt-in to google managed creds)?
    - TrianguloY 6y ago
      That's correct. As long as you have the correct apk with the same signature as the one you already have installed you can update without issue (I've done it myself several times). The opposite also applies, if you install a signed previous version, play store will update it.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      You're right, I just successfully updated Tor Browser with an apk. In the past I've had errors updating other apps, presumably because they used Google's signing services, I assumed it was the same for all apps but was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out, I edited the comment.
- gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
  Lately i've been de-googling my android phones. It's a shame that we are now back to the times when microsoft made IE4 (or 6?) part of the OS and completely impossible to remove it. On windows98 and later I would install windows, open IE, disable every single setting to make it completely broken (no JS, no activeX, require latest SSL or bust, etc... pretty much made it impossible to use or be exploited in the background) ... win10 still insists on opening Edge when I click a link from the settings application despite firefox being my main browser. Now I try (and fail) to do the same with google on android: Reset my phone, disable a bunch of System apps that completely break everything (i have to press OK twice on a "google service stoped working" every time i enable wifi) And I still cannot prevent any app that want to access the web directly or via chrome "web view" and load anything they want and keep cookies no matter my say on the issue. ...not to mention that it makes it a pain to get updates to the bloatware apps I still have to run to make the phone minimaly functional as the app store insists on me having those Advertisement services running to get updates to the bloatware i already bought with the phone. So, yeah, you can install APK without Google blessing and their captive store, but that is an option for less than 0.1% of users that will want to put up with that.
  - rthomas6 6y ago
    To get a good experience degoogling your Android phone, you have to go farther and install an aftermarket OS, like Lineage OS.
    - worik 6y ago
      or whole hog and get a Pine phone?
    - slac 6y ago
      Just get a Huawei phone. That's Android without Google.
      - ptx 6y ago
        Soon it will be even more Google-free, with Huawei's own Hongmeng/HarmonyOS. They just released a beta of version 2.0: https://www.huaweiupdate.com/harmonyos-2-0-to-support-android-apps-and-better-performance-than-emui-11/ https://www.huaweiupdate.com/harmonyos-2-0-to-support-androi...
sweetlucipher 6y ago
Google should be broken up like the US did with AT&T. I suspect a Biden administration will interfere with this process and save them from being broken up.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  Biden during his tenure along with Obama displayed a propensity to utilize the "heavy hand of government" approach whenever necessary, in part due to the lame duck Congress, but nonetheless, the precedent has been set. If anything, we have evidence to believe he will intervene wherever he can.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jayd16 6y ago
  I feel like "breaking up" big tech is not the right solution and furthermore almost impossible to execute. How about legislation that enforces the availability of third party app stores or something?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    It's not impossible to execute: You order them to do it, and it's on them to develop anything necessary to make it happen. And yes, that might entail having to split up Google accounts into different accounts for different services, uncoupling products, removing exclusive integrations, and in the end, the consumer will benefit.
    - pmontra 6y ago
      Even if Google (or Facebook) are split into pieces many people will still do social logins, so no different accounts for different services. I don't do social login and I don't like the very idea of centralizing authentication and profile managment (probably also some of authorization) but I also don't think that there is any legal ground to forbid it.
vorticalbox 6y ago
Why doesn't tor publish on fdroid? This would remove any problems with blocked updates because of google
- Vinnl 6y ago
  Tor is available in an F-Droid repository [1], but that only removes problems for F-Droid users. You want to reach Google Play users with security updates as well. [1] https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-7/ https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-7/
  - vorticalbox 6y ago
    I did a search in the app before posting but didn't see it there
    - Vinnl 6y ago
      Probably because you haven't enabled their repository; it isn't in the default one yet. Still, the main point still stands: being in there wouldn't solve the problem of keeping Google Play users up-to-date.
- LMYahooTFY 6y ago
  As someone else pointed out, it is indeed published on F-Droid, as well as on the torproject web site.
- chasil 6y ago
  I am running Tor browser from F-Droid. In settings, I see "version 10.0.7 (84.1.0-Release)." It might be necessary to enable the Guardian project in your repository settings, then refresh in order to install this software.
TrianguloY 6y ago
And perhaps the issue is on the current version, or in the play store description, which Google doesn't like or noticed now. That's right, sometimes you can't publish an update because the play store description, which was approved in the past, isn't now. Sometimes it's the opposite, the app (which is published) has a problem and you can't change a dot from the play store description unless you send a fixed version.
- darig 6y ago
  Sometimes the federal goon squads just tell you what to do, and you don't have any option to resist.
JosephRedfern 6y ago
I think it's important to know more about the reasons for rejection before jumping to conclusions.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  The conspiratorial explanation is that the three-letters asked them to stall the update a bit. But most likely seems it was something completely boring and ordinary. A business motive seems unlikely.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  Unless a detailed reason is given up front it's best to assume the heat death of the universe will arrive before you are told why your app got rejected in retrospect. The best bet is to reapply like they did and hope it doesn't get rejected. If it's still rejected now you hope you can generate enough noise on social media to get ahold of someone that can actually fix it.
  - JosephRedfern 6y ago
    The blog post didn’t say whether they were given a reason for rejection, and if so, what that reason was.
StLCylone 6y ago
Sounds like Google Play is treating Tor Browser like any other app. Randomly rejecting every 4th or 5th release of a long standing app for some random minor reason. I get they need to keep trojans, spyware, adware, etc out of the store, but as a long time app developer it just seems like the algo says, "We have not rejected this app in a while, so let's do it this time."
- ffpip 6y ago
  >I get they need to keep trojans, spyware, adware, etc out of the store They don't keep out adware. Users have that benefit only when using the iOS app store. There are tons of apps on Android that just wrappers around ad SDKs
  - MisterTea 6y ago
    > They don't keep out adware. Android, like all google products, is adware.
    - s3r3nity 6y ago
      This comment deserves an award for the most uncomfortable truth of 2020.
      - uhhyeahdude 6y ago
        It’s a bold statement, if no longer what I would call a “hot-take” for anyone around here. So that comment is illuminating uncomfortable truths? Really? The #1 uncomfortable truth in a year built of them? Are you sure?
        neolog 6y ago
        What's bold about "<advertising company> products are adware"?
    - accountLost 6y ago
jjd33 6y ago
Isn't it in the US best interest to make Tor used by a lot of people. After all they want to hide their own traffic.
pmlnr 6y ago
People installing the Tor Browser should be perfectly OK installing an apk file directly - why is it even on the Play Store?
ikeboy 6y ago
>Update 2020-12-22 20:00 UTC: Tor Browser 10.0.7 is approved now on Google Play and it is rolling out. Quite curious if this hitting the HN frontpage had anything to do with it. Probably, based on the timing.
- chmod775 6y ago
  Considering absolutely nothing happened for a week, I'll go with "yes until proven otherwise."

334 points by ikeboy 6y ago

>This release updates Firefox for desktops to 78.6.0esr and Firefox for Android to 84.1.0. This release includes important security updates to Firefox for Desktop, and similar important security updates to Firefox for Android. >Note: This update is not available on Google Play at this time because the update was rejected during the review process. We are appealing the rejection and working with Google so this update is available as soon as possible. This was published a week ago. As of today, the latest version available on Google Play is still outdated.

curiousgal 6y ago

This is the beauty of Android, you can just grab the apk and you're good to go.

Causality1 6y ago
It worries me that one day Google is just going to decide to remove that feature from a future version of Android for "security". 99 percent of users won't notice or care.
- izacus 6y ago
  I keep being told on HackerNews that Apple's model of total control is so much better for all the users and it helps not ever having to care about software quality. So that would then be a good thing, right? RIGHT?
  - Causality1 6y ago
    I don't know, I'm still applying ointment from when Google decided nobody using Android 9 could ever need an app to scan for wifi more often than once every thirty seconds. Not like they operate their own fleet of wardriving vehicles that continuously scan and map access points.
    - ylyn 6y ago
      Isn't this an option in the developer settings?
      - Causality1 6y ago
        The option to turn rate limiting off was added in Android 10.
        iggldiggl 6y ago
        The problem is they're fixing one thing and breaking another. While Android 10 might have sort of "fixed" the Wifi scanning issue, it started enforcing the half-baked Scoped Storage implementation, which creates its own share of problems. I think things have become a bit more saner with Android 11 in that regard (though there might still be some pain points left), but instead the next random thing Google has broken is that you can no longer replace the default camera app - unless whatever random app you might be using specifically whitelists your favourite third-party camera app, you can no longer use it other than in standalone mode (i.e. if I understood things correctly, the same hare-brained situation you were in until very recently on iOS with regards to the default browser or other default apps).
        Causality1 6y ago
        For God's sake just split android into Home and Pro editions already. Feels like every year they have a lower and lower opinion of their users.
  - Findeton 6y ago
    I can say Apple's model is not better for me and that's why I use Android. If Android didn't let me basically control my own phone, I would switch to a libre phone even if it was shit.
  - RamRodification 6y ago
    Yes, according to people who prefer Apple's model it would probably be a good thing. Opinions differ on this you know. Don't be that guy.
    - izacus 6y ago
      Well, most of the tech media and people commenting on this site are "those guys" who always publicly and loudly criticize Android for being different from iOS. Repeatedly.
  - derefr 6y ago
    Apple’s model is better for Apple users; Android’s model is better for Android users. That’s, presumably, (part of) the reason they use what they use.
  - junipertea 6y ago
    It's a good thing as long as there is a viable alternative to it.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    So, you are replaying to somebody concerned that Android may become like iOS on the future by claiming that the concern means iOS is better?
  - dantheman 6y ago
    You can have different choices - one that's closed and one that's open -- both have advantages and disadvantages. I like the android ecosystem but I understand the apple one too. I can choose which one I'd like to be in.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Actually yes, the only apps I sideload on Android are the ones I develop.
  - ragnese 6y ago
    It's the same crowd that keeps telling us that we shouldn't want root on our phones. It's better that some corporation somewhere has root to your phone, but not you.
- grawprog 6y ago
  Just the way the functionality's in there now shows it's treated as a second class feature. It's buried down in the special access settings labelled as 'install unknown apps and granted or removed on a per app basis. Notably, the google play store is not on this list. The whole setup makes installing apps from other sources obtuse and 'scary' to the average user. I'm not sure how say an app from f-droid is more 'unknown' than an app from the play store myself. Then of course, just to install f-droid, I have to download it, allow installing apps from my file manager, which comes with some scary popups, then I have to again enable the setting for f-droid, again after some scary popups. The goal really does seem to be do make the idea of installing software one acquires outside the 'official garden of known apps' to be something terrible and scary nobody should ever want to do.
  - lima 6y ago
    > The whole setup makes installing apps from other sources obtuse and 'scary' to the average user. ...yes? It's not a bug, it's a feature. For the average Android user, it SHOULD be obtuse and scary to install apps from a third party source. Power users can still use a third party app store.
    - VRay 6y ago
      yeah, I want to believe in the fundamental competence of humanity, but then I think back to all the browser toolbars I used to see on random people's computers..
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - grawprog 6y ago
      How is it any more 'scary' installing an app from a website than the play store? There's plenty of malware on the play store. I'd actually be willing to bet you're more likely to install some malware from the play store than from an apk you get off a website or alternative store. It's a tradeoff for freedom vs a false sense of security. On android at least, the walled garden approach hasn't seemed to stop malware, the majority of which, comes from the play store. All it's done is teach users to blindly trust apps just because they come from a supposedly trustworthy source. If anything it's taught people to think less about security and the kinds of apps they install. It's on the play store right? Must be ok.
- haunter 6y ago
  But then you should just fork it and add it back? Isn't that the point of the whole custom ROM scene (Lineage, Mokee, AOSP etc.)? Adding features and support for phones.
- mrastro 6y ago
  They won't. Allowing APKs is useful from a legal point of view because it allows competitors to theoretically distribute their own apps (unlike Apple). It's why Google has a stronger defense in the Epic Games' case than Apple imo.
ikeboy 6y ago
But you can't install over an existing app from Google Play. You need to uninstall the app, lose your data, then reinstall with an apk. Edit: above is wrong at least for Tor Browser, you can install over an existing Google Play installation. And the many users who downloaded from Google Play (over 10 million installs per Google Play data) never get notified that there's a security fix being held up in review.
- jayd16 6y ago
  I don't think this is correct? Can't you install any prod build regardless of source as long as you sign it with the prod credentials (and do not opt-in to google managed creds)?
  - TrianguloY 6y ago
    That's correct. As long as you have the correct apk with the same signature as the one you already have installed you can update without issue (I've done it myself several times). The opposite also applies, if you install a signed previous version, play store will update it.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    You're right, I just successfully updated Tor Browser with an apk. In the past I've had errors updating other apps, presumably because they used Google's signing services, I assumed it was the same for all apps but was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out, I edited the comment.
gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
Lately i've been de-googling my android phones. It's a shame that we are now back to the times when microsoft made IE4 (or 6?) part of the OS and completely impossible to remove it. On windows98 and later I would install windows, open IE, disable every single setting to make it completely broken (no JS, no activeX, require latest SSL or bust, etc... pretty much made it impossible to use or be exploited in the background) ... win10 still insists on opening Edge when I click a link from the settings application despite firefox being my main browser. Now I try (and fail) to do the same with google on android: Reset my phone, disable a bunch of System apps that completely break everything (i have to press OK twice on a "google service stoped working" every time i enable wifi) And I still cannot prevent any app that want to access the web directly or via chrome "web view" and load anything they want and keep cookies no matter my say on the issue. ...not to mention that it makes it a pain to get updates to the bloatware apps I still have to run to make the phone minimaly functional as the app store insists on me having those Advertisement services running to get updates to the bloatware i already bought with the phone. So, yeah, you can install APK without Google blessing and their captive store, but that is an option for less than 0.1% of users that will want to put up with that.
- rthomas6 6y ago
  To get a good experience degoogling your Android phone, you have to go farther and install an aftermarket OS, like Lineage OS.
  - worik 6y ago
    or whole hog and get a Pine phone?
  - slac 6y ago
    Just get a Huawei phone. That's Android without Google.
    - ptx 6y ago
      Soon it will be even more Google-free, with Huawei's own Hongmeng/HarmonyOS. They just released a beta of version 2.0: https://www.huaweiupdate.com/harmonyos-2-0-to-support-android-apps-and-better-performance-than-emui-11/ https://www.huaweiupdate.com/harmonyos-2-0-to-support-androi...

sweetlucipher 6y ago

Google should be broken up like the US did with AT&T. I suspect a Biden administration will interfere with this process and save them from being broken up.

dimitrios1 6y ago
Biden during his tenure along with Obama displayed a propensity to utilize the "heavy hand of government" approach whenever necessary, in part due to the lame duck Congress, but nonetheless, the precedent has been set. If anything, we have evidence to believe he will intervene wherever he can.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jayd16 6y ago
I feel like "breaking up" big tech is not the right solution and furthermore almost impossible to execute. How about legislation that enforces the availability of third party app stores or something?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  It's not impossible to execute: You order them to do it, and it's on them to develop anything necessary to make it happen. And yes, that might entail having to split up Google accounts into different accounts for different services, uncoupling products, removing exclusive integrations, and in the end, the consumer will benefit.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    Even if Google (or Facebook) are split into pieces many people will still do social logins, so no different accounts for different services. I don't do social login and I don't like the very idea of centralizing authentication and profile managment (probably also some of authorization) but I also don't think that there is any legal ground to forbid it.

vorticalbox 6y ago

Why doesn't tor publish on fdroid? This would remove any problems with blocked updates because of google

Vinnl 6y ago
Tor is available in an F-Droid repository [1], but that only removes problems for F-Droid users. You want to reach Google Play users with security updates as well. [1] https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-7/ https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-7/
- vorticalbox 6y ago
  I did a search in the app before posting but didn't see it there
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    Probably because you haven't enabled their repository; it isn't in the default one yet. Still, the main point still stands: being in there wouldn't solve the problem of keeping Google Play users up-to-date.
LMYahooTFY 6y ago
As someone else pointed out, it is indeed published on F-Droid, as well as on the torproject web site.
chasil 6y ago
I am running Tor browser from F-Droid. In settings, I see "version 10.0.7 (84.1.0-Release)." It might be necessary to enable the Guardian project in your repository settings, then refresh in order to install this software.

TrianguloY 6y ago

And perhaps the issue is on the current version, or in the play store description, which Google doesn't like or noticed now. That's right, sometimes you can't publish an update because the play store description, which was approved in the past, isn't now. Sometimes it's the opposite, the app (which is published) has a problem and you can't change a dot from the play store description unless you send a fixed version.

darig 6y ago
Sometimes the federal goon squads just tell you what to do, and you don't have any option to resist.

JosephRedfern 6y ago

I think it's important to know more about the reasons for rejection before jumping to conclusions.

im3w1l 6y ago
The conspiratorial explanation is that the three-letters asked them to stall the update a bit. But most likely seems it was something completely boring and ordinary. A business motive seems unlikely.
zamadatix 6y ago
Unless a detailed reason is given up front it's best to assume the heat death of the universe will arrive before you are told why your app got rejected in retrospect. The best bet is to reapply like they did and hope it doesn't get rejected. If it's still rejected now you hope you can generate enough noise on social media to get ahold of someone that can actually fix it.
- JosephRedfern 6y ago
  The blog post didn’t say whether they were given a reason for rejection, and if so, what that reason was.

StLCylone 6y ago

Sounds like Google Play is treating Tor Browser like any other app. Randomly rejecting every 4th or 5th release of a long standing app for some random minor reason. I get they need to keep trojans, spyware, adware, etc out of the store, but as a long time app developer it just seems like the algo says, "We have not rejected this app in a while, so let's do it this time."

ffpip 6y ago
>I get they need to keep trojans, spyware, adware, etc out of the store They don't keep out adware. Users have that benefit only when using the iOS app store. There are tons of apps on Android that just wrappers around ad SDKs
- MisterTea 6y ago
  > They don't keep out adware. Android, like all google products, is adware.
  - s3r3nity 6y ago
    This comment deserves an award for the most uncomfortable truth of 2020.
    - uhhyeahdude 6y ago
      It’s a bold statement, if no longer what I would call a “hot-take” for anyone around here. So that comment is illuminating uncomfortable truths? Really? The #1 uncomfortable truth in a year built of them? Are you sure?
      - neolog 6y ago
        What's bold about "<advertising company> products are adware"?
  - accountLost 6y ago

jjd33 6y ago

Isn't it in the US best interest to make Tor used by a lot of people. After all they want to hide their own traffic.

pmlnr 6y ago

People installing the Tor Browser should be perfectly OK installing an apk file directly - why is it even on the Play Store?

ikeboy 6y ago

>Update 2020-12-22 20:00 UTC: Tor Browser 10.0.7 is approved now on Google Play and it is rolling out. Quite curious if this hitting the HN frontpage had anything to do with it. Probably, based on the timing.

chmod775 6y ago
Considering absolutely nothing happened for a week, I'll go with "yes until proven otherwise."