Earlier quoted context omitted.
SafetyNet can obfuscate compiled code so that it's a pain to decompile and reverse engineer.
Proguard
Thanks for the correction
Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
211–220 of 296 posts
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ra…
That sounds like iOS? Only Apple apps have access to all the system level capabilities and you can't replace any of the system apps, not even the browser.
It would be fair if one were to conclude that I don't like iOS. But my comment made a few different points, including about google's app quality, not only forcing default apps but also disallowing user choice where it should exist in a pervasive, hard to see way (for the end user), and invasive tracking.
Frankly, over the last week I have been looking into whether there is a relatively straightforward way to write an app for a mobile linux, because I am at the point I am willing to get rid of several common apps, such as banking apps, to get off this nauseating hamster wheel.
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#213We 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…
[deleted]
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, a login cookie is “essential” and does not require consent
But don't start that php session (which sets the session cookie) before the user sends login credentials.
You are allowed a session cookie if it is for the operation of a website.
You don't need to ask permission to store a shopping cart or anything like that as a cookie.
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#215We had this issue and went back and forth with Google for weeks with no progress. It was infuriating, since the peeps on the other end just cut and pasted responses. Then, we hashed the Contacts before uploading them and our app was immediately approved. Subsequently, they decided to ding us on this permission "QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES", which we needed for inviting people you know to our app. Since we were so beaten down,…
From a user perspective it’s good to hear about apps being forced to remove the “invite everyone you know” feature. It’s time for that obnoxious user-hostile growth hack to stop.
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a VOIP phone - it has to actually have the number.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but how does it use the number if it isn't uploaded?
Of course you need to tell the server the number you want to call. That’s the basis of any VoIP application.
But you don’t have to upload every contact neither you have to send any information associated with the number.
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open Source cell phones is functionally a very very niche market. They end up costing more than the phone with the big binary blobs from the other android manufacturers, and often have older hardware than the hardware makers are willing to give away specs for. For what, I'd ask? The users don't care. 98% of Android and iOS users don't even know what open source is, and at least half of those who do know, don't really…
Perhaps... though I guess they will have to care if they end up being forbidden in most markets outside of the USA - nature abhors a vacuum !
I don't think that's likely to happen either. If it does, you'll just end up with rooted phone's reporting themselves to the carriers who will likely cut them off.
Also even if it does happen, the users still won't care.
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry if this is a dumb question but how does it use the number if it isn't uploaded?
Of course you need to tell the server the number you want to call. That’s the basis of any VoIP application. But you don’t have to upload every contact neither you have to send any information associated with the number.
This seems like the crux of things. Yes, contact information is sent from your phone to the internet. Therefore they need that flag for their app. Seems things are working as intended? The app is still free to tell the user a more nuanced privacy story if they want, right?
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#219Perhaps 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?
This API exists in Android.
Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse
#220We 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?
Contact picker, but also that requires the READ_CONTACTS permissions.[1]