asimops
16 hours ago
While it is technically feasible, it is not a good idea to try and find a technical solution to a people/organisation problem.
Do not accept the premise of assholes.
I hope we can get the EU to fund a truly open Android Fork. Maybe under some organisation similar to NL Labs.
--- edit ---
Furthermore, the need for a trustworthy binary to be auditable to a certain hash or something would make banning this a simple task if Google would want to go that route.
AnthonyMouse
6 hours ago
> Furthermore, the need for a trustworthy binary to be auditable to a certain hash or something would make banning this a simple task if Google would want to go that route.
This is actually the advantage of doing it. You make the thing (call it a "personal app loader" or something rather than a "circumvention tool"), they ban it, now you campaign against them or make antitrust arguments presenting the ban as an anti-competitive practice or use the ban to refute claims that they're not inhibiting third party app distribution.
Even if you know they're going to be the villains, you still want to make them actually do it so that everyone can see them doing it.
closeparen
12 hours ago
The same EU that's doing Chat Control?
rf15
11 hours ago
The same EU of which parts are trying to make chat control work and are once again abandoning it. Politician get this particular fancy idea every other year in all kinds of countries, not just EU. Overreach out of desperation for a problem that cannot simply be solved is wrong but understandable.
igor_akhmetov
3 hours ago
Desperation for what exactly? More control?
ForHackernews
19 minutes ago
They are trying to stop crime, including sex/drug trafficking and child exploitation. If you want to have an intellectually honest debate, you need to be clear that private communication apps do make it more difficult for police to conduct legitimate investigations. You do yourself no favours painting all politicians as power-hungry caricatures.
exe34
6 hours ago
The EU is a big place, run by a lot of different people, with true separation of powers. They don't have a president-king who can just ignore court decisions.
jmnicolas
4 hours ago
So we're gonna get access to Von Der Layen Pfizer sms right?
Were you offered to vote for Von Der Layen by the way?
Certhas
3 hours ago
The EU is a parliamentary democracy. Von Der Leyen was proposed by the democratically elected heads of the member states. She was approved by the democratically elected parliament.
The chancellor in Germany is also not directly elected by majority vote but by parliament.
Its a reasonable criticism that the EU structures make democratic legitimisation very indirect, but that is at least partly a result of the EU being a club of sovereign democracies. The central tension was extremely evident during the Greek debt crisis, you have a change in government in Greece, but due to EU level constraints they can't enact a change in policy. More independent power ininstitutions less dependent on the member state, means the sovereign democratic national governments can't act on their local democratic mandates.
wqaatwt
38 minutes ago
> The EU is a parliamentary democracy
Except the are a couple degrees of separation between the democracy part and in the running the EU institutions.
The EU parliament is also a very superficial imitation of a real parliament in a democratic state. It has very limited say in forming the “government” or decision making.
> result of the EU being a club of sovereign democracies
So either revert to it just being a trade union or implement fully democratic federal institutions. The in between isn’t really working that well.
saubeidl
21 minutes ago
> Except the are a couple degrees of separation between the democracy part and in the running the EU institutions.
That's what parliamentary democracy means, yes.
wqaatwt
15 minutes ago
No, of course not...
In parliamentary democracies the parliament is elected directly and is generally sovereign (optionally constrained by a constitution or some set of basic laws and powers delegated to regional governments and such).
In no way does that describe the EU. It has no equivalent body. Its imitation “parliament” is extremely weak and barely has a say in who forms the closest EU has to a “government”.
immibis
2 hours ago
FWIW EU members are sovereign. If they disobey EU laws they can have benefits withheld but they won't be militarily invaded for ignoring EU law the way a US state would (unless they do something military themselves like invading another country).
StopDisinfo910
3 hours ago
For all the disdain I have for her, Von Der Layen is the candidate put forward by the PPE, the majoritarian party in the EU parliament. So, yes, people were indeed allowed to vote.
wqaatwt
32 minutes ago
She was primarily nominated by the EU council.
The parliament would have picked Weber, but nobody cared since its just there to rubber stamp predetermined decisions.
He was the leader of the party which won the plurality in the elections and had its support. EU had a real chance to move towards becoming a real parliamentary democracy if it went that way.
exe34
2 hours ago
I'm not in the EU! I can explain when somebody is wrong without having a horse in the race myself.
victorbjorklund
an hour ago
technically people didn’t vote for Trump they voted for electors which voted for him.
saubeidl
an hour ago
The same EU that shut down another attempt at Chat Control.
Bad legislation gets written everywhere, the difference is, in the EU it doesn't pass.
deaux
7 hours ago
The same EU that's doing NL Labs, the org mentioned in the comment you're replying to.
StopDisinfo910
3 hours ago
I hope the EU actually enforces the DMA and forces Google and Apple to stop their non sense.
singpolyma3
12 hours ago
What's wrong with lineage?
hilbert42
11 hours ago
You have to get some of the big names to unlock the bootloader first. The trend towards locking it off permanently is alarming.
Edit: Google could ultimately use that as a lever in licensing deals with manufacturers. It'd marginalize everything.
IlikeKitties
7 hours ago
It's not a good, secure project by a longshot. There's a good comparison floating around:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/60f1421e1afcf4...
AnthonyMouse
6 hours ago
That looks like someone made a list of mostly features specific to GrapheneOS so they could make a chart where all of the other alternatives (including stock Android) are full of red boxes.
Several of those are the opposite of security features, like SafetyNet support, which might be a convenience in some cases but it mostly makes it so you can't upgrade certain parts of the system to newer versions even when the old versions have security vulnerabilities.
IlikeKitties
5 hours ago
>That looks like someone made a list of mostly features specific to GrapheneOS so they could make a chart where all of the other alternatives (including stock Android) are full of red boxes.
No one else even bothered to make a list.
>Several of those are the opposite of security features, like SafetyNet support, which might be a convenience in some cases but it mostly makes it so you can't upgrade certain parts of the system to newer versions even when the old versions have security vulnerabilities.
Citation needed
AnthonyMouse
5 hours ago
> No one else even bothered to make a list.
That doesn't make the biased list good.
> Citation needed
Are you not aware of what SafetyNet is? It's the thing where Google certifies that the phone is running the software produced for it by the OEM. The problem, of course, being that the OEM stops issuing updates and then the certified version has known vulnerabilities. Which is a lot of the point of wanting to install a newer ROM on such a device, except that then it won't pass SafetyNet because you replaced the vulnerable but certified code with third party code that has the patch but not the certification.
immibis
2 hours ago
Technical things can affect people. Adversarial interoperability. They're using a technical thing to cause a social thing anyway, and fighting back with the same tactics is at least not surrendering.
thaumasiotes
15 hours ago
> I hope we can get the EU to fund a truly open Android Fork.
How are things in the EU on whether it's legal to buy a SIM card without showing ID?
asimops
14 hours ago
A secure OS is a prerequisite for secure digital services. We can agree on that, right?
The task, therefore, is to convince enough politicians to establish an independent unit that can address this issue without direct political influence.
Fund the unit with enough money so that it can take care of the cybersecurity and sovereignty of all citizens.
A side effect of this would hopefully be that these politicians would then be digitally literate enough to recognize nonsense such as chat control as such and reject it outright. I hope that most politicians would not really want such omnipotent surveillance tools if they could truly grasp their scope.
TeMPOraL
4 hours ago
> A secure OS is a prerequisite for secure digital services. We can agree on that, right?
Secure for who, and from whom?
Remote Attestation and Developer Verification both make Android OS and platform more secure against malicious actors that would want to defeat the guarantees the platform gives, guarantees that enable secure digital services.
Yes, this includes protecting the banking services and DRM media services and advertising platforms from malicious actors like you and me, who pose a real threat to the revenues of the aforementioned players, by:
- Expecting banking to do security right on their own side, instead of outsourcing it to mobile platform and society at large (like with "identity theft" trick);
- Enjoying entertainment and education in ways the vendor or IP owner does not like or can't be arsed to support, and thus not spending extra on the inferior ways that are supported;
- Not looking at the ads.
Same is with Chat Control. Chat Control improves security of the society against threats such as sexual predators who want to hurt children, or citizens who disapprove of how the current ruling class is governing the people. To effectively provide that security, Chat Control in turn relies on a secure OS and platform providing secure digital services - in particular, secure against those malicious actors that would want to circumvent Chat Control protections.
Is the larger picture clear now? Security technologies are not inherently good, they're morally ambivalent. They're "dual-use". It's important to consider their deployment on a case-by-case basis, always asking who is being secured, and what are the actual threats they're being secured from.
immibis
2 hours ago
> Chat Control improves security of the society against threats such as sexual predators who want to hurt children,
no it doesn't. Chat Control is single-use.
exe34
4 hours ago
did you understand and disagree with the third paragraph? if so, could you say in what way it didn't completely answer the question you just asked?
IlikeKitties
7 hours ago
I must sadly inform everyone here that the EU is pozzed beyond recovery in regards to Google. The reference implementation for the euid project is only available for android and ios and uses the play integrity api which makes usage of it on non google-certified devices impossible. https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-andro...
remix2000
14 hours ago
It is neither illegal nor hard to obtain such a prepaid SIM card.
kube-system
14 hours ago
That very much depends on the country, many require ID.
Kwpolska
14 hours ago
The ID presented at time of purchase does not have to be the ID of the actual user of the card. Your local drunkard will be happy to get $10 to buy a SIM card for you. Or you could visit eBay (or local equivalent) and get a valid SIM card without leaving your house.
kube-system
14 hours ago
The suggestion above wasn’t a statement of practicality but rather of EU motivations. Maybe you can also find a drunkard to fork Android for you.
logifail
9 hours ago
> The ID presented at time of purchase does not have to be the ID of the actual user of the card
In some EU member states this might be fine, but definitely not all.
> Your local drunkard will be happy to get $10 to buy a SIM card for you.
Buying a SIM card was always the easy bit. Getting it activated may not be, it depends on which country you're in.
https://www.telekom.de/prepaid-aktivierung/en/start
"For the Selfie-Ident you identify yourself with your identity card, passport or residence permit. (Selfie-Ident is currently possible worldwide with the German ID card, residence permit and passport. Alternatively, you can use Video-Ident and identify yourself in a video call with an employee.)
Important: Temporary identification documents are not supported due to internal check. You need a tablet or smartphone with a camera and an internet connection."
econ
7 hours ago
Surely others may use your phone?
noosphr
14 hours ago
>While it is technically feasible, it is not a good idea to try and find a technical solution to a people/organisation problem.
codedokode
5 hours ago
In my country, giving a SIM card to another person who does something illegal, is a crime. No doubt EU might soon have the same law - they are pretty good at copying.
As a result, sites where I could rent a number for verification, now don't offer local numbers anymore.
asimops
14 hours ago
Germany requires ID for all SIMs (for "normal" people). You can buy activated SIMs in every bigger city if you know what to look for though.
remix2000
14 hours ago
You can use any country's SIM card in any other country, regardless of its registration status.
kube-system
14 hours ago
… if you have roaming coverage.
And even in that case, doing this for a long period of time violates most roaming policies
qilo
12 hours ago
Even with fair usage policy violations (like long term roaming) the prices are still quite reasonable: 1.30 EUR/GiB (+VAT); from next year 1.10 EUR/GiB (+VAT).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_roaming_regulat...
pohuing
13 hours ago
There's eu(maybe even EEA?) wide free roaming legally mandated since I think 2017 or so? But it's not a permanent solution, your second paragraph still holds true.
kube-system
11 hours ago
I know of some UK SIMs that do not roam.
Digit-Al
4 hours ago
That's because we are no longer in the EU. Before Brexit they were legally mandated to allow free roaming in the EU. Now they are back to charging whatever outrageous prices they wish.
scarlehoff
9 hours ago
As far as I know it is only EU. Both UK and Switzerland have some operators that roam and some that do not. fwiw, fastweb in Italy provides roaming in both and has a very generous fair usage policy.
gambiting
12 hours ago
The only thing that happens is your data becomes a lot more expensive, the card still continues to work as normal. I've not lived in Poland for over 15 years now, and I still have a polish SIM card that I use almost daily - the only thing that I've lost due to roaming long term is cheap data packs, I can still call and text as normal from my monthly allowance.
kube-system
11 hours ago
Maybe in the countries that you are familiar with that is the case.
In some places your plan will be cancelled for roaming beyond a certain number of days or quantity of usage. Telecom laws and polices vary widely.
WhyNotHugo
12 hours ago
> How are things in the EU on whether it's legal to buy a SIM card without showing ID?
It varies per country. In some you can just buy one (or more) SIM cards at a supermarket without any ID.
sigio
13 hours ago
In many EU countries you can walk into many a supermarket or phone-store and just buy a simcard with cash without questions asked.
jraph
15 hours ago
I'm confused, how are those two things related?
semolino
14 hours ago
The commenter you replied to was implying that the EU does not respect the privacy/freedom of mobile device users.
jraph
6 hours ago
Okay, thanks.
I was confused bexause anonymity against the state is hardly the only, or even a main point of android forks.
Privacy usually is, but against big tech typically.
peterhadlaw
14 hours ago
Nanny state
ekianjo
6 hours ago
> hope we can get the EU to fund a truly open Android Fork
The same EU that keeps pushing for breaking encryption and chatcontrol? No thank you
TeMPOraL
5 hours ago
> breaking encryption and chatcontrol
The two are not equivalent issues; the first one is ill-formed as stated.
Cryptography is a tool of control. It's "dual-use", in the same sense like a knife or nuclear fission is - its moral valence depends on who is wielding it, and to what end.
In the context we're discussing, encryption is being used against the people. Working encryption is in fact needed to make chat control work - it's fundamental to it, the same way it is to Developer Verification and Safetynet/Remote Attestation. It would be great if EU decided to break that set of encryption applications. Alas, chat control only wants to break E2EE on messages, and uses encryption elsewhere to guarantee E2EE stays broken.
A more general comment about this thread, and related ones in the past: people really need to stop thinking about "encryption" and "security" as inherently good. They're not. Most of the social problems with computing, the attempts at user disempowerment and disenfranchisement, persist because they apply cybersecurity solutions.
The core question of security is always: who exactly is being secured, and from who.