Your lovely host, late last night: Google claims they won’t be sharing developer information with governments, but we all know that’s a load of bullshit, made all the more relevant after whatever the fuck this was. If you want to oppose the genocide in Gaza or warn people of ICE raids, and want to create an Android application to coordinate such efforts, you probably should not, and stick to more anonymous organising tools. ↫ Thom Holwerda Let’s check in with how that other walled garden Google is trying to emulate is doing. Apple has removed ICEBlock, an app that allowed users to monitor and report the location of immigration enforcement officers, from the App Store. “We created the App Store to be a safe and trusted place to discover apps,” Apple said in a statement to Business Insider. “Based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock, we have removed it and similar apps from the App Store.” ↫ Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert, Peter Kafka, and Kwan Wei Kevin Tan for Business Insider Oh. Apple and Google are but mere extensions of the state apparatus. Think twice about what device you bring with you the next time you wish to protest your government’s actions.
Google has been on a bit of a marketing blitz to try and counteract some of the negative feedback following its new developer verification requirement for Android applications, and while they’re using a lot of words, none of them seem to address the core concerns. It basically comes down to that they just don’t care about the consequences this new requirement has for projects like F-Droid, nor are they really bothered by any of the legitimate privacy concerns this whole thing raises. If this new requirement is implemented in its current form, F-Droid will simply not be able to continue to exist in its current form. F-Droid builds the applications in its repository themselves and signs them, and developer verification does not fit into that picture at all. F-Droid works this way to ensure its applications are built from the publicly available sources, so developers can’t sneak anything nefarious into any binaries they would otherwise be submitting themselves. The privacy angle doesn’t seem to bother Google much, either, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. With this new requirement, Android application developers can simply no longer be anonymous, which has a variety of side-effects, not least of which is that anyone developing applications for, say, dissidents, can now no longer be anonymous. Google claims they won’t be sharing developer information with governments, but we all know that’s a load of bullshit, made all the more relevant after whatever the fuck this was. If you want to oppose the genocide in Gaza or warn people of ICE raids, and want to create an Android application to coordinate such efforts, you probably should not, and stick to more anonymous organising tools. Students and hobbyists are getting the short end of the stick, too, as Google’s promised program specifically for these two groups is incredibly limited. Yes, it waves the $25 fee, but that’s about the only positive here: Developers who register with Google as a student or hobbyist will face severe app distribution restrictions, namely a limit on the number of devices that can install their apps. To enforce this, any user wanting to install software from these developers must first retrieve a unique identifier from their device. The developer then has to input this identifier into the Android Developer Console to authorize that specific device for installation. ↫ Mishaal Rahman at Android Authority Google does waive the requirement for developer certification for one particular type of user, and in doing so, highlights the only group of users Google truly cares about: enterprise users. Any application installed by an enterprise on managed devices will not need to have its developer certified. Google states that in this particular use case, the enterprise’s IT department is responsible for any security issues that may arise. Isn’t it funny how the only group of users who won’t have to deal with this nonsense are companies who pay Google tons of money for their enterprise tools? The only way we’re going to get out of this is if any governments step up and put a stop to this. We can safely assume the United States’ government won’t be on our side – they’re too busy with their recurring idiotic song-and-dance anyway – so our only hope is the European Commission stepping in, but I’m not holding my breath. After all, Apple’s rules and regulations regarding installing applications outside of the App Store in the EU are not that different from what Google is going to do. While the EU is not happy with the details of Apple’s rules, their general gist seems to be okay with them. I’m afraid governments won’t be stepping in to stop this one.
And here we have yet another case of the EU’s consumer protection legislation working in our favour. Dutch privacy and consumer rights organisation Bits of Freedom sued Facebook over the company’s little trick of disregarding a user’s settings under a variety of circumstances, such as when a user opts for a chronological, non-profiled timeline, only to have Facebook reset itself to the profiled timeline upon a restart. The judge states that Meta is indeed acting in violation of the law. He says that “a non‑persistent choice option for a recommendation system runs counter to the purpose of the DSA, which is to give users genuine autonomy, freedom of choice, and control over how information is presented to them.” The judge also concludes that the way Meta has designed its platforms constitutes “a significant disruption of the autonomy of Facebook and Instagram users.” The judge orders Meta to adjust its apps so that the user’s choice is preserved, even when the user navigates to another section or restarts the app. ↫ Bits of Freedom press release This is good news, of course, but I really wish we would take this a step further: a complete ban on targeted advertising and timeline manipulation based on harvested user data. I just don’t believe these business models and ragebait machines offer anything of value to society, and in fact, do far more harm than good. I am convinced that our world would be a better place without these business models. We restrict of outright ban dangerous substances or activities all the time. This should be among them.
