29 ms·

Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

• Perepiska 1y ago
  So What's The Solution? ... 3. allow user to feed application with fake data for every requested permission, e.g. false geoposition, dummy random generated address book etc.
• glitchc 1y ago
  Yes. Run the sideloaded apps in a VM. Modern phones are powerful enough to do that.
• solatic 1y ago
  < Vulnerable members of society should be protected from scams. There are three ways to deliver protection: build better walls, defeat attackers after successful initial attacks, defeat attackers before successful initial attacks. The article ties itself into knots because it recognizes that the first way cannot deliver 100% security. But it refuses to recognize that there are two additional ways. The United States military could go after scammers operating from foreign compounds. It could treat the economic targeting of American citizens as acts of economic war. It chooses not to. Freedom is not free, and when your country chooses to literally not fight for your freedom, it's hardly any wonder that your freedoms are eroded. Remember XKCD 538: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ Cybersecurity and physical security are fundamentally linked.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • woliveirajr 1y ago
    >> Vulnerable members of society should be protected from scams. > There are three ways to deliver protection While I agree with your idea I'd like to remember that there are previous steps: teach people to be less vulnerable. Teach people to be less greedy. Teach people the consequences of actions. Being less vulnerable is an obvious definition: know how to not fall for some scams. Less greedy: some scams revolve around the idea of quick and ease profits and the comeback is hurtful because the person thinks he would get x and ends up losing 500x. Consequences of actions: there's a lot of value to the group that observes the (bad) consequences of one actions. Pain, even from others, teaches something. The more we protect people from consequences, the better and safer it is about small losses until the actions go beyond the protection and the consequences are catastrophic.
    • solatic 1y ago
      I fully agree that there's a different strategy for before the line is crossed, one that is often more humane, more freedom-respecting, and cheaper to boot. Too often those strategies are sadly under-funded. That's beside the point that the line, too often, is being crossed, and perpetrators are allowed to perpetuate their crimes, instead of the military and/or law enforcement stepping in and performing their organization's missions to protect us, especially the most vulnerable among us.
  • rafram 1y ago
    Scammers can operate from literally any country in the world, in any location where they have access to the internet. The idea of the military busting into a Bin Laden-style scammer compound is very romantic, but plenty of these operate from regular offices or homes, and it’s trivial for someone new to get into the scamming business if a big scammer is taken down.
    • solatic 1y ago
      People forget both why the US invaded Afghanistan in the first place, and why US financial sanctions are so effective. The US invaded Afghanistan, a country whose government was not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, because that government refused to extradite OBL and other senior Taliban leadership, to bring them to justice in the United States. US financial sanctions are so effective because they cut off foreign institutions from the US financial system if those institutions do business with those who harm Americans and American interests. Soft power is backed by hard power, first against organizations hosted by governments willing to cooperate with the US, and eventually against governments unwilling to cooperate. That scammers can operate from anywhere is beside the point. More often than not, law enforcement and the military know where that is. A conscious decision is made not to prioritize or fund fighting it.
      • avianlyric 1y ago
        That’s easy when you’re dealing with people operating in countries where your existing relationship is poor or non-existent. There’s nothing practical that country can do to fight back against U.S. demands. But try applying that approach to India or China. Do you think those countries are going to allow the U.S. military to operate on their home turf, shooting at their citizens, and not retaliate? It doesn’t even have to be military retaliation, the U.S. economy is heavily intertwined with those countries, just look at the consequences of Trumps tariffs. Do you honestly think U.S. citizens would be willing to trade off the trade benefits of working with those countries, just so you run a military raid on building of scammers?
        • rafram 1y ago
• zdw 1y ago
  Most of this problem is solved by not hiding the trust model. Do you want an phone where you trust Apple/Google/3rd party to make a "malware or not" decision? Or one where all that is turned off and you can do whatever? Go right ahead in either case - you control the trust, rather than it being made for you by the platform vendor. Similarly, we have certificate infrastructure where the TLS roots are owned by a small number of people. These are generally trusted, but some people/organizations edit them down (ex: removing roots from state actors deemed untrustworthy). But it's hidden, and generally a lot of choices. Even linux distros, you pick which package signing keys you trust. And Docker/K8s... oh wait, there's no default keys and containers remain being developer's puke bags in most cases, and the repos are rugpulled by corporations regularly...
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • Nursie 1y ago
    I look forward to you explaining all that to my elderly mother. Once you’ve explained the difference between Google and “the internet”, you may stand a chance. I wish you luck, I’ve been trying that for a while. BRB, heading out for popcorn.
    • error503 1y ago
      They don't even need to know it is a thing that exists. The defaults (ie. the status quo of implied trust in the OS vendor) are fine for this type of user.
      • Nursie 1y ago
        Sure. Now how are we going to stop them being talked into changing that by scammers, given that we’re not even explaining what that does?
• enriquto 1y ago
  > Are you allowed to run whatever computer program you want on the hardware you own? Yes. It is a basic human right. > This is a question where freedom, practicality, and reality all collide into a mess. No; it isn't. The answer is clear and not messy. If you are not allowed to run programs of your choice, then it is not your hardware. Practicality and "reality" (whatever that means) are irrelevant issues here. Maybe you prefer to use hardware that is not yours, but that is a different question.
  • mathiaspoint 1y ago
    Or it's not a computer and really something more like a television. In that case these things should be thought of as a vice rather than a productivity tool. The social structure of the smartphone app ecosystem is remarkably similar to the cable provider -> network -> show situation from before too.
    • cwillu 1y ago
      Only because of sustained pressure from all the usual suspects to try to make that the social structure.
      • mathiaspoint 1y ago
        I think it's always going to evolve that way when people are so concerned about "safety" (no matter how that's defined) that all the escape hatches are removed.
        • gumby271 1y ago
          Is it the people that are pushing for this though? Apple has long pushed privacy and security as a way to maintain their control over personal devices, the people just believe it and accept it. Google is just taking notes and seeing how profitable that approach is. Provided there's no push back, they'll succeed easily with no one actually asking for this.
    • ninkendo 1y ago
• walthamstow 1y ago
  MacOS handles it pretty well, I can use it to do what Doctorow calls general computing and my mother can use it to shop and do email. Apple allowing freedom for MacOS but not iOS is inconsistent and I see no good reason for that.
  • Almondsetat 1y ago
    It is perfectly consistent: iOS is not for general computing
    • EasyMark 1y ago
      .... yet. We as consumers could push for this though with enough momentum. Not likely but there is nothing stopping Apple from doing it from a technical standpoint other than greed.
  • vbezhenar 1y ago
    MacOS does not handle it well. I can run `curl example.com | sh` and it'll steal my ssh key.
    • leshenka 1y ago
      You have an option to keep your SSH key in the Secure Enclave behind TouchID or YubiKey https://github.com/maxgoedjen/secretive https://github.com/maxgoedjen/secretive
  • MillironX 1y ago
    Except Apple code signing on MacOS is basically what Google is trying to copy over to Android. I can run arbitrary programs on MacOS, but I have to go and remove the com.apple.quarantine attribute from any application that doesn't have Apple's explicit permission to exist, i.e. most FOSS apps. I suspect that option will go away eventually.
    • BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
      Highly unlikely they’d remove the option with how many devs use macos
• Disposal8433 1y ago
  Sandboxing should prevent most of those issues. We can't control the users giving permissions to everything, but with more control on those permissions, or disabled by default, a phone should stay pretty safe, or am I missing something?
  • narmiouh 1y ago
    Its not the sandboxing, its the access to user data that apps can request. a mobile OS allows apps to request and be granted all kinds of permissions, and 80% of the world population doesn't really understand what all things are possible for each of the permissions they give to an app. For example being able to export the whole contact list, or read all files in folders (where users may have saved notes with passwords) or real time tracking of gps location with wifi mac address sniffing, listen in on conversations, be able to screenshot other apps, trigger touch events... none of this a sandbox can prevent. When there are problems reported about an app, there has to be a known party to hold accountable. I agree that a developer path that is complex enough that only people who know all the impacts are able to use to side load random apps they own or from someone they can trust, but the general population has to be protected unless at the individual level they are savvy.
    • nottorp 1y ago
      > there has to be a known party to hold accountable So no free applications. Prepare to pay a subscription for every flashlight app.
      • EasyMark 1y ago
        Wouldn't it be similar situation to iphone? there are free basic apps there. it's not like this is a new concept
        • nottorp 1y ago
          The OP sounded like they wanted liability...
  • 1y ago
• nazgu1 1y ago
  For me it’s a matter of settings. As a user I would have option to choose “secure” mode that disallow installing apps from unofficial sources, but if I want to I should have option to allow side loading. Everything else is just corporations need to have to much control.
  • cwillu 1y ago
    The problem is that important services will then be (and already are!) only permitted to run in “secure” mode. I literally have a banking app that will refuse to run on an “unsecure” phone. Today I can still install unsigned apps, but removing that ability is explicitly the goal of this policy change.
    • boredatoms 1y ago
      Im worried about big apps like instagram deciding that side loading is better for whatever permissions hacks that alllows
      • Larrikin 1y ago
        They would have already done it
      • IshKebab 1y ago
        Apparently DJI's app is only available directly from them.
• vbezhenar 1y ago
  There are millions of homeless or otherwise struggling people all around the world, who would let anyone to use their identity for a small compensation. I don't really see how this requirement to register in Google will help with app security. So the malware will be signed with John Smith living under a bridge, now what?
  • saagarjha 1y ago
    Unfortunately, the reality is that often their identity is not actually "good enough" to perform these actions. For example, many of these people don't have an address/bank account/email.
• barnabee 1y ago
  > 00. Users should be free to run whatever code they like. > 01. Vulnerable members of society should be protected from scams. 00: yes, always; 01: yes, but not at the expense of 00 (or probably some other things)
  • snowe2010 1y ago
    Why? What’s your logic and reasoning?
    • bigstrat2003 1y ago
      Safety is not a valid reason to limit freedom. We cannot, and should not try to, keep people safe from their own bad decisions. That is treating adults like children, which is offensive to human dignity.
      • throwaway2037 1y ago
        > Safety is not a valid reason to limit freedom. What about (a) speed limits, (b) drink driving laws, (c) seat belt laws, and (d) helmet laws for bicycle and motorcycle riders? I assume in your world view that all of these categories are "limiting your freedom". I am fine with all of them.
        • namibj 1y ago
          a and b are about 3rd party safety. C.f. gun safe mandates.
          • snowe2010 1y ago
            Your phone getting hacked and you texting me with it can put me in danger. Your bank account getting hacked and me needing to send you money can put me in dire straights. Your back porch camera getting hacked and the footage of me and you getting uploaded can get me killed. The logic that your device security isn’t tied to my safety needs to be rethunk. Every leaked password reduces password security for everyone. Every successful phish makes the next phish easier. Your device safety is tied to my wellbeing.
• fleshmonad 1y ago
  >Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe? Why is this a question of _allow_? Who is my hardware provider that he is somehow my guardian and must _allow_ me to install software that I want to install? >Is it possible to allow people to do sports and keep them safe? >Is it possible to allow people to roam freely and keep them safe? >Is it possible to allow people to not be locked up in a padded cell and keep them safe? People are responsible for what they are doing, and teaching them about technology is the best way to do deal with this example here, as it doesn't infringe anyone's human rights and would give anyone the resources to check their sources.
  • edent 1y ago
    Every sporting body that I know of has rules to keep people safe. Even dangerous sports like boxing and American Football pit some effort into keeping participants reasonably safe. Similarly, every modern society has rules to keep people safe when roaming. That might be as simple as warning signs it as complex as a coastguard. We've had decades of warning people about online scams and I don't see any slowdown in the volume of scammy emails that I receive. Education clearly isnt working - and that imposes a cost on all of us.
    • mathiaspoint 1y ago
      They don't come into your own house and tell you what to do though. The police aren't going to arrest you for swimming in your own pool without a lifeguard. That's completely absurd.
      • edent 1y ago
        I don't know where you live, but lots of places require you to secure your pool in such a way that people can't accidentally drown in it. For example https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/attractive-nuisance/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/attract... Societies often place limits on individual freedoms.
        • 1y ago
• oakpond 1y ago
  Goodbye Android.
  • microtonal 1y ago
    And then what? More like: time for regulators to step up and do their work.
    • fsflover 1y ago
      And then GNU/Linux phones. Sent from my Librem 5.
    • oakpond 1y ago
      What makes you think they will? What makes you think regulators don't also want this?
• Mordisquitos 1y ago
  > There are, I think, two small cracks in that argument. > The first is that a user has no right to run anyone else's code, if the code owner doesn't want to make it available to them. Consider a bank which has an app. When customers are scammed, the bank is often liable. The bank wants to reduce its liability so it says "you can't run our app on a rooted phone". > Is that fair? Probably not. Rooting allows a user to fully control and customise their device. But rooting also allows malware to intercept communications, send commands, and perform unwanted actions. I think the bank has the right to say "your machine is too risky - we don't want our code to run on it." > The same is true of video games with strong "anti-cheat" protection. It is disruptive to other players - and to the business model - if untrustworthy clients can disrupt the game. Again, it probably isn't fair to ban users who run on permissive software, but it is a rational choice by the manufacturer. And, yet again, I think software authors probably should be able to restrict things which cause them harm. It's not clear to me whether in this fragment the author is stating the two alleged cracks in the argument or rather only the first one — the second one being Google's ostensible justification for the change. Either way, neither of these examples are generalisable arguments supporting that 'a user has no right to run anyone else's code, if the code owner doesn't want to make it available to them'. With regards to banking apps, the key point has been glossed over, which is that that when customers are scammed the bank is 'often' liable. Are banks really liable for scams caused by customer negligence on their devices? If they're not, this 'crack' can be thrown out of the window; if they are, then it is not an argument for "you can't run our app on a rooted phone", but rather "we are not liable for scams which are only possible on a rooted phone". As for the second example, anti-cheat protection in gaming, the ultimate motivation of game companies is not to prevent 'untrustworthy clients' from 'running their code'. The ability of these clients to be 'disruptive to other players' is not ultimately contingent on their ability to run the code, but rather to connect to the multiplayer servers run by the gaming company or their partners. The game company's legitimate right 'to ban users who run on permissive software' is not a legitimate argument in favour of users not having full control over their system.
  • edent 1y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. Those examples are meant to cover the first point. The problem if you are a bank is that scammed people can be very persistent about trying to reclaim their money. There's a cost to the bank of dealing with a complaint, doing an investigation, replying to the regulator, fielding questions from an MP, having the story appear in the press about the heartless bank refusing to refund a little old lady. It is entirely rational for them to decide not to bear that cost - even if they aren't liable.
• martin-t 1y ago
  > Here's the story of a bank literally telling a man he was being scammed and he still proceeded to transfer funds to a fraudster. > The bank blocked a number of transactions, it spoke to James on the phone to warn him and even called him into a branch to speak to him face-to-face. Y'know, at some point the cost of protecting the dumbest people is too much to be worth it. I am perfectly fine with some people getting hacked, doxxed and scammed out of their life savings if the alternative is everyone losing their freedoms. Freedoms are important because without them people with power go unchecked more and more. It's a slow process but it culminates in 1) dictatorship at the state level 2) exploitation at the corporate level.
  • BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
    Frankly, I think this sort of behavior in a non-senile person constitutes disability, and I think it demonstrates societal failure to provide people with disabilities with support structures. Where was a friend or family, why was this guy operating a bank account to begin with?
• mixxorz 1y ago
  Just make it harder to disable security. At point of purchase, you get to decide whether you want secure mode or not. Then after that, if you want to change it, you have to open a support ticket with the manufacturer. Kinda like how SIM-locking works.
  • edent 1y ago
    Look at the people who are conned into buying Apple Gift Cards so that they can "pay their taxes". If they can be convinced of that, how hard will it be for a scammer to say "we've detected a problem with your phone. To avoid being imprisoned for piracy, please file this support ticket so we can debug things."?
    • chii 1y ago
      being conned into buying gift cards means the weak link isn't with the security of the phone, but with the person's brain. Making the device so locked down that no such con could exist also means there's no way to use the phone in ways that haven't been authorized - and as a power user, i detest that i am paying a price for the safety of those who are too stupid. I do not want to pay that price. Conveniently, google gets to remain in a position to earn more money from being in the controlling seat. as they say, if you trade freedom for security, you'll end up with neither.
• martin-t 1y ago
  Evolution used to work by some people dying before they could reproduce. That's how we become the smartest animal on the planet. But it no longer works, we are very good at keeping everyone alive. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we don't compromise our freedoms to achieve it. Some people getting exploited is the modern equivalent of leopards eating your face. It would be nice to protect people from it happening but NOT by everyone giving up basic human rights. And yes, in the modern world, running any software on your hardware should be a basic human right. Especially at a time where computation is starting to resemble intelligence. Otherwise we all become serfs all over again.
  • martin-t 1y ago
    Ah yes, the rudest form of agreement - downvote without justification. If you can't explain why i am wrong, consider i am right.
    • broker354690 1y ago
      A certain kind of arrogant man who hails from the land of theory tends to believe that everything can be perfectly optimized, that even real-world systems can be designed with mathematical guarantees as to some constraint or another. In their world every thing and every one is an abstract variable to be managed and modified, a goat to be herded. User input is modeled as untrustworthy, hostile input and treated accordingly. The unwashed masses have never toiled in their sterile computer science cathedrals, never been anointed with the sacred waters of ROOT, and thus could never possibly deserve to wield the powers of computation without the infallible guidance of Saint Jobs (peace be upon him) and his holy host. To compute on one's own is to open one's electronic soul to the Sins of Free Software. Such devilish arts must be shunted to the margins of society, till they may be purged on That Day when all shall bask in Google's light forevermore.
• pxtail 1y ago
  It's not sideloading, you are not doing anything nefarious,shady, on the side, on the edge. It's software installation on your device, your own device. This newspeak is purposely invented to negatively portrait software installation from sources not controlled by Google/Apple
  • VogonPoetry 1y ago
    The term side loading pre-dates smartphones. The term was used to describe how you got media onto an electronic player. Literally by plugging into a port on the side and loading the media from a computer.
• ajb 1y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. The following are not the only two possible solutions: * Everyone has to trust one of two giant mega-corporations to make good decisions for everyone * Everyone has to take on the evaluation of everything themselves, do their own admin, understand opsec, etc etc. Freedom does not entail the latter. Freedom means having the freedom to do it, but also having the freedom to delegate it, and to decide who to delegate it to. We don't have to be technology "preppers". We can set up and fund independent organisations to do this -like Debian, for example. And have competition between them. Yes, that means some people will delegate their trust to their religious cult. That's the price of freedom
• G_o_D 1y ago
  I create apps just for myself, just started learning, self taught, not a student taking programming course in university, not professional Apps created by me for my routine, Does that mean i would not be able to install my apps ??
  • tcfhgj 1y ago
    No, you "just" have to show Google your ID and cryptographically make sure Google knows the apps belong to you
  • salawat 1y ago
    Congratulations, aspiring developer and solver of your own problems. Please read this primer on applied cryptography and hand over ID and personal information to be able to be "managed" within the ecosystem in which you aspire to be more competent.
• bitbang 1y ago
  Devices should offer a local signing cert, where you can sign an app for that device only. Then make the app signing process enforce binding agreement that you assume all responsibility related to the app.
• razighter777 1y ago
  What about making side loading require some moderate level of technical sophistication? Like connecting to the phone over usb and having to manually type some long shell commands, or exit vim, or write a compiling c program, or some other layman proof filter to activate installing outside apps. I feel like grandma would be too intmimidated by this (good), making it too frustrating for even the most determine scammer to explain, no matter how desperate they are for her social security checks. Have it be done in the bootloader so you can't follow these instructions while on the phone, and require physical interactivity with the device (can't be automated over usb). Regardless, this policy is an unacceptable infringement on digital freedom by google.
  • accle 1y ago
    I believe this is already the case. You can purchase phones that may be bootloader unlocked, allowing custom firmware to be installed. This enables a tech-savvy user to sideload anything they like.
    • mathiaspoint 1y ago
      Closed drivers need Android userspace -> Android panics or otherwise refuses to function if it decides it's SE Linux policy is compromised -> you still don't have control over the device. And we're back to "just break into the thing you've already paid for." Nope. Go away. No more smartphone crap.
      • accle 1y ago
        If you install custom firmware, you can control the SELinux policy that is configured and enforced by that firmware.
        • salawat 1y ago
          Ffs. Now we're requiring the aspiring tech user to develop fluency with not just applied cryptography, but SELinux? Tech industry has completely lost the goddamn plot. Or more specifically, is doing everything it can to make it nigh impossible for the average user to navigate the info asymmetry to actually use the hardware they paid for.
• fsflover 1y ago
  The most secure OS existing, Qubes OS, allows and encourages installing any untrusted software and protects you with strong, hardware-assisted virtualization.
• mzajc 1y ago
  > The first is that a user has no right to run anyone else's code, if the code owner doesn't want to make it available to them. Consider a bank which has an app. /../ I think the bank has the right to say "your machine is too risky - we don't want our code to run on it." But should they? Should we also accept Google's browser signing and ban all browsers the bank doesn't like? Am I allowed to accept calls from people they haven't vetted or is it too much of a risk to the bank's bottom line that they might talk me into a scam. I suppose we should also write off the inevitable privacy and freedom violations in the name of "security".[0] I don't have anything to hide after all. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
  • avianlyric 1y ago
    > But should they? Should we also accept Google's browser signing and ban all browsers the bank doesn't like? If you want to hold the banks liable for fraud committed against you (which is exactly what happens in many countries), then it’s hardly reasonable to say that they’re not allowed to use what ever technical options they can to prevent that fraud. You can put forward the argument that banks simply shouldn’t be responsible for fraud committed against their customers. But we only need to look at world of cryptocurrencies to see how well that works in reality.
    • anthk 1y ago
      Then that vendor need to go to /dev/null and end its business.
      • avianlyric 1y ago
        You might struggle to run a financial system without any financial institutions. Once again just look at the wonderful world of cryptocurrencies. They’re speed running all the historical financial scams, and rediscovering why financial regulation exists.
    • creata 1y ago
      > it’s hardly reasonable to say that they’re not allowed to use what ever technical options they can to prevent that fraud. Of course it's reasonable? You can give someone a job and also ask them to do it a certain way.
• jackothy 1y ago
  I have come to the conclusion that both Android and iOS, along with the banking systems, are all doomed platforms. Even something like GrapheneOS, in theory the best path to security and privacy and liberty, was falling way short even before this latest announcement from Google. The problem lies partially in the app ecosystems, which embrace spyware and exploiting users (requiring all the worst Google APIs), and partially in governments, which will leverage any centralized organization like Google to gain control (EU chat control etc.). The solution cannot be just a custom OS or an OS fork. In fact, ecosystem compatibility is toxic and slows down growth of real alternatives. There needs to be some wholly independent and decentralized offering. The challenge is hardware compatibility and core services like digital IDs. Most apps should be solved by using a website instead. These issues are especially important because the future is increasingly digital. Smart phones, smart glasses, smart watches, VR glasses, smart homes, and even brain implants. I don't want to live in a future where I'm either left behind or my whole life is controlled by Google/Apple/the government/etc.
  • rcarmo 1y ago
    The “use a website instead” angle doesn’t really work for a lot of things, and given the impermanence of websites these days, is actually a major point of potential failure.
    • jackothy 1y ago
      The "use a website instead" angle should work for the majority of things people spend phone time on. For the few things that could not be a PWA, some extra effort is needed.
• Gud 1y ago
  “allow side loading” is a premise I object to. Now that Android is going full retard with their authoritarian BS, it’s time to build a new phone operating system or at least make the ones we already have viable. It’s a monumental undertaking, but it needs to be done.
• broker354690 1y ago
  [dead]
• natch 1y ago
  Authors like this love saying that it’s all about installing apps you choose on a device you own and control. Who could disagree with that? The problem is it’s often controlling household members sneakily installing creepy things on devices of those they live with and want to control.
  • bangaladore 1y ago
    > The problem is it’s often I'd like a source for that. News to me if that is common at all. Not to mention there are apps on the playstore / ios store that can be used in a similar way without sideloading.
  • wiseowise 1y ago
    If only there was some kind of biometric protection on those devices, preventing from unauthorized access.
  • rpdillon 1y ago
    > controlling household members sneakily installing creepy things on devices of those they live with and want to control. This is actually the happy path: parenting! I would love to see this approach taken with parenting, rather than trying to age-verify the internet. Of course what you're talking about is abusive behavior, but my point is that's not what we're solving for here: and "parent has control" scenario has the dual-use of "the abuser has control". I don't think we can fix that by requiring code signatures or banning sideloading.
• m463 1y ago
  "sideloading" connotates something that is negative. On systems before apple's locked-down iphone, it was just called "installing". The PC revolution started with people just inserting their software into the comptuer and running it. You didn't have to ask the computer manufacturer or the OS vendor permission to do it. And note that apple doesn't allow you to protect yourself. You cannot install a firewall and block arbitrary software on your phone. For example, you can not block apple telemetry.
  • pjmlp 1y ago
    Which is why alongside freedom came the business of anti-virus.
    • wiseowise 1y ago
      Never in 20 years of using Linux/Macs I’ve ever needed anti-virus.
      • charcircuit 1y ago
        You have been lucky. It's trivial for someone to write a stealer and trick someone to run it. For example there's been stealers targeting Linux built into trojans of Minecraft mods.
        • aquariusDue 1y ago
          As another lucky soul do you happen to know of a case documented somewhere?
          • charcircuit 1y ago
            For example. https://support.curseforge.com/en/support/solutions/articles/9000228509-june-2023-infected-mods-detection-tool https://support.curseforge.com/en/support/solutions/articles...
• evolighting 1y ago
  Safety is important, but may not that important. So, shouldn’t we just create something like a "secure virtual machine" to make it easier to protect sensitive content, rather than requiring the highest level of security for everything?
• neuroelectron 1y ago
  Back when the Apple hardware for iPhone offered real isolation between apps, yes. But that's really hard to maintain and isn't PRISM-friendly. Neither Apple nor Google can justify offering real isolation for apps in the current market.
  • ggm 1y ago
    I thought sandboxes were precisely what they are doing.
    • neuroelectron 1y ago
      Yes but they're virtual now where the early apps were physically or logically isolated with memory isolation and secret vault. They still have the secret vault but the virtualization layer is all software and the OS has special access. --- iOS and Android still provide per-app sandboxes, but those sandboxes are managed entirely by the OS kernel and higher-level frameworks. Secure Enclave (iOS) and Titan M/TEE (Android) still exist for cryptographic operations, biometric data, and DRM, but access is brokered by the OS. The enclave doesn’t run apps; it just provides cryptographic functions. OS privilege expansion: system services have visibility into app data at runtime for telemetry, background tasks, push notifications, etc. Apps are isolated from each other, but not from the platform owner. Result: app-to-app compromise is still difficult, but OS-level compromise (intentional or not) gives broad access. This design simplifies features like push services, app updates, and sync, but makes "true isolation" (hardware separation, zero OS visibility) infeasible in today’s consumer mobile ecosystems.
• diebeforei485 1y ago
  I think sideloading should be allowed only if you actually connect your phone to a computer. This barrier will prevent a lot of vulnerable people from being scammed. Alternatively, sideloading could require you to delete all App Store apps. In other words, disabling Google Play Protect should require you to wipe your phone. This is another barrier that will prevent a lot of people from getting scammed.
  • chii 1y ago
    deleting all app store apps is too high a barrier, because there may not be a replacement that could be sideloaded.
    • Freak_NL 1y ago
      I don't see that changing either. Banking apps, government auth, Whatsapp¹, public transport apps², etc. The status quo is that a small number of official app store apps are all but required. 1: Still basically required if you have young children and want things like play dates. Oh Signal? Yeah, the recent push means that some tech-savvy users now have both Whatsapp and Signal installed. In the Netherlands, you can do without Whatsapp, but not if you don't want to turn your child into a social recluse. 2: For example, in order to use Germany's Deutschlandticket one of the participating public transport companies apps is required. This is a huge regression compared to the initial paper ticket, but there it is.
      • interloxia 1y ago
        I guess requiring a transport subscription to get the ticket, via app or smart card, is rather analogous to the topic of adding friction to the undesired path.
  • miki123211 1y ago
    Alternatively, require the user to decide whether they want sideloading or not at device setup time, with no ability to change this decision without wiping and starting from scratch. It wouldn't solve the "getting infected via cracked apps" problem, but it would at least solve the "users being scammed into sideloading something they don't want" problem.
• BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
  The answer to this question is yes. You need to make enabling sideloading somewhat difficult and make it require a modicum of tech literacy. The only reason that the phone companies do what they do is to make more money from their stores. They don’t care about people or their safety.
• frameset 1y ago
  A better question would be: Is it possible to restrict software installation and keep users free?
• wkat4242 1y ago
  Users aren't safe anyway when the gatekeeper is Google. They're deeply evil these days and our phones are mainly a surveillance tool for them. Apple is only slightly better. They limit espionage from other parties but not their own. And meta ads still exist so they block was not very effective.
• miohtama 1y ago
  The examples in the post are bad. The people who were scammed did not run rooted phones. Rooting your phone may allow you to install pirated applications containing malware. But most banking losses comes from scams where the user itself initiated a transaction.
  • mike_hearn 1y ago
    The point of those examples is not about rooting phones, it's that there's a subset of the population who can be informed that they're doing something guaranteed to be self-harming and who will do it anyway, then complain that someone should have stopped them. These discussions aren't really about tech. They're all about politics. Libertarian societies grant freedom on the understanding that some people can't handle it and will hurt themselves (and maybe even others). Collectivist societies sacrifice freedom on the altar of socializing individual losses. The first example he gives is from the relatively collectivist UK, where "James" sent all his money to a foreign romance scammer despite being warned by his bank not to do it. The twist that the blog author doesn't mention is how the story ends: his family went crying to the BBC who kicked up a fuss and Lloyds decided to give him the amount he lost i.e. make other bank customers pay for his bad decisions. This is a spectrum: you can't have a society that both grants maximal freedom and that also protects people from themselves. As societies differ in how collectivist/libertarian/crime-ridden they are yet tech platforms are global, it's inevitable there will be disagreements about where on the spectrum this judgement call should fall. What Google is doing here is actually quite innovative and surprising for a company as historically woke as they are: they're admitting that the problem primarily affects some cultures/countries and not others, so the level of freedom should be different. The rules are being changed to only apply to phones in specific countries, whilst preserving freedoms for those in others. This is a very interesting decision that stands against a multi-decade trend in the tech world of treating every country and culture as if they are all identical.
• palmfacehn 1y ago
  Is it possible to protect users from themselves in every circumstance? Yes. Remove all of the features from the software. Now, I know you're wondering, "What if my users eat the battery?" Next, remove the hardware itself. Now users cannot harm themselves at all.
  • fsflover 1y ago
    "If you are protected by a steel door, but you don't have the key, you aren't safe: You're imprisoned."
  • ACCount37 1y ago
    Unfortunately, some users manage to cause themselves harm using nothing but their own body. Clearly, there should be a way to restrict their access to that too. Keep them from performing unauthorized bodily actions that could result in self-harm. For safety reasons.
• bisRepetita 1y ago
  If only there was no app stores... sigh... I would only download apps from the reputable company I like (myfavoritebigbank.com), trusting their brand and reputation for my security. If a client-side app can threaten their security, that's a weakness on their part. And if a lone developer has a cool new idea, and its app is recommended by users I trust on an obscure specialized forum, then I'll decide to install their app from "coollonedeveloper.com". If only we could invent some kind of "domain names" system that one would have control and responsibility over, instead of trusting some broken unscalable app stores...
• brnt 1y ago
  What universele are these people in? Though the app/play store is a fantastic way to obtain shitware that either steals data (seems to be nearly mandatory, if you look at the apps of these store operators), CPU time through mining of some sort, eats through your brain (by inserting horrific amounts of ads, much of which such clear scams I really don't get how this is allowed) or simply ask extra money for essential features one by one. Everything about the so called stores is so decrepit, the safest way to get any decent software on is side loading / fdroid. How could you in sincerity argue any different?
• Scarblac 1y ago
  Is it possible to let owners use their hardware as they wish, without having large companies control what they deem "safe"? I'm not the user of my phone, I'm its owner.
  • thrown-0825-1 1y ago
    A nice sentiment, hasnt been true for a while though
  • lblume 1y ago
    Sure. But the societal losses of a vast amount of people getting scammed might in general be more important your individual wish for freedom to run anything you want on your device. I think there are important tradeoffs to be made, and that we have to acknowledge that many people in society less technically skilled might suffer from serious consequences in your proposed model of computation.
    • userbinator 1y ago
      I say let them be scammed. Idiocy only grows if it's not resisted. People don't learn if they don't see the consequences. Otherwise it'll just make society head into an authoritarian socialist hellhole... not that it wasn't already going in that direction.
      • saagarjha 1y ago
        People don't necessarily learn if they see consequences.
        • userbinator 1y ago
          They definitely won't learn if they don't see consequences.
          • saagarjha 1y ago
            No, this is not true. It's definitely possible to educate people about security without them getting hacked.
• userbinator 1y ago
  Do we pour billions into educating users not to click "yes" to every prompt they see? Instead we pour billions into educating users to be submissive sheeple. "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
• paradox460 1y ago
  The problem is that apps can detect when I say "no you cannot have this data" A decade ago, we had Xposed modules that would hook into the permissions systems, and give you the option to feed apps fake, generated data. So if it tried to scrape my location or phone number or whatever else, it got garbage
• stavros 1y ago
  Wait, how does the requirement to only install apps signed by Google comply with the DMA? If it doesn't, don't we all have our answer on what we should do?
  • arlort 1y ago
    The DMA only applies in the EU, and the exact boundaries of the law are still to be fully litigated out
    • stavros 1y ago
      Right, but, hint hint, lobby politicians so they draft comparable legislation in the US as well.
• isodev 1y ago
  I think the premise that app stores, notarisarion and such protect users is false. It’s like saying sunglasses protect you from the sun - they help you not get blinded by it right away, but you still need sunscreen, wear a hat etc. Apple/Google rejecting some obvious scam apps doesn’t mean people don’t get scammed or hurt in other ways. Just like online age verification doesn’t actually protect children or make you a better parent… its just straw man of sorts, designed to remove agency from users through a false sense of safety.
  • tim333 1y ago
    The iphone system protects people fairly well at the stuff it's designed for, ie installing malware. Obviously sunglasses don't stop you needing sunscreen and the app store doesn't protect me from crashing my car etc.
    • gf000 1y ago
      Yeah, and banning cars would also protect people from car crashes. But it comes with the rather large price of a huge limitation to my personal choices.
      • jbverschoor 1y ago
        Not having mandatory checks and requirement would result in the market being flooded with unsafe cars
  • pixelfarmer 1y ago
    > It’s like saying sunglasses protect you from the sun It is actually much closer than you think. There are the standard sunglasses and then you have actually rated sunglasses for various purposes. The more extreme the environment, the more the former gives a false sense of safety that just isn't there.
• anfilt 1y ago
  The owner of a device should have the final say. The way a lot of this is set up basically deprives the owner of one of their core property rights, in particular the right of exclusion. Instead, in many systems the decision about what software to include or exclude is made cryptographically by a third party rather than by the device’s owner. I don’t think we should support limiting people’s property rights for “safety” or other reasons. iOS is probably one the worst in this regard and it sad to see android moving more and more towards this direction. I have posted multiple times before that this effectively limits people’s property rights. Here are some other posts I have made on the subject: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236853 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067455 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727203
  • BLKNSLVR 1y ago
    > The owner of a device That may be the crux of the misunderstanding. The 'licensing' of music, movies, TV shows when you "purchase" them is coming / has come to hardware. The owner of the device is who controls what you can do with it, not necessarily who paid to keep it in their pocket.
    • anfilt 1y ago
      What I am saying is the way the cryptography is implemented on locked devices such as iPhone your property rights are being trampled upon via cryptography. By using cryptography, the manufacturer reserves for itself; rather than the owner; the fundamental right to exclude or include what software can run on the CPU, even after the hardware is sold. The cryptography is not a legal agreement either like a lease/loan ect... So this being done via extra-legal means. For example, let’s say you buy an iDevice and do not even intend to run iOS, but instead want to install/port Linux, or run some bare-metal code. You would have to ask apple to sign that code with their private key, which they won't do. The problem is a sale should have transferred all rights of property rights to you as part of the sale. The clue is you have to ask a third party to even hope to do this points to the fact your being limited on the full enjoyment of your property rights. This cryptography is not a contract or legal instrument either and you don't even have to agree to anything for it to be in effect. You could buy the device and have no intention to use the preinstalled software, and it's in effect before you even open the box. The problem is the right of exclusion is very important, and can even derive most other property rights for example this paper "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]. The fact such an important property right is being blatantly impeded is the problem.
• Ms-J 1y ago
  It's not sideloading it is installing an application. Don't use enemy words. There are some comments attempting to trick people into thinking that some of the least intelligent people of society have more freedom than regular people. Freedom of speech and to own your belongings is first. This includes installing what you want on your device.
• user_7832 1y ago
  Friendly reminder that rather than have malicious apps steal bank credentials using zero days, all the people I’ve known who’ve been scammed… voluntarily read out their OTP to said scammer, or transferred the money themselves to the scammer’s bank account using the official banking app. Funnily and ironically enough, a phone that is rooted and fails safety net would likely not allow the bank apps to open, and thus be safer in such a case. Also see: wrench vs RSA encryption at https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
• thrown-0825 1y ago
  [dead]
• thrown-0825-1 1y ago
  pwas deserve more attention
• patrakov 1y ago
  The elephant in the room is not addressed: software in Google Play with so many antifeatures that it can only be called malware (except that Google doesn't call it malware because it brings revenue), and no alternatives except apps outside Google Play that are not signed by a developer who would submit their identity to Google.
• fennecbutt 1y ago
  Yes if the os sandboxes everything. If you choose to give it access to a file it can mirror that file so that any edits can be undone. Sure it uses more space but way safer unless they find a jailbreak outta their sandbox.
• zb3 1y ago
  Yet Google has no problem with displaying these vulnerable people scammy ads (which is also the most common way they actually discover these malicious APKs), since it brings them revenue.. What if we'd instead require users to verify themselves before being allowed to see ads? I'm sure that would be more effective for preventing scams, fraud and abuse.
• StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  I find it telling that all the exemples of scams they use to justify preventing apps installation without registering through an American corporation are entirely unrelated to apps installation. Just show the protect the users angle is completely bogus.
• turblety 1y ago
  I think the question should be reversed. Is it possible to stay safe if you can not control the devices you supposedly own.
• dankobgd 1y ago
  it was never about safe or not safe
• sorrythanks 1y ago
  > I think the bank has the right to say "your machine is too risky - we don't want our code to run on it." I disagree. Let's go with preferring user agency until banks are in trouble. > Again, it probably isn't fair to ban users who run on permissive software, but it is a rational choice by the manufacturer. And, yet again, I think software authors probably should be able to restrict things which cause them harm. I disagree. Ban users when they cheat, not when they have the power to cheat.
  • ACCount37 1y ago
    Strongly agreed. Banking apps should run on on anything that can run them. Banks should not be the gatekeepers in charge of deciding what's a "good" or a "bad" device.
    • piaste 1y ago
      What if the bank abstained from evaluating your own stuff, and instead provided you with whatever they consider a 'good' device? Like a powered-up version of the TOTP hardware tokens they used to provide 15 years ago. Instead of negotiating over what you do with your own devices, when you open a bank account they loan you a small, cheap, ultra-locked-down phone-like device that only runs the bank app and biometric verification. You may still use a web interface for online banking if you want a bigger screen and keyboard, but regardless all transactions need a confirmation through the bank's device. This way you're free to do whatever you want with your hardware (including even not having one!), without requiring every bank to support every possible platform under the sun.
      • sorrythanks 1y ago
        That's a nice idea! My main bank still provides one of those little TOTP devices to this day.
• imgabe 1y ago
  A ship in the harbor is safe. But that is not what ships are for.
• deergomoo 1y ago
  > Do we pour billions into educating users not to click "yes" to every prompt they see? Yes, obviously yes. In the same way we teach people to operate cars safely and expect them to carry and utilise that knowledge. Does it work perfectly? Of course not, but at least we entertain the idea that if you crash your car into a wall because you’re not paying attention it might actually be your fault. Computers are a critical aspect of work and life. While I’m a big proponent of making technology less of a requirement in day to day life—you shouldn’t need to own a smartphone and download an app to pay for parking or charge your car—but in cases where it is reasonable to expect someone to use a computer, it’s also reasonable to expect a baseline competency from the operator. To support that, we clearly need better computer education at all ages. By all means, design with the user’s interests at front of mind and make doing the right thing easiest, but at some point you have to meet in the middle. We can’t reorient entire industry practices because some people refuse to read the words in front of them.
  • danaris 1y ago
    Now, I'm not going to say we shouldn't try to move the needle. More education around this is unquestionably a good thing. But this sounds an awful lot like trying to avoid changing the technology by changing human nature. And that's a fool's errand. There are always going to be a significant percentage of users you're never going to reach when it comes to something like this. That means you can never say "...and now we can just trust people to use their devices wisely!" Fundamentally, the issue with people clicking things isn't really a problem because it's new technology. It's a problem because they're people. People fall for scams all the time, and that doesn't change just because it's now "on a computer".
    • AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > People fall for scams all the time, and that doesn't change just because it's now "on a computer". But that's exactly the issue. You won't prevent someone from wiring money to Nigeria by restricting what apps they can install on their phone while allowing the official bank app which supports wire transfers. If someone is willing to press any sequence of buttons a scammer tells them to then the only way to prevent them from doing something at the behest of the scammer is to prevent them from doing it at all. But that's hardly practical, because you're going to, what? Prevent anyone from transferring money even for legitimate reasons? Prevent people from reading their own email or DMs so they can't give a scammer access to sensitive ones? The alternatives are educating people to not fall for scams, or completely disenfranchising them so that they're not authorized to make any choices for themselves. What madness can it be that we could choose the second one for ordinary adults?
• hilbert42 1y ago
  There is something that's always perplexed me. Why is it that money when transferred electronically can so easily disappear into obscurity or oblivion? Why is there no full audit trail? Restated, every electronic transfer requires a sender and a receiver—and there are standardized (electronic) protocols to ensure funds are debited from sender's account and credited to the receiver's account. So we ought to know where monies end up but so often we don't. The way around these scams is (a) have infallible fully identifiable trace routes, and (b) destination banks must be known to the sending bank and meet an international standard of prudence and integrity or funds would not be transfered, and that ought to be a lawful requirement. (Ipso facto, it would be incumbent on recipient banks to know its account holders and to act on fraudulent transactions.) In other words, the electronic funds transfer system should be transparent from the sender's account right through to the recipient's bank and the actual bank account within that destination bank. In short, the funds should be traceable right through to the point where the recipient withdraws cash from the destination bank and walks out the bank's door. (There are ways that a destination/bank can keep certain details about the recipient private and yet still allow the money trail capable of being audited that I can't address here.) In effect, the requirements ought to be (1) sending banks would only transfer funds to banks of known integrity, (2) receiving banks must have procedures in place to recover monies from accounts in the event of fraud, and (3) protocols such as delaying payments, putting funds in escrow until transactions are proven legitimate, and methods of recovering/refunding funds etc. are properly established. Transparency would also mean transactions would be reversible in case of fraud. Ideally, such procedures would be set out in ISO protocols and by law banks could only transfer funds to other banks that follow the protocols. Yes, I know this sounds simple and the world's banking systems are complex and convoluted and that there'd be many objections from many sources, banks, credit card companies, money traders and so on but it cannot be denied that the great weakness in funds transfer is that monies can vanish without a trace. Frankly that's unacceptable in an age of electronic money transfer where every cent is accounted for along the transfer route. That various entities can obfuscate that accounting at various points in the transfer process ought no longer be acceptable. To say it can't be done or that it's unacceptably complex is bullshit, for example banks and credit card companies such as Visa and MasterCard had no trouble blocking funds transfered to WikiLeaks. The real problem is that the world's banking system is a law unto itself and that banks would on many grounds object strongly to introducing a system. Look at it this way: similar schemes to that which I've outlined are already in place in say conveyancing, property is only deemed exchanged and the transfer complete when lawyers 'meet' and exchange money and land deeds. Same happens when say two waring countries meet and exchange captive soldiers on the spot. Given the many billions of dollars lost to scammers every year it's clear that banking transfer systems are hopelessly flawed. Things would soon change if banks told customers that they cannot transfer monies to xyz destination because the money trail is untrusted/cannot be authenticated and that it would be unlawful for them to so act.
• notorandit 1y ago
  I for one think that this more of a matter of wishful thinking than a technical one. It's IMHO a matter between trust and hope. Do we really think that Google has complete control over the stuff they distribute? Do we really think that a single person delivering some software outside of Google ecosystem is evil? Judging these things is rather hard without some form of trust and hope. And it's not something everyone can pick up seriously without the needed knowledge and tools.
• croes 1y ago
  They can’t keep users safe even if only PlayStore app are allowed so why hinder other installation paths?
• Jemm 1y ago
  Blocking sideloading under the pretense that it "keeps people safe", is bullshit. Google is taking steps to build their wall a lot higher.
• chartered_stack 1y ago
  There are really two separate issues here: A) It should be harder for non-technical users to accidentally install apps designed to harm them. B) It should also be possible for anyone to run whatever code they want on hardware they own. Both can be true, and platforms should support both. Ultimately, it is up to the platform to decide what they want to allow and how they protect their users. I get why Android is tightening controls: plenty of people install shady APKs they get from random websites or Telegram/WhatsApp groups and get burned. But forcing developers to register with Google isn’t the answer. If I want to run a hobby project on my own phone, I for sure shouldn't have to jump through bureaucratic hoops. The thing is that Google already has the mechanism to protect users: the Play Store. The real problem is that its review process is weak and flooded with low-quality and malicious apps. Fixing that would do far more good than punishing independent developers. They also don't want to open up anti-trust behavior by actually prioritizing the Play Store and saying that you shouldn't trust an app from a random Chinese App Store. If Google wants to make Android safer, step one should be cleaning up the Play Store. Step two is making that the obvious, prioritized channel. Only after that should they even think about playing Big Brother.
  • Terretta 1y ago
    Just as in the linked article, these two statements make it pretty clear: > A) It should be harder for non-technical users to accidentally install apps designed to harm them. > B) It should also be possible for anyone to run whatever code they want on hardware they own Require something in the neighborhood of: C) It should be possible to prevent people who can run whatever they want from wanting* to intentionally or accidentally install apps designed to harm them; or, where these harms are either not harmful or are reversible. If you consider things that help with (C), and apply this principle — “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." — then a lot of iOS/iPadOS developer and app ecosystem can be understood as positive intentionality around flavors of C. * By being scammed, persuaded, misled, confused, coerced, etc.
• Retr0id 1y ago
  Have a persistent "developer mode" flag. When the device is being set up for the first time, ask the user if they want to enable developer mode. Make the warnings as scary as you like. When the device is booting, display a prominent "developer mode enabled" message. But, once the device is booted, there should be no way for apps to query developer-mode status, to prevent discriminatory apps. The only way to toggle the flag after setup would entail a full factory reset of the device. You could go one step further and have it be a fully permanent flag, in efuses.
  • extropy 1y ago
    This is what Chrome OS does, works pretty well IMHO.
• fortyseven 1y ago
  Even assuming this is a good faith effort by Google (which I seriously down of course), there's a point where you can only do so much to protect people. Showing them the permissions requested, training them to not install things from outside the store unless they know what they're doing, explicitly needing to manually enable installation of software from the outside, etc etc. That's it. You've done your job. And if, despite all that, some people still want to continue to use their phones in a dangerous manner LET THEM suffer the consequences of their ignorance. Let them bruise their knee. They're grown ups, presumably. Some people just need to learn the hard way, and we shouldn't architect the entire system to protect that lowest common denominator. You absolutely do not need to childproof the entire phone to protect people from themselves. For me, that's why it's patently obvious that this move has an ulterior motive.
• tomdickandharry 1y ago
  [dead]
• cherryteastain 1y ago
  Answer is yes. But 'safety' is not the reason for the recent Google move. It is a move taken in lockstep with EU's Chat Control and UK's Online Safety Act, and the proposed Kids Online Safety Act in the US. The common objective of all is total control of digital lives of citizens and allowing the government to snoop on all internet communication while not disabling end to end encryption. They need end to end encryption to lock out external adversaries (Russia China etc) but they need to see the contents of encrypted messages to monitor internal adversaries. First step is blocking you from running any apps not allowed by Google/Apple. Second step is putting in the systems to snoop on end to end encrypted communication apps on the endpoints, enabling intel agencies to detect thoughtcrime without exposing everyone's chats to Chinese/Russian intelligence. This will most likely be done by OSes recognizing the apps and extracting private keys on demand. Last step is locking the bootloaders so you cannot have a phone which lacks the 'features' added in the second step.
  • cyanydeez 1y ago
    Ok, so ignore your goveenment paranoia. Sure theyre out to get you. But ask yourself, would business do this anyway? The answer is yes. Google needs a growth target and modeling app store lockin and fees is there. Youre free to live in paranoid government land, but its an unnecessary abstraction. Its actually the EU and US rulings against their monopoly thats driving it. Again, the paranoia is just drivel.
    • abound 1y ago
      [Ignoring gov't paranoia discussion] > Its actually the EU and US rulings against their monopoly thats driving it. Can you elaborate on this? Locking phones down like this would seem to make Google an even bigger target for future anti-trust suits, no?
      • cyanydeez 1y ago
        Depends on how they implement it and how they seed political support. Id they sell it as "save the kids" and give token authority to the same kind of DCMA region lockin, itll become a government backed utility. Monopoly enforcement only occurs when theres no natural monopoly.
• xyzzy_plugh 1y ago
  I remain wholly unconvinced that side loading and user safety are even related at scale. They are orthogonal. There are plenty of apps available through the Play store that are not safe. Even if side loading requires chain-of-trust, malicious behavior will remain rampant. I'll concede that it restricts the ease with which one can redistribute malware but by how much? It doesn't seem significant to me compared to the hassle for end users/developers. It all seems so contrived. The only rational explanation to all of this is backpedaling into a closed garden.
• hedora 1y ago
  Is it possible to block sideloading and keep users safe?
• binarysneaker 1y ago
  If you care about this, please sign the petition https://chng.it/cdrys9WDDk https://chng.it/cdrys9WDDk
• thesuperbigfrog 1y ago
  If you cannot run the software you want on your device, is it really your device? https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM?t=57 https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM?t=57
• dlcarrier 1y ago
  It's a false dichotomy; according to information Google has provided, most Android malware is downloaded from Google's own Play Store, so preventing sideloading won't have a significant effect on malware installations.
• xg15 1y ago
  > Vulnerable members of society should be protected from scams. I'd like to have some clarification what kind of safety level people generally expect from their devices. As an analogy, consider the different safety expectations of public transport (buses, trains, planes, etc) and individual transport (cars, bikes, scooters, etc). In public transport, I'm responsible for exactly two things: Choosing the right transport to get on and getting off at the right moment. Everything else is the line operator's fault. The operator is also well within their rights to keep me from unscrewing random panels inside the train, conducting scientific experiments with a plane's onboard WiFi or thrashing the seats when I'm drunk. They can kick me out if I behave too badly. (They can not on arbitrary grounds deny me service if that would trigger anti discrimination protections) In short, I don't own the train, I don't have any expectations of arbitrary control, but in exchange I do have very high expectations of the service provided, even with very little knowledge of the internal workings of a train. In contrast, with private transport, I'm much more involved in the technical details of the trip: I have to know the exact route, I have to take every turn myself, I'm expected to know traffic rules and safely interact with other participants and I should at least have a basic knowledge of the internals of my bike or car. In exchange, I also have much more freedom to modify my transport or to pick a different route. The question is if the safety expectations for phones are more like the ones of public or of private transport.
  • trueismywork 1y ago
    False dichotomy. The analogy would be, does the your private car allow you to change the ratio between different gears in your car. Or does it allow you to customize the sensitivity of the steering wheel arbitrarily. Or install any custom kind of AC vents in your car and allowing you to make arbitrary cuts in chassis. Having said that,first and foremost: Its very difficult to explain to a lot of people people's expectations of vetting and privacy. People are completely fine with FB siphoning of their data and spying on them, but they are not fine if anyone can do it. That is, there should be a barrier to installing malware on the app, and that barrier being the company being a big company is okay with most people. What they're not fine with is any random person being able to do that. And they will blame the phone manufacturer for all bad applications that can be installed on the phone. If a phone manufacturer allows for side loading applications and a big company requires it. Then, there becomes rhe culture of side loading applications, and suddenly the platform is not safe because there's no trust in applications. The manufactures have to ensure that people can side load their apps and at the same time ensure that all apps of relevance use platforms like playprotect so that people can be given a simple advice "only use playprotect apps". I am not sure this is a solvable problem.
• superkuh 1y ago
  Sideloading is a propaganda word. The sentence you meant to ask actually answers itself, "Is it possible to allow installation and keep users safe?"
• kleiba 1y ago
  Google having your privacy in mind is laughable: this is a company that literally makes money from collecting information about people. So please, don't buy into that folk tale - it's a company, their interest is and always will be one thing: revenue.
• smetannik 1y ago
  Probably a compromise could be to keep developer "notarization" but multiple number of authorities, like we're already doing with SSL certs. Imagine how internet would look like of we had just a single authority issuing SSL certificates.
• havaloc 1y ago
  "A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." - John A. Shedd
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  Is it possible to restrict sideloading and keep users safe?
• hnburnsy 1y ago
  So what is Play Protect doing and the F can I not control what apps run at start up and which apps run in the background. That would give me way more protection than having signed apps.
• yaro330 1y ago
  Sideloading via ADB remains open. The number of scams from grandmas installing fraudulent bank apps should reduce a lot though.
• macinjosh 1y ago
  A hand saw, an axe, or hammer are designed to be effective not safe. the only reason computers are treated differently is because they present avenues for control of the consumer that can be presented under the guise of safety. ill keep myself safe tyvm
• Proofread0592 1y ago
  The orange website is filled with tech-savvy people who understand all this. To play devils advocate, google is trying to protect the lower-half of the IQ distribution: examples given in the article are the folks who were *told by their bank they were being scammed, and still sent money anyway*. There is no amount of prompts that can protect a user from their own stupidity.
• kazinator 1y ago
  That's like asking, is it possible to allow women to vote and drive, yet keep them safe? When I started computing, sideloading was just called installing a program.
• ath3nd 1y ago
  Its just another stage of enshittification. Corporations have a long tradition: - from printers refusing to print unless the ink was of the blessed brand - to planned obsolescence of Apple phones - to adversarial inoperability of Apple's trash lighting cable charger with well established standards - to Apple refusing out of store transactions so they can steal developers' profits - to Anthropic luring users saying they will never train on your chats but then training on your chats - to facebook basically backdooring your device so they can track you cross vpn and incognito https://localmess.github.io/ https://localmess.github.io/ - to locking your OS on your own device to not be able to install software that is not blessed by google so they can control what you install and bully the developers for a bigger slice of the pie Companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Palantir, Apple are absolute garbage, a menace to society, a parasite that grows like a tumor and can only be stopped not by the non existent "invisible hand of the market", but by being regulated and fined to oblivion.
• hastily3114 1y ago
  As a developer, I don't like this update either. But I think the comments here are a bit biased from the advanced user point of view. No one here is likely to fall for scams, but why should Google build their system to fit the needs of the 5% advanced users rather than the 95% casuals? As the article illustrates, users will ignore all warnings and get themselves scammed, and so the last resort is to not even give them the option.
• felishiagreen12 1y ago
  [dead]
• Saris 1y ago
  Yes, they already show a warning when installing an APK, and if you have it enabled googles scanner will check it too. Seems like plenty to me. If someone is warned about what they are doing, that's good enough.
• phendrenad2 1y ago
  Yes. Next question. The push to lock down the Google app ecosystem is just Google's eternal quest to lower costs. Reviewing apps, even if automated, is expensive. A while ago they demanded that all app publishers get a DUNS number. It's obvious why they did this - they want to rely on the reputation of the company (easy, automated) rather than detect malicious apps (slow, may require manual intervention). One important thing to note is, the threat model changes depending on the user. If a "poweruser" installs a card game app, and it suddenly pops up a screen that looks like their bank login, they're going to close the app and report it. Grandma might get confused and think she was checking her bank balance. So they need a complex set of tiers and warnings to ensure that only users who know what they're doing get apps that could do something like that. But, we all know that the above scenario is hardly the worst thing an app can do. Thanks to mysteriously bad security, there have been all kinds of Android vulnerabilities that allow one app to spy on another app's data files. Maybe locking down the ecosystem so that only "good" apps can spy on one another is the win/win solution for them.
• chris-bzst 1y ago
  [dead]
• brennyb 1y ago
  "Is it possible to sell power tools and keep people safe?" I don't know but I sure don't want to live in a version of the world where I'm not allowed to own power tools.