Keep Android Open

I agree but the poll ended a couple of minutes ago :(

Even if CCI restrict Google in an unlikely scenario it can take a long time to realize. I think we have to go to the root of the issue - Google (and apple) having the final say in Operating Systems. In case of Windows on PC, availability of GNU/Linux was enough to counter as installing another OS was not prevented. But on smart phones the level of difficulty is much much higher, only limited number of old models can have custom roms, mostly expensive models. So I think we should more aggressively promote GNU/Linux mobile (Mobian, PostmarketOS etc) as an alternative. What do you think?

Another recent example of them misusing monopoly is rejection of Prav from Apple app store.

More on this https://epadlite.fbin.in/p/prav-apple-iff we are also planning to approach CCI (asking if IFF can help with the complaint).

@Pirate Praveen 

- Waydroid lets you run Android apps on Linux (as long as it doesn't need Google Play Services DRM). Postmarket, Mobian, etc can take advantage of this
- MicroGMS is a free (as in freedom) implementation of Google Play Services
- Aurora Store: Access Google Play Store without needing a Google account or Google Play Services.

There's 2 roadblocks to these
Technical Restrictions:
(i) Google Play Integrity: This DRM system on all Google Android devices basically detects root/unlocked bootloader and snitches on you to apps like WhatsApp, Netflix, Banking Apps etc so they can lock themselves up and refuse to work if your device is "tampered" with, e.g using a custom ROM, not using Google Play Services, etc. These apps don't work at all on Waydroid either, AFAIK (not very sure).

(ii) Mobile manufacturers rendering their devices' bootloaders untamperable/unmodifiable Also, Mobile manufacturers not (or very rarely and not at all keeping it up-to-date) sharing devicetree/kernel source, bootloader/firmware code, hardware diagrams/pinouts makes community reverse engineering effort an uphill battle. It's hard for modding communities to manually research every single device on the market, develop bootloader exploits, patch Postmarket/Mobian/Graphene OS etc

The lack of app support, apps not working/misbehaving on alternative OSes, and reduced accessibility/compatibility of those OSes with the hardware people actually use are the biggest roadblocks to alternative mobile OSes. Both of these problems are artificially manufactured by the mobile industry and Google exactly so they can kill this kind of mobile competition in the crib. The proof of that claim is exactly the fact that, despite mobile phones being general purpose computers, very few people go through the trouble of installing alternative OSes, and fewer still create and maintain them, a number that dwindles each time Google and the mobile industry succesfully create and popularise new technological restrictions. From the anti-competition POV, Google and the mobile industry have succesfully marginalised any and all Android competitors using anticompetitive tactics, not out of any merit. People only stick to Google Android because they're coerced to by the fact that WhatsApp refuses to work on Postmarket OS or Lineage OS.

That sounds like a circular claim, but I hope I made it clear that that vicious cycle exists, and exactly how and why the people who perpetuate it do so.

Legal Restrictions:
Due to the lack of legal clarity surrounding this it seems to be a hazard against commercial investment in reverse engineering efforts as well. AFAIK Sec.65A, 65B Sec.52(1)(aa),(ab),(ac),(ad) of the Indian Copyright Act, 2012 have not been well-tested in Indian courts as of writing, specifically for scenarios like these.

@Derpitron the least troublesome angle is banking apps, if netbanking works and the option of a rsa or yubikey authenticator exists. As long as the web exists.

The problem with everything else is that they are app-only. And, with LLMs, browsing is also through an app or service now.

@Life is Tetris Do any Indian banks support yubikey/rsa authentication? Many banks here use only SMS/their app for 2fa and UPI.

@Derpitron Yes, Waydroid can help us bridge the app gap to a large extend, and some can be bridged with web apps - for example Uber. But the more crucial part is convincing people to take this jump. I only use android apps via Waydroid on Furiphone FLX1 (I also have a Purism Librem 5 without waydroid). I don't use an android phone. *99# used to work for most common UPI needs (it broke for Federal bank since last month and I just updated my ICICI bank account with my airtel number to continue using it) and cash + card can fill the gaps and in emergency cases depending on friends and family. See https://wiki.fsci.in/NUUP for this option.

@Pirate Praveen From a legal standpoint* we are absolutely legally allowed to hack apps to get them running on OSes and devices we want, and we are legally allowed to hack any TPM that tries to stop us from doing so.

However EULAs (which are just contracts of adhesion you "agree" to by downloading, clicking, buying, scrolling, or using software) are unclear in the law. software EULAs subordinate Doctrine of First Sale, the very notion of software ownership-vs-licensing, and Sec.52 fair dealing rights, but also, EULAs can't subordinate Sec.52 rights? Nearly all proprietary software employs these restrictive EULAs especially on mobile phones nowadays, to the extent that it threatens the very idea of owning software you purchase, directly (like MatLab) or indirectly (like Android, which comes with your phone). And this bodes threateningly for any justification of restricting the openness of tech on the basis of "you don't have legal ownership anyway". They actively take away our ownership, and then they say we never had a right in the first place because we don't own it..

*I'm aware of the technical, awareness, etc matters involved in these. But I do believe the legal aspect is important for people to know, especially so they have an idea of what obscure laws/precedents exist that might threaten them. Somebody could launch (or have launched against them) a court case regarding this to clear it up. If there is legal clarity, it sets a free ground for awareness and technical effort from then on.

@Pirate Praveen If you are looking into fighting this in court/discussing it with regulators I highly recommend you read up about this judgement: [1] and its' implications.

Basically it means if consumers legally obtain software under proprietary licenses that restrict their rights/abilities, they don't even get ownership of the software itself! This is an explicit exception to the Doctrine of First Sale (that gives ultimate copyright over to the purchaser of a good) and allows EULAs to restrict consumer rights and ownership itself, completely ignoring Sec.52(1)(ab), consumer rights, fair use, etc. Even if we have a "right" under the Copyright Act, if we sign a restrictive EULA we lose that right wrt. that software. That is the precedent, though it is disputed here: [2] and nobody seems to have recognised this judgement in the software rights debate.

I can't overstate how awful of a precedent that is, and I have good reason to think it's the innermost source of all of the software rights issues. Thus, if we want to make a change, we have to change the regulatory framework or get a new court precedent that renders EULAs no longer enforcable in court, because they are unconscionable, anticompetitive, anticonsumer, unilateral, and onerous. We could justify it using the judgement [2]

[1] https://spicyip.com/2021/03/supreme-court-recognises-doctrine-of-copyright-exhaustion-in-softwares-and-its-subservience-to-eulas.html
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164343914/#:~:text=17,anyone,-%2E%20The

@Derpitron Probably HSBC, but probably not bring-your-own-key.

I think just sending a mail to CCI is too meek of action from our side. Developers can resist verification, but we lose out on users.

At least for users there is nothing much to do, I proposed we do a boycott google's android campaign instead.

custom rom plus microg as a middle ground, though ideal would be mobian or postmarketos

custom rom plus android should cover banking apps I guess

we can have levels like 1. custom rom + microg - banking apps 2. custom rom, no gapps 3. droidian / furios 4. mobian / postmarketos + waydroid 5. mobian / postmarketos, no waydroid

Please comment here if you'd like such a campaign.

@Pirate Praveen I am in agreement except for the word "instead". We can do both. (But I think writing to the CCI is already done anyway, so this is a moot point.)

A "Boycott Google's Android" campaign is in line with FSCI's philosophy as Google's Android is not fully Free Software—in fact it is AOSP with proprietary parts added on top. The issue is that Google is the main force behind AOSP as well: we can think of it like "open core" except that the core is increasingly shrinking.

So, the ideal case is to remove dependency on AOSP completely, but since that is not practical for everyone we can instead have different levels which people can get to based on what is comfortable/achievable for them.

To start with, maybe we can make a website with information about these levels? Similar to keepandroidopen.org. It could be just a single page to start with, with links to information. Or we can start a wiki page first to add the content quickly, and then convert to a website later for better presentation. In any case I think the wiki would be useful as we can point to information about making UPI payments, etc.

From a pragmatic point of view I fear an Android boycott is impractical and won't have any

effect at all. Too many people are dependent on Google Android. I believe the only main solution must be active competition regulation by the authority.

@Derpitron we have already done what we can towards pushing for active competition regulation—now we might as well try from the other end as well.

I don't see the Android boycott as a way to make Google change its policies but rather as a way to accelerate what needs to happen anyway: people moving away from Google Android to more open operating systems. If it also makes Google change its ways, that is a happy side effect.

@Badri Sunderarajan From what I'm reading, the CCI expects very specific formatted filing/inquiry, though any consumer can file it. I am guessing this is what we missed out on, since the CCI did not respond to this with action.
https://cci.gov.in/filing/atd
https://www.cci.gov.in/uploads/filemanager/catalog/HowToFileInformation.pdf

Further, they had sent a response to my email, 2 weeks after I sent the original complaint mail:

This might be too radical to suggest. But I think this is a cause we should seriously invest our time, research, (and maybe money) into. It might need actual legal advice to do it properly. (I read Praveen's email draft, to me it seemed too informal and I felt that was why the CCI did not take the complaint seriously; not enough evidence or objective facts for them to understand and make a case). I.e, we need actual legalese, almost a full exhaustive case report.

If people will help me I will dedicate time to this, an avenue to get to the regulator of the country is the most powerful opportunity. (I think, from their email response, the CCI was not flat-out disinterested in this cause, they just need solid evidence. If they were totally disinterested in this, they would not have even bothered responding to me.)

@Derpitron didn't know about this form. If nobody has filed it, it has to be done.

@Akshay I am not well versed in law, so I don't know exactly what I should send to them or how. I am sure the formatting in all of this is meant to be done best by an experienced lawyer, but I don't have nearly enough money to actually hire or consult one on this.

I say all this to say I don't know how to fill the form. (But that's not a reason to give up on anything). Do you know anyone who could help me? Or could you help me?

@Derpitron it looks only slightly more complicated than an RTI. But it is about ₹6,000 from my reading of section 50 of 2024 rules at https://cci.gov.in/legal-framwork/regulations/68/0

Most of the questions are not applicable because we don't need interlocutory, etc.

Section 4 of the act about abuse of dominant position is what Google is violating. Exactly what/how, yes, we will have to either refer to old cases of CCI ourselves or get a lawyer to do so. IFF is one option. Arul George Scaria maybe an option. SFLC can be an option. In any case, doing most of the work ourselves will be the best chance to get this done.

Most of these legal activism is about finding someone with enough interest in that particular case to get it done end to end. Is it you, praveen, badri, etc is to be seen. My participation will be limited because I'm conserving my energy for public health related activism in actionforequity.in

@Pirate Praveen @Badri Sunderarajan are you guys willing to go for this avenue? If one of you could help me, we could put our all into it, then maybe think about a Lawyer/IFF/SFLC's advice or support for it. (As the CCI seems to have responded to my complaint asking us to file a formal request, while judging by his lack of having posted it here, they may not have responded to Praveen, so he may not have known there was another step we could take)

If we have to contact the IFF/SFLC/Arul George Scaria to get advice or support, I currently don't know the best way to do that.

I know of a Law student, Prithvi Raj Kunappareddi, who was active in the FOSS United forum and seemed to be interested in this matter, when I brought it up there in a virtual discussion. However, he may be busy and not available to help us full-time as this may require.

@Derpitron I can help/support, but cannot drive this, as I am already trying to approach CCI against Apple for rejecting Prav from App Store and against NPCI for breaking *99# on every provider other than Airtel.

SFLC India is helping for first and for second I just started the discussion, so I can get you in touch with them.

There is also a general https://rightsline.sflc.in/ to get help from SFLC India for any digital rights violations.

Can you request them via rightsline ?

@Pirate Praveen Sure, I've requested them via rightsline. If you could somehow get me into contact with somebody from SFLC for this, I would really appreciate it.
And good luck with getting Prav accepted and getting *99# fixed.

@derpitron I have shared contact in DM.