this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
170 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

82810 readers
4057 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 hour ago

Microsoft appeared to walk back Recall until they suddenly brought it back unannounced and doubled down. So I'll believe it when I see it

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 5 points 49 minutes ago
[–] 18107@aussie.zone 11 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The square app will not run on a phone that has developer mode enabled. I turned developer mode on to disable annoying animations, so now I can't take card payments unless I carry around a second phone.

If Google goes through with this, my payment phone won't be able to run any third party apps.

[–] Giloron@programming.dev 1 points 52 minutes ago

As someone who occasionally goes to markets and pays someone using Square, I think I'm happy with that.

Now that you mention it I'm surprised single purpose phone isn't required like needing dedicated Internet for registers. Or did they finally fix that to allow VLANs?

[–] morto@piefed.social 49 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

So, we will have to enable developer mode for that? How long before banking and government apps refuse to run if you have "sideloaded" apps installed? This will be the same as not allowing the majority of people to sideload. No win in here, just an advanced strategy from google to make us conform

[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah, if that process wouldn't need developer mode (or stayed active after disabling it again) that wouldn't be that bad (still annoying). But having to choose between the ability to install apps or use those apps that only work without developer mode certainly isn't a win.

[–] Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip 1 points 49 minutes ago

Huh I'm unfamiliar with this, but I've been running graphene for years and before that lineage

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

This is already the case if the developer mode toggle is enabled for some. I have to turn it off any time I'm traveling for work because the app we have to use to file expense reports refuses to run with developer mode enabled.

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 10 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

At that point you should tell your work to get a work only device for you... I always refuse to use my phone for work shit. I used to explain to them why, now I just lie and say my device is too old to have anything installed on it.

[–] picnic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah, but I travel for work. I dont want to carry two phones, as the one colpany offers is a shitty samsung a-series and I use graphene on my Pixel

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 1 points 53 minutes ago

Yeah, totally understandable.

I mentioned to the other guy how my dad got a dual-sim phone (not a shitty one) just by sort of mentioning having to carry two phones. I guess some employers are nicer than others :D

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

lmao, no arguments here. My boss's phone got bit by the construction site so I think we might finally be getting some movement on that front, at least for anyone who finds themselves in the field doing shit.

For what it's worth, I don't generally mind using my phone for work shit because it's convenient to do so. MDM on android works in a container, so I don't even care about that if they want to implement it.

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 4 points 2 hours ago

Yeah I get the convenience of it.

My dad was complaining out loud to his boss, not requesting anything, just complaining about having to bring two phones with him when he was out and about. So his boss got him a dual-sim work phone lol. The convenience can work out that way as well :)

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago

Or if you're rooted, or run something other than your OEM image. I use grapheneos and I'm lucky that my bank doesn't enforce that like some do. I still can't use cards to tap with Google wallet because it's not certified by Google.

[–] morto@piefed.social 3 points 2 hours ago

But what if they starting requiring that you remove the sideloaded apps? We're getting trapped

[–] SomeDudeFromSpace@lemmy.ml 33 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

We will win when nobody can tell you what you can or can’t put in your own fucking device.

[–] invertedspear@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 hour ago

Counterpoint: my software allows you to access your banking needs. I’m financially on the hook if fraud occurs. Fraud occurs because your favorite “slap the monkey” game also installs a keylogger and network monitor. So I don’t allow my software to work if you have that installed.

I think you’re right that companies should not be able to tell you what software you can run, but users also can’t be trusted to keep their devices safe.

A lot of network, banking, and telephony protocols historically rely on trusting that there are no bad actors in the chain. Technology has added more links to the chain increasing the opportunities for bad actors to tap into it.

It’s a situation that needs better fixes. Maybe we just need to hand the current internet over to the bots and start a new one with security and privacy built in from the ground up.

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 161 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Making users wait 24 hours doesn't improve security; it's an anti-competitive change designed to make the Google Play store seem like less of a hassle in comparison.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 55 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I can actually see where it can improve security against scammers trying to scam elderly and non-tech savvy people.

  • Scammer tries to get someone to install malware from their site
  • Victim isn't familiar with sideloading, but scammer instructs them
  • Victim hits the first time 24 hour block and has to restart and wait
  • The restart alone breaks contact with the scammer, scam thwarted

For the rest of us that know our way around Android, it's just a one time annoyance, after completing all the steps to enable sideloading, you won't have to wait 24 hours anymore.

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 16 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I'd believe that if most Pig Butchering scams weren't using apps from Google Play already.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 33 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It’s going to be effective, but it’s a sad world where you have to create a total nanny state because there exist a subset of users who are INCREDIBLY stupid.

[–] PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Is it still a subset when it's the majority?

And to be honest, the level of effort scammers are willing to go through is shocking, and AI's just making it easier for them.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 9 points 2 hours ago

Anything less than the whole is a subset, yes.

[–] smeg@infosec.pub 34 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
  • enable developer options
  • confirm that you are not tricked
  • restart phone and re-authenticate
  • wait one day
  • confirm with biometrics that you know what you are doing
  • decide if you only want unrestricted installs for 1 week or forever
  • confirm that you accept the risks
  • enjoy the few apps that still have developers motivated to develop for a user-base willing to put up with this
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

A classic case of making a ridiculously restrictive change, then "walking it back" to a merely semi-ridiculous change and having everyone sigh in relief.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

Just like Anthropic and OpenAI's willingness to kill people en masse, then walking it back to a nonexistent standard.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

at best this is not losing at this very moment

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 14 points 2 hours ago

"side loading" == installing

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 92 points 4 hours ago

No we didn't win. This is Google making it harder to install the programs you want, rather than the programs Google wants you to have.

[–] commander@lemmy.world 39 points 3 hours ago

Still worse than it was before. There's no win in that

[–] zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 3 hours ago

This isn't a win, this is Google making things shitty for the benefit of no one but themselves.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 6 points 2 hours ago

I want an extra day added to the warranty of any device I purchase, as it will be useless during that time

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 hours ago

"Scammers" also exist on the Play Store. Google should start by cleaning it up.

[–] org@lemmy.org 22 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Time for another OS. Android is over.

[–] BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Postmarketos is looking pretty promising right now.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 3 points 1 hour ago

The year of the Linux phone is upon us brethren!

[–] DonPiano@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

This is a premature April Fool's joke, right?

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 hours ago

I haven't read the article yet, but I'm about to. But no matter what, I'm still looking a lot more seriously into Linux on mobile, such as PostmarketOS than I was before.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

If the process doesn't include any phone home stuff, and is just a one-time cool off period to prevent scammers, this is acceptable to me. That should be enough to get potential victims to self-question, ask more knowledgeable people of what's going on to avoid being unknowingly hacked, without being naggy every time for users that want to do what they want.

Making a software "foolproof" will probably invent a bigger better fool, hoping for some sort of free crypto app jumping through these hoops, but this should weed out most of the basic scams.

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 10 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It still sets your phone in a state that marks it as security compromised. This could lead i.e. to banking apps not working. I'm not so sure about the "acceptable" state of things here.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, I take issue with that, but I don't think it would be used if people complain to banks that reading the flag bricks the app.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] db2@lemmy.world 15 points 4 hours ago (11 children)

I don't care if it's android or anything else, the moment my phone does that is the moment I switch to something else.

[–] hark@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 hours ago

Yup, I got a pixel 10a that I will be putting graphene on as soon as it releases.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

Software freedom or demise. While Google is capable of imposing anything then Android is already dead to me.

load more comments
view more: next ›