Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps

Avoid unauthorized malware on your phone while Google harvests everything you do and create to train their next shitty LLM.
But how can surveillance capitalism do surveillance capitalism--if they can't surveillance capitalism?

This message brought to you by the Home Shopping Network of the Internet, AKA Alphabet Inc.
 
Upvote
69 (81 / -12)

vantharion

Smack-Fu Master, in training
87
I kind of think this article should've included information about why they are actually doing this: the Epic lawsuit rulings. Where Apple got off lighter than Play Store because of the open garden.

It feels like relevant context when they state it is malware driven yet provide no statistics or metrics supporting it.
 
Upvote
67 (73 / -6)

AxMi-24

Ars Legatus Legionis
10,345
To verify, devs releasing apps outside of Google Play will have to provide identification, upload a copy of their signing keys, and pay a $25 fee.

Do I get this correct. Google will demand signing keys from the devs. Meaning that google can at any point create a modified app and sign it with those keys pretending to be devs?
 
Upvote
103 (109 / -6)
Post content hidden for low score. Show…

KrookedRooster

Ars Praetorian
407
Subscriptor
Usually I have to install an app because I didn't know I needed it (because it is just some stupid wrapper for the internet but that's another whole thing)

What if it is used for some sort of event? And that event is happening TODAY.

That 24 hour wait time is gonna get some people real mad when it starts costing them $$$.
 
Upvote
-19 (16 / -35)

b1LL_

Seniorius Lurkius
24
Subscriptor
I've been running GrapheneOS on my Pixel for six months now with zero issues. Highly recommend to those with compatible devices.

Google can fuck right off with their enshittified bullshit disguised as "safety".

ETA: When I pay for a computer it needs to do what I tell it to do, when I tell it to. Nothing more, nothing less. For those of you who read this that work for these companies....for the love of fucking christ, stop being evil.
 
Upvote
102 (112 / -10)
Here are the steps:

  • Enable developer options by tapping the software build number in About Phone seven times
  • In Settings > System, open Developer Options and scroll down to “Allow Unverified Packages.”
  • Flip the toggle and tap to confirm you are not being coerced
  • Enter device unlock code
  • Restart your device
  • Wait 24 hours
  • Return to the unverified packages menu at the end of the security delay
  • Scroll past additional warnings and select either “Allow temporarily” (seven days) or “Allow indefinitely.”
  • Check the box confirming you understand the risks.
  • You can now install unverified packages on the device by tapping the “Install anyway” option in the package manager.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”​

 
Upvote
154 (159 / -5)
Post content hidden for low score. Show…

younork

Smack-Fu Master, in training
9
I see that I am in the minority with this opinion, but I think the 24-hour cooldown is a really good compromise to help prevent coercion and, more likely, someone with temporary unauthorized access. And for the power user who needs to sideload apps all the time, it doesn't seem too onerous to wait 24-hours once when you get the phone and set it to indefinitely allow.

The $25 fee and other hurdles for developers seems like the much bigger issue here.
 
Upvote
159 (180 / -21)

LieutenantLefse

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,156
Subscriptor++
How does it measure the 24-hour wait time? Could I manually change the date on my phone to skip the wait, or is it smarter than that?
It's obviously smarter than that.

You need to upload a photo of yourself holding up a copy of tomorrow's New York Times.
 
Upvote
68 (70 / -2)

Fatesrider

Ars Legatus Legionis
24,977
Subscriptor
Wont someone think of the boomers!?

Maybe they can use the age verification requirements to disable this crap for anyone born after 1980.
For the record, the Boomers don't give a shit about this. 99% of them see their phone as...

Wait for it...

A PHONE.

It also does text. And has a camera. And kind of surfs the Internet in a really shitty way.

That's about it. Side-loading is not a Boomer thing.

More to the point, side-loading is not MUCH of a thing in the first place. Yes, people do it. Yes it gets a lot of press. But I'd love to see some statistics on how many people actually know what the fuck it means, let alone actually do it.

It's most a straining at gnats/swallowing camels whole legal thing that Google has to allow, but no one told them they had to make it easy. It's at least doable, kinda, for those few who want to. For the rank and file, this isn't even a ripple in the ocean of shit out there today.
 
Upvote
43 (52 / -9)

evan_s

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,314
Subscriptor
Do I get this correct. Google will demand signing keys from the devs. Meaning that google can at any point create a modified app and sign it with those keys pretending to be devs?

I assume this is your typical public/private key situation where Google gets the public key so they can verify the apps are signed by the dev private key. They can't sign something as the dev just verify the packages are from a particular dev who has been verified.

I don't think the $25 for verifying is that bad. It's a one time thing for an account as far as I can tell. That's pretty minimal and then you can presumably release as many apps as you want with any updates you want at any time. You don't want to make it completely free because people abuse the verified accounts and treat them as disposable. At least if you've got a minor fee there is some cost and you can do things like looking for someone verifying dozens or hundreds of accounts with the same payment info to try to prevent abuse.

I also think the 24 hours thing is fine. Your average user is never going to go into this in the first place. If you know you want to be able to side load things just go in and do this when you first setup the phone and set it to indefinite. You've now opened it up to side load as much as you want with out any delays. You've got your behavior that you want. I don't have a problem with the assumption that your typical person suddenly wanting to sideload something is probably being scammed and a 24 hour road block is probably a good thing.
 
Upvote
57 (72 / -15)
I assume this is your typical public/private key situation where Google gets the public key so they can verify the apps are signed by the dev private key. They can't sign something as the dev just verify the packages are from a particular dev who has been verified.

I don't think the $25 for verifying is that bad. It's a one time thing for an account as far as I can tell. That's pretty minimal and then you can presumably release as many apps as you want with any updates you want at any time. You don't want to make it completely free because people abuse the verified accounts and treat them as disposable. At least if you've got a minor fee there is some cost and you can do things like looking for someone verifying dozens or hundreds of accounts with the same payment info to prevent abuse.

I also think the 24 hours thing is fine. You average user is never going to go into this in the first place. If you know you want to be able to side load things just go in and do this when you first setup the phone and set it to indefinite. You've now opened it up to side load as much as you want with out any delays. You've got your behavior that you want. I don't have a problem with the assumption that your typical person suddenly wanting to sideload something is probably being scammed and a 24 hour road block is probably a good thing.
One time fees never stay that way.

And this is yet another step Google is taking in the long road to coerce people into stopping modifying their phones from surveillance capitalism stock. It has been going this way for years. Arguably since Samsung debuted Knox and corporate America thought that Knox was a great idea.
 
Upvote
25 (32 / -7)

kelsonv

Smack-Fu Master, in training
14
Subscriptor
Do I get this correct. Google will demand signing keys from the devs. Meaning that google can at any point create a modified app and sign it with those keys pretending to be devs?
I don't think so, at least if I read this correctly: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification/guides/android-developer-console

Looks like a regular key exchange where you give them the public key and then sign with your private key, and they can then associate that key pair with your ID.

Edit: evan_s beat me to it.
 
Upvote
46 (46 / 0)

lolnova

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,011
While there are certainly reasons Google might like the control verification gives it, the Android team has felt real pressure from regulators in areas with malware issues to address platform security.

Next they'll be feeling pressure from regulators to not allow any apps which aren't approved by the government.

See also: ❝Age Verification,❞ which suddenly appeared simultaneously in every western country and is actually about social control by means of maintaining a database tying everyone's online identities to their physical identity.

Fuck every bit of that.
 
Upvote
50 (54 / -4)

lolnova

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,011
I see that I am in the minority with this opinion, but I think the 24-hour cooldown is a really good compromise to help prevent coercion and, more likely, someone with temporary unauthorized access. And for the power user who needs to sideload apps all the time, it doesn't seem too onerous to wait 24-hours once when you get the phone and set it to indefinitely allow.
No.

It's my device. It is to do what I tell it, when I tell it. Period.
 
Upvote
22 (43 / -21)

fivemack

Ars Praefectus
4,652
Subscriptor++
Usually I have to install an app because I didn't know I needed it (because it is just some stupid wrapper for the internet but that's another whole thing)

What if it is used for some sort of event? And that event is happening TODAY.

That 24 hour wait time is gonna get some people real mad when it starts costing them $$$.
That’s on the event for not doing the trivial amount of work to get the app authorised on the App Store.
 
Upvote
23 (32 / -9)

sbradford26

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,017
I see that I am in the minority with this opinion, but I think the 24-hour cooldown is a really good compromise to help prevent coercion and, more likely, someone with temporary unauthorized access. And for the power user who needs to sideload apps all the time, it doesn't seem too onerous to wait 24-hours once when you get the phone and set it to indefinitely allow.

The $25 fee and other hurdles for developers seems like the much bigger issue here.
I am mostly in agreement with you on the method to allow full sideloading like that. I have stopped people mid scam as someone on the phone was walking them through installing some malicious app. There are just too many scammers out there and the average user truly has no idea how their phone works or what they are doing.

Now for power users and developers there should be a faster way to bypass that, maybe something through ADB which should prove that it isn't a scammer situation and also wouldn't require spending money.
 
Upvote
40 (42 / -2)

Fred Duck

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,166
Ryan Whitwam said:
The verification bypass is different and will not be revealed to users.
Wait, aren't there detailed instructions in this article?

Ryan Whitwam said:
Flip the toggle and tap to confirm you are not being coerced
So the next time I'm being coerced, that verification step will save me.

Although if the only difference between the earlier system is a (possibly) one-time twenty-four hour wait, then there's no material difference at all...

...which leads one to believe this workaround is not intended to remain available for very long.
 
Upvote
2 (6 / -4)