Google PRETENDING to care about people’s PRIVACY CONCERNS when apps require identity verification – NaturalNews.com

Google is facing mounting backlash over its decision to require government-issued identity verification for all Android app developers by September 2026, a policy that critics say threatens developer privacy, open-source software, and user freedom. While Google claims the change is meant to strengthen app security and combat malware, the company’s dismissive response to questions about anonymity and independent app distribution has only deepened mistrust among developers and open-source advocates.

• Google’s new developer ID rule sparks privacy backlash: By September 2026, all Android app developers must verify their identity with government-issued ID or face having their apps — even sideloaded ones — blocked. Critics argue this undermines developer anonymity and the open nature of Android.
• F-Droid and open-source projects at risk: The policy could cripple independent app stores like F-Droid, which relies on its own signing keys and anonymous developer submissions. Board member Marc Prud’hommeaux warned the move could “end the F-Droid project” and has called for regulatory intervention.
• Google cites security, critics see control: While Google claims the change will reduce malware and boost accountability, developers fear it gives Google unilateral power to decide who can distribute apps, threatening decentralization and user freedom.
• Growing calls for oversight: Open-source advocates urge governments to review Google’s proposal, framing it as a step toward locking down Android — once touted as an open ecosystem — into a closed, corporate-controlled platform.

Big Brother Google dismisses privacy fears over app ID policy

The new policy will block sideloaded apps from any developer who refuses to verify their identity with Google. That means even apps distributed outside the Play Store—historically one of Android’s defining freedoms—could be blocked on certified devices. A Google employee downplayed privacy concerns in a recent video, saying, “it’s not clear when anonymity is absolutely required,” while assuring users that the company won’t make identification data public. However, many found this reassurance hollow, as the policy gives Google sweeping authority to decide who can distribute software within its ecosystem.

Google says the purpose of identity verification is to curb malware, citing internal research claiming that sideloaded apps contain “over 50 times more malware” than apps downloaded from the Play Store. The company argues that requiring developers to submit identification will introduce accountability and help weed out malicious actors. Yet developers and digital rights groups counter that the move gives Google near-total control over app distribution, undermining the decentralized, open model Android was built on.

Under the proposed system, Google will have unilateral power to block developers it deems suspicious, even without transparent justification or an appeals process. Developers incorrectly flagged could lose their ability to share apps entirely. The policy also risks disabling alternative app stores such as F-Droid, which hosts open-source applications built and signed by its own infrastructure rather than by individual developers.

In a lengthy video and blog post outlining the new system, Google mentioned a “pre-auth token,” described as a “cryptographically verifiable blob,” that might allow trusted app stores to bypass some verification steps. But implementation details remain vague. It’s unclear whether apps compiled and signed by F-Droid—rather than their original developers—would be considered compliant. This uncertainty places thousands of open-source apps in jeopardy.

Another concern is Google’s requirement that developers who distribute their apps across multiple platforms must prove ownership by uploading an APK signed with their private key. That poses a challenge for F-Droid’s model, which rebuilds apps from source code and signs them itself. Although F-Droid has expanded its use of reproducible builds (which allow others to verify app integrity), many existing apps still rely on F-Droid’s own signing keys, putting them at risk of being blocked.

Even more troubling, Google confirmed that internet connectivity could be required in some cases simply to install an APK, meaning Android devices might need to “phone home” to Google servers before allowing an app installation. Critics see this as another erosion of user autonomy.

Marc Prud’hommeaux, a member of F-Droid’s board, warned that the verification mandate could “end the F-Droid project and other free/open source app distribution sources as we know them today.” He announced that F-Droid is seeking regulatory review of Google’s proposal and urged governments to intervene before the rules take effect. For Prud’hommeaux, the stakes extend beyond developer convenience: “Users should have the right to run whatever software they want on a computer they own.”

Google’s move fits a broader pattern of tightening control over Android. Although the system’s core remains open-source under the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), Google has steadily privatized key components like Google Play Services and recently restricted AOSP development to a private branch. The new policy, critics argue, is the latest step in transforming Android from an open ecosystem into one governed almost entirely by Google.

For now, the company says it is “reviewing feedback weekly,” but its tone—described by many as dismissive—suggests that public input may do little to alter the outcome. Unless regulators step in, the policy designed to “protect users” could instead consolidate power under Google, ending one of the last strongholds of independent software distribution and reshaping Android into a tightly controlled platform where openness becomes an illusion.

Tune your apocalypse dial to preparedness.news for updates on real news about surviving the mass-privacy invasion that ultimately leads to Big Brother taking over every aspect of our lives.

Sources for this article include:

ReclaimTheNet.org 1

ReclaimTheNet.org 2