4 ms·

I agree, people here have no empathy to less technical users. Peoples' lives being ruined is not a hyperbole. You have people losing their life savings due to p

I agree, people here have no empathy to less technical users. Peoples' lives being ruined is not a hyperbole. You have people losing their life savings due to pig-butchering scams and such. And people here think their convenience and desire to publish apps anonymously outweighs this?

scheeseman486 1y ago
It's less about saving the concept of anonymous development, more about the tightening grip that the big three companies, Apple, Google and Microsoft (they're making their own moves in the same direction) have on home and personal computing. We would be giving up a lot; this would effectively kill any open source computing products from ever becoming viable. Platforms become fiefdoms, they become shit to use because there's no other choice and can never be. Any app that runs counter to the desires of the parent of the platform can be killed and it becomes impossible to build a competitive ecosystem because the chicken & egg software problem, something which open ecosystems can solve through compatibility laters, but that becomes unviable thanks to DRM and hardware integrity lockouts. It's a nightmare scenario, our lives locked in to total corporate control. What do we get in return for that? Scammers won't be stopped by this, the key to grifting isn't technology but people. What you're suggesting is trading open platforms and open source and fortifying current marketplace monopolies for a marginal decrease in scams. For a while. Maybe. I suggest that is unbelievably stupid.
- loandbehold 1y ago
  How does it kill open source products? The only thing required is for open source contributor who is responsible for publishing .apk to present their ID.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    You are requiring users to submit their ID to the government whenever they want to modify a program
  - scheeseman486 1y ago
    This gives Google (and inherently, the US government) the power to unilaterally remove any application from every Android phone on the planet. I don't trust them with that capability and neither should anyone else with an ounce of sense.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  Maybe the EU and other parties should fund an open source fork of Android? People who don't want these big companies to control their devices can use that instead.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Aachen 1y ago
Yes, I do think the benefits of free speech outweigh risks from criminals who will publish bad software There's many ways to combat crime. Banning free distribution of software is one of the options but not the one I'd pick from the menu first
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  You're still freely publishing any apps you want. You want anonymous speech which isn't the same as free speech. And the benefits of that certainly doesn't outweigh harm caused against even one innocent person. "There's many ways to combat crime" - name one effective way to combat sideloading of apps, that is anywhere as effective as id verification of devs?
  - Aachen 1y ago
    Here's one: prosecuting the devs that currently spread malware, block (or warn users for) foreign sources that don't cooperate with law enforcement You don't need an ID to find the person behind an IP address + timestamp. The line physically goes to a subscriber (yes, also with CGNAT: ISPs are required to keep logs for a reason). The police can do that in any country. Google isn't an elected government that I want to sit on that seat of power Besides, criminals by definition don't care about laws. Photoediting an ID is not particularly hard, but quite illegal. Tackling the source (the person) ought to help more than impacting everyone who uses a specific distribution mechanism
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      The devs that write malware are typically in a different jurisdiction, and how can you prosecute them if they're anonymous? That's what this measure does! The moment they use IPs to find devs and prosecute them , every malware dev will just use a vpn or Tor. or just use a compromised device to route their connection. This is a long running cat and mouse game. Criminals care about laws if breaking the law is difficult, because laws have consequences. ID verification isn't as simple as "hey, it's an ID, all is good", and now you're on the hook for the much more serious crime of faking IDs and defrauding. It doesn't need to prevent all criminals, it just needs to be a good enough measure that it reduces the amount of abuse significantly.
beeflet 1y ago
some people will move heaven and earth to stop the inevitable process of natural selection

scheeseman486 1y ago

It's less about saving the concept of anonymous development, more about the tightening grip that the big three companies, Apple, Google and Microsoft (they're making their own moves in the same direction) have on home and personal computing. We would be giving up a lot; this would effectively kill any open source computing products from ever becoming viable. Platforms become fiefdoms, they become shit to use because there's no other choice and can never be. Any app that runs counter to the desires of the parent of the platform can be killed and it becomes impossible to build a competitive ecosystem because the chicken & egg software problem, something which open ecosystems can solve through compatibility laters, but that becomes unviable thanks to DRM and hardware integrity lockouts. It's a nightmare scenario, our lives locked in to total corporate control. What do we get in return for that? Scammers won't be stopped by this, the key to grifting isn't technology but people. What you're suggesting is trading open platforms and open source and fortifying current marketplace monopolies for a marginal decrease in scams. For a while. Maybe. I suggest that is unbelievably stupid.

loandbehold 1y ago
How does it kill open source products? The only thing required is for open source contributor who is responsible for publishing .apk to present their ID.
- beeflet 1y ago
  You are requiring users to submit their ID to the government whenever they want to modify a program
- scheeseman486 1y ago
  This gives Google (and inherently, the US government) the power to unilaterally remove any application from every Android phone on the planet. I don't trust them with that capability and neither should anyone else with an ounce of sense.
notepad0x90 1y ago
Maybe the EU and other parties should fund an open source fork of Android? People who don't want these big companies to control their devices can use that instead.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Aachen 1y ago

Yes, I do think the benefits of free speech outweigh risks from criminals who will publish bad software There's many ways to combat crime. Banning free distribution of software is one of the options but not the one I'd pick from the menu first

notepad0x90 1y ago
You're still freely publishing any apps you want. You want anonymous speech which isn't the same as free speech. And the benefits of that certainly doesn't outweigh harm caused against even one innocent person. "There's many ways to combat crime" - name one effective way to combat sideloading of apps, that is anywhere as effective as id verification of devs?
- Aachen 1y ago
  Here's one: prosecuting the devs that currently spread malware, block (or warn users for) foreign sources that don't cooperate with law enforcement You don't need an ID to find the person behind an IP address + timestamp. The line physically goes to a subscriber (yes, also with CGNAT: ISPs are required to keep logs for a reason). The police can do that in any country. Google isn't an elected government that I want to sit on that seat of power Besides, criminals by definition don't care about laws. Photoediting an ID is not particularly hard, but quite illegal. Tackling the source (the person) ought to help more than impacting everyone who uses a specific distribution mechanism
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    The devs that write malware are typically in a different jurisdiction, and how can you prosecute them if they're anonymous? That's what this measure does! The moment they use IPs to find devs and prosecute them , every malware dev will just use a vpn or Tor. or just use a compromised device to route their connection. This is a long running cat and mouse game. Criminals care about laws if breaking the law is difficult, because laws have consequences. ID verification isn't as simple as "hey, it's an ID, all is good", and now you're on the hook for the much more serious crime of faking IDs and defrauding. It doesn't need to prevent all criminals, it just needs to be a good enough measure that it reduces the amount of abuse significantly.

beeflet 1y ago

some people will move heaven and earth to stop the inevitable process of natural selection