Petition: Stop Google from Limiting Custom ROMs!

[Igor Eisberg]

We did not start this petition, and while I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of such petitions, the least we can do is to promote it.
Voice your opinion if you care.

Firma la petizione

Stop Google from Limiting Custom ROMs!

www.change.org

 

[ntlkr]

To be honest, I dont know much about the backend and the overall functionality of Play Integrity.

But from what I see, Google isnt actively blocking anything, right? All google does is provide a verification API that apps CAN access IF they feel they need/want to.
If google would shut down Play Integrity API and remove all boundaries linked to it, banking apps etc. would start developing their own ways of verification, which would probably lead to even more security problems as the data would be sent to and stored on multiple servers with different owners.

Please tell me if im right or wrong on this, as I said, I dont know exactly what happens in the background and what kind of problems you developers are facing in relation to this.

 

[Igor Eisberg]

To be honest, I dont know much about the backend and the overall functionality of Play Integrity.

But from what I see, Google isnt actively blocking anything, right? All google does is provide a verification API that apps CAN access IF they feel they need/want to.
If google would shut down Play Integrity API and remove all boundaries linked to it, banking apps etc. would start developing their own ways of verification, which would probably lead to even more security problems as the data would be sent to and stored on multiple servers with different owners.

Please tell me if im right or wrong on this, as I said, I dont know exactly what happens in the background and what kind of problems you developers are facing in relation to this.

That's why I'm not sure what this petition is ultimately trying to accomplish.
My way of dealing with corporate abuse such as this has always been to shame and boycott, not beg them to stop their abusive practices.

The whole concept of "we blocked X because your device is potentially at risk" was invented by dishonest morons to begin with.
Should we not go outside because we are "potentially at risk" of being assaulted/mugged?
Should we not cross the street because we are "potentially at risk" of being ran over by a car?
Should we not be allowed to access the internet because we are "potentially at risk" of being exposed to harmful content?

Each of these situations has been dealt with by educating and applying precautions, not by restrictions on freedoms.
And so, I believe that there is no negotiating with people like these, they are intentionally dishonest and all of their security claims are logical fallacies that can be negated by thousands of analogies.

Unless your device is actively at risk, you shouldn't be blocked from anything...