zlacker

>>fsflov+(OP)
> In a pilot program launched in Singapore, the tech giant now blocks the installation of certain sideloaded apps—particularly those requesting sensitive permissions such as SMS access or accessibility services—if they are downloaded via web browsers, messaging apps, or file managers.

There are a lot of qualifiers on this: Only in Singapore, only on apps requesting certain permissions frequently used by scams, and only when downloaded via certain paths.

I don’t see the full details but this implies that it’s still possible for advanced users to side load whatever they want. They don’t want to make it easy for the average user to start sideloading apps that access SMS permissions or accessibility controls.

If it takes a few extra steps for the advanced user to sideload these apps that’s not really a big infringement on freedom like this purism PR piece is trying to imply. Unfortunately sideloaded apps are a problematic scam avenue for low-tech users.

> The move, developed in partnership with Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency, is designed to prevent fraud and malware-enabled scams.

This explains why it’s only in Singapore for now.

>>Aurorn+m4
I think you're dismissing legitimate concerns without fully understanding them, because through the right lens you realize how this can be anticompetitive in the mass market.

Even if some technically inclined folk can install what they want, the masses will stay in the walled garden so that Google can get their cut and exert ideological control. Even now, both Google and Apple engage in practices across their product that are designed to scare people away from third party applications. From Google's terminology when describing Google in banners as "a more secure browser" etc, to Apple requiring a secret incantation in order to run unsigned apps.

All of this kind of mind control bullshit should be eradicated via regulation. Companies should not have a license to be deceptive towards their users.

>>soulof+k7
> All of this kind of mind control bullshit should be eradicated via regulation. Companies should not have a license to be deceptive towards their users.

I agree with you. However, the impact of scams should not be underestimated either.

>>mschus+ca
.... This doesnt stop scammers. Software will never stop scammers. Its pretty wild that people would be willing to sacrafice their freedom permantely so a scammer can spend two weeks thinking of another approach to scam.

>>TechDe+1d
You are correct. But it's not about stopping scammers, it's about making their lives as difficult as possible. The problem is, as seen with Facebook [1], even that was not enough to stop "self-xss" exploits.

The actual way to stop the scammers would be to sanction their host countries into oblivion: India, Philippines and Myanmar are big in targetting English speaking countries, and Turkey when it comes to German speaking countries. Scammer Payback alone has made so many complaints with very little follow up from local authorities, partially due to open corruption. Either these countries clean up their act or they get dropped from SS7 (phone) and the Internet. But I see no way of this ever happening.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21692646/how-does-facebo...