Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erm, no they should not. The same breach of privacy will occur when an app just re-implements the demanding of a permission. "This camera app will not run without access to your list of contacts. Enable Contact List Access and restart to proceed". If the phone is mine, then I should be able to easily set it to lie on my behalf to protect my interests.
That's not a breach of privacy. That's the developer enforcing their TOS. It is within my right to say that if you won't give me location information for (ad targeting/basic functionality), you can not use my app. Which is fine, but I'd also expect one-stars for that kind of behavior.
I disagree. That question is exactly what we're discussing here. What you just said clashes with what you said earlier:
> Apps are guests in the user's back yard, not the other way around.
Either a developer is able to enforce their desired "TOS" on the user's device, or they cannot.
I am on the side of cannot, because attempting to define morals through simple rules ("right to contract") and then asserting that all emergent behavior from those rules is just, fails extremely hard with complexity-induced contradictions. The whole idea behind saying that a user owns the device is to make it clear that the Schelling demarcation point is the protocol, with each party carrying out such in their own best interest. Assuming an ambient authority (a legal contract, in this case) that constrains the behavior of the user's device runs directly counter to this.