this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
1064 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

75606 readers
2263 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
[–] Johnny101@lemmy.world 2 points 36 minutes ago (1 children)

Google’s developer verification will only run on mainstream Android with play services. It’s not supposed won’t be running in standard AOSP so the easiest solution would be to switch to a custom ROM like GrapheneOS.

[–] cosmo@lemmy.world 1 points 17 minutes ago

While true, the pool of unlockable devices are dwindling fast.

[–] Paddy66@lemmy.ml 1 points 48 minutes ago

Contact your representative. And here's F-droid's article about it (including how to find your representative at the end of the article): https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html

[–] seraphine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] FE80@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Does anyone know if existing linux phones can run 2FA apps such as Duo or Google authenticator?

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Why do you need the google Authenticator? Proton has it too. Which (from searching) looks like it’s compatible for the Ubuntu systems. But that’s just from the search. I ‘m personally just using it with a android right now. I am currently eyeing up the fairphone Ubuntu as my next phone

[–] FE80@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Why do you need the google Authenticator?

Systems at work use google authenticator for 2FA. Prior jobs have used Duo.

[–] punchmesan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 37 minutes ago

Google Authenticator is merely a generic TOTP token storage app. The person you're replying to was pointing out that Google Authenticator, specifically, isn't necessary. There are alternatives, and unless you're using a company-owned device that restricts the apps you can use there is no way for work to dictate which app you use for TOTP tokens.

Duo, Okta Verify, and other 2FA apps that use push notifications and such, are a different beast altogether.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

European devs: Our laws will protect us!

Meanwhile, our laws:

Article 30

Traceability of traders

  1. Providers of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall ensure that traders can only use those online platforms to promote messages on or to offer products or services to consumers located in the Union if, prior to the use of their services for those purposes, they have obtained the following information, where applicable to the trader:

(a) the name, address, telephone number and email address of the trader;

(b) a copy of the identification document of the trader or any other electronic identification as defined by Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (40);

Article 30, DSA

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 50 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Let's hope that the rest of the world, specifically Europe smash this ridiculous proposal apart for what it is. Europe has already sorted out USB-C etc. Its not perfect and they don't get everything right, but certainly big enough to make stuff right.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 21 points 6 hours ago

They're too busy forcing chat control and age gates through our collective throats.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 16 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yep. The E.U. has allowed itself to be dominated for too long by the US megacorps. It has the talent, ideas, and manufacturing to tell US firms to bugger off ... and the sooner, the better for us all.

[–] ghosthacked@lemmy.wtf 3 points 6 hours ago

Unless you want hillbilly outrage slop destabilising your continent, you better get control away from American tech companies.

[–] art@lemmy.world 54 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I'm starting to think these for-profit companies only care about making money.

[–] edgyspazkid@lemmy.wtf 15 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

gulp You might be right

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 44 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

What pisses me off it that they say they do this for security. It changes absolutely anything.

They really think that malware developers will say "oh no! I need to submit a picture of an id card to sign my malware! It's literally impossible to submit a jpg of a stolen id card, I'm ruined and out of a job!"

What does it change? Waste 20 minutes of some malware developer while they register under a stolen id? They already have a system that scans for known malware and automatically remove it.

[–] fading_person@lemmy.zip 42 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It's always security when someone wants to take our freedom away. Always security...

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 23 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Not always. It can also be about the children.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Not really, it’s more about children not being exposed to things usually. Hence starting with age requirements for porn and they move forward to other things.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 5 hours ago

"Protecting the children from harmful content and predators", "protecting people from terrorists and criminals", "protecting users from hackers" are all forms of security, and are all used as arguments to erode freedoms.

It all boils down to: just give up this bit of freedom so we can keep everyone safe.

[–] fading_person@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 hours ago

About keeping the children safe

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 6 points 10 hours ago

Of course they know that. It's about power and money. After all, they already have a security program that filters out malware. If we believe their stated reasoning (which we don't), they're tacitly admitting that their current security program is a complete failure, and also that they will not try to fix it.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 34 points 11 hours ago

The justification is simple, I don't see the confusion, they want absolute power and for all alternatives to wither and die ? What is there not to understand ?

[–] ezterry@lemmy.zip 40 points 12 hours ago

I am perfectly ok with android apps being required to be signed by not just a certificate (they always were just it could be self signed and just needed to match to upgrade without removing data) but a list of trusted entities.

As long as:

  • I can install my own key on my phone (I'd I am trusted)
  • major distributors like fdroid and have a key installed without friction (like web CAs)
  • Google let's me mark their key as untrusted (I probably won't but I should be able to refuse things they trust (at install time, not disabling preloaded apps like settings)

Without this it feels too much extending the monopoly despite being forced to allow 3rd party stores.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 127 points 18 hours ago (4 children)
[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 39 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

~~Don't be evil~~

Be evil when it makes money.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 5 points 10 hours ago

And of course the motto should have been, "Don't do evil." That would have been a respectable goal. But it wasn't, because even back then they only wanted to be slightly better than Microsoft.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›