Google will fully monitor and review Android applications! Developer privacy is no longer protected? Cryptography advocacy organizations have contingency measures.

Google recently announced a controversial new policy that, starting from August 25, 2025, all Android application developers must verify their personal identification with Google before running on certified devices. This new regulation applies not only to applications in the Google Play Store but also to "side loaded" APKs from GitHub or other sources, which must comply with this rule, or the applications will not be able to run on the devices. This significant change challenges the long-standing image of Android as an open platform and raises questions about whether development teams can release new apps while protecting personal data and using Open Source software without Google’s permission. In the past, many developers could freely share Open Source software packages on GitHub for others to download, but the new policy may restrict the development of the Open Source community.

Not just the Play Store, Google will comprehensively monitor the source of applications?

Under the new policy, all Android devices will refuse to run applications that are not verified with Google's permission, including APKs downloaded by users from third-party websites or small tools developed independently. In the past, this was a major feature that distinguished Android from Apple's "walled garden" strategy, but now it has been buried by Google itself.

What are the underlying reasons? Google claims this is for safety. According to its official announcement, the frequency of malware resulting from sideloading apps is 50 times that of apps from the Play Store. For the sake of users' online safety, "verification of developer identification" is regarded as a responsibility mechanism.

However, critics point out that this move is tantamount to handing back control of Android devices to Google. Regardless of political, economic, or censorship considerations, Google can unilaterally block the operational permissions of any application APP, which poses a direct threat to the digital freedom of billions of users worldwide.

Concerns about the risk of developers' personal information exposure

Every time users enter personal information online (such as name, facial portrait, home address, or identification number, etc.), it may be copied and leaked. Data can be transferred from a mobile phone to a server in the city, and then transferred to another server at a Google data center. Each jump increases the likelihood of being hacked and ultimately sold on the dark web. When Google processes this data and sells it to advertisers, advertisers can then track user movements and create targeted ads.

After the new policy is launched, Google not only has user data, but can also obtain the real identification data of millions of developers worldwide at the same time. This can lead to abundant commercial profits for a company that operates primarily on an internet advertising model. However, the identity of the developers will not be protected. Additionally, I thought of another point: many Silicon Valley startups have long employed third-party contracted engineers, who may come from Eastern Europe or Southeast Asian countries, where costs are relatively low. However, Google's new plan may cause applications developed by these foreign engineers to fail Google’s review when uploading personal identification, resulting in those applications being unable to be listed on the Google Play Store.

Your phone is not your phone

Google's new policy has also sparked ethical reflections. If a personal mobile phone runs applications without the developer having any decision-making power, can it still be considered one's own device? If a similar situation were to occur at Microsoft, such as prohibiting applications not from the Microsoft Store from running on Windows, it would undoubtedly provoke an even stronger backlash. Android has thrived in the past due to its freedom to be customized, allowing it to compete with the Apple Store and widely popularize applications globally, especially in developing countries, providing developers and users with an alternative choice.

Cypherpunks: Trust Should Not Be a Centralized Privilege

In the tug-of-war between platform control and user freedom in this century, the tech community is not powerless. The CypherPunks community proposed the idea of replacing centralized identification with cryptography as early as the 1990s, which included mechanisms like PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) and Web of Trust. These systems allow users to establish relationships based on cryptographic signatures, avoiding the need to trust a single intermediary (such as Google). At the application level, technologies used today in Bitcoin or Signal encrypted communications are extensions and practices of cryptographic logic.

For example, if a developer releases an application, they can use a PGP key for signing, and users can verify their true identification through a multi-layer trust network without revealing the developer's real name or address.

Cryptocurrency community organizations have contingency plans.

In response to Google's reinforcement of centralized control, several alternative solutions have quietly developed. The Zapstore development team, supported by the non-profit organization Opensats, aims to establish an application store based on cryptographic signatures, protected by a user-trusted network; GrapheneOS is an Android branch system focused on security and privacy, providing a decentralized method for application management to avoid Google's verification mechanism; F-Droid is an Open Source application store that has long implemented a developer signature mechanism and allows users to review the source code. The common philosophy of these projects is: to verify applications through cryptography and the trust chain between users, rather than forcibly disclosing identification and relying on centralized institutions.

Google is gradually shifting towards a review mechanism similar to the Apple Store, perhaps just in response to the pressure from the U.S. and other governments regarding accountability for digital platforms, but it undoubtedly crosses the red line for the open source community and digital freedom defenders. Identity theft, data breaches, and AI exacerbating fraudulent attacks are all shadows of the digital age. Cryptography may be the last line of defense. Whether Google’s new Android policy will change in response to user backlash, or eventually conflict with market regulations in regions like the EU and India, remains to be seen. But there is no doubt that digital freedom and human rights have become a democratic issue in the new era.

This article states that Google will comprehensively monitor and review Android applications! Developer privacy is no longer protected? Cryptographic initiative organizations have contingency measures. First appeared in Chain News ABMedia.