4 ms·

When Blackberry went Android, they threw security out the window. Until Marshmallow, Android made absolutely no attempt at any kind of security whatsoever - any

When Blackberry went Android, they threw security out the window. Until Marshmallow, Android made absolutely no attempt at any kind of security whatsoever - any app could read anything on your phone and there was nothing you could do to stop it - messages, contacts, microphone, location - and to this day, apps still have to voluntarily opt in to the permission system.

Silhouette 10y ago
That was one of my big concerns when I looked into the Priv around the time it launched. I think they were on Lollipop at the time. It seemed their tools would tell you what apps were doing with your data and sensors, but there was a notable lack of any claims about actually stopping that behaviour if you didn't want to allow it. Since Marshmallow had been released a few weeks earlier, that meant Android on the Priv, even with BlackBerry's software on top, seemed to be less secure against typical app abuses than any of the flagship Android devices updated to run Marshmallow.
IshKebab 10y ago
That totally untrue. You needed to ask for permission for those things at install time. It wasn't a great system, sure, but what you said is objectively false. And apps do not have to voluntarily opt in to the permission system. Any app that targets Android 6 or later is required to use it. Android has enough security problems without having to make them up.
- ClassyJacket 10y ago
  >You needed to ask for permission for those things at install time No, apps didn't have to ask. They had to tell you, but they didn't ask - you couldn't say no. All you could do is never install the app, which we all know is not realistic. Everybody's just clicking straight through that screen because every app simply requests almost every permission. People aren't gonna buy a 1000$ phone and then not install Facebook because it needs Contacts permission. Personally, I just gave up on Android and got an iPhone. > Any app that targets Android 6 or later is required to use it. Sure, but apps can simply target Android 5 to avoid it. It's not like enough Android phones get updates for apps to be able to be exclusive to anything less than Android ~4 years old. I'll concede my wording should've been more specific, but my main point is correct.

Silhouette 10y ago

That was one of my big concerns when I looked into the Priv around the time it launched. I think they were on Lollipop at the time. It seemed their tools would tell you what apps were doing with your data and sensors, but there was a notable lack of any claims about actually stopping that behaviour if you didn't want to allow it. Since Marshmallow had been released a few weeks earlier, that meant Android on the Priv, even with BlackBerry's software on top, seemed to be less secure against typical app abuses than any of the flagship Android devices updated to run Marshmallow.

IshKebab 10y ago

That totally untrue. You needed to ask for permission for those things at install time. It wasn't a great system, sure, but what you said is objectively false. And apps do not have to voluntarily opt in to the permission system. Any app that targets Android 6 or later is required to use it. Android has enough security problems without having to make them up.

ClassyJacket 10y ago
>You needed to ask for permission for those things at install time No, apps didn't have to ask. They had to tell you, but they didn't ask - you couldn't say no. All you could do is never install the app, which we all know is not realistic. Everybody's just clicking straight through that screen because every app simply requests almost every permission. People aren't gonna buy a 1000$ phone and then not install Facebook because it needs Contacts permission. Personally, I just gave up on Android and got an iPhone. > Any app that targets Android 6 or later is required to use it. Sure, but apps can simply target Android 5 to avoid it. It's not like enough Android phones get updates for apps to be able to be exclusive to anything less than Android ~4 years old. I'll concede my wording should've been more specific, but my main point is correct.