Android Developer Verification

#1

Just in case some users are not aware of “Android Developer Verification” and it’s implications, here is a link to F-Droid News - An Open Letter Opposing Android Developer Verification

Excerpt

As we wrote about back in September in F-Droid and Google’s Developer Registration Decree, Google plans to enforce mandatory developer registration as a requirement for building and distributing Android applications worldwide. Android, currently an open platform where anyone can develop and distribute applications freely, is to become a locked-down platform, requiring that developers everywhere register centrally with Google in order to be able to distribute their software. This applies regardless of whether your software is distributed commercially on a competitive app store like the Samsung Galaxy Store, or through a non-commercial community app repository like F-Droid, or even by offering your app as a direct download from a web page. In all these cases, installing or launching any application on an Android Certified device (which constitutes over 95% of all Android-compatible devices outside of China) will phone home to Google to verify that the developer and the application has been approved.

#2

I am worried this may impact Tiddloid.

Also, all my attemps to understand what’s going on have failed, triggering Godwin’s Law.

#3

Hi @vuk,
I was looking at F-Droid apps recently and noticed this information.
I am not sure of the implications as I am not a developer, but felt that it should be mentioned on this forum for others who may be.
Recent posts have mentioned TiddlyDesktopRS on Android Play Store - Test phase and maybe @BurningTreeC is more aware of the implications.
There has also been a petition set-up Stop Google from limiting APK file usage links are on the original article link above.

#4

I am all for open source, competition and open access to install on devices what we want. These changes concern me, but I do note there is a legitimate concern with malware being placed in apps and it is easier to do so when the Author can remain anonymous. If you were not aware some apps are abandoned then taken over by bad players and malware introduced.

We need to find a path that accounts for freedom but not at the cost of corruption.

#5

This app by @BurningTreeC is available in playstore. But currently it is in testing phase

#6

I’ll try to avoid making my post below look like ad hominem by pointing fingers at myself, not just at you.

There’s plenty of worldwide known malware developed by authors that are not anonymous. And somehow this malware is even legit and state sponsored. How does the existence of Pegasus (spyware) - Wikipedia for example fit into your universe where I’m a criminal because my Discourse forum profile does not contain a real name, unlike yours. And by the way, in that world you’re a criminal too, because despite your Discourse forum profile containing a name, it lacks your age, and lacks a “verified by Google” badge.

#7

I don’t fully understand your argument. Are you saying because some people corrupt software and add malware everyone should be able to?

Keep in mind I am only asking that we consider what we can to limit and reduce bad actors free access. Any limits to anonymity need only be between the publisher and the app catalogue provider.

#8

I am saying that I don’t believe that age and identity verification online is about fighting malware, or that it is enforced out of concern for the digital well-being of the end user.

3 Likes
#9

That may be true but what is the path you suggest we take to stop bad actors misleading and hacking people?

#10

Why do you insist on derailing the topic?

Why did we need Android at all? I’m asking because while claiming its openness, Google recently restricted its source code release to just twice per year. Why couldn’t we just run our Linux distros of choice on our mobile devices?

#11

I am not, I am expressing an opinion that your own opinions “stomped on” making it seem your view was the only one, reflecting the “Big Google monster” idea and avoiding the changes needed to stop malware and supply chain hacks. I touched on this politely but you have forced me now to make a forceful statement. Primarily because of you dismissing, or should I say derailing, my view point?

There are merits in what we all have contributed here.

#12

I totally agree with the above statement.