Live data from Hacker News

Google announces Android for Work

googleforwork.blogspot.com

121–130 of 174 posts

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#121
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bus station is also where a bus starts. Ditto for trains and train stations. ;)

Actually bus station is where bus does its job (get on and get off people)

I hope that wherever it is you live, buses' primary job isn't getting on and off people.

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#122
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would secure-wiping the phone if involved in a legal discovery process be considered destruction of evidence? Yes, if it's not part of a routine process.

If you are already in litigation there is almost always a litigation hold, and you can't even wipe it as part of a routine process.

However if prior to receiving notice of the hold you'd wiped it as part of a documented data retention policy, odds are far smaller of falling afoul of legal process.

Sudden change of policy in conjunction with other shady events, harder time.

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#124
post #6

I love the name "Google Play for Work."

The name is silly, but it makes sense. Google Play is effectively a package manager. "Google Play for Work" is an enterprise-controlled package manager.

Oh yes, it makes perfect sense if you ignore the fact that "Google Play is a package manager" doesn't make any sense. Google Play should be a thing on which you play, not manage packages.

It could have been called "Google Package Manager for Work."

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#125
On a basic level its a "container" that uses selinux to create a separate security space in which "work" apps and data live, so they they don't mingle with your personal apps. The Android for Work administrator has complete control over that part of the phone, but can't touch any personal apps or data. There are also updated email/calendar/contacts apps. This made mainly to address BYOD scenarios.

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#126
post #7

I tried to find any info about license or repos and couldn't find anything. Unlike Samsung's Knox, which is FOSS, how can this be even remotely secure if it is closed source? Seems that Google is full on the "Extinguish" phase with Android. edit: amazing that I'm being downvoted for stating facts yet nobody replies to me.

(Googler here)

It's a platform feature, so it's open source, but there's always a delay between the announcement and the time the code hits the public repositories. It'll be there before too much longer.

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CyanogenMod's Privacy Guard is useful for dealing with this situation. There is a setting to enable it by default on newly installed apps. No matter what permissions the app says it requires, you are prompted when it actually requests them and can deny them at will or permanently.

When you deny them, roughly how often in your experience does this cause the app to crash or display an error?

If you have a rooted device, try XPrivacy. That gives you a lot more options and you can even set what data you want the app to see. Want those apps that are asking for your location to think that you are on the North Pole? No problem.

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#128
post #7

I tried to find any info about license or repos and couldn't find anything. Unlike Samsung's Knox, which is FOSS, how can this be even remotely secure if it is closed source? Seems that Google is full on the "Extinguish" phase with Android. edit: amazing that I'm being downvoted for stating facts yet nobody replies to me.

The fact of the matter, is that Google usually publishes their source. They're just a bit slow at it. Most versions of android ship in binary form before source is released.

AOSP is fairly basic and somewhat limited on its own, unless you have the resources to replace all of the "gapps", including setting up your own app store. Google Play Services has been slowly taking over a lot of core (and not-so-core) phone functionality over the past year or more, and it's entirely closed source.

Google even stopped open-sourcing new versions of Google Authenticator, which you'd think would be a prime candidate for a full-blown open source project. (And hell, it's a crappy app; there are better GAuth-workalikes available.)

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#129
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider that a weakness of iOS as a platform. There are some pretty cool and useful things you can do with an Android app that you just can't do on iOS, period. Android's permission-granting model does leave much to be desired, though.

> There are some pretty cool and useful things you can do with an Android app that you just can't do on iOS, period. Such as?

First things that comes to mind:

Intercepting calls before they go out through the main dialer, and instead using some form of VoIP.

Intercepting an incoming SMS that's used for phone number verification, rather than requiring that the user switch to their SMS app and manually enter a code.

For that matter, replacing the SMS app with something better.

Reasonable app backgrounding support for any purpose you can think of, not just for those that Apple has graciously allowed you to do.

Hell, you couldn't even have custom keyboards on iOS until recently.

Apps can also have access to stuff that iOS never allows: e.g. I have a 3rd-party app that backs up my SMS database to Google Drive every night. It can also do backups to Dropbox and a couple other services. With iOS your one and only cloud backup solution for "system related things" is iCloud, and you can't change that.

None of these things require rooting the device. Yes, all of these things can be abused. But I prefer permissiveness that requires a little vigilance on my part over living in a restricted environment.

Re: Google announces Android for Work

#130
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have not asked for those permissions, then how can they give those permissions to third party apps that you install through them?

That transitivity itself is an issue. Why cannot the installed apps request the permissions they need individually?

Unless i am mistaken, Amazon can't give premissions to another app install. The user has to leave the "unknown source" option checked as each APK installed goes through the same rigamarole.

Play gets around this by being bundled as a system app initially. And if you have a rooted device you can potentially promote the amazon store to the same status, and so forgo the "unknown sources" switch.

Post reply on HN