What prohibits Google from offering a way to register your long-term app signing key without identity verification, publishing apps that are still verified by their automated tooling and then opting in to the usual denylisting/app store banning methods if those apps are malicious? This identity verification requirement is basically just an easy way for illiberal governments to find ways to crack down on apps they do not like (such as say, ICEBlock or whatever)

So an interesting intellectual exercise is to try to figure out how you would create a power user toggle that is coercion resistant. The best I've been able to come up with is a timed lockout that is random in how long it takes to allow you to finally move into power user mode. So like a random value between 1 hour and 24 hours and you say I want to be a power user and then it says you have to wait 3 hours and 27 minutes before you can become a power user. Randomness because a scammer could optimize around a particular time period that was predictable.

Other thoughts on how you could make a coercion resistant power user toggle? I'm very excited that Google's thinking about offering this because it gives me faith that just because I chose to be in a minority, I won't be relegated.

On the flip side, I was so shaken by the original announcement that would kill off F-Droid that I've been very actively looking into building my own mobile device that runs Linux. I purchased the components for a Hackberry Pi that I'm hoping to build in the next couple of months, but knowing that Android won't kill off F-Droid entirely is heartening.

> Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months.

I don't agree that this is something that should be restricted to "advanced" users, even. One of the basic freedoms that protects users from the unilateral control of the developers, is other developers (like me) being able to patch apps and distribute them to friends and family, without making a public fork or meeting play store requirements. Take for example, youtube revanced. If I want to help my friends by making a private f-droid or obtainium repository, to save them the trouble of going through the (legal!) process of patching and updating the app themselves, right now I can do this. If this requires going through a lengthy process instead, that may or may not be detectable by apps that will then choose to cease to function (this has happened with rooting), my ability to help friends and family as someone with the know-how and experience gets reduced significantly. There's many things that don't fly on the play store, such as the completely legal NewPipe, AdAway, and Termux applications, and while I can sign up for the developer verification, it's not clear to me under what circumstances the verification can be terminated.

That's by far not good enough. Google's reasoning is principally flawed.

First of all, there is principally no good reason why adult people should be patronized by Google or other companies and kept from installing the software they want to install. Limitation of numbers just means that I cannot publish my .apk and let users install it freely. However, anyone who is allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, or get a motorcycle, should also be allowed to install whatever application they want. It's a matter of basic individual freedom.

Second, the majority of reasonable users cannot be restricted from using their device as they wish just because a small minority falls for scams. A minority of people also drink themselves to death, die in motorcycle accidents, or smoke. There is nothing wrong with taking risks and taking responsibility for one's own life. We don't need for-profit corporations to hold our hands.

Third, if they believed their own arguments, then they'd make certain functions such as intercepting SMS messages and installing a custom keyboard subject to stricter requirements with potential developer verification and keep the OS open and free otherwise. This would be a piece of cake since the technical infrastructure is already there on Android. The fact that they don't clearly indicates they're hypocrites and want to control users and developers, make 3rd party app stores harder or impossible, control which apps they "allow" as part of anti-competitive behavior, and possibly extract some extra cash from developers in the future.

It's a pity how private computing is destroyed and that's the reason we all have to use inferior web apps until browsers are closed down in the same way in the name of security theater.

If adb is unrestricted and can work with the Linux command shell (something I seem to remember I had read about before; you will need to enable the developer mode to use it), which is aparently a separate system but runs on the same device, although if it has the ability to communicate with the main Android system using adb (which it might be reasonable to require that to be explicitly enabled with another setting, for additional security in case you do not use adb), then this would help since you do not require another computer that would be compatible with adb in order to do it.

However, I think there are other things they should do as well (in addition to the other things) if they want to improve the safety, such as looking at the apps in Google Play to check that they are not malware (since apparently some are; however, it says they do have some safeguards, so hopefully that would help), and to make the permission system to work better (e.g. to make it clear that it can intercept notificatinos; there are legitimate reasons to do this but it should require an explicit permission setting to make this clear).

Sorry, really confused user here, so can someone ELI5 for me? I was looking to go to GrapheneOS, will this effect that at all? The title now says they will allow side-loading and it sounds like good news but everyone in here is still complaining. I do not mind this extra step and I think it is way better than what my POS iPhone 16e with Liquid@ss is offing me.

"Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months. "

This is the last moment we can use to move out of this platform. We've already given basically all the control on our lives to two companies. They will decide one day that government will know our each move, our WiFi password, number of appliances, our body temperature and chemical compounds of our bodily fluids - every sensor that is connected to the system. 1984 all over again but this time IRL

This is old rule: you don't need to take over control of all the people, you just need to take over those two-three suppliers that are covering all the people. If for example new politician Tronald Dump will take seat in 2035 in USA and they will try to push their agenda to other countries, they will take over the LLM, phone and OS providers, namely OpenAI, MS, Apple, Google. That's all to control to have the souls ruled all over the world. If something must vanish, will vanish. Like in the Ministry of Truth

> When the user logs into their real banking app, the malware captures their two-factor authentication codes

That seems like a severe security bug in Android APIs or sandboxing or something else.

> bad actors can spin up new harmful apps instantly

Why are harmful apps possible at all?

Super obvious move. It will probably make you type "I understand I am Gonna get haxxored" while clicking a moving dot 5 times and promising you are super power user. This would have been the end of android as a phone OS.

>we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified.

This is exactly the right thing to do and the best possible outcome. Google is correct that arbitrary Software installation can be harmful to users, especially those with limited technical knowledge. At the same time there are many users who want to install software freely and should be able to do so.

The compromise of a clear and unambiguous warning of the potential dangers, which the user is then allowed to accept, seems very good and the right thing to do.