I don't see a way out of this except government regulation. The EU has the most motivation to do it, as a huge economic bloc with a lot of motivation right now to become as independent from the US as possible.
I guess I can sort of manage to keep my head above water and keep buying secondhand phones which I unlock and install a supported version of LineageOS. But it's cumbersome, it gets more difficult and more restrictive every time. And I literally have a doctorate in computers for crying out loud! Is there any hope for Granny? For a kid? For >99% of people? Of course not.
This is so clearly a matter for government oversight: prevent abuse, monopolies, protect the citizen's safety, rights, welfare, etc. It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if their phone spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data (especially when there's a duopoly). That's why we have laws and food inspectors, paid for by the public, working for the public. Same thing with digital rights.
> I don't see a way out of this except government regulation.
IMHO governments are partially behind those initiatives so they are unlikely to regulate themself- reason in last few years they intensified work on Digital ID, Age Verification, Chat control, KYC, etc.
EU is schizophrenic enough that it often produces very conflicting directions, opinions and policies.
One thing EU loves is regulation though, so I expect they will introduce preemptive regulations to enforce strict ID verification as well as regulations to fine big companies for breaching user privacy with strict ID verification policies.
"Next up in the ongoing trilogue, lawmakers will negotiate whether messenger and chat services, as well as app stores, will be legally obliged to implement age verification."
For the limits on side-loading in particular, there are a few southeast asian nations (I can't recall, Vietnam? Thailand?) where almost all internet access is via Android, including banking. And social engineering fraud, where they call someone up, pretend to be the bank, and get them to side-load malware, has become a major financial, and political problem.
AIUI, they have told Google to find a fix, or else.
> pretend to be the bank, and get them to side-load malware, has become a major financial, and political problem.
I been living in SE Asia for few years each in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and really didn't notice that this is supposed to be like major political problem.
'Fraud' is the same smoke screen and excuse as 'protect the children from social media or pedophiles'.
I can't find it now, but the article I read seemed to say that the gov was specifically upset about the banking issue, and might tell the banks they can't allow apps anymore.
There are different governments and different subdivisions within any given government. The only thing you need to get a government that had been pushing Chat Control to do some trust busting is to get more votes.
"This is so clearly a matter for government oversight: prevent abuse, protect the citizen's safety, rights, welfare, etc. It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if the APPS THEY INSTALL spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data"
Do you see how quickly that argument can be flipped to support what google is doing here? Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if half the reason to to lock down phones is because governments keep pressuring them to do so.
But what motivation has the EU to promulgate these regulations?
* Chat control is toothless if users can simply side-load an app without snooping.
* The EU companies who successfully lobbied for regulations against Apple now see that the 15% tax is worth it when they can A/B test the counterfactual. So those companies no longer care if Google will do the same thing.
* The EU is now in an awkward position that it is ok for a newspaper to sell your personal info via pay-or-consent, but not for a social network to do it. Some will keep yammering on about "gatekeepers", but it's sort of an emperor has no clothes moment.
* Declaring that iPadOs is a gatekeeper (after it failed to meet the quantitative criteria for such) was another such emperor has not clothes moment. The whole "gatekeeper" narrative has turned into a farce.
* The people commenting on this forum are not even a rounding error in the EU electorate.
> It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if their phone spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data (especially when there's a duopoly).
Indeed! Neither would it be reasonable for the sellers of meat to demand anonymity! If one sells tainted meat, he should be held accountable! We should identify him!
Yet, the creators and sellers of software for a General Purpose Computer (remember, that is the argument why phones should be regulated) demand that they should be above the law, anonymous and unaccountable!
Schrodinger's computing device: The one which is so vital to everyday life that we must not prohibit the user to run whatever software he likes, yet so unimportant that we have not a care in the world to identify any fraudster who might wish to distribute software.
I'm wondering if the EU is complicit in this somehow, despite claiming that they want to fight back against tech companies.
The EU Commission is currently pushing the shitty EU Identity Wallet for mandatory age verification, and it requires GooglePlay Services to be installed for "anti-tampering". That also means a ban on non official versions of Android like LineageOS and GrapheneOS.
On the DMA, I have said that it does not go far enough, the Operating System (OS) market should be opened up, with a regulation in place so that alternative mobile and non-mobile OSes can be installed by the end user, notably by the mandatory registration and publication of technical hardware specifications, unlocking of bootloaders, etc...
30 years ago, the Linux community fought the pre-installed Windows tax and mostly lost that fight.
The "anti-tampering" excuse lands flat when sideloaded apps on stock Android can still touch the same sensitive data through Play Integrity, and the only people it shuts out are the ones technical enough to care about their own OS. That is vendor lock-in. For a bloc that spends half its time scolding Big Tech, the Comission looks weirdly happy to route age checks and state ID through Google Play Services.
The thing is, the EU needs to be able to not only sell that the regulation they propose is good to the public, but also not piss off the US administration.
Most people are too non-technical to understand why this is a bad thing even when it's explained to them. Plus, whatever administration is in power in the US has a lot of influence.
Trump has already said that he wouldn't tolerate regulation that affects American companies [1], painting regulation that happens in another country as something that will affect US citizens. (I mean if you use the GDPR as an example, it's not wrong. Think of cookie pop ups while browsing the web in the US)
I would like the the EU would go harder with their regulations, because it usually results in other countries or states following their lead, but I dont see that happening. Regulation has been painted as "bad", and we have at least 3 more years until that changes.
> rump has already said that he wouldn't tolerate regulation that affects American companies
This lays bare the stupidity of applying the pay-or-consent law to only Facebook and not everyone. Every important newspaper in Europe has pay-or-consent. It does not matter that each one individually is smaller, the effect is the same.
The law was carefully crafted to ensure European businesses (newspapers) are not "gatekeepers" while ensuring American businesses (social networks) are. That fact did not go unnoticed in the rest of the world.
So? There is a fundamental difference. The app stores have effectively become utility companies through the Android-iOS duopoly and it is neigh-impossible to make a new competitive ecosystem. Utility companies are regulated because they can distort the market with their power otherwise. E.g. if the power lines are owned my a single company (which is the case in many countries), if they were not regulated, they could pretty much ask any price. What are you going to do to compete? Roll out a completely new power grid? The Android/iOS duopoly is the same, the fact that they could ask for an insane 30% (!) of every transaction before the regulatory squeeze started should tell you enough.
The newspaper market is very different, because there are many players and you can always go to a competitor. There are even newspapers that make all content available and ask an optional donation (e.g. Taz in Germany or to some extend The Guardian, who do not seem actively block ad blockers).
Multiple cursors were the killer feature that got me to start using Sublime Text back in ~2010. Still an absolute staple of my text editing toolbox. Ctrl-D Ctrl-D Ctrl-D ...
This is already the case since parliamentary minutes are typically on the web as well. Unfortunately of course, this only includes the "official" discussions, not those taking part in corridors, offices, or lobbies... :)
> Exploring whether there's a business here — structured legislation API for legaltech/compliance, or just a useful open dataset. Curious what HN would build with this data.
Verrsioning+search is like feature zero of any law software. In many countries (such as next door Portugal) it's even part of the standard public website provided by the state. Not to diminish your effort but yeah, people have thought of that before x)
Rust has assert and debug_assert, which are self-explanatory. But it also has an assert_unchecked, which is what other languages incl C++ call an "assume" (meaning "this condition not holding is undefined behaviour"), with the added bonus that debug builds assert that the condition is true.
Notably, like most things with "unchecked" in their name `core::hint::assert_unchecked` is unsafe, however it's also constant, that is, we can do this at compile time, it's just promising that this condition will turn out to be true and so you should use it only as an optimisation.
Necessarily, in any language, you should not optimise until you have measured a performance problem. Do not write this because "I think it's faster". Either you measured, and you know it's crucial to your desired performance, or you didn't measure and you are wasting everybody's time. If you just scatter such hints in your code because "I think it's faster" and you're wrong about it being true the program has UB, if you're wrong about it being faster the program may be slower or just harder to maintain.
Evil is commiting atrocious acts for self-interest. This is a description of US foreign policy (not exclusively, of course). Killing 150 schoolchildren is unfortunately but a fraction of a drop in the bucket of atrocities committed by either the US or Israel.
I guess I can sort of manage to keep my head above water and keep buying secondhand phones which I unlock and install a supported version of LineageOS. But it's cumbersome, it gets more difficult and more restrictive every time. And I literally have a doctorate in computers for crying out loud! Is there any hope for Granny? For a kid? For >99% of people? Of course not.
This is so clearly a matter for government oversight: prevent abuse, monopolies, protect the citizen's safety, rights, welfare, etc. It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if their phone spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data (especially when there's a duopoly). That's why we have laws and food inspectors, paid for by the public, working for the public. Same thing with digital rights.
reply