Live data from Hacker News

Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

pcmag.com

111–120 of 165 posts

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#111
post #102

This feels like treating one particularly visible symptom of the problem instead of fixing the actual problem. What Google should do instead is prevent apps from refusing to work or disabling unrelated functionality just because some permissions are denied (e.g., if you deny your banking app permission to access your camera, everything but mobile check deposit should still have to work). They should use a two-pronged…

I don’t have much faith in Google for doing that. The Google Photo app only works on iOS if you allow it access to the iOS photo library. I wanted to use it to access photos shared with me, or otherwise stored in Google Photos, not to give google access to all the photos on my phone.

It’s pretty funny that Google has this rule and then slurps up all data for their own purposes and there’s no way to opt out on android if you use the google distro.

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#112

They need to ban that Dave app. I signed up because it offered a loan for $500, but when I got in the app they forced me to "connect" my checking account, sucked up all the data, then offered me only $20. With a daily notification to setup one of their "checking accounts". The app was advertised as a short-term loan with borrower-friendly terms ("give us a tip!") -- yeah right. Come to find out it's just a new accoun…

Never give your bank info to a third party. Never. No good will come.

You could offer me $1000 cash and I wouldn’t do it. It’s just not worth the hassle as setting up and establishing a new bank account is a bit of a hassle.

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#113

This feels like treating one particularly visible symptom of the problem instead of fixing the actual problem. What Google should do instead is prevent apps from refusing to work or disabling unrelated functionality just because some permissions are denied (e.g., if you deny your banking app permission to access your camera, everything but mobile check deposit should still have to work). They should use a two-pronged…

It’s ok to give credit to Apple for doing this already

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#114

I never understood why Program permissions is such a big deal on Android and IOS, but not on Desktop Windows/Linux, where any application can to everything .

Flatpak, Windows/Microsoft Store both address this, if I understood correctly.

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#115

They need to ban that Dave app. I signed up because it offered a loan for $500, but when I got in the app they forced me to "connect" my checking account, sucked up all the data, then offered me only $20. With a daily notification to setup one of their "checking accounts". The app was advertised as a short-term loan with borrower-friendly terms ("give us a tip!") -- yeah right. Come to find out it's just a new accoun…

Never give your bank info to a third party. Never. No good will come. You could offer me $1000 cash and I wouldn’t do it. It’s just not worth the hassle as setting up and establishing a new bank account is a bit of a hassle.

> You could offer me $1000 cash and I wouldn’t do it.

You may not need $1000, but some people literally do.

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never give your bank info to a third party. Never. No good will come. You could offer me $1000 cash and I wouldn’t do it. It’s just not worth the hassle as setting up and establishing a new bank account is a bit of a hassle.

> You could offer me $1000 cash and I wouldn’t do it. You may not need $1000, but some people literally do.

And those people should avoid scammy apps that require their bank credentials.

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#118
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally there should be a sandbox mode. While you give the app access to Photos and Contacts, it's an actual sandbox not containing any photo nor any contact. So the app gets what it asks for (the permission) while the user can still control the data.

This is how photos access on iOS works. An app can ask for access to photos and you can choose 3 options: - no photos - only specific photos (the system picker will appear to select them) - all photos

That was a change that seemed to add inconvenience but no additional security. Now I have to first approve an individual photo, then search the pre-approved photos for the photo I just added (they will be sorted by time). Why can't they just let me approve and add a photo at the same time?

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#119
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how photos access on iOS works. An app can ask for access to photos and you can choose 3 options: - no photos - only specific photos (the system picker will appear to select them) - all photos

That was a change that seemed to add inconvenience but no additional security. Now I have to first approve an individual photo, then search the pre-approved photos for the photo I just added (they will be sorted by time). Why can't they just let me approve and add a photo at the same time?

But it absolutely provides more security... the app can see only the exact photos you allow. It is a bit annoying as an extra step, but I'll happily give apps access to a single photo selectively versus the all-or-nothing approach where I might choose to completely stop using an app.

Re: Google to ban financial lending apps from accessing user photos, contacts

#120
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if i don’t want it automatically downloading updates?

Then you are opting into a worse UX. You shouldn't be surprised that opting into a worse UX results into experiencing a worse UX like having to be nagged about updating instead of letting your system handle everything for you.

I'd argue the worse UX is letting apps change their UX on a whim without my input, i.e. auto-updates.
Post reply on HN