[AnthonyMouse]

> Your ID is already controlled by your government, and we don't call that dystopian control.

The expression "papers, please", a classic exemplar of dystopian control, is referring to what?

> First, it can be open source and have DRM and attestation. Android is open source, for instance.

When people say "open source" in this context they mean that the user or third parties can make changes to the system, not that the source code is thrown over the wall from time to time. The situation with Android is exactly the thing that we don't want.

[palata]

> When people say "open source" in this context

Do they? My experience is that often they don't know what "open source" means in the context of software or that they don't know that the system they were criticising is actually open source.

[AnthonyMouse]

It's not hard to not realize that Android is open source because doing it that way compromises nearly all of the advantages of something open source.

[palata]

Does it, though? There are many, many, many AOSP-based systems. DJI remote controllers run AOSP, and of course there is LineageOS and GrapheneOS.

I can read the sources of AOSP, I can modify it, build it and install it on my device.

I can read the sources of AOSP to find bugs or security issues.

I can read the sources of AOSP to understand how it works and get inspiration for my own projects.

What does it compromise to you?

Maybe you're unhappy about the fact that it is not open development, but that's a completely different question and many, many open source projects are like that. I have offered PRs to multiple projects that never bothered reviewing them because they did not care, and that is exactly how open source works.

There are so many reasons to complain about Google, the fact that Android is open source is not one of them.