101–110 of 413 posts
This could be achieved with something like Xposed, a cool project is https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacyLua.
I actually made a "clone" with the option to generate data per permission as a school project, good times
As an app developer I do not like this idea. You want to break the contract on what that permission is intended to be. ("Weather the Trip" road trip weather app for the U.S.)
Be on the lookout for my app, "Weather Trip Report" app in a few weeks.
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 should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data Or else? You're suggesting an organizational solution to a technical problem. This can't possibly work. Fake data is the only practical solution to this, such that the app would see the permission as granted when it is not actually granted.
And sure, what's "necessary" for the app is nebulous, but the law has tests for differentiating between two nebulous states. Even a policy that had way too much grey area, like fair use, would still protect users more than "app developers can do whatever they want as long as it's in the privacy policy."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine they just mean "you can't crash or abruptly exit." Telling the user "please grant location access to use the app" and providing a button to try again is probably fine.
I think it depends on the function that the permission access provides. If permission use is core to the app (like your app is a map with a dot for the user's location that has no other functionality like business searching), then, you're probably allowed to just sit there with an empty map doing nothing until the user consents. If location access is peripheral to the core function of the app, it's a different story.…
> I am thinking of a logistics application that I wrote that requires location access. It effectively serves no purpose without location access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 :)
Both of them still exists, but of course in some situations it doesn't make sense, so there is a lot of leeway depending on the reviewers. My experience is positive here, I can't remember the last time an app did not allow me to not have an account or manually provide data when it made sense. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#dat... (iv) Access [...] Where possible, provide alternative solution…
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.
But why? Just don't grant it permissions if you don't want to. And if it refuses to function without (for no good reason), then don't use the app because it's scammy. Is there some other situation I'm missing here? Like is there some legitimate app people need to install that won't work if you don't grant it unneeded permissions?
Though like any technical solution trying to fix a culture problem, the fake data generation won't be all roses either. Users will inadvertently enable it and then the app won't work properly and they won't know how to fix it; Think a calendar app where you enabled the fake calendar access by mistake, so you see random crap instead of your expected schedule. Where do you go to fix it? The app doesn't know you're feeding it lies, that's the whole point, so it can't help. So in Android fashion you have to dig twelve levels deep in convoluted menus to revert that. Assuming you even know where to look or what the problem is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a source on that? I used to be a lineageOS user and I always wondered why privacy guard disappeared.
I found this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28096873 Looks like Privacy Guard was dropped because the rewrite wasn't worth the effort.
But if (as in most cases) the goal is to data-mine me, fake data should work nicely to impede that.
Of course it won't matter for things like WhatsApp, where people happily sync their entire list of contacts with Facebook/Meta just to have a slightly nicer messaging experience.