251–260 of 330 posts
GrapheneOS already does this, since forever. Android can't stop copying GOS. Maybe they'll add a network toggle after a few years and call it a privacy win.
I don't think that's quite right. Up until recently I was able to share photos with geolocation from my GrapheneOS device.
Recently, I've been struggling with adding locations to some photos after-the-fact, such as edited photos as well as screenshots (because these screenshots are from location-based apps).
The Photos app always tells me that "location will only be visible inside Photos" -- that is, only to users of the app, and those who I share with inside the app. If the image is downloaded or extracted from the Photos app, apparently it will lose that location info and it won't be stored in the EXIF as normal.
This is because Android, like iOS, seeks to assert control over the JPEG/PNG image file types, and claim them as a special object type which can only be handled by Photos and other image-handling apps.
These image-format objects will no longer be treated as normal files that you can just throw anywhere, but as something that only Photos can handle on your phone, and tied inextricably to the Photos app. Therefore, any metadata that you add shall be stored and managed by Photos, and not in the file itself, because that would be interoperable, and that would be absolutely nuts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not all-or-nothing; sometimes some people at Google push for some things to improve privacy. Rarely happens when revenue is at stake. Android used to ask you "do you want to alllow internet access?" as an app permission. Google removed that, as it would stop ads from showing up. Devastating change for privacy and security, great for revenue.
GrapheneOS still does this -- allows controlling internet access on a per-app basis.
Also notable: as of last year, OnePlus allowed mobile and WiFi network toggle, effectively doing the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Obviously" There are plenty of use cases where the filename is relevant (and many, many people intentionally use the image name for sorting / cataloging).
There are many, many more cases where the user doesn’t expect the name to become public when he sends a photo. If I send you a photo of a friend that doesn’t mean I want you to know his name (which is the name I gave the file when I saved it)
In fact, I often refer to the name of the photo in the body of the email (e.g., "front_before.jpg shows the front of the car when I picked it up, front_after.jpg shows it after the accident.")
I imagine this is an extremely common use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And absolutely no one knows they are using Linux. Google had to hide all of the Unix underpinnings and do things like this to make it usable. As far as the BT car issue. I don’t have that issue. I turned off wireless CarPlay, don’t use BT and I connect my phone to my car using a regular old USB C cable to avoid that issue - and it’s more reliable
> I don’t have that issue. Ah yes, the good old, "I don't have that particular issue, so I can use my experience to dismiss your concern". You do realize that sometimes bugs only affect a small percentage of users, right? And even if it affects, say 40% of users, you may personally never see the issue. Does that make it not worth talking about?
The same with the EXIF data being shared. Most people don’t want their location being shared with photos and there have been reports of stalkers using the information
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP here. I'm not conflating them. That's why I used the word "or". I don't know how modern your Android phone is, but on all of mine sharing via Bluetooth strips away some of the EXIF.
On Android 16. Open photo. Hit share. Hit Bluetooth. Pick a device to send it to. Wait for xfer to finish. Observe in exifview. What detail is missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And absolutely no one knows they are using Linux. Google had to hide all of the Unix underpinnings and do things like this to make it usable. As far as the BT car issue. I don’t have that issue. I turned off wireless CarPlay, don’t use BT and I connect my phone to my car using a regular old USB C cable to avoid that issue - and it’s more reliable
See you've done all this workaround, fighting with what some designer did because they assumed all the users are imbeciles. The problem shouldn't exist. The object should do what we instruct, and not have its own opinions of us and do stuff on our behalf presuming incompetency Let's take another example, the 4chan-ification of the web making everything ephemeral. All the feed based sites basically hide what you just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no one who knows how to change an engine should drive a car. This is why geeks make horrible product people and after 30 years geeks are still waiting for “The Year of Linux on the Desktop”.
That's an incredibly bad analogy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? You don’t understand why people wouldn’t want to share their location with the government?
I get the reflex to deny permissions (and I also get the reflex to allow anything, in the interest of just getting the annoying pop-up to go away), but it's really tiresome that we have to expect people to avoid thinking even the least bit critically at every juncture. If you're filling out a form with the express purpose of letting someone know specifically where something is... a request for location information is…