Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

I know I risk being down voted remorselessly but I have to put this in context. Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok? If I only put a flyer through someone's letterbox here in the UK, I have to identify myself. If I sell a physical product I not only have to identify myself but take on serious legal liability. An author can take on a pseudonym but only via an identified publisher.

In fact that latter example might provide a solution. Set up a company willing to publish apps whilst hiding the actual developer's identity.

The thing is that so many people are used to doing whatever they want from behind the safety of their screen and are now able to do a lot of things they don’t want anyone to know about. Now the law and common sense is catching up and we’re starting to see things we take for granted in the physical world are coming to the digital world. And I think a lot of people are scared of not being able to do what they used to or being found out for doing it.

Plus, and doing what you suggest but in a country where board directors don’t need to be public really solves it.

> Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok?

I am allowed to invite guests into my home even if their identity isn't pre-registered with my landlord.

Tell you what: Sign your post with your full legal name and address, and we'll talk.

Personally I'm a big fan of not registering with the police every time a use a public restroom.

That's not even true for physical products. I can give away stuff anonymously at hackspaces, or in many other settings.

Identification is only required if I want to sell stuff, at large scale.

Google's plan would also utterly destroy fdroid and similar projects.

I don't think anyone is saying Google must allow anonymous apps on their app store. Nor is there anything wrong with giving the user of a phone the option to only install apps which have been vouched for by some trusted third party. The problem is, Google wishes to take away my choice to install apps that don't follow their rules. And that's bullshit. It's my device, which I own. Nobody except me should be able to restrict what does and does not run on that device.

> If I only put a flyer through someone's letterbox here in the UK, I have to identify myself.

Has the UK gotten rid of public postboxes? Do you have to present government-issued ID to post a letter, flyer, or other mailpiece? Do the UK post-handling companies check the sender's claimed name and address on the mailpiece and toss it in the trash if it doesn't correspond to a registered combination of name and address?

> Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok?

Tons of places in the US, and I expect most everywhere else in the world... including the UK. (Or has the UK prohibited things like anonymous food pickup and late-night back-alley dalliances?)

If one is selling computer software, it makes some sense to keep track of the receiver of those funds... if for no other reason than to know who to go after if taxes on the sales aren't paid. However, if someone is giving away software perhaps on an AS IS basis and especially with NO WARRANTY, there's no reason to proactively keep track of who is offering that gratis gift. If some sort of legal problem ever arises because of the contents of that gift, go call the cops in and they can investigate after the fact.

I've been paying some attention to the conversation about Google's proposed policy for the past several days, and I've not seen anyone talking about the significance of the set of countries where this is rolled out to first: Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. Perhaps there is no connection, but I haven't seen anyone asking what relevant repressive policies these four countries might have in common.

It's weird.

> Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok?

It should be everywhere, no matter the place or the platform.

It's for security, like showing your ID at the airport! Airports have public restrooms, after all.

(/s)

A coin-op vending machine is anonymous too. As were pay phones.

> Where in the real world is anonymity considered ok?

You've listed commercial activities. The vast majority of non-commercial activities don't require any sort of registration or identification.

Installing an app that your friend or internet stranger developed in their spare time is not a commercial activity and people shouldn't be forced to publish their personal information in order to do so.

Quick, show me your ID. That way if you get scammed I know know it was you that got scammed!

Yea, cus when I write a fanfic I should show my id to the company that owns the printer I purchased and own, before I print out a copy to give for my friend, ffs. Does that analogy make sense to you?

But guests can't stay over night without registering them in many countries

> I've not seen anyone talking about the significance of the set of countries where this is rolled out to first: Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand

This was really interesting and somewhere there was a comment/quote that these countries are affected most with the malware distributed with side-loading, I can't find this comment now. But while trying to find some information, I found the info about 2023 Alphabet/states $700 m. settlement. It came mostly unnoticed on HN [1] (two posts, 2 comments), but there is interesting timings coincidence in the settlement text ([2])

  ...6.9.2 For a period of at least four (4) years from the Effective Date, Google will maintain the following functionality in Android version 14+ for Mobile Devices:
  (a) Google will support APIs that enable sideloaded app stores that have received User consent to install apps to avoid automatic updates taking place while the User is using the app....

2023 (settlement) + 4 years = 2027 (mentioned for other countries). This can be related to apps like F-Droid, this ruling might prevent Google from making F-Droid comply if the US was announced to meet the new rules earlier (before 2027). There are other formulas that might end up 2026/2027 when calculating so to be on the (legal) safe side, Google probably made US join later. Probably those countries are also for beta-testing both in the technical and legal sense.

The settlement might be interesting in other other respects also. Even the forces (the states, U.S Attorney) that drove the suit in 2021-2023 might join here though during this admin it's really questionable.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38691926

[2]: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/sites/default/files/images/press...

> Now the law and common sense is catching up and we’re starting to see things we take for granted in the physical world are coming to the digital world.

Your concept of "common sense" is repulsive, as is your submissive attitude.

Fortunately I don't live in one of those.

That was my answer as well. Anonymity is not only "considered OK", it is a fundamental human right that must be guaranteed and protected unless there's a real need to violate the person's privacy.

The fact the question was phrased in that way is disturbing. How far the loss of personal freedom has been normalized. Like the term "side loading", it's an insult to general-purpose computing.

No because you purposefully crafted one that is not BB anywhere near similar to what was being discussed. Being obtuse generally means you’re wrong and know it but don’t like the truth.

Haha yea me disagreeing with folks like you is submissive