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

81–90 of 413 posts

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

#81

Post by latexr »

halfstep wrote: post #9

I really wish browsers would take this approach with notifications. If a website asks if I have notifications enabled, tell them yes, and send them all into the oblivion. Edit: to clarify, I already disable all notifications in Firefox. I was referring to websites that check via JavaScript whether you have notifications turned on and trigger a pop up to ask you to enable them.

On macOS you can disable notifications for any app in System Settings. When an app first requests it, you’ll get a system notification asking if you want to allow the app to send any.

On Safari you can even disable the option for websites to request notification access. It’s on the Websites tab in Settings.

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

#83

Post by theawless »

theawless wrote: post #72

Samsung phones have a camera access and microphone access toggle. Here's what I get when I turn it off: ``` Turn off Camera access? All apps will be blocked from using the camera. Apps will still work, but they will only be able to access an empty black screen. For example, you can still make and receive video calls, but the other person won't be able to see you. ```

For microphone access:

```Turn off Microphone access? All apps will be blocked from using the microphone Apps will still work, but they won't be able to access any sounds from the microphone. For example, you can still make and receive calls, but the other person won't be able to hear you.```

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

#84

Post by scrps »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #60
sspiff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would never land in a factory image or upstream Android, but it has a reasonable chance to become part of projects like LineageOS, given enough user demand for it.

LineageOS already had this feature in Cyanogen as the Privacy Guard. It was taken out because of pressure from Google.

You have a source on that? I used to be a lineageOS user and I always wondered why privacy guard disappeared.

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

#86

Post by eganist »

rollcat wrote: post #59
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…

> it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Meanwhile, WhatsApp still "punishes" users for denying contacts access by hiding everyone's names (only the phone numbers are shown), including for contacts that have their own names set in their own profiles. Facebook^W Meta is scum.

Worse, you can't even initiate conversations; if you've denied contacts access, the other user has to message you first.

At least for me on Android, which is wild.

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

#87

Post by jeroenhd »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #60
sspiff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would never land in a factory image or upstream Android, but it has a reasonable chance to become part of projects like LineageOS, given enough user demand for it.

LineageOS already had this feature in Cyanogen as the Privacy Guard. It was taken out because of pressure from Google.

Do you have any reference for that pressure from Google? I thought it was because during one of the major version merges the underlying code changed so much that the entire feature would've needed reimplementing from scratch, like many other Cyanogenmod era features.

Edit: source here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28096873

Privacy Guard also wasn't as complete as XPrivacy (and its evolutions) were. It's a shame that the feature disappeared, but I don't think it mattered much to begin with.

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

#88

Post by jasec57322 »

Here's an idea: (medium-complexity) port of android to TCB which partitions /hardware/ (cpu-cache, RAM), on a per app basis. Android's app-based permissions API doesn't require too much work to do this.

My perspective: Either cheap-monolithic-SOCs get really cheap, (for low end devices), with long-term-support, and low power, or compartmentalised architectures start to gain the traction that will kill of SOCs.

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

#89

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

lexicality wrote: post #31
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.

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

You say "very regularly" but when was the last time you saw/heard about that happening? I'm in the UK and I saw that Hawaii story and I can't remember hearing about anything similar for years. So my conclusion is that, out of an 8bn population, one or two making such a mistake once every few years is nothing.

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

#90

Post by ryandrake »

mormegil wrote: post #45
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…

> apps could not require users to have “an account” in order to run There is some big qualification missing or I don't understand what does that even mean. How could a banking app run without an account? An online game? The Twitter app nowadays? Dropbox/Nextcloud/...? Etc. Yeah, I agree that for a lot of apps, requiring a account is just a marketing gimmick, but I don't think such a general rule could work.

Good question! We actually asked Apple exactly this when appealing the AppStore de-listing. How come others can require an account and we can't? What was it about our app that made us have to spend the engineering effort to add a guest login (this was a disingenuous argument that I advised against, since we deliberately spent engineering effort to require the login)?

Their response, not the exact wording since it was over a decade ago, was along the lines of: "1. We're reviewing your app, not theirs, so what they can do is irrelevant. 2. Your app core use case clearly functions without an account as evidenced by the previous versions having full functionality not requiring an account."

1. Is a standard Apple reply when you compare your app's treatment to others'. Everyone gets this when they bring another developer's app into the argument.

2. Called our bluff and is pretty hard to argue against unless we changed something core to our backend such that it now requires an account. Even if that was the case, I would expect Apple's response to be "change it back".

Throughout the whole exchange with Apple, I had to be Devil's Advocate, since I advised against the change to require an account from the start, being apparently the only person in the company who had actually read the AppStore guidelines. Nobody listened to me, of course.

Post reply on HN