At the risk of being cynical but...
"Canonical wrote “we are working on the ability to flag specific publishers as verified. The details of that will be announced soon, but the basic idea is that it’ll be easier for users to identify that the person or organisation publishing the snap are who they claim to be.”.
So the thing I fail to understand: when was identity ever an issue? It looks to me as if the identity of the user had little to do with all this but mostly the act of them trying to "borrow" resources from your environment. It's not the user but the product which was the problem.
How much extra money would the developers have to cough up for them to be verified I wonder? Is this Canonical's own way of trying to gather up some extra cash without too much extra effort being involved?
I mean.. The way I read all this they're basically saying that: "Verified users will be more trustworthy than non-verified users", which I think can create very dangerous precedences. But mostly: so if my application informs the user somewhere at the bottom of page 6 in small print that there will also be crypto mining involved, would that be counted as informing the audience? Because technically I did, wouldn't you agree?
Why not plan for a rule to plain out ban any behavior of this kind?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
