Terence Eden’s Blog

2025-08-30 11:34:55

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

shkspr.mobi/blog/2025/08/is-it…

In which I attempt to be pragmatic.

Are you allowed to run whatever computer program you want on the hardware you own? This is a question where freedom, practicality, and reality all collide into a mess.

Google has recently announced that Android users will only be able to install apps which have been digitally signed by developers who have registered their name and other legal details with Google. To many people, this signals the death of "sideloading" - the ability to install apps which don't originate on the official store⁰.

I'm a fully paid-up member of the Cory Doctorow fanclub. Back in 2011, he gave a speech called "The Coming War on General Computation". In it, he rails against the idea that our computers could become traitorous; serving the needs of someone other than their owner. Do we want to live in a future where our computers refuse to obey our commands? No! Neither law nor technology should conspire to reduce our freedom to compute.

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.

So, from their point of view it is pragmatic to insist that their software can only be loaded from a trustworthy location.

But that's not the only thing Google is proposing. Let's look at their announcement:

We’ve seen how malicious actors hide behind anonymity to harm users by impersonating developers and using their brand image to create convincing fake apps. The scale of this threat is significant: our recent analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play.

Back in the early days of Android, you could just install any app and it would run, no questions asked. That was a touchingly naïve approach to security - extremely easy to use but left users vulnerable.

A few years later, Android changed to show user the permissions an app was requesting. Here's a genuine screenshot from an app which I tried to sideload in 2013:

No rational user would install a purported battery app with that scary list of permissions, right? Wrong!

We know that users don't read and they especially don't read security warnings.

There is no UI tweak you can do to prevent users bypassing these scary warnings. There is no amount of education you can provide to reliably make people stop and think.

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.

It emerged that, in this case, Lloyds had done a really good job of not only spotting the potential fraud but alerting James to it. 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.

Here's another one where a victim deliberately lied to their bank even after acknowledging that they had been told it was a scam.

Android now requires you to deliberately turn on the ability to side-load. It will give you prompts and warnings, force you to take specific actions, give you pop-ups and all sorts of confirmation steps.

And people still click on.

Let's go back to Google announcement. This change isn't being rolled out worldwide immediately. They say:

This change will start in a few select countries specifically impacted by these forms of fraudulent app scams, often from repeat perpetrators.

…

September 2026: These requirements go into effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. At this point, any app installed on a certified Android device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.

The police in Singapore have a page warning about the prevalence of these scams. They describe how victims are tricked or coerced into turning off all their phone's security features.

Similarly, there are estimates that Brazil lost US$54 billion to scams in 2024 (albeit not all through apps).

There are anecdotal reports from Indonesia which show how easily people fall for these fake apps.

Thailand is also under an ongoing onslaught of malicious apps with some apps raking in huge amounts of money.

It is absolutely rational that government, police, and civic society groups want to find ways to stop these scams.

Google is afraid that if Android's reputation is tarnished as the "Scam OS" then users will move to more secure devices.

Financial institutions might stop providing functionality to Android devices as a way to protect their customers. Which would lead to those users seeking alternate phones.

Society as a whole wants to protect vulnerable people. We all bear the cost of dealing with criminal activity like this.

Given that sideloaded Android apps are clearly a massive vector for fraud, it obviously behoves Google to find a way to secure their platform as much as possible.

And Yet…

This is quite obviously a bullshit powerplay by Google to ensnare the commons. Not content with closing down parts of the Android Open Source Project, stuffing more and more vital software behind its proprietary services, and freezing out small manufacturers - now it wants the name and shoe-size of every developer!

Fuck that!

I want to use my phone to run the code that I write. I want to run my friends' code. I want to play with cool open source projects by people in far-away lands.

I remember The Day Google Deleted Me - we cannot have these lumbering monsters gatekeeping what we do on our machines.

Back in the days when I was a BlackBerry developer, we had to wait ages for RIM's code-signing server to become available. I'm pretty sure the same problem affected Symbian - if Nokia was down that day, you couldn't release any code.

Going back to their statement:

To be clear, developers will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through sideloading or to use any app store they prefer.

This is a lie. I can only distribute a sideloaded app if Google doesn't nuke my account. If I piss off someone there, or they click the wrong button, or they change the requirements so I'm no longer eligible - my content disappears.

They promise that Android will still be open to student and hobbyist developers - but would you believe anything those monkey-punchers say? Oh, and what a fricking insult to call a legion of Open Source developers "hobbyists"!

I hate it.

I also don't see how this is going to help. I guess if scammers all use the same ID, then it'll be easy for Android to super-nuke all the scam apps.

Perhaps when you install a sideloaded app you'll see "This app was made by John Smith - not a company. Here's his photo. Got any complaints? Call his number."

But what's going to happen is that people will get their IDs stolen, or be induced to register as a developer and then sign some malware. They'll also be victims.

So What's The Solution?

I've tried to be pragmatic, but there's something of a dilemma here.

1. Users should be free to run whatever code they like.
2. Vulnerable members of society should be protected from scams.

Do we accept that a megacorporation should keep everyone safe at the expense of a few pesky nerds wanting to run some janky code?

Do we say that the right to run free software is more important than granny being protected from scammers?

Do we pour billions into educating users not to click "yes" to every prompt they see?

Do we try and build a super-secure Operating System which, somehow, gives users complete freedom without exposing them to risk?

Do we hope that Google won't suddenly start extorting developers, users, and society as a whole?

Do we chase down and punish everyone who releases a scam app?

Do we stick an AI on every phone to detect scam apps and refuse to run them if they're dodgy?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions and - if I'm honest - I don't like asking them.

---

1. 
   

   Post by @Gargron
   View on Mastodon

   
   ↩︎

#android #google #rant #scam

1-in-3 Brazilians Targeted by Scammers in the Last 12 Months as Estimated Losses Reach US$54 Billion

The State of Scams in Brazil 2024 report, conducted by GASA in partnership with ScamAdviser and Whoscall, exposes the expanding threat of scams in Brazil.

^{Sam Rogers (GASA)}

Collasgarba

2025-08-31 10:53:25

Il 1976 si rivela essere un anno cruciale per il PCI

La seconda metà degli anni ’70 ha acuito le difficoltà che l’Italia stava affrontando già dal decennio precedente: proprio per questo, l’ingresso del PCI nell’area di governo appare in modo più realistico come una necessità. Dal 1968 il PCI aveva cominciato a crescere a un ritmo importante nelle elezioni, e nel 1975 ottiene un ulteriore successo nelle elezioni amministrative. In particolare, con un grande aumento nelle regioni del Nord, il PCI salì dal 27,9% al 33,4% e la DC scese al 35,3%: con soli due punti di differenza, tuttavia, il PCI non avanzò richieste di governo poiché la situazione internazionale e la distensione erano ancora a rischio. <68
Berlinguer e il suo partito cercano quindi di incrementare le relazioni positive con gli altri partiti democratici nazionali ed europei, in particolare con le socialdemocrazie. Ormai, la questione comunista in Europa coincideva con il comunismo in Italia, al quale il mondo guardava con attenzione crescente. È chiaro che una responsabilità di governo in capo a un Partito comunista in un Paese NATO avrebbe significato un enorme cambiamento sul piano distensivo, e le due superpotenze avrebbero dovuto prendere in considerazione una modifica della strategia dei due blocchi contrapposti, che avrebbe anche potuto significare una dissoluzione degli stessi. <69 Stando al parere dei comunisti italiani, e in particolare del più stretto collaboratore di Berlinguer Antonio Tatò, un’apertura governativa al PCI avrebbe potuto guidare i Paesi del “socialismo reale” verso una spinta riformista e una maggiore accettazione dei valori di libertà. In realtà, anche all’interno del Partito comunista italiano si delineavano due diverse tendenze: da una parte, i realisti concepivano gli orientamenti nazionali internazionali come svincolati da principi diversi da quello dell’interesse di partito; la tendenza che invece difendeva l’identità poneva maggiore enfasi sulla missione egemonica del comunismo che puntava al rinnovamento della politica. <70 Berlinguer, tra queste due, teneva una posizione “centrista”, senza lasciare indietro l’identità del partito ma rivolta al realismo politico, infatti il percorso che stava tracciando con la collaborazione nel governo lasciava intravedere una maggiore garanzia dei rapporti con l’alleanza occidentale.
Una prima possibilità di cambiamento nella politica italiana si apre quando, nel 1976, viene eletto il democratico Jimmy Carter alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti. In realtà, a livello nazionale il cambiamento era già in corso con il governo Moro-La Malfa che, sostenuto da DC, PRI, PSI e PSDI, collaborava volentieri con il PCI perseguendo insieme la strada delle riforme, mentre l’incapacità della destra di allontanarsi dalla tradizione fascista la escluse a priori dalle responsabilità di governo. Tra questi, il partito che più di tutti faticava ad accettare il coinvolgimento dei comunisti era il PSI di De Martino, che aprì il 1976 dando le proprie dimissioni e creando, quindi, una crisi di governo. De Martino aveva difficoltà nel fare parte di un governo che dialogava più volentieri con il PCI piuttosto che con il PSI, e con il quale erano state introdotte importanti novità come il voto ai diciottenni e la riforma carceraria, su spinta proprio del PCI. Il PSI stava perdendo il ruolo di “cerniera” che lo aveva caratterizzato nel mantenere un dialogo tra la sinistra extra governativa e i partiti di governo. <71
Il ’76 si rivela essere un anno cruciale per il PCI, che proseguì sulla strada dell’istituzionalizzazione con l’assegnazione della Presidenza della Camera dei deputati al comunista Pietro Ingrao. Oltre a ruoli istituzionali, alle elezioni politiche del 1976 il PCI raggiunse il 34,4% dei voti, percentuale che segnerà il suo massimo storico. Il successo elettorale coincise con la crescita del credito assicurato da una buona parte della classe politica italiana: Berlinguer aveva, in certo senso, “occidentalizzato” il partito e creato una base di fiducia con gli altri partiti democratici della Repubblica. <72 Sull’organo di stampa comunista “L’Unità”, il giorno 30 luglio 1976, la prima pagina è dedicata alla nuova formazione del monocolore di Giulio Andreotti. Secondo il giornalista Claudio Petruccioli la DC stava prendendo atto della fine del suo “monopolio” in seguito ai risultati elettorali del giugno precedente. La DC aveva riconosciuto che: «Non esiste allo stato nel Parlamento italiano una maggioranza politica su cui fondare un governo con preminente responsabilità democristiana.» Grazie a questo riconoscimento, la DC non propone una maggioranza precostituita ma il programma e la struttura di un monocolore. Lo sviluppo positivo a cui l’articolo dava atto era la fine della discriminazione del Partito comunista, che ora invece presiedeva la Camera dei deputati e diverse commissioni permanenti. Anche gli altri partiti dell’arco costituzionale avevano rifiutato una maggioranza con la DC, e prendevano così parte alla formula delle astensioni. <73
Convocati quindi i sei partiti dell’arco costituzionale, La Malfa e Berlinguer discutono e trovano accordo sulla partecipazione comunista, che trova un prevedibile ostacolo nell’amministrazione americana di Ford <74 e in quella tedesca del cancelliere Schimdt. Così, matura la decisione del PCI di tenersi in disparte e nel mese di agosto del ‘76 viene formato un governo Andreotti, al quale il PCI prende parte con la particolare formula dell’astensione: con la garanzia di un coinvolgimento nelle decisioni, il PCI rimane nuovamente fuori dal governo dando inizio alla stagione della “solidarietà nazionale”. <75 Con la formula dell’astensione il PCI in un certo senso delude le aspettative del suo elettorato, proprio nel momento in cui questo gli aveva dato maggiore fiducia: prende piede in questo periodo un movimento di “dissenso” che aveva una matrice molto diversa da quella del ’68 e che protestava invece contro il PCI e lo stesso Berlinguer, e che ottenne come conseguenze l’avvicinamento di molti giovani a posizioni più estreme, come quelle delle Brigate Rosse, perché non si identificavano più nelle speranze riformiste del PCI, che venivano continuamente rimandate.76 La formula della solidarietà aprì una contraddizione interna al PCI, che si posizionò come partito in difesa dello Stato nell’emergenza terrorismo e che si affermò quindi come una parte della democrazia repubblicana, dando vita a una contraddizione identitaria. <77

[NOTE]68 Barbagallo F., 2006, Enrico Berlinguer, Roma, Carrocci, p.231
69 Pons S., 2006, Berlinguer e la fine del comunismo, Torino, Einaudi, pp.79-80
70 Pons S., 2006, Berlinguer e la fine del comunismo, Torino, Einaudi, p.83
71 Barbagallo F., 2006, Enrico Berlinguer, Roma, Carrocci, pp.249-250
72 Guerra A., 2009, La solitudine di Berlinguer. Governo, etica, politica. Dal “no” a Mosca alla “questione morale”, Roma, Ediesse, p.184
73 Petruccioli C., 30 luglio 1976, Fine di un monopolio, in «L’Unità», n.206
74 L’elezione del democratico Jimmy Carter si svolgerà alla fine dell’anno 1976
75 Pons S., 2006, Berlinguer e la fine del comunismo, Torino, Einaudi, p.90
76 Almagisti M., 2016, Una democrazia possibile: politica e territorio nell’Italia contemporanea, Roma, Carrocci, p.162-163
77 Pons S., 2006, Berlinguer e la fine del comunismo, Torino, Einaudi, p.157
Serena Nardo, Il ruolo del Partito comunista italiano nella Guerra Fredda: lotta per l’autonomia dalle superpotenze, Tesi di laurea, Università degli Studi di Padova, Anno Accademico 2021-2022

#1976 #autonomia #crisi #DC #elezioni #EnricoBerlinguer #PCI #politiche #PRI #PSI #SerenaNardo #StatiUniti

STREET ART UTOPIA

2025-08-31 10:07:35

Love! (8 Photos)

From tender embraces in Mexico City to playful lampposts leaning together like lovers on a bench, artists across the world celebrate love in its many forms. This collection of 9 artworks brings together kisses, symbols, and animals painted and sculpted into urban life — all united by one theme: love.

More: Overflowing With Emotion (15 Photos)

---

1. Elderly Kiss — Duek & Fresa Bogota in Tláhuac, Mexico

A mural of an elderly couple, where the man kisses the woman’s cheek. It reflects affection and love.

🔗 Follow Duek Glez & Fresa Bogotá on Instagram

---

Photo by Dieter Wundes

2. Blue Parrots — Daniel Mac LLOYD in Heerlen, Netherlands

A vivid wall mural of two parrots pressed closely together, their feathers blending in blue and orange tones. More photos here!

🔗 Follow Daniel Mac LLOYD on Instagram

---

3. In Silence — Vadim Mezzo in Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Two herons stand close against a soft pink sunset. The calm tones emphasize serenity and stillness in companionship.

Vadim Mezzo: Sometimes we need silence to feel the love. Being in nature away from the rhythm and noises of the city is much easier to feel connection with this world. In this work I tried to reflect that very moment of serenity, when two people can fully sense these thin threads that connect them with each other and the world around them. And I guess, a piece of pacifying in a big city will never be the waste.

🔗 Follow Vadim Mezzo on Instagram

---

4. Falling in Love — Rebel Bear in Glasgow, Scotland

A mural of a couple suspended in a kiss, as if floating in mid-air.

🔗 Follow Rebel Bear on Instagram

---

5. Love Bats — Nick Walker in Portals Nous, Mallorca, Spain

A black silhouette of a man rows a small boat toward a giant heart of flying birds.

🔗 Follow Nick Walker on Instagram

---

6. Music of Love — SUNRA in Montpellier, France

A mural of a guitarist strumming as red hearts burst out like flames. A passerby reacts, blending painted art with real street performance. More photos: One good thing about Music: when it hits you, you feel no pain

🔗 Follow SUNRA on Instagram

---

7. Best Friends — Unknown Artist

An elephant extends a bouquet of red flowers to a small rat. A playful symbol of affection across differences.

---

8. Romantic Lampposts — Unknown Artist

Two bent lampposts curve toward each other above a bench, creating a sculptural symbol of romance.

---

9. The Power of Love

A spray-painted quote on a wall reads: “When the power of love is greater than the love of power, the world will know peace.” The line is famously linked to musician Jimi Hendrix.

---

More: Made You Smile (8 Photos)

---

Which one is your favorite?

One good thing about Music: when it hits you, you feel no pain - STREET ART UTOPIA

Street Artist SUNRA By SUNRA ❤ at Rue du petit saint jean in Montpellier, France. Photos by bleutrOuble and inspiring_sharings.

^{Vidar (Street Art Utopia)}