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

Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 207 posts

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#91

Post by Pxtl »

dhekir wrote: post #56
ansible wrote: post #19

The original intention (as explained by Dianne Hackborn among others) is that if the user sees the app requesting too many capabilities... the user should simply choose not to install the app. Having the user needing to understand all the different capabilities is too much. Having a bunch of pop-ups ( cough Vista) is also bad UI design. The current set of capabilities is too technical for end users to really understa…

I can choose not to install an app, but Google prevents me from doing it intelligently, that is, filtering the crappy apps demanding ridiculous permissions. I have to manually click on dozens of them before finding one that does not require, say, Internet access. APEFS ( http://www.bs.informatik.uni-siegen.de/forschung/apefs ) allowed such filtering, but since Google Play was updated some months ago, it stopped worki…

Exactly. The Play Store does not allow me to sort by permissions and doesn't display them up-front, making concern about permissions a fruitless endeavor.

Give me a fuzzy-sort option where I can just apply weightings to how much I value out of (1) Permissions, (2) Popularity, (3) Price and (4) Relevance

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#92

Post by jxf »

SmileyKeith wrote: post #90

This is a major issue Google needs to deal with in Android IMO. I'm surprised that this feature ever existed in Android because of how coupled permissions are with applications. Since applications request all permissions on install I imagine most developers don't have much conditional code for their failure, unlike iOS where you have to because there's a possibility a user may deny access to a single specific thing,…

That's partially because developers are somewhat incentivized to "front-load" their permissions. If you think there's even a chance you might use a permission, even if your app doesn't currently use it, ask for it on the first install.

Then, later, when you actually do want to use it, your app update won't say that you need any new permissions.

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#93

Post by jre »

outworlder wrote: post #64
jackgavigan wrote: post #18

This is one area where iOS stands head and shoulders above Android. I used to run Cyanogenmod and I remember deciding to not upgrade the Facebook app because doing so would have required giving it a slew of permissions, including the ability to "directly call phone numbers". By contrast, in iOS, I can choose which apps have access to my location, contacts, etc. I know that Apple's track record when it comes to privac…

Do not expect Google to implement it anytime soon, due to the massive app breakage potential. Android's permission system looks good on the surface. However, there are so many required permissons nowadays that many users do not even check them anymore. And you can revoke specific permissions on an app by app basis. On iOS, developers are told not to rely on certain permissions being available, such as location. Some…

As long as the disallowed permissions simply return empty results (or random stuff) for the API calls, I don't see how this can break apps.

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#94

Post by fooqux »

wting wrote: post #14

If you have root you can still enable it with market apps.[0][1] However something like this needs to be integrated tightly like iOS and apps need to be aware they may not receive requested permissions. I still use App Ops in Kit Kat and it silently breaks apps all the time. Apps expect to be able request information (e.g. contact details) and crash or stall when they can't. In that respect, LBE Privacy Guard[2] was…

I think the article is a tad misleading here, and I think your first link is going to add to the confusion.

The ability to revoke permissions was built right into the System Settings app, but the ability to access it was hidden from view. Custom roms would usually add a link to it, and apps like AppOps by ColorTiger (your first link) was simply a pointer that would trigger that view to activate (I'm glossing over the root functionality here).

What Google did in 4.4.2 was remove the hidden view from settings. This means that apps like ColorTiger's AppOps will no longer work at all- there is nothing for it to call. The pointer has been dereferenced, if you will.

Apps like LBE (which I share your desire for a newly updated, open source version which doesn't cause bootloops on newer versions of Android), PDroid, and presumably XPrivacy (which I've never heard of, but am looking into now for the inevitable upgrade to 4.4.2 if OmniRom is unable to provide a new solution) work because they replace the functionality that Google removed, not just call something built into Android, but hidden.

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#95

Post by FigBug »

CalRobert wrote: post #24

I'm probably going to turn in to that old guy with tin foil who can't play any games because nobody supports his choice of platform, but I really miss when computers were devices you could buy and then put your choice of OS on. Phones are pretty much just little ARM computers, why the hell don't I just install Ubuntu, Firefox OS, Android, WinPhone, Symbian, whatever? I could format a microSD card to boot from and go…

I think not tying the OS to their hardware was a mistake by IBM. And while it may have let the PC win, what is the point of your platform winning if you get forced out of the business by the clones? There is no money in hardware, you need to control the OS.

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#96

Post by FigBug »

mdorazio wrote: post #84
corresation wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By contrast, in iOS, I can choose which apps have access to my location, contacts, etc. Could you detail the "etc"? To my knowledge historically the only activity that triggered a permission confirmation was a precise location fix. Later, after a debacle with many apps siphoning and scurrilously offloading contact lists, contact access was added as a confirmation. Android has very granular permissions, and iOS does n…

Looking at the Settings area on my phone, it is possible in iOS 6 to set App-level permissions for: -Push Notifications -Location Services -Contacts -Calendars -Reminders -Photos -Bluetooth -Twitter Account Access -Facebook Account Access. Note that iOS7 may have added more.

My only complaint is iOS apps know if the permission is denied, so every time you switch to them they can ask you to enable permissions which is annoying (Facebook messenger). I wish they just returned no data.

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#97

Post by cognivore »

There is another point here, one I think even more important and more disconcerting.

Google released an entire feature of their Android OS BY ACCIDENT. W...T...F?! How do you release a feature "by accident?" By having awful quality control? How does that make me feel about the rest of their Android OS now?

Either this, or they're lying through their teeth in an effort to cover up. In either case, it's evil.

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#98

Post by chaz »

cognivore wrote: post #97

There is another point here, one I think even more important and more disconcerting. Google released an entire feature of their Android OS BY ACCIDENT. W...T...F?! How do you release a feature "by accident?" By having awful quality control? How does that make me feel about the rest of their Android OS now? Either this, or they're lying through their teeth in an effort to cover up. In either case, it's evil.

Hanlon's Razor probably applies here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#99

Post by barrkel »

outworlder wrote: post #64
jackgavigan wrote: post #18

This is one area where iOS stands head and shoulders above Android. I used to run Cyanogenmod and I remember deciding to not upgrade the Facebook app because doing so would have required giving it a slew of permissions, including the ability to "directly call phone numbers". By contrast, in iOS, I can choose which apps have access to my location, contacts, etc. I know that Apple's track record when it comes to privac…

Do not expect Google to implement it anytime soon, due to the massive app breakage potential. Android's permission system looks good on the surface. However, there are so many required permissons nowadays that many users do not even check them anymore. And you can revoke specific permissions on an app by app basis. On iOS, developers are told not to rely on certain permissions being available, such as location. Some…

There is almost zero app breakage potential. Because the implementation shouldn't be refusing permissions, it should simply be mocking them. Ask for a location? Mock it to an arbitrary location. Asking for contacts? Return an empty list, or a list with joe.smith@example.org. Etc.

Re: Google Removes Vital Privacy Feature From Android, Claims Release Was Accidental

#100

Post by freehunter »

signalnow wrote: post #29

I don't understand this from the EFF first they post a piece lauding an unofficial, deeply buried unannounced functionality, then they condemn Google for removing something that they have never officially released or supported in the first place. It’s their mistake for jumping the gun and discussing something that wasn't officially, the followup is just to save face, but that is really an unfair attack.

How would anyone know it was not official until Google said it wasn't meant to be released?
Post reply on HN