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
The masses will always stay in the walled garden. It's where they want to be and they don't even realize there are walls. It is just what is for them.

>>SoftTa+te
> The masses will always stay in the walled garden. It's where they want to be and they don't even realize there are walls. It is just what is for them.

The walls should have open doors, though, versus prison bars. Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations.

>>EvanAn+Af
> Physical switches on devices (much like older Chromebook devices had) used to opt out of the walled garden should be mandated by consumer protection regulations.

I don’t want to live in the same society as the person that wrote this asinine comment with this much confidence. We are just ideologically incompatible

>>ableto+lx
How so? I understand the tension between freedom to tinker and consumer protection. It's OK to assign different values to either of them. And there are definitely ways to reconcile the two positions. Some of that will have to come through nuanced regulations.

For example, it could be regulated that if the flip is switched (or a fuse is blown irreversibly) on a device, responsibility for the device and its software fall entirely onto the owner. So if they get phished on an unprotected device and lose their life savings, it's entirely on them. Manufacturers and service providers have no obligation to support them.

>>gmueck+fF
Once you have enough power to legislate and enforce this, what's to stop a future administration from tightening the ratchet just a little bit further and forcing users to purchase TPM computers with unbreakable DRM and encrypted blobs running who knows what, and no ability for users to modify their system, change hardware or operating systems without either running afoul of the law or losing access to banking and insurance?

>>soulof+RN
My comment (GGGP) was about regulating devices to require physical switches to allow the owner of the device to opt for freedom. I'm not sure where you got DRM-type stuff out of that.

I think efuses being blown by device manufacturers should be illegal.

I think bootloaders that don't allow the device owner to run whatever software they want should be illegal.

I think device owners should be permitted to repair their devices without losing functionality because of DRM embedded in the parts themselves.

I think a physical switch, exercisable only with physical access, should be present on locked-down devices to allow the owner to exercise their ownership over the device. If that means that "attestation" functionality breaks and that causes some third-party software to "break" so-be it.

(I think the problem with banks, etc, requiring "trusted" devices is also in the realm of consumer protection, probably in banking regulation. I haven't thought about it deeply.)

>>EvanAn+6S
Think about it some more. I'm talking about the incremental increases in power coupled with unpredictable administration changes, and how each new increase in federal power creates multiple branches for slightly increasing power even more, until without realizing it, we've let our government slowly move the Overton window right where it needs to be for an authoritarian power grab and restriction of freedoms. We have to be extremely careful about the powers we give our governments, because they do not give them back without a fight, and they're always looking to expand their reach.