3 ms·
> but in a way that affords application developers a way to explain why they need access I think this just won't work. Most developers will end up with "need t
by drdaeman 10y ago
> but in a way that affords application developers a way to explain why they need access
I think this just won't work. Most developers will end up with "need this to work correctly" excuse and proceed in all-or-nothing manner. Maybe with a small room for compromise, but not much. Heck, we already have this quite common with OAuth, when many sites ask you for your name, your contact/friends list, permission to post on your behalf and your first newborn's soul - in "grant all of this or go away" manner.
This will only continue the unnerving trend to train common users to mindlessly agree to whatever they're asked (already happened to license agreements, didn't it?) for because they'll be continuously told that it's "necessary".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12026876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12026876
- ryandrake 10y agoSad but true. My guess is that if the alternative to "run the site/app letting it violate your privacy" is "run the site/app, NOT letting it violate your privacy", users will choose the second one. If the alternative is GTFO, they'll just run the app fully exposed.
- drdaeman 10y agoActually, there's the third option - heavy sandboxing with privilege spoof. Let the app think it gets access to all it wants. E.g. fake battery stats, never ringing buzzer, empty or fake contact list, throwaway email address, geolocation in random place (around the world or city of user's choice), random per-installation device IDs, etc.