this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
415 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

82956 readers
3796 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
(page 3) 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xSikes@feddit.online 5 points 3 days ago

spoiler
___either going back to cell phones or we all go for Linux phones

[–] heiligerbimbam@lemmy.wtf 2 points 3 days ago

I am already on Graphene OS.. so, do what the fuck u want. I dont care.

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (6 children)

If this is really as straightforward as it sounds then I'd consider this the best case scenario. Google could have gone full Apple style lockdown or even just have implemented this flow on a per app basis, but needing to wait 24hr one time to enable unverified app installation isn't a bad idea from a security perspective. It prevents a bad actor with temporary access from being able to do much while not getting in the way of us power users after the initial 24hr period.

My bigger problem is how Google is leveraging their monopoly to implement this single-handedly and only for themselves. If they had instead gone through AOSP this perhaps could have been implemented in a better way to allow other parties than just Google to be the verifier, and that 24hr waiting period could be applied to any verifier that is not the phone's default. I'd argue this would be an equally reasonable security measure considering how many scams are out there preying on those who aren't technologically savvy, yet would maintain transparency.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Hot Take: Honestly, this is not as bad as I thought it'd be... IMO

(But still, it's kinda a slipperly slope...)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›