Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

"sideloading" connotates something that is negative.

On systems before apple's locked-down iphone, it was just called "installing".

The PC revolution started with people just inserting their software into the comptuer and running it. You didn't have to ask the computer manufacturer or the OS vendor permission to do it.

And note that apple doesn't allow you to protect yourself. You cannot install a firewall and block arbitrary software on your phone. For example, you can not block apple telemetry.

Is it possible to let owners use their hardware as they wish, without having large companies control what they deem "safe"?

I'm not the user of my phone, I'm its owner.

Is it possible to protect users from themselves in every circumstance?

Yes. Remove all of the features from the software. Now, I know you're wondering, "What if my users eat the battery?"

Next, remove the hardware itself. Now users cannot harm themselves at all.

It's not sideloading, you are not doing anything nefarious,shady, on the side, on the edge. It's software installation on your device, your own device. This newspeak is purposely invented to negatively portrait software installation from sources not controlled by Google/Apple

The examples in the post are bad.

The people who were scammed did not run rooted phones. Rooting your phone may allow you to install pirated applications containing malware. But most banking losses comes from scams where the user itself initiated a transaction.

Users aren't safe anyway when the gatekeeper is Google. They're deeply evil these days and our phones are mainly a surveillance tool for them.

Apple is only slightly better. They limit espionage from other parties but not their own. And meta ads still exist so they block was not very effective.

> The first is that a user has no right to run anyone else's code, if the code owner doesn't want to make it available to them. Consider a bank which has an app. /../ I think the bank has the right to say "your machine is too risky - we don't want our code to run on it."

But should they? Should we also accept Google's browser signing and ban all browsers the bank doesn't like? Am I allowed to accept calls from people they haven't vetted or is it too much of a risk to the bank's bottom line that they might talk me into a scam.

I suppose we should also write off the inevitable privacy and freedom violations in the name of "security".[0] I don't have anything to hide after all.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

If only there was no app stores... sigh... I would only download apps from the reputable company I like (myfavoritebigbank.com), trusting their brand and reputation for my security. If a client-side app can threaten their security, that's a weakness on their part.

And if a lone developer has a cool new idea, and its app is recommended by users I trust on an obscure specialized forum, then I'll decide to install their app from "coollonedeveloper.com".

If only we could invent some kind of "domain names" system that one would have control and responsibility over, instead of trusting some broken unscalable app stores...

For me it’s a matter of settings. As a user I would have option to choose “secure” mode that disallow installing apps from unofficial sources, but if I want to I should have option to allow side loading. Everything else is just corporations need to have to much control.

Sandboxing should prevent most of those issues. We can't control the users giving permissions to everything, but with more control on those permissions, or disabled by default, a phone should stay pretty safe, or am I missing something?

A better question would be:

Is it possible to restrict software installation and keep users free?

The answer to this question is yes. You need to make enabling sideloading somewhat difficult and make it require a modicum of tech literacy. The only reason that the phone companies do what they do is to make more money from their stores. They don’t care about people or their safety.

“allow side loading” is a premise I object to.

Now that Android is going full retard with their authoritarian BS, it’s time to build a new phone operating system or at least make the ones we already have viable.

It’s a monumental undertaking, but it needs to be done.

MacOS handles it pretty well, I can use it to do what Doctorow calls general computing and my mother can use it to shop and do email. Apple allowing freedom for MacOS but not iOS is inconsistent and I see no good reason for that.

I create apps just for myself, just started learning, self taught, not a student taking programming course in university, not professional

Apps created by me for my routine,

Does that mean i would not be able to install my apps ??

What universele are these people in? Though the app/play store is a fantastic way to obtain shitware that either steals data (seems to be nearly mandatory, if you look at the apps of these store operators), CPU time through mining of some sort, eats through your brain (by inserting horrific amounts of ads, much of which such clear scams I really don't get how this is allowed) or simply ask extra money for essential features one by one.

Everything about the so called stores is so decrepit, the safest way to get any decent software on is side loading / fdroid. How could you in sincerity argue any different?

>Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

Why is this a question of _allow_? Who is my hardware provider that he is somehow my guardian and must _allow_ me to install software that I want to install?

>Is it possible to allow people to do sports and keep them safe?

>Is it possible to allow people to roam freely and keep them safe?

>Is it possible to allow people to not be locked up in a padded cell and keep them safe?

People are responsible for what they are doing, and teaching them about technology is the best way to do deal with this example here, as it doesn't infringe anyone's human rights and would give anyone the resources to check their sources.

I think sideloading should be allowed only if you actually connect your phone to a computer. This barrier will prevent a lot of vulnerable people from being scammed.

Alternatively, sideloading could require you to delete all App Store apps. In other words, disabling Google Play Protect should require you to wipe your phone. This is another barrier that will prevent a lot of people from getting scammed.

What about making side loading require some moderate level of technical sophistication? Like connecting to the phone over usb and having to manually type some long shell commands, or exit vim, or write a compiling c program, or some other layman proof filter to activate installing outside apps. I feel like grandma would be too intmimidated by this (good), making it too frustrating for even the most determine scammer to explain, no matter how desperate they are for her social security checks. Have it be done in the bootloader so you can't follow these instructions while on the phone, and require physical interactivity with the device (can't be automated over usb). Regardless, this policy is an unacceptable infringement on digital freedom by google.

> There are, I think, two small cracks in that argument.

> The first is that a user has no right to run anyone else's code, if the code owner doesn't want to make it available to them. Consider a bank which has an app. When customers are scammed, the bank is often liable. The bank wants to reduce its liability so it says "you can't run our app on a rooted phone".

> Is that fair? Probably not. Rooting allows a user to fully control and customise their device. But rooting also allows malware to intercept communications, send commands, and perform unwanted actions. I think the bank has the right to say "your machine is too risky - we don't want our code to run on it."

> The same is true of video games with strong "anti-cheat" protection. It is disruptive to other players - and to the business model - if untrustworthy clients can disrupt the game. Again, it probably isn't fair to ban users who run on permissive software, but it is a rational choice by the manufacturer. And, yet again, I think software authors probably should be able to restrict things which cause them harm.

It's not clear to me whether in this fragment the author is stating the two alleged cracks in the argument or rather only the first one — the second one being Google's ostensible justification for the change. Either way, neither of these examples are generalisable arguments supporting that 'a user has no right to run anyone else's code, if the code owner doesn't want to make it available to them'.

With regards to banking apps, the key point has been glossed over, which is that that when customers are scammed the bank is 'often' liable. Are banks really liable for scams caused by customer negligence on their devices? If they're not, this 'crack' can be thrown out of the window; if they are, then it is not an argument for "you can't run our app on a rooted phone", but rather "we are not liable for scams which are only possible on a rooted phone".

As for the second example, anti-cheat protection in gaming, the ultimate motivation of game companies is not to prevent 'untrustworthy clients' from 'running their code'. The ability of these clients to be 'disruptive to other players' is not ultimately contingent on their ability to run the code, but rather to connect to the multiplayer servers run by the gaming company or their partners. The game company's legitimate right 'to ban users who run on permissive software' is not a legitimate argument in favour of users not having full control over their system.

I have come to the conclusion that both Android and iOS, along with the banking systems, are all doomed platforms.

Even something like GrapheneOS, in theory the best path to security and privacy and liberty, was falling way short even before this latest announcement from Google.

The problem lies partially in the app ecosystems, which embrace spyware and exploiting users (requiring all the worst Google APIs), and partially in governments, which will leverage any centralized organization like Google to gain control (EU chat control etc.).

The solution cannot be just a custom OS or an OS fork. In fact, ecosystem compatibility is toxic and slows down growth of real alternatives. There needs to be some wholly independent and decentralized offering.

The challenge is hardware compatibility and core services like digital IDs. Most apps should be solved by using a website instead.

These issues are especially important because the future is increasingly digital. Smart phones, smart glasses, smart watches, VR glasses, smart homes, and even brain implants. I don't want to live in a future where I'm either left behind or my whole life is controlled by Google/Apple/the government/etc.

> 00. Users should be free to run whatever code they like.

> 01. Vulnerable members of society should be protected from scams.

00: yes, always; 01: yes, but not at the expense of 00 (or probably some other things)

There are millions of homeless or otherwise struggling people all around the world, who would let anyone to use their identity for a small compensation. I don't really see how this requirement to register in Google will help with app security. So the malware will be signed with John Smith living under a bridge, now what?

< Vulnerable members of society should be protected from scams.

There are three ways to deliver protection: build better walls, defeat attackers after successful initial attacks, defeat attackers before successful initial attacks.

The article ties itself into knots because it recognizes that the first way cannot deliver 100% security. But it refuses to recognize that there are two additional ways.

The United States military could go after scammers operating from foreign compounds. It could treat the economic targeting of American citizens as acts of economic war. It chooses not to. Freedom is not free, and when your country chooses to literally not fight for your freedom, it's hardly any wonder that your freedoms are eroded.

Remember XKCD 538: https://xkcd.com/538/ Cybersecurity and physical security are fundamentally linked.

Authors like this love saying that it’s all about installing apps you choose on a device you own and control.

Who could disagree with that?

The problem is it’s often controlling household members sneakily installing creepy things on devices of those they live with and want to control.

Most of this problem is solved by not hiding the trust model.

Do you want an phone where you trust Apple/Google/3rd party to make a "malware or not" decision? Or one where all that is turned off and you can do whatever? Go right ahead in either case - you control the trust, rather than it being made for you by the platform vendor.

Similarly, we have certificate infrastructure where the TLS roots are owned by a small number of people. These are generally trusted, but some people/organizations edit them down (ex: removing roots from state actors deemed untrustworthy). But it's hidden, and generally a lot of choices.

Even linux distros, you pick which package signing keys you trust.

And Docker/K8s... oh wait, there's no default keys and containers remain being developer's puke bags in most cases, and the repos are rugpulled by corporations regularly...

> Here's the story of a bank literally telling a man he was being scammed and he still proceeded to transfer funds to a fraudster.

> The bank blocked a number of transactions, it spoke to James on the phone to warn him and even called him into a branch to speak to him face-to-face.

Y'know, at some point the cost of protecting the dumbest people is too much to be worth it. I am perfectly fine with some people getting hacked, doxxed and scammed out of their life savings if the alternative is everyone losing their freedoms.

Freedoms are important because without them people with power go unchecked more and more. It's a slow process but it culminates in 1) dictatorship at the state level 2) exploitation at the corporate level.

Just make it harder to disable security.

At point of purchase, you get to decide whether you want secure mode or not. Then after that, if you want to change it, you have to open a support ticket with the manufacturer.

Kinda like how SIM-locking works.

Devices should offer a local signing cert, where you can sign an app for that device only. Then make the app signing process enforce binding agreement that you assume all responsibility related to the app.

Safety is important, but may not that important. So, shouldn’t we just create something like a "secure virtual machine" to make it easier to protect sensitive content, rather than requiring the highest level of security for everything?

The most secure OS existing, Qubes OS, allows and encourages installing any untrusted software and protects you with strong, hardware-assisted virtualization.

> Are you allowed to run whatever computer program you want on the hardware you own?

Yes. It is a basic human right.

> This is a question where freedom, practicality, and reality all collide into a mess.

No; it isn't. The answer is clear and not messy. If you are not allowed to run programs of your choice, then it is not your hardware. Practicality and "reality" (whatever that means) are irrelevant issues here.

Maybe you prefer to use hardware that is not yours, but that is a different question.

This is a false dichotomy. The following are not the only two possible solutions:

* Everyone has to trust one of two giant mega-corporations to make good decisions for everyone

* Everyone has to take on the evaluation of everything themselves, do their own admin, understand opsec, etc etc.

Freedom does not entail the latter. Freedom means having the freedom to do it, but also having the freedom to delegate it, and to decide who to delegate it to. We don't have to be technology "preppers". We can set up and fund independent organisations to do this -like Debian, for example. And have competition between them.

Yes, that means some people will delegate their trust to their religious cult. That's the price of freedom

Goodbye Android.

Evolution used to work by some people dying before they could reproduce.

That's how we become the smartest animal on the planet. But it no longer works, we are very good at keeping everyone alive. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we don't compromise our freedoms to achieve it.

Some people getting exploited is the modern equivalent of leopards eating your face. It would be nice to protect people from it happening but NOT by everyone giving up basic human rights. And yes, in the modern world, running any software on your hardware should be a basic human right.

Especially at a time where computation is starting to resemble intelligence. Otherwise we all become serfs all over again.

Yes. Run the sideloaded apps in a VM. Modern phones are powerful enough to do that.

Back when the Apple hardware for iPhone offered real isolation between apps, yes. But that's really hard to maintain and isn't PRISM-friendly. Neither Apple nor Google can justify offering real isolation for apps in the current market.