6 ms·

I should be able to opt out an app's feature based on the permission required

51 points by lando2319 11y ago

SlashmanX 11y ago
Isn't this post just asking for something that has already been implemented in iOS and in later versions of Android?
- xeromal 11y ago
  In android, I get granular permissions requests. Some apps manage to function when I deny access which is pretty impressive. It's definitely heading that way on Android.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Yes, and that's now pointed out in an update at the bottom. The overall idea is still important, though. Even if the OS supports granular permissions, that doesn't mean the app does. I've seen apps ask for irrelevant permissions and then refuse to proceed if you deny them.
  - kaoD 11y ago
    Just a random thought: would feeding dummy data solve the issue? E.g. an app requests contacts, OS returns seemingly-innocent randomly generated contact information. Or app requests to send an SMS, the OS informs the app the SMS was sent, but it wasn't. Is there any permission where dummy data would still be easily detected or produce inconvenient (for the user, not the developer) results?
    - pmalynin 11y ago
      Internet access over SSL with key pinning, any attempt to feed dummy data can be easily detected.
    - chipperyman573 11y ago
      There's XPrivacy if your android is rooted, you can chose to deny, allow or fake. http://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacy-t2320783 http://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacy-t232...
    - mikeash 11y ago
      It would be better for the user if the app cooperated. For example, if you disable microphone access, it's better if the app says you can't make voice calls, rather than attempting them and failing strangely. You could also end up in an arms race if fake data became widespread. Bad apps will try to detect the fake data and insist that you actually enable the relevant permission. It might not be easily detected but I'm sure it would be detectible somehow. Much better would be to shut down apps that act badly when refused inessential permissions. Of course, that's kind of hard, so faking it probably has a useful role to play.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      No need to return randomly-generated contacts; just hand the app an empty contact database. Likewise, tell the app that you just don't have a location fix. For requesting to send an SMS, tell the app that there was a failure to send the SMS (for reasons unrelated to permissions). Act as though you have no signal.
      - wlesieutre 11y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised to see apps choke up and crash with an empty contacts database. It goes to inspect your contacts, tries to read the first one alphabetically, and fails to handle "There is no first contact." It shouldn't happen, but you could say the same about any untested edge-case bug.
        cmdrfred 11y ago
        I concur, maybe give the user an option?
  - profmonocle 11y ago
    > I've seen apps ask for irrelevant permissions and then refuse to proceed if you deny them. On iOS I believe this is grounds for App Store rejection unless the permission is critical for basic functionality. (e.g. a GPS app can refuse to continue if the user denies the location permission, but if it wants access to your contacts it has to gracefully handle you saying no.)
    - CaptSpify 11y ago
      Which is funny, because quite a few Google apps crash if you don't give them the right perms. At least, IME Edit: Oh, you said IOS. Nevermind. I'm an idiot
- anonymoushn 11y ago
  It looks like they're implemented in Android if the developer opts in. So scummy developers can still require your contacts before letting you play a match-3 game, but the Spotifies of the world can let users deny access to photos. Ideally I would be able to give an empty contact list to the match-3 game, tell it I'm located in Antarctica, and so on, but it looks like the options for the match-3 game will still be all or nothing.
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    Also, while some applications are more important than match-3 games and may not offer alternatives, there's always the option to simply not install the app if it follows bad practices regarding permissions. If I'm looking at a time-wasting game with plenty of alternatives out there, I just cancel the download/install if it asks for some low level permission without a reasonable explanation of why it wants it. And if it's a "good" or otherwise valuable app, chances are the developer will explain why the permission is being requested. There aren't really any must-have mobile applications I'm aware of that request permissions that are both irrelevant to the function of the program and break the app if I deny access.
- junto 11y ago
  Cool. I didn't know this. How can you change the existing permissions on an app that is already installed in Android?
  - Fargren 11y ago
    Starting on Marshmallow (Android 6.0) you can to the Apps section on Settings and change the permissions for each app. Disclaimer: I don't have an updated android device at hand, the instructions may be less than 100% accurate
  - porpoisemonkey 11y ago
    Go to Settings > Apps then click on the application and go to Permissions. (Works on my Android 6.0.1 device)
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  although yes, it took an embarrassingly long time for them to implement this.
astazangasta 11y ago
The larger issue is that the app stores are full of predators who are simply interested in stealing data and selling us ads. Actually finding useful apps is tough. For a long time I used ES File Explorer on android, a popular file browser, until I realized that the whole app is just lbuilt to scrape my data and show me ads. I now favor Ghost Commander, which only requires permissions to access my files and is GPLd; the latter seems to me the best indicator of not trying to fuck me over.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  ES used to be a solid app but I think they were bought by another company which added all of the dodgy "value add" crap that got me to uninstall it. Thankfully there are several other file explorers with similar functionality although I've not settled on one yet. I've mainly been trying out a few when I happen to need a file explorer.
dudul 11y ago
Another option would be for permissions to be a bit more fine grained. Also, forcing apps to fill in a form explaining why they need permissions Foo and Bar could help. Having "opt-out" features put the burden of the developer. It may not be trivial to provide this functionality.
- jhugg 11y ago
  > Also, forcing apps to fill in a form explaining why they need permissions Foo and Bar could help. That’s a great idea.
- csydas 11y ago
  It's a great idea, but wouldn't this only work for well curated repositories? Basically, it only works if someone is actually enforcing it? Forgive my ignorance since I've only had two iPhone freebies as smart phones, but I was under the impression with Android that you could load apps from virtually anywhere and that for the Play store there wasn't much in the way of curation. As far as the implementation goes, at least, with iOS, if you forbid access even to a key service such as Location Services for an app, the app still launches, it just doesn't do the function requiring the service, and you get a small nag every time you launch the app/try to use the service telling you "X service is disabled for this app, go to Settings to enable". I can't imagine a similar function for Android is that much more difficult.
  - dudul 11y ago
    I have very little experience with mobile apps. I only worked on a few iPhone apps, and on the backend :) I wasn't suggesting this for store admins to review and approve. Simply to force devs to provide informaiton. Maybe we can trust users to curate. The form should be there at submission time, a field per requested permission, devs should be forced to put at least 100 characters for example. If they put garbage, we can trust that the users who care will do the right thing and ignore the app. A lot of apps already try to provide this information on their website, or apps description. Maybe the next step is to embed that in the store itself.
lando2319 11y ago
UPDATE: Sling TV Support Response: @mikepland In regards to your inquiry, the user is prompted for this permission because the AP stores log files on external storage. *MD https://twitter.com/slinganswers/status/703255132935356420 https://twitter.com/slinganswers/status/703255132935356420
- vitd 11y ago
  Can an Android user explain what this means to me? Why does storing log files on an external storage device require access to photos? That makes no sense to a user.
  - arantius 11y ago
    There's only one external storage. And in an attempt (irony alert!) to make permissions "easy" for users to understand, some Android people decided to call the permission that grants access to external storage "Photos". Because that's where the photos are stored, and it's sometimes/often the most important/sensitive thing there.
ape4 11y ago
Apps should have core permissions and optimal permissions. This way the dev can assume some permissions and the app won't crash.
jdlyga 11y ago
iOS is fantastic with this. You don't want the app to access your location or camera? Deny permission when it asks for it. It's as simple as that. This should be implemented across the board.
lanestp 11y ago
All the permissions models are flawed. IMO Marshmallow actually makes it worse. They have permissions groups so, if you request access to Play Games accounts to reduce the login friction the app asks you for access to Contacts. When a user opts out they get a painful login process. The real answer is for Google to stop asking the user for permission on the group and instead ask at the actual permission level.
chakalakasp 11y ago
The first problem this guy has is that he's using Sling. Sling is a terrible service at the moment, with terrible app UI, terrible stream performance and reliability, and terrible TV integration. Just terrible all around. Great concept, though.
- Larrikin 11y ago
  I used to use it years back and thought it was perfectly fine, although a little costly. Has it degraded recently? I just recommended it to a friend that is moving overseas, but they haven't bought it yet. Is there something significantly better?

51 points by lando2319 11y ago

SlashmanX 11y ago

Isn't this post just asking for something that has already been implemented in iOS and in later versions of Android?

xeromal 11y ago
In android, I get granular permissions requests. Some apps manage to function when I deny access which is pretty impressive. It's definitely heading that way on Android.
mikeash 11y ago
Yes, and that's now pointed out in an update at the bottom. The overall idea is still important, though. Even if the OS supports granular permissions, that doesn't mean the app does. I've seen apps ask for irrelevant permissions and then refuse to proceed if you deny them.
- kaoD 11y ago
  Just a random thought: would feeding dummy data solve the issue? E.g. an app requests contacts, OS returns seemingly-innocent randomly generated contact information. Or app requests to send an SMS, the OS informs the app the SMS was sent, but it wasn't. Is there any permission where dummy data would still be easily detected or produce inconvenient (for the user, not the developer) results?
  - pmalynin 11y ago
    Internet access over SSL with key pinning, any attempt to feed dummy data can be easily detected.
  - chipperyman573 11y ago
    There's XPrivacy if your android is rooted, you can chose to deny, allow or fake. http://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacy-t2320783 http://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacy-t232...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It would be better for the user if the app cooperated. For example, if you disable microphone access, it's better if the app says you can't make voice calls, rather than attempting them and failing strangely. You could also end up in an arms race if fake data became widespread. Bad apps will try to detect the fake data and insist that you actually enable the relevant permission. It might not be easily detected but I'm sure it would be detectible somehow. Much better would be to shut down apps that act badly when refused inessential permissions. Of course, that's kind of hard, so faking it probably has a useful role to play.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    No need to return randomly-generated contacts; just hand the app an empty contact database. Likewise, tell the app that you just don't have a location fix. For requesting to send an SMS, tell the app that there was a failure to send the SMS (for reasons unrelated to permissions). Act as though you have no signal.
    - wlesieutre 11y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised to see apps choke up and crash with an empty contacts database. It goes to inspect your contacts, tries to read the first one alphabetically, and fails to handle "There is no first contact." It shouldn't happen, but you could say the same about any untested edge-case bug.
      - cmdrfred 11y ago
        I concur, maybe give the user an option?
- profmonocle 11y ago
  > I've seen apps ask for irrelevant permissions and then refuse to proceed if you deny them. On iOS I believe this is grounds for App Store rejection unless the permission is critical for basic functionality. (e.g. a GPS app can refuse to continue if the user denies the location permission, but if it wants access to your contacts it has to gracefully handle you saying no.)
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    Which is funny, because quite a few Google apps crash if you don't give them the right perms. At least, IME Edit: Oh, you said IOS. Nevermind. I'm an idiot
anonymoushn 11y ago
It looks like they're implemented in Android if the developer opts in. So scummy developers can still require your contacts before letting you play a match-3 game, but the Spotifies of the world can let users deny access to photos. Ideally I would be able to give an empty contact list to the match-3 game, tell it I'm located in Antarctica, and so on, but it looks like the options for the match-3 game will still be all or nothing.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  Also, while some applications are more important than match-3 games and may not offer alternatives, there's always the option to simply not install the app if it follows bad practices regarding permissions. If I'm looking at a time-wasting game with plenty of alternatives out there, I just cancel the download/install if it asks for some low level permission without a reasonable explanation of why it wants it. And if it's a "good" or otherwise valuable app, chances are the developer will explain why the permission is being requested. There aren't really any must-have mobile applications I'm aware of that request permissions that are both irrelevant to the function of the program and break the app if I deny access.
junto 11y ago
Cool. I didn't know this. How can you change the existing permissions on an app that is already installed in Android?
- Fargren 11y ago
  Starting on Marshmallow (Android 6.0) you can to the Apps section on Settings and change the permissions for each app. Disclaimer: I don't have an updated android device at hand, the instructions may be less than 100% accurate
- porpoisemonkey 11y ago
  Go to Settings > Apps then click on the application and go to Permissions. (Works on my Android 6.0.1 device)
CaptSpify 11y ago
although yes, it took an embarrassingly long time for them to implement this.

astazangasta 11y ago

The larger issue is that the app stores are full of predators who are simply interested in stealing data and selling us ads. Actually finding useful apps is tough. For a long time I used ES File Explorer on android, a popular file browser, until I realized that the whole app is just lbuilt to scrape my data and show me ads. I now favor Ghost Commander, which only requires permissions to access my files and is GPLd; the latter seems to me the best indicator of not trying to fuck me over.

soylentcola 11y ago
ES used to be a solid app but I think they were bought by another company which added all of the dodgy "value add" crap that got me to uninstall it. Thankfully there are several other file explorers with similar functionality although I've not settled on one yet. I've mainly been trying out a few when I happen to need a file explorer.

dudul 11y ago

Another option would be for permissions to be a bit more fine grained. Also, forcing apps to fill in a form explaining why they need permissions Foo and Bar could help. Having "opt-out" features put the burden of the developer. It may not be trivial to provide this functionality.

jhugg 11y ago
> Also, forcing apps to fill in a form explaining why they need permissions Foo and Bar could help. That’s a great idea.
csydas 11y ago
It's a great idea, but wouldn't this only work for well curated repositories? Basically, it only works if someone is actually enforcing it? Forgive my ignorance since I've only had two iPhone freebies as smart phones, but I was under the impression with Android that you could load apps from virtually anywhere and that for the Play store there wasn't much in the way of curation. As far as the implementation goes, at least, with iOS, if you forbid access even to a key service such as Location Services for an app, the app still launches, it just doesn't do the function requiring the service, and you get a small nag every time you launch the app/try to use the service telling you "X service is disabled for this app, go to Settings to enable". I can't imagine a similar function for Android is that much more difficult.
- dudul 11y ago
  I have very little experience with mobile apps. I only worked on a few iPhone apps, and on the backend :) I wasn't suggesting this for store admins to review and approve. Simply to force devs to provide informaiton. Maybe we can trust users to curate. The form should be there at submission time, a field per requested permission, devs should be forced to put at least 100 characters for example. If they put garbage, we can trust that the users who care will do the right thing and ignore the app. A lot of apps already try to provide this information on their website, or apps description. Maybe the next step is to embed that in the store itself.

lando2319 11y ago

UPDATE: Sling TV Support Response: @mikepland In regards to your inquiry, the user is prompted for this permission because the AP stores log files on external storage. *MD https://twitter.com/slinganswers/status/703255132935356420 https://twitter.com/slinganswers/status/703255132935356420

vitd 11y ago
Can an Android user explain what this means to me? Why does storing log files on an external storage device require access to photos? That makes no sense to a user.
- arantius 11y ago
  There's only one external storage. And in an attempt (irony alert!) to make permissions "easy" for users to understand, some Android people decided to call the permission that grants access to external storage "Photos". Because that's where the photos are stored, and it's sometimes/often the most important/sensitive thing there.

ape4 11y ago

Apps should have core permissions and optimal permissions. This way the dev can assume some permissions and the app won't crash.

jdlyga 11y ago

iOS is fantastic with this. You don't want the app to access your location or camera? Deny permission when it asks for it. It's as simple as that. This should be implemented across the board.

lanestp 11y ago

All the permissions models are flawed. IMO Marshmallow actually makes it worse. They have permissions groups so, if you request access to Play Games accounts to reduce the login friction the app asks you for access to Contacts. When a user opts out they get a painful login process. The real answer is for Google to stop asking the user for permission on the group and instead ask at the actual permission level.

chakalakasp 11y ago

The first problem this guy has is that he's using Sling. Sling is a terrible service at the moment, with terrible app UI, terrible stream performance and reliability, and terrible TV integration. Just terrible all around. Great concept, though.

Larrikin 11y ago
I used to use it years back and thought it was perfectly fine, although a little costly. Has it degraded recently? I just recommended it to a friend that is moving overseas, but they haven't bought it yet. Is there something significantly better?