So.. all this drama over an alert(yes/no) box?

Wow, this really pulls back the veil. This Vendor (google) is only looking out for numero uno.

> So.. all this drama over an alert(yes/no) box?

A simple yes/no alert box is not "[...] specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer". In fact, AFAIK we already have exactly that alert box.

No, what they want is something so complicated that no muggle could possibly enable it, either by accident or by being guided on the phone.

▲

Zak 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I imagine what they're going to do involves a time delay so a scammer cannot wait on the phone with a victim while they do it.

	▲	kitesay 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree. Waiting to see for how long. Has to be 24 hours at a minimum I'd guess.

▲

Aurornis 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> So.. all this drama over an alert(yes/no) box?

The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions into what’s happening.

It’s been fairly clear from the start that this wasn’t the end of sideloading, period. However that doesn’t get as many clicks and shares as writing a headline claiming that Google is taking away your rights.

	▲	devsda 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions There may have been exaggerations in some cases but these hand wavy responses like "you can still do X but you just can't do Y and Z is now mandatory" or "you can always use Y" is how we got to this situation in the first place. This is just the next evolution of SafetyNet & play integrity API. Remember how many said use alternatives. Not saying safetynet is bad but I don't believe their intentions were to stop at just that.
	▲	advisedwang 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I don't think this section is actually the same as the present state just with a new alert box. I suspect they mean you have to create a android developer account and sign the binaries, this new policy just allows you to proceed without completing the identity verification on that account.
	▲	gumby271 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Sorry what? Their original plan absolutely was the end of sideloading on-device outside of Google's say so. That's what the angry social media narratives were that you seem upset about. Anyone being pedantic and pointing out that adb install is still an option therefore sideloading still exists can fuck off at this point.
	▲	kcb 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What are you talking about? This change for "experienced users" was only just announced and not part of any previous announcement. It has not been clear from the start at all.
	▲	lern_too_spel 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The angry social media narratives have been running wild from people who insert their own assumptions into what’s happening. No, until this post, Google had said that it wouldn't be possible to install an app from a developer who hadn't been blessed by Google completely on your device. That is unacceptable. This blog post contains a policy change from Google.
	▲	Superblazer 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Have you missed the plot entirely? This is absurd