3 ms·

Sounds a bit like trying to transfer my own money to myself at the bank. I.e. it seems designed to prevent old people getting scammed.

by 0x3f 5mo ago

hungryhobbit 5mo ago
That's exactly what this is: Google is trying to prevent tech illiterate users from installing malware. (Or at least, that's their take on this. You can choose to read between the lines, or not, as to whether they have other motivations also.)
- raverbashing 5mo ago
  Of course they have other motivations But for 1 person wanting to run their own software there are hundreds of people with the potential to install malware/crapware/etc
  - lucb1e 5mo ago
    Had to read that sentence twice. You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. to install an apk to run software that can barely access more than a simple webpage could, than there are people (like HN'ers) who install apk files from github and f-droid?! (Also note that "crapware" describes basically every app you find in google's store. I try on occasion, when nobody made an open source this-or-that, and it's such a minefield. If that's the thing you're trying to avoid, I don't know how you could possibly feel positive about a requirement to only use the Play Store for the tech-illiterate)
    - raverbashing 5mo ago
      > You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times Yes, because this whole procedure is new > Also note that "crapware" describes basically every app you find in google's store Go back to emacs then I guess
      - lucb1e 5mo ago
        Installing apks has required going into settings for years now. 'Scary' steps aren't new > Go back to emacs then I guess way to have a conversation
    - 0x3f 5mo ago
      > more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. I don't really understand. You seem to be against the 'annoyance' of the protections, but that annoyance is precisely why the scammed count is lower, no? I certainly believe _more generally_ that the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders, for example.
      - lucb1e 5mo ago
        What I'm against is the mandatory registration to get a key signed by a party we don't elect, who controls all (soft-mandatory^1) devices that aren't controlled by the other party we didn't elect, and both are controlled by a government that we have no say in and is acting increasingly hostile towards everyone but fellow belligerents (Israel, Russia.. seeing a pattern here). Your "it's just a bit annoying" argument seems irrelevant compared to that, even if it would reduce scams, which I have seen no evidence for or against. Did you find or come across any evidence for it? ^1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47940687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47940687 > the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders That makes no sense. Of course the market for "scam victims" is current-earth-population.com minus one (the person doing the scamming); this is a universal constant you're comparing against If you mean the number of people who would potentially get scammed by being told to do a dozen steps to install some app which can barely do more to aid the scam than a webpage could, then I'm interested in how you end up with those figures! Given that maybe every 20th person is decently tech-literate and that I have yet to come across a scam where installing software on your phone is a component of it (including via google's; just any kind of mobile software installation), the way I figure the "market sizes" are about 400 million to somewhere around nil
- mulmen 5mo ago
  Define malware.
  - kube-system 5mo ago
    The scams this directly targets are well known and common. Someone gets a phishing message, they have someone install some sort of malware on the device, then their bank accounts are drained into some offshore account never to be seen again. That's why there's a requirement for restarting the phone and waiting 24 hours. The restart ends the connection for any remote-access software or phone call that might be driving the operation -- and the 24 hour wait period breaks the "urgency" part of the scam that prevents other people who know better from stopping the vicim from continuing.
    - mulmen 5mo ago
      Malware is whatever Google says it is.
selectively 5mo ago
Yes! That is because banking malware is specifically what is being targeted here: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-developer-verification.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...

Sounds a bit like trying to transfer my own money to myself at the bank. I.e. it seems designed to prevent old people getting scammed.

by 0x3f 5mo ago

Sounds a bit like trying to transfer my own money to myself at the bank. I.e. it seems designed to prevent old people getting scammed.

hungryhobbit 5mo ago

That's exactly what this is: Google is trying to prevent tech illiterate users from installing malware. (Or at least, that's their take on this. You can choose to read between the lines, or not, as to whether they have other motivations also.)

raverbashing 5mo ago
Of course they have other motivations But for 1 person wanting to run their own software there are hundreds of people with the potential to install malware/crapware/etc
- lucb1e 5mo ago
  Had to read that sentence twice. You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. to install an apk to run software that can barely access more than a simple webpage could, than there are people (like HN'ers) who install apk files from github and f-droid?! (Also note that "crapware" describes basically every app you find in google's store. I try on occasion, when nobody made an open source this-or-that, and it's such a minefield. If that's the thing you're trying to avoid, I don't know how you could possibly feel positive about a requirement to only use the Play Store for the tech-illiterate)
  - raverbashing 5mo ago
    > You really think that there's more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times Yes, because this whole procedure is new > Also note that "crapware" describes basically every app you find in google's store Go back to emacs then I guess
    - lucb1e 5mo ago
      Installing apks has required going into settings for years now. 'Scary' steps aren't new > Go back to emacs then I guess way to have a conversation
  - 0x3f 5mo ago
    > more people getting scammed via "please tap the build number seven times and then go to extra settings and enable untrusted installs and then go to this website that I will dictate the URL of and you should ignore that install warning" etc etc etc. I don't really understand. You seem to be against the 'annoyance' of the protections, but that annoyance is precisely why the scammed count is lower, no? I certainly believe _more generally_ that the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders, for example.
    - lucb1e 5mo ago
      What I'm against is the mandatory registration to get a key signed by a party we don't elect, who controls all (soft-mandatory^1) devices that aren't controlled by the other party we didn't elect, and both are controlled by a government that we have no say in and is acting increasingly hostile towards everyone but fellow belligerents (Israel, Russia.. seeing a pattern here). Your "it's just a bit annoying" argument seems irrelevant compared to that, even if it would reduce scams, which I have seen no evidence for or against. Did you find or come across any evidence for it? ^1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47940687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47940687 > the market for scam victims is much bigger than the market for sideloaders That makes no sense. Of course the market for "scam victims" is current-earth-population.com minus one (the person doing the scamming); this is a universal constant you're comparing against If you mean the number of people who would potentially get scammed by being told to do a dozen steps to install some app which can barely do more to aid the scam than a webpage could, then I'm interested in how you end up with those figures! Given that maybe every 20th person is decently tech-literate and that I have yet to come across a scam where installing software on your phone is a component of it (including via google's; just any kind of mobile software installation), the way I figure the "market sizes" are about 400 million to somewhere around nil
mulmen 5mo ago
Define malware.
- kube-system 5mo ago
  The scams this directly targets are well known and common. Someone gets a phishing message, they have someone install some sort of malware on the device, then their bank accounts are drained into some offshore account never to be seen again. That's why there's a requirement for restarting the phone and waiting 24 hours. The restart ends the connection for any remote-access software or phone call that might be driving the operation -- and the 24 hour wait period breaks the "urgency" part of the scam that prevents other people who know better from stopping the vicim from continuing.
  - mulmen 5mo ago
    Malware is whatever Google says it is.

selectively 5mo ago

Yes! That is because banking malware is specifically what is being targeted here: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-developer-verification.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-de...