Comment by TZubiri

>Should a developer — contrary to our recommendation — elect to register themself with Google as a “verified” developer, they should expect to sign up for an account and pay a fee, surrender detailed personal information and upload government-issued identification

Again, there is a tradeoff between protecting consumers and protecting vendors. If you protect the privacy of vendors, you do so at the expense of increasing risk to the consumers.

I don't want to be polarizing, but narcissistic is the best word to describe the position of this article. I'm assuming that when they are consumers, they would find it reasonable that their vendors provide due diligence and be held to higher standards. When they go to the pharmacy, and they buy aspirins, would they choose a tablet of aspirins from a pharmacy that doesn't ask where the aspirins came from or who the distributor or producer is? If such privacy of the producer were respected then the market would open up to actors that provide low quality, counterfeit, or malicious product.

You can't have it both ways. If you are a vendor, you are no longer an anonymous consumer. Installing a VPN, paying with cryptocurrency, using firefox and duckduckgo to avoid tracking, that's not on the table for you once you decide to be on the other side of the production market.

If you want to make software and distribute it anonymously, go ahead and submit it to one of the many malware riddled distributors that don't do any due diligence like npm, github, AUR, why must you insist on being let in a club that doesn't want you? Is it perhaps because the reputation of such club is higher because it doesn't have malware because it performs such due diligence?

At least if you are going to complain about this, do it with standard language don't co-opt cybersecurity terms, adding noise to whoever cares about actual security. If this is really a problem you wouldn't need to exaggerate or plain lie about it.