6 ms·

This is why I don't use Android. On iOS, you install the app and at some point you see a prompt "This app would like access to your camera. Allow?" and you can

by biot 11y ago

This is why I don't use Android. On iOS, you install the app and at some point you see a prompt "This app would like access to your camera. Allow?" and you can click "Don't Allow" and keep using everything else. Versus Android, which at install time asks "This app wants access to these 37 different things. Allow everything and install, or would you prefer to kindly fuck off?"

livingparadox 11y ago
The solution here is to clearly tell those apps to fuck off. Though, the latest version of android odes allow you to "allow" or "don't allow" features like that. Its the only reason that I finally installed the facebook app.
- JoshMnem 11y ago
  You might like this alternative: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danvelazco.fbwrapper&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danvelazco...
  - brewdad 11y ago
    I've been using that app for years. Friends still chuckle when they see that app name on my phone screen.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    This is exactly what I need. I've made peace with the fact that Google knows much about me because I use their services and they made the OS and major apps for my phone. I have Facebook purely to get the occasional message or invite from a friend, and I hate how exposed to them I feel for needing this minimal functionality.
  - livingparadox 11y ago
    I do indeed... Though, I am on the new android, so its mostly a moot issue for me now. I also was using the mobile website before, so this may not have provided much for my use case. Thanks for the link though!
johnmaguire2013 11y ago
Android is implementing this in 6.0. No reason to make this a fanboy war. In any case, the app would probably say "Oh, I can't have camera? Well you can't have app." And it's not like you weren't warned on the page with "37 permissions".
- awqrre 11y ago
  Actually, part of the problem is that they don't have to ask for 37 permissions... they are grouped together in such large groups that you don't know what permissions they are really after. Cyanogenmod has Privacy Guard that I think can help with this privacy nightmare.
  - azinman2 11y ago
    The bigger issue is that they provide no context. "Facebook wants to send Sms" seems really odd until there's some feature like inviting someone that would obviously require sending Sms. Contextually asking for this permission then is much more reasonable, especially since the app can be used otherwise. Clearly certain permissions like camera may be the entire reason for the app, but the more sinister stuff like location tracking is often not the primary purpose.
- sossles 11y ago
  On the AppStore, apps are required to gracefully degrade where permissions are not granted, and you can be rejected for not doing that. That seems unlikely to be enforced on the Play Store.
  - verbify 11y ago
    Can anyone confirm if that is the case with uber? On Android, if location isn't enabled, you can't use uber. And before anyone claims location services are necessary to find the user and stop ddos attacks - I've ordered uber before for people in other parts of town, and I'm a signed in user with a track record of making payments.
    - 11y ago
ChristianBundy 11y ago
That's not true anymore, as the permission system was overhauled in Android 6.0 Marshmallow.
inopinatus 11y ago
Even such prompts are disingenuous. They amount to a salami attack against the user's privacy, because the overwhelming majority of users will authorize Yes on a per-app basis just to take a look, without really considering the potential consequences. See also: server admins who accept SSH host keys without verification.
- taternuts 11y ago
  The people who mindlessly click 'Yes' are generally the ones who don't care about the privacy implications of enabling such things though. I know I care, and I have uninstalled several apps after they've started asking for ridiculous permissions to enable non-essential features that I don't care about.
  - inopinatus 11y ago
    Sure, but we need to be thinking beyond ourselves. You sound pretty pleased with your own approach to software hygiene, and good for you, but it's easy to be rigorous when you understand the implications. Educating end-users won't move that needle much. What I'd like to see is a mobile device stack I could recommend to my dad, with high privacy assurance that he can't inadvertently compromise.
greggman 11y ago
its not really that simple, even on iOS. I'd like to allow facebook to access the camera so I can take a picture to send to someone directly from the app. But that means I've given it permission to access the camera period at that point. Not just permission to take a single picture. Similarly I'd like to give an app permissions to save pictures to the os level photo db. But the permission isn't 'save' it's 'access your photos'. Which means once I give it permission it can look at all the photos on the camera. I'd personally prefer more fine grained permissions. Permission to take a picture (and read just those pictures the app took), permission to save pictures to the OS picture db. Permission to read pictures from the os picture DB the app didn't take. I actually don't know if that would be any kind of solution. Another would be if the only way to access pictures was an OS level ui. That way the app couldn't access the pictures directly. at the same time that would limit useful things apps can do. For example the fb messenger app showing half the display as a live feed from the camera.
- biot 11y ago
  Yes, that would be a possible evolution of permissions. If an app lets you choose a picture from your photo library, iOS swaps you to your camera roll where you select the image and then click "Share this image with app". You then get redirected back to the app and iOS sends the app only that image. Currently, for things like camera, microphone, location, etc. you can always revoke that permission after granting it via Settings.

by biot 11y ago

livingparadox 11y ago

The solution here is to clearly tell those apps to fuck off. Though, the latest version of android odes allow you to "allow" or "don't allow" features like that. Its the only reason that I finally installed the facebook app.

JoshMnem 11y ago
You might like this alternative: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danvelazco.fbwrapper&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danvelazco...
- brewdad 11y ago
  I've been using that app for years. Friends still chuckle when they see that app name on my phone screen.
- kbenson 11y ago
  This is exactly what I need. I've made peace with the fact that Google knows much about me because I use their services and they made the OS and major apps for my phone. I have Facebook purely to get the occasional message or invite from a friend, and I hate how exposed to them I feel for needing this minimal functionality.
- livingparadox 11y ago
  I do indeed... Though, I am on the new android, so its mostly a moot issue for me now. I also was using the mobile website before, so this may not have provided much for my use case. Thanks for the link though!

johnmaguire2013 11y ago

Android is implementing this in 6.0. No reason to make this a fanboy war. In any case, the app would probably say "Oh, I can't have camera? Well you can't have app." And it's not like you weren't warned on the page with "37 permissions".

awqrre 11y ago
Actually, part of the problem is that they don't have to ask for 37 permissions... they are grouped together in such large groups that you don't know what permissions they are really after. Cyanogenmod has Privacy Guard that I think can help with this privacy nightmare.
- azinman2 11y ago
  The bigger issue is that they provide no context. "Facebook wants to send Sms" seems really odd until there's some feature like inviting someone that would obviously require sending Sms. Contextually asking for this permission then is much more reasonable, especially since the app can be used otherwise. Clearly certain permissions like camera may be the entire reason for the app, but the more sinister stuff like location tracking is often not the primary purpose.
sossles 11y ago
On the AppStore, apps are required to gracefully degrade where permissions are not granted, and you can be rejected for not doing that. That seems unlikely to be enforced on the Play Store.
- verbify 11y ago
  Can anyone confirm if that is the case with uber? On Android, if location isn't enabled, you can't use uber. And before anyone claims location services are necessary to find the user and stop ddos attacks - I've ordered uber before for people in other parts of town, and I'm a signed in user with a track record of making payments.
  - 11y ago

ChristianBundy 11y ago

That's not true anymore, as the permission system was overhauled in Android 6.0 Marshmallow.

inopinatus 11y ago

Even such prompts are disingenuous. They amount to a salami attack against the user's privacy, because the overwhelming majority of users will authorize Yes on a per-app basis just to take a look, without really considering the potential consequences. See also: server admins who accept SSH host keys without verification.

taternuts 11y ago
The people who mindlessly click 'Yes' are generally the ones who don't care about the privacy implications of enabling such things though. I know I care, and I have uninstalled several apps after they've started asking for ridiculous permissions to enable non-essential features that I don't care about.
- inopinatus 11y ago
  Sure, but we need to be thinking beyond ourselves. You sound pretty pleased with your own approach to software hygiene, and good for you, but it's easy to be rigorous when you understand the implications. Educating end-users won't move that needle much. What I'd like to see is a mobile device stack I could recommend to my dad, with high privacy assurance that he can't inadvertently compromise.

greggman 11y ago

its not really that simple, even on iOS. I'd like to allow facebook to access the camera so I can take a picture to send to someone directly from the app. But that means I've given it permission to access the camera period at that point. Not just permission to take a single picture. Similarly I'd like to give an app permissions to save pictures to the os level photo db. But the permission isn't 'save' it's 'access your photos'. Which means once I give it permission it can look at all the photos on the camera. I'd personally prefer more fine grained permissions. Permission to take a picture (and read just those pictures the app took), permission to save pictures to the OS picture db. Permission to read pictures from the os picture DB the app didn't take. I actually don't know if that would be any kind of solution. Another would be if the only way to access pictures was an OS level ui. That way the app couldn't access the pictures directly. at the same time that would limit useful things apps can do. For example the fb messenger app showing half the display as a live feed from the camera.

biot 11y ago
Yes, that would be a possible evolution of permissions. If an app lets you choose a picture from your photo library, iOS swaps you to your camera roll where you select the image and then click "Share this image with app". You then get redirected back to the app and iOS sends the app only that image. Currently, for things like camera, microphone, location, etc. you can always revoke that permission after granting it via Settings.