upvote

points

by blop12 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby omnimus10 hours ago|
next
[-]
This is not entirely true. I don't have much details but I know people who started to work on two separate free software projects aiming to make supported mobile OS. These projects couldn't get funding before but they do now. Afaik it's still a battle with AI companies lobbying that soverign AI is much more important than mobile OS but there is some growing interest. Imho i don't even think some linux based alternative to Android would be that hard to pull off but it's the hw companies that will be skeptical to build hw for such OS. I would have to be some govs puahing it as secure gov devices first.
reply
upvoteby AnthonyMouse1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Which is all well and good, but who is going to use those projects if the law requires them to use Android or iOS for age verification?
reply
upvoteby mghackerlady4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
They could try and put money into funding Jolla/sailfish/whatever
reply
upvoteby tokai41 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
That wont help anything. Then you are just force to use Android, iOS, or Sailfish. It need to be a platform agnostic thing, else you're just hitching the fulcrum of civil society on private company.
reply
upvoteby cbg012 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Isn't AOSP a thing?
reply
upvoteby jchw11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This app requires Google Play. AOSP alone won't cut it.
reply
upvoteby roundabout-host11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In fact, it requires attestation: even if you install Google Play on some Android in an emulator/container/VM, on an alternative Android distro or in a rooted device, the app will not accept it.
reply
upvoteby notabotiswear12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Writings on the wall can’t be clearer on AOSP’s future…
reply
upvoteby snottynose11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It is true that Google (de facto) controls the platform and made themselves (de facto) essential to utilizing the platform by integrating their proprietary services so deeply into the OS that you need to be a behemoth of Samsungs caliber to even attempt to meaningfully re-purpose the AOSP, and this was a brilliant strategy because it has allowed Google to solidify their spot in the duopoly / oligarchy while seeming "open". But. I do believe that Google will continue to publish the AOSP source code under a permissive license and that this code will be indispensible to a European Manhattan project for tech sovereignty, should policymakers ever see the light.
reply
upvoteby notabotiswear8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Have to throw in this 13 year old Ars Technica article as a follow up:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

Still amazes me how everyone isn't cynical-by-default about anything Google (or big tech in general) open-sources yet...

reply
upvoteby spwa412 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You mean giving China control over it?

(because you still need the hardware made, and it's not like the EU commission is even prepared to fix BSPs for that hardware)

The EU has endlessly sold critical infrastructure to US, India and China while actively sabotaging efforts to rebuild it and now want it back - for free. This is criticized as having a low chance of success, as well as being a pretty unreasonable demand.

reply
upvoteby inigyou4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
TIL Google is China
reply
upvoteby mytailorisrich12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Because this is all a political move. This so-called "EU sovereignty" drive is in fact aimed at further reducing sovereignty of the member states via further transfer of power and control to the EU.

These digital ID wallets do exactly that. Member states lose control of the ID infrastructure, which will now be controlled by the EU. There isn't much sovereignty left at national level...

reply
upvoteby reloadtak4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Each member state has to implement the system themselves. Where is the loss of control?
reply
upvoteby AnthonyMouse1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The US federal government has been doing that to the states for a while now. They don't have the constitutional authority to do something, so instead they shove a lever under something they nominally are allowed to do and tell the states "do the thing we're not allowed to, the way we tell you to, or else." Where the "or else" is something like, they collect billions of tax dollars from your constituents that you then can't use to provide them with services, and return them to only the states that bend the knee.

(The US constitution originally required federal taxes to be apportioned for exactly that reason.)

reply
upvoteby mytailorisrich1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Where is control in being mandated to implement and EU-wide, EU-defined system? This is a net loss.

My previous comment should be taken in its entirety. The loss of sovereignty of individual countries is comprehensive across all domains and this is just one brick in the wall.

This is nothing new, this is what "European integration" means. I wanted to point out the very newspeak-esque use of the term "sovereignty" in Europe at the moment.

reply
upvoteby joe_mamba11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This is totally not the EU version of China's social credit score system and WeChat SSO system.

It will totally not be used to sanction you the moment you become a nuisance to the EU elites by saying "wrong speech" that goes against their mandated doctrine or pointing out their acts of corruption or dismantling of democracy.

The EU building in Brussels even has the word "DEMOCRACY" plastered on the front in large bold letters[1], in case you forgot.

[1] https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/photo/P-069521

reply
upvoteby dlahoda1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
10000 basis points agree.

Add here shared border control since 2027 in eu, and chat control now.

And prominent names like democratic republics of Kongo and North Korea.

reply