3 ms·

My main point is actually that I am forced to use this dialler without my consent. I am not trying to say that users shouldn't be able to customise the system b

My main point is actually that I am forced to use this dialler without my consent. I am not trying to say that users shouldn't be able to customise the system but I am opposed to manufacturers forcing data-hungry 3rd party programs on customers.

esMazer 9y ago
at the same time, we can choose to install a different third party dialer no? maybe what we need is a 3rd party dialer that pledges privacy.
- bostand 9y ago
  The point is, this should not happen to core functionality. Specially not sneaky like this.
  - NikolaeVarius 9y ago
    Define core functionality. We are carrying computers that happen to have a radio that can communicate with cell towers. The phone functionality is just as "core" as any other service that the OS exposes. (Camera, Web Browser, GPS)
    - kuschku 9y ago
      If it's in the /system partition, it shouldn't be able to do any data collection or bound to any companies' services. Anything bound to any companies' services or doing any data collection should be entirely user-controlled and user-replacable.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      It's still called a "phone", and it really sucks at being a computer (it is a good entertainment device though). Since a lot of things are still done over phone calls and every citizen in a civilized country is expected to be in possession of a phone number, I'd qualify it as core functionality.
shaftway 9y ago
But you aren't forced to use it. That's the whole point of having a dialer you can install. It seems like the alternative you're suggesting is that vendors be able to lock you into their own dialer, which was probably produced by an outsourced firm anyway. Or are you advocating that Google prevent people who download and modify the Android source from modifying that particular aspect of it?
accountyaccount 9y ago
Granting permissions seems pretty clear. If a dialer asks for too many, use a different dialer. If a manufacturer preloads data-hungry apps, buy a device from someone else.

esMazer 9y ago

at the same time, we can choose to install a different third party dialer no? maybe what we need is a 3rd party dialer that pledges privacy.

bostand 9y ago
The point is, this should not happen to core functionality. Specially not sneaky like this.
- NikolaeVarius 9y ago
  Define core functionality. We are carrying computers that happen to have a radio that can communicate with cell towers. The phone functionality is just as "core" as any other service that the OS exposes. (Camera, Web Browser, GPS)
  - kuschku 9y ago
    If it's in the /system partition, it shouldn't be able to do any data collection or bound to any companies' services. Anything bound to any companies' services or doing any data collection should be entirely user-controlled and user-replacable.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    It's still called a "phone", and it really sucks at being a computer (it is a good entertainment device though). Since a lot of things are still done over phone calls and every citizen in a civilized country is expected to be in possession of a phone number, I'd qualify it as core functionality.

shaftway 9y ago

But you aren't forced to use it. That's the whole point of having a dialer you can install. It seems like the alternative you're suggesting is that vendors be able to lock you into their own dialer, which was probably produced by an outsourced firm anyway. Or are you advocating that Google prevent people who download and modify the Android source from modifying that particular aspect of it?

accountyaccount 9y ago

Granting permissions seems pretty clear. If a dialer asks for too many, use a different dialer. If a manufacturer preloads data-hungry apps, buy a device from someone else.