Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse • Hacker News Board

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#151

Post by sgc » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

bakugo wrote: post #78

secretsatan wrote: post #40

I kinda sorta see google’s side. There are just too many shady operators out there who will swear blind they’re completely honest, and maybe they are, but they also employed a third party to write code or maybe just imported a 3rd party lib (i am in no way saying this is the case) As to, why don’t they look at the code? bugger that being standard practise, i’m not handing over my code to google or apple. Even if they…

So why not just remove the Contacts API entirely then? If it exists, "shady operators" can misuse it. Oh and, camera apps made by "shady operators" could be sending your pictures to questionable places so why not remove the Camera API as well? And we can't forget that "shady operators" could be snooping through your files so let's remove the filesystem API too. Actually now that I think about it, any app could be mal…

They won't let you call anything but their crappy camera app by intent already, for supposed privacy reasons. As you intimate, what is the point of allowing mobile apps, if they can't access any of the features of the device? Because that is where they are heading, fast. A few crappy google apps that require 24/7 spying to work, and then they "protect you" from everyone else. Sounds like an old school mafia street racket.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#152

Post by Nextgrid » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #137

Nextgrid wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More enforcement will force businesses to remove obnoxious consent flows as those are already in breach of the regulation and it just needs enforcement. Consent should be explicitly opt-in, you can't force it with annoyances, dark patterns or denying the service. Some shitty businesses who outright can't be profitable without stalking will fold which is a good thing (less spyware in the world), most will adapt just f…

Its objective is not to introduce friction, it's to outlaw spyware Then why not just outlaw the spyware? Why go through the theater of "you can use spyware, but you have to get the user to 'agree' to it first, and you're not allowed to offer them anything in exchange"? That's just asking for the dark patterns and malicious compliance/non-compliance that we've gotten.

> Then why not just outlaw the spyware?

The spyware is outlawed, and so is coercing users into "agreeing" with it.

The problem is that neither restriction is adequately punished to deter the behavior; as of right now, you're better off profiting off spyware because even if you get caught (which is a very big if), the penalty is merely to ask you to stop doing so (and future compliance isn't monitored, so you can get back to your usual shenanigans once the dust settles).

From a GDPR perspective, it doesn't matter whether you don't ask for consent or coerce users into it - both are outlawed, however, because of lax enforcement, an industry of snake oil has developed to sell companies non-compliant solutions (because actual compliance would put them out of business), along with spreading falsehoods and misinformation to promote said business which is blatantly visible on this very thread.

If you truly want to comply with the GDPR, the answer is to rethink your business model and fire a lot of people. But since it's uncomfortable, everyone would rather pretend they comply by paying for an expensive, not-actually-compliant "consent management platform" and otherwise continuing as usual.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#153

Post by throwaway27727 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:27 PM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #143

getcrunk wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how it is in all cases, but at least when using java back in the day, the source of a binary was trivial to look at? And now many apps are written in js

SafetyNet can obfuscate compiled code so that it's a pain to decompile and reverse engineer.

Proguard

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#154

Post by davidhyde » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

savy91 wrote: post #133

We develop a banking app for families (parents and kids). 2 weeks ago we had to remove the possibility to pick phone contacts to invite other family members because Google claimed we were uploading contacts to our servers (which we did not). We appealed and it did not work. We then complied with their request and added to the privacy policy they we have access to the contacts and we might process them, and yet Google…

No post body was provided.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#155

Post by veeti » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:34 PM UTC

davidhyde wrote: post #154

savy91 wrote: post #133

We develop a banking app for families (parents and kids). 2 weeks ago we had to remove the possibility to pick phone contacts to invite other family members because Google claimed we were uploading contacts to our servers (which we did not). We appealed and it did not work. We then complied with their request and added to the privacy policy they we have access to the contacts and we might process them, and yet Google…

Quoted post unavailable.

The parent comment literally says that their users always had the choice, but don't let me interrupt your knee jerk reaction.

> A win win for everyone is if Google allowed the user to turn this feature on manually in settings post app install but they don’t do that.

That is exactly how the Android permission model already works. But now Google/Play Store is enforcing additional restrictions on developers that use these permissions.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#156

Post by striking » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:34 PM UTC

davidhyde wrote: post #154

savy91 wrote: post #133

We develop a banking app for families (parents and kids). 2 weeks ago we had to remove the possibility to pick phone contacts to invite other family members because Google claimed we were uploading contacts to our servers (which we did not). We appealed and it did not work. We then complied with their request and added to the privacy policy they we have access to the contacts and we might process them, and yet Google…

Quoted post unavailable.

Users can decline the permission. Additionally it sounds like this was an optional part of the flow ("possibility")

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#157

Post by refulgentis » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:45 PM UTC

savy91 wrote: post #133

We develop a banking app for families (parents and kids). 2 weeks ago we had to remove the possibility to pick phone contacts to invite other family members because Google claimed we were uploading contacts to our servers (which we did not). We appealed and it did not work. We then complied with their request and added to the privacy policy they we have access to the contacts and we might process them, and yet Google…

How did you send invites?

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#158

Post by davidhyde » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:56 PM UTC

veeti wrote: post #155

davidhyde wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The parent comment literally says that their users always had the choice, but don't let me interrupt your knee jerk reaction. > A win win for everyone is if Google allowed the user to turn this feature on manually in settings post app install but they don’t do that. That is exactly how the Android permission model already works. But now Google/Play Store is enforcing additional restrictions on developers that use the…

Oh, I wasn’t aware of this. Call it an uninformed reaction, oops. Thanks for pointing out my mistake! Maybe this post will be helpful for iPhone users who think that android users have no control until it’s already too late (I thought that, by default, contacts could already be uploaded before permissions could be revoked by the user)

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#159

Post by rawling » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 10:57 PM UTC

savy91 wrote: post #133

We develop a banking app for families (parents and kids). 2 weeks ago we had to remove the possibility to pick phone contacts to invite other family members because Google claimed we were uploading contacts to our servers (which we did not). We appealed and it did not work. We then complied with their request and added to the privacy policy they we have access to the contacts and we might process them, and yet Google…

Did you ask permission to access all the user's contacts, or open a contact picker to let them pick a single contact?

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#160

Post by clcaev » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 11:02 PM UTC

Perhaps phones need an API so an application may request a single contact's information as selected by the user, without exposing the entire phone book?