• katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    why can google not just code something like this into android:

    allow apps from:
    ( ) All sources (how it is now; allow each app to install apps from external sources)
    ( ) Just Google Play
    ( ) Apps which have been verified by Google Developer Program

    • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I can see it already:

      () Just Google Play (safe)

      () Verified apps (not recommended)

      Advanced settings

      click on Advanced settings

      () All sources (Unsafe. Will probably kill your cat and burn down your house)

      tick the box

      Are you sure?

      click yes

      ARE YOU SURE?

      click yes again

      ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE?

      wait for the 30 seconds timer to count down

      click yes

      ( ) I do not love my cat and want him to die.

      tick the box

      ( ) I accept the very real risk of my house burning down

      tick the box

      Please wait 24 hours for the change to apply. You can reverse it at any time from this menu.

      get spammed every hour for the next 24 hours with notifications asking me to fix my security settings

      get a bigass ⚠️ every time I turn on the phone

      every once in a while the change just straight up reverses and I have to do it all over again

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Option 1 is a potential cause of “lost” revenue.

      Late stage capitalism absolutely forbids anything that could cause that, even if the cost of implementation outweighs any potential gain.

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Taking Google at their word for a moment, it’s far too easy to scam the clueless masses into selecting the first one. Might work okay if it’s strictly an ADB command, tho.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m inclined to think that’s not the job of an OS vendor to prevent. Sure, put a warning label on it, but it’s the user’s device; once they say they know what they’re doing, that should be that.

        • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          The implication here is, if they implement this, is that they volunteer to assume liability, should e.g., your bank account be drained despite undergoing their forced strict lockdown on paid and owned devices.

          Fat chance, because laws are meaningless to crime syndicates

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            It might be a reasonable trade for users to make if Google assumed liability. In fact, that would be an interesting way to implement laws to discourage practices like these.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        If someone can be socially engineered into disabling security mechanisms, then that should just be their fate. There’s no sense in fucking everyone else in order to protect them.

        • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          That would just continue to ensure lock-in, and at least the EU would never go for that (& neither would I). Sideloading should still be allowed.

          Google’s Play Store security has never been all that stellar, anyway.