Comment on Head of the Signal app threatens to withdraw from Europe

• sidelove@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Bruh, you’re trying to sanewash this of all things? Right now I can go to any third-party app store and click install on an app without me nor the developer having to kiss the ring of Google or by extension the regulators (EU with Chat Control) that they are beholden to.

  After this I’ll have to fucking install Google’s SDK on my computer, manually download application files, and deploy them to my device over USB with CLI commands. I will never ever ever be able to get friends and family access to third-party applications after this change.

  And fuck, man, there’s not even a guarantee this solution will last, either. Google promised they would allow on-device sideloading back when they started adding deeper and deeper settings restrictions on enabling sideloaded app support, their word means fuck-all and you know that.

  source

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You misidentified your objection. It isn’t sideloading removal, which isn’t happening. It’s developer verification, which affects the sideloading that remains available.

    Just because you don’t understand the value of verifying signatures doesn’t mean it lacks value.

    I recall the same alarm over secureboot: there, too, we can load our certificates into secureboot and sign everything ourselves. This locks down the system from boot-time attacks.

    I will never ever ever be able to get friends and family access to third-party applications after this change.

    Then sign it: problem solved.

    Developer verification should also give them a hard enough time to install trash that fucks their system and steals their information when that trash is unsigned or signed & suspended.

    Even so, it’s mentioned only in regard to devices certified for and that ship with Play Protect, which I’m pretty sure can be disabled.

    Google promised they would allow on-device sideloading

    Promise kept.

    their word means fuck-all and you know that

    No, I don’t. Developers are always going to need some way to load their unfinished work.

    source

    • sidelove@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That’s twice that you’ve missed the point that everyone else is saying. Read it again:

      without me nor the developer having to kiss the ring of Google or by extension the regulators (EU with Chat Control) that they are beholden to

      Google is irreversibly designating themselves the sole arbiter of what apps can be freely installed in the formerly-open Android ecosystem. It’s the same as if they just one day decided that Chromium-based browsers would require sites have a signature from Google and Google alone. I honestly don’t give a shit if they did it just on Pixel devices, but they’re doing it to the phones of ALL manufacturers by looping it into Play services.

      I just don’t understand: why the fuck are you so pussy-whipped by Google that you’re stanning their blatant power grabs?

      source

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I just don’t understand: why the fuck are you so pussy-whipped by Google that you’re stanning their blatant power grabs?

        Probably works at google or is a fanboy.

        source
      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I don’t understand why you can’t read: (1) developer verification can be disabled, bypassed, or worked with, (2) you called it sideloading removal, which it isn’t.

        You just don’t like the extra steps that limit the ease for ignorant users to install software known to be malicious that could have been blocked. I don’t like handholding my dumbass folks through the preventable IT problems they created.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • FishFace@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        They’re being precise about their terms, while everyone else is being sloppy. Not stanning

        source
    • khannie@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Adb is functionally useless for most people.

      source