7 ms·

Elevating user trust in our API ecosystem

54 points by Leace 8y ago

Leace 8y ago
Google will require Gmail add-on developers to pass a security assessment: > Your app will have the remainder of 2019 to complete the assessment. > The assessment fee is paid by the developer and may range from $15,000 to $75,000 (or more) depending on the size and complexity of the application. > This fee is due whether or not your app passes the assessment; the fee includes a remediation assessment if needed.
- aidos 8y ago
  I imagine that's going to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow for a lot of companies. How do you think they'll continue to police it? What happens in a year's time when than company is sold to someone else, for example? Personally, I feel like people in general are too quick to hand apps access to their machines. For example, I know a bunch of people who used grammarly, and I said to them at the time - wait, you're basically installing a key-logger that sends your data to a 3rd party - what happens when they lose it?
  - baxtr 8y ago
    My experience is that many people simply don’t care. A friend of mine told me that he uses the Kayak app a lot. He gave them access to all his emails. They scan every incoming email for trip itineraries and push it to his app whenever they find something. I was a bit shocked and asked him if he didn’t care that they could read all his emails. He said “no I don’t care, there’s nothing I’d like to hide and I love the convenience”. Well, fair enough I thought. And then, there’s is often nothing I can tell people to make them afraid. Sure, I’d never do such a thing. But because I don’t trust the corps, not because I could really articulate what bad could possibly happen in the worst case.
    - jacobr 8y ago
      An insurance company might buy the data and deny them insurance because of something they exposed in a private email.
      - baxtr 8y ago
        Yes, that’s what I always used to say too. But then again in Europe this is almost impossibly from a regulations point of view. Also, no insurance has the capabilities to do that ;-)
        xena 8y ago
        yet
    - newman8r 8y ago
      I wonder if your friend would object if you asked to browse through his email right then and there, or download it all as an archive to look through later. I imagine most people wouldn't really want to do that, even if they believed they had nothing to hide and use apps like kayak. Might be a good way to make a point (or maybe not, but it's interesting to think about).
      - baxtr 8y ago
        Interesting thought. He would have said no I guess. But maybe the apt question is to ask if he’d hand it to a total stranger running by.
        newman8r 8y ago
        Yes that's also a very good question. I think if you combine the two, you get "would you prefer to give email access to your friend or to a random stranger" - it's actually a tough question for me to answer. I guess maybe it's like how you're comfortable talking about a medical issue with a doctor you've never met before, but you wouldn't necessarily want to discuss it with friends.
- circlingthesun 8y ago
  I certainly won't be building any Gmail add-ons soon/ever.
nik736 8y ago
Do I understand it correctly that I would have to pay $15k to $75k to release a Gmail Addon?
- spondyl 8y ago
  Well, you'd be paying $15K to $75K to Google who then use that money to pay for a 3rd party security assessment of your addon but yes, basically.
reacweb 8y ago
If google trust its users, root account shall be available.
zaroth 8y ago
There’s one simple feature I want. Any API that has access to any portion of an email’s content should have their icon prominently displayed near the header in the field similar to ‘Bcc’ indicating that they have been sent a copy. A click on that icon should display a popup which explains who it is, a link to the privacy policy, date when the Integration was enabled, count of how many emails it has seen, and provides an option to disable the integration with a single click. It would be nice to have the ability to apply filters to limit which emails are shared with that provider in the future. It’s too easy for users to add an Integration at one point and forget months or years later that it’s active. But also mentally when people add these add-ons it often doesn’t really click exactly that you are literally Bcc’ing the add-on every message you send.
- rShergold 8y ago
  I can't upvote this enough. There is precedence for this kind of UX change and Google. It used to be that chrome extensions could optionally add icons to the Chrome menu (the icons to the right of the address bar). Now all Chrome extensions appear in the Chrome menu, both reminding the user that it is there and also giving an easy way to remove the extension should they no longer need it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
geofft 8y ago
How does this affect open-source apps? The other day we had a thread about using Emacs as an email client, and I linked to docs on how to get offlineimap to work with XOAUTH2. The Google docs currently say that you can opt in to using apps under development - so in practice, an end user of an open-source app can go to the Google developer console, get a key, and put that in their personal config file - but it sounds like that conflicts with the spirit of these policies. Is that changing? https://developers.google.com/gmail/imap/xoauth2-protocol https://developers.google.com/gmail/imap/xoauth2-protocol
- lwf 8y ago
  > Applications that only store user data on end-user devices will not need to complete the full assessment but will need to be verified as non-malicious software. More information about the assessment will be posted here in January 2019. Existing Applications (as of this publication date) will have until the end of 2019 to complete the assessment. Not clear what "verified as non-malicious" means in this case, w.r.t. cost.
ryanackley 8y ago
Before you shell out $15k-$75k be aware that Google's record of maintaining API's is very bad. They very aggressively deprecate API's with little or no warning and provide zero alternatives. In my opinion, they have very little concern or respect for people developing on their various platforms. Maybe it's not applicable here but I've been burned by them before because of this.
- weliketocode 8y ago
  When I read the headline, I expected them to address trust related to their lack of API maintenance.
AznHisoka 8y ago
Before even delving into API's, why not address the low hanging fruit of getting rid of Google Chrome extensions that harvest your click and traffic data? And selling it to marketers?
- Already__Taken 8y ago
  They are? https://betanews.com/2018/10/01/google-chrome-web-store-extension-security/ https://betanews.com/2018/10/01/google-chrome-web-store-exte...
ikeboy 8y ago
There goes unroll/slice intelligence

54 points by Leace 8y ago

Google will require Gmail add-on developers to pass a security assessment: > Your app will have the remainder of 2019 to complete the assessment. > The assessment fee is paid by the developer and may range from $15,000 to $75,000 (or more) depending on the size and complexity of the application. > This fee is due whether or not your app passes the assessment; the fee includes a remediation assessment if needed.

aidos 8y ago
I imagine that's going to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow for a lot of companies. How do you think they'll continue to police it? What happens in a year's time when than company is sold to someone else, for example? Personally, I feel like people in general are too quick to hand apps access to their machines. For example, I know a bunch of people who used grammarly, and I said to them at the time - wait, you're basically installing a key-logger that sends your data to a 3rd party - what happens when they lose it?
- baxtr 8y ago
  My experience is that many people simply don’t care. A friend of mine told me that he uses the Kayak app a lot. He gave them access to all his emails. They scan every incoming email for trip itineraries and push it to his app whenever they find something. I was a bit shocked and asked him if he didn’t care that they could read all his emails. He said “no I don’t care, there’s nothing I’d like to hide and I love the convenience”. Well, fair enough I thought. And then, there’s is often nothing I can tell people to make them afraid. Sure, I’d never do such a thing. But because I don’t trust the corps, not because I could really articulate what bad could possibly happen in the worst case.
  - jacobr 8y ago
    An insurance company might buy the data and deny them insurance because of something they exposed in a private email.
    - baxtr 8y ago
      Yes, that’s what I always used to say too. But then again in Europe this is almost impossibly from a regulations point of view. Also, no insurance has the capabilities to do that ;-)
      - xena 8y ago
        yet
  - newman8r 8y ago
    I wonder if your friend would object if you asked to browse through his email right then and there, or download it all as an archive to look through later. I imagine most people wouldn't really want to do that, even if they believed they had nothing to hide and use apps like kayak. Might be a good way to make a point (or maybe not, but it's interesting to think about).
    - baxtr 8y ago
      Interesting thought. He would have said no I guess. But maybe the apt question is to ask if he’d hand it to a total stranger running by.
      - newman8r 8y ago
        Yes that's also a very good question. I think if you combine the two, you get "would you prefer to give email access to your friend or to a random stranger" - it's actually a tough question for me to answer. I guess maybe it's like how you're comfortable talking about a medical issue with a doctor you've never met before, but you wouldn't necessarily want to discuss it with friends.
circlingthesun 8y ago
I certainly won't be building any Gmail add-ons soon/ever.

nik736 8y ago

Do I understand it correctly that I would have to pay $15k to $75k to release a Gmail Addon?

spondyl 8y ago
Well, you'd be paying $15K to $75K to Google who then use that money to pay for a 3rd party security assessment of your addon but yes, basically.

reacweb 8y ago

If google trust its users, root account shall be available.

zaroth 8y ago

There’s one simple feature I want. Any API that has access to any portion of an email’s content should have their icon prominently displayed near the header in the field similar to ‘Bcc’ indicating that they have been sent a copy. A click on that icon should display a popup which explains who it is, a link to the privacy policy, date when the Integration was enabled, count of how many emails it has seen, and provides an option to disable the integration with a single click. It would be nice to have the ability to apply filters to limit which emails are shared with that provider in the future. It’s too easy for users to add an Integration at one point and forget months or years later that it’s active. But also mentally when people add these add-ons it often doesn’t really click exactly that you are literally Bcc’ing the add-on every message you send.

rShergold 8y ago
I can't upvote this enough. There is precedence for this kind of UX change and Google. It used to be that chrome extensions could optionally add icons to the Chrome menu (the icons to the right of the address bar). Now all Chrome extensions appear in the Chrome menu, both reminding the user that it is there and also giving an easy way to remove the extension should they no longer need it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

geofft 8y ago

How does this affect open-source apps? The other day we had a thread about using Emacs as an email client, and I linked to docs on how to get offlineimap to work with XOAUTH2. The Google docs currently say that you can opt in to using apps under development - so in practice, an end user of an open-source app can go to the Google developer console, get a key, and put that in their personal config file - but it sounds like that conflicts with the spirit of these policies. Is that changing? https://developers.google.com/gmail/imap/xoauth2-protocol https://developers.google.com/gmail/imap/xoauth2-protocol

lwf 8y ago
> Applications that only store user data on end-user devices will not need to complete the full assessment but will need to be verified as non-malicious software. More information about the assessment will be posted here in January 2019. Existing Applications (as of this publication date) will have until the end of 2019 to complete the assessment. Not clear what "verified as non-malicious" means in this case, w.r.t. cost.

ryanackley 8y ago

Before you shell out $15k-$75k be aware that Google's record of maintaining API's is very bad. They very aggressively deprecate API's with little or no warning and provide zero alternatives. In my opinion, they have very little concern or respect for people developing on their various platforms. Maybe it's not applicable here but I've been burned by them before because of this.

weliketocode 8y ago
When I read the headline, I expected them to address trust related to their lack of API maintenance.

AznHisoka 8y ago

Before even delving into API's, why not address the low hanging fruit of getting rid of Google Chrome extensions that harvest your click and traffic data? And selling it to marketers?

Already__Taken 8y ago
They are? https://betanews.com/2018/10/01/google-chrome-web-store-extension-security/ https://betanews.com/2018/10/01/google-chrome-web-store-exte...

ikeboy 8y ago

There goes unroll/slice intelligence