> The reasons for the developer (not a "developer", as this would be somebody who pretends to be a developer, but isn't)
Precisely, hence the quote marks. Didn't want to offend any developers (you know, the sort that actually define goals and set out requirements, for example?) by associating this guy with them.
> I don't remember exactly what he said, but his objections were that given the real world situation, he'd rather go with one (untrustworthy from the point of privacy) platform, i.e. google, than let his app be exposed to numerous, and harder to track vectors of attack if it were to be distributed via F-Droid.
Yes, he did say that as well (as I recall, either in the F-Droid forums or in a Github ticket). It was pointed out to him at some point that for his reasoning to work, one would have to trust *him* as well as Google, for while source code is available (but not open source, given that he threw his toys out of the pram when this was added to F-Droid), there is zero assurance that the code on Github is exactly where the binaries come from.
> Nevertheless, one can still question the whole point of making a privacy app - and letting it run on the back of the most blatant violator of privacy in modern days.
Indeed, strange that this guy no longer seems to harbour those same concerns about Google's privacy policies that he supposedly had back in the day when he set up that proxy thing that I mentioned above.
In short, through his lack of engineering qualifications and skill this guy is actively dangerous when it comes to user privacy and online security, and given his penchant for manipulating the tech media, I wouldn't say he's exactly well intentioned either. We need proper researchers, not media divas.
Use any of his stuff, if you must, at your own peril.