Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

mastodon.gamedev.place

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 413 posts

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#31

Post by lexicality »

GravitasFailure wrote: post #12
codetrotter wrote: post #2

> When an app asks for permissions, the OS should not only let you answer yes or no. Every category should have a "yes, but feed the app fake data" option. A significant amount of people don’t even know how to forward an email. Imagine the havoc that would ensue when people try to use Google Maps for navigation, and they choose to feed it fake data because they don’t understand what it means. Google Maps: “Turn right…

>Google Maps: “Turn right” >Guy driving alongside the ocean: “ok” >Car: *splash* This seems like a learning opportunity. Or a Darwinian opportunity. Either way, self-solving.

Eugenics aside, people very regularly follow satnav directions completely blindly, the most recent one I can think of being the person who drove directly into the sea in Hawaii.

If there's an opportunity for learning, it's not being taken

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#32

Post by aftbit »

ryandrake wrote: post #27

I’m all for the “fake data” idea, but also: Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data. I know last time I developed for iOS, it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Apps must gracefully handle it and continue running. Also, and this was even longer ago, apps could not require users…

Every smart home app seems to want an account on Android. Maybe they have a different path on Apple, related to HomeKit or similar, but I'm a bit skeptical.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#33

Post by awegio »

Havoc wrote: post #17

Unfortunately this approach makes you quite unique for fingerprinting

Why? Only if you would reuse the same data multiple times, or if you use a unique random generator that is easily distinguishable from other data. So maybe don't use the 5x5 island, but when done right the approach shouldn't help fingerprinting?

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#34

Post by aftbit »

charcircuit wrote: post #26
progbits wrote: post #3

XPrivacy for rooted android could do this 7+ years ago and there are other modern alternatives (but I haven't rooted my phone for a long time so I can't vouch for them): https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy Obviously that is not mainstream, I agree it should come built in. But then both Android and iOS allow bullshit like region-locked apps or preventing screenshots from DRM content, so good luck with that.

>region-locked apps There is no such thing. The respective app stores allow you to distribute apps in select regions. This is an important feature for app stores because an app may not be a good experience in all countries. The app may not be localized to all languages, there may not be content moderators for those languages, those countries have a multitude of laws that you need to comply with, your app may include…

>This is a feature requested app developers due to the legal requirements when licensing content such as movies. Movie studios don't want people streaming or recording their movies so app platforms need a way to surely show this content.

Of course, but if our industry had any chutzpah, we would have simply said "no, that's impossible" and continued to distribute operating systems where the user has ultimate control over the hardware and recordings. If movie studios want people to watch their content, they'll have to accept the risk of piracy. It's not like clipping and recording from your phone is how the pirate rips appear anyway. Even imagining that a movie was released only for one model of super-secure phone, someone somewhere will either break the security or simply stick their phone in a dark box and record it with a camera. Once they've done so, they can share the un-DRMed version online on pirate sites and everyone else can download it.

As long as the analog hole exists, DRM is anti-consumer without reducing the likelihood that copyrighted content will be reshared freely online.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#35

Post by AmericanChopper »

charcircuit wrote: post #26
progbits wrote: post #3

XPrivacy for rooted android could do this 7+ years ago and there are other modern alternatives (but I haven't rooted my phone for a long time so I can't vouch for them): https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy Obviously that is not mainstream, I agree it should come built in. But then both Android and iOS allow bullshit like region-locked apps or preventing screenshots from DRM content, so good luck with that.

>region-locked apps There is no such thing. The respective app stores allow you to distribute apps in select regions. This is an important feature for app stores because an app may not be a good experience in all countries. The app may not be localized to all languages, there may not be content moderators for those languages, those countries have a multitude of laws that you need to comply with, your app may include…

The way Apple have implemented region localisation on the App Store is very bad. You basically have to nuke your whole account to change regions, and that includes losing all your subscriptions (if you have any annual subscriptions that’s just too bad for you). So if you spend time between two counties, and need a region locked app in each one, there’s actually no workable solution.

Your explanation for the anti-screen shot DRM doesn’t hold up very well either. I don’t know of any streaming app that doesn’t also have a website that I can take screenshots (as well as full screen captures) on, so it’s clearly not a content licensing requirement.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#37

Post by gavinhoward »

So I'm building a build system with a permission system.

The permissions are checked at runtime and each time the permission is needed. (For example, if a build script tries to phone home twice, the build system will run the permission checker twice.)

In addition, the permission checker will have the option of delivering fake data and making the requester think they got permission when they didn't.

This is why I added that, even though it is much more complexity.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#38

Post by evandale »

davidjfelix wrote: post #18
GravitasFailure wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google Maps: “Turn right” >Guy driving alongside the ocean: “ok” >Car: *splash* This seems like a learning opportunity. Or a Darwinian opportunity. Either way, self-solving.

That feeling when hacker news user endorses eugenics as long as its just stupid people.

What makes you think GP is talking about eugenics?

If anything, they're talking about natural selection which is not eugenics. Eugenics is when you select fitness at birth.

GP would be endorsing genocide, or maybe epigenetics if anything, based on the small out of context comment. I highly doubt either was the intention and wonder how you got to the eugenics conclusion.

Re: When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

#40

Post by Aulig »

ryandrake wrote: post #27

I’m all for the “fake data” idea, but also: Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data. I know last time I developed for iOS, it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Apps must gracefully handle it and continue running. Also, and this was even longer ago, apps could not require users…

The guideline to be able to access apps without an account still exists, but the enforcing might have become lighter - or it's just the random fluctuations in review qualities we all know by now :)
Post reply on HN