5 ms·

The older I have gotten the less I'm willing to install, either in my browser, my phone, or my local machine. It's come to the point that it seems reasonable t

by cco 8y ago

The older I have gotten the less I'm willing to install, either in my browser, my phone, or my local machine. It's come to the point that it seems reasonable to assume that anything you install will pull every iota of data available to it. I think this grew out of a good place, at least I hope, where early pioneers assumed good intentions and generally most software was designed with "open" as a core philosophy. However it's very clear that we're very far removed from that, it boggles my mind that if an expense app on my phone needs to take a picture of a receipt my only option is to allow it not only permanent use of my camera but also access to all of my photos and videos. Why is the default not to launch a sandboxed camera app that only exists to take the receipt photo, and then disappears taking with it any permissions the app needed to carry this out?

jsjohnst 8y ago
> it boggles my mind that if an expense app on my phone needs to take a picture of a receipt my only option is to allow it not only permanent use of my camera but also access to all of my photos and videos. THIS! Seriously, it angers me so greatly that I have to deal with such stupidity as all or nothing permissions. If I want to allow a single photo, but not all photos, no such luck. If I want to allow access to save photos, but not read photos, tough. Etc etc If Apple really cared about privacy instead of using it as a marketing ploy, this would be mandated already.
- anyfoo 8y ago
  Access to Camera is different from access to Photos.
  - jsjohnst 8y ago
    You entirely missed the point, but thanks for stating the obvious.
    - dang 8y ago
      Personal swipes aren't allowed and will get your account banned here, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- saagarjha 8y ago
  This already exists, it's just that the API for this is not being used by apps.
anyfoo 8y ago
I share your sentiments about how software that was designed to be "open" with the best intentions (often done so before the world was as connected as it was), is now facing problems. A big part of the solution is getting rid of old and now insufficient practices and replacing them with new models that fit into the current world. For example, in-process plugin models with e.g. dynamic libraries loaded into the app are highly problematic, but can increasingly be replaced by out-of-process plugin executables (using very controlled communication channels like explicit shared memory regions), coupled with the proper sandboxing for those plugin executables, individually. As an aside, access to the Camera and access to Photos is already separate on iOS, you have to approve both separately (which becomes apparent if you use Instagram, for example). Sometimes when I want to save an image, instead of allowing access to Photos, I copy the image into the clipboard.
Groxx 8y ago
For Android specifically (perhaps this is not still the case, but at one point it was): Android puts you in a terrible place for all this. Downright hostile to sane permissions IMO. Say you, as an app developer, want to improve the camera experience (say to recognize QR codes. it's a sane, useful thing to do). You need camera permission to do this, so you add it to your permissions list (users can still deny it). Great. So say you want to allow people to reject it, and instead use their own camera app that they trust. Easy, you can do that with an open-camera intent, which doesn't require any permissions. You just get the image they took. The problem is this: if you had your "let me control the camera and all photos" access rejected, Android also rejects your "open any camera" request. So now you're entirely unable to access cameras, and at best you can let users share an image to your app (which is extremely problematic and usually still requires file permissions in practice, since nobody builds file providers correctly (and legacy apps don't at all)). Meanwhile, if you never requested camera access in the first place, "open any camera" will always work. But then you're unable to streamline anything. --- tl;dr API permissions very nearly everywhere in consumer products are 100% shit, and something like 99% hostile to the very concept they're trying to support. It's ridiculous and in no way necessary and I don't know why companies keep doing it, except perhaps fear of alienating their ad revenue sources.
- barbecue_sauce 8y ago
  We need something akin to SELinux/Mandatory Access Control, but that's user friendly for consumer devices while also being fine-grained, meaning you can give programs permissions to access your photos, contacts, etc. but you can also audit and control the individual points of data that are being accessed. Then, once you're comfortable with the access patterns, you can automate approval if you trust the application/institution enough.
charleslmunger 8y ago
On Android, camera is a separate permission from reading storage. In addition, the permission is not even required if you're just getting a photo from the user - your app can launch the camera app, and get a callback when the user has taken a photo, with access only to that photo.
- dwild 8y ago
  > your app can launch the camera app, and get a callback when the user has taken a photo, with access only to that photo I did that on an Android app I had to build for a client. It was quite a nightmare to make it works on different phone because many manufacturer added their own camera apps. Some were giving a full size image, other were giving a tiny thumbnail, but you were able to get the full size from the file system, but some didn't returned anything at all, so to actually get the picture, I had to scan the gallery pictures beforehand, scan it afterward, and take the new one. It was a long time ago though, near 2011, Honeycomb was just released, so maybe it's different now but I seriously doubt it.
baroffoos 8y ago
I'm very much the same. When I was young my devices were filled with every program and extension I could find and my devices were slow, full of ads and likely sucking up all my personal info. These days I have everything trimmed down to the bare minimum open source programs only. My "old" phone runs faster than everyones current year phone and I have no adverts on anything. I use next to no social media and I feel I live a better life and get better experiences with tech than the general public. Most modern tech is actively hostile to the user and having some restraint and avoiding the crap will reward you well.
arvinsim 8y ago
> Why is the default not to launch a sandboxed camera app that only exists to take the receipt photo, and then disappears taking with it any permissions the app needed to carry this out? Mobile OS and phone makers are incentivize not to do this because of various vested interests.
jimjimjim 8y ago
When looking at google play store I will only look for non-free apps. Using the 'follow the money' idea, if the app maker can get income from selling it they are LESS likely to try to make money by mugging you for data. It's not 100% but it helps.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  By that logic, Windows 10 ought to be ad-free.
  - jimjimjim 8y ago
    ought to be. sigh.
  - kiriakasis 8y ago
    by that logic it should have less ads than android
- opan 8y ago
  You could go the other route and only use apps from F-Droid. Speaking from experience, it works quite well.

by cco 8y ago

jsjohnst 8y ago

> it boggles my mind that if an expense app on my phone needs to take a picture of a receipt my only option is to allow it not only permanent use of my camera but also access to all of my photos and videos. THIS! Seriously, it angers me so greatly that I have to deal with such stupidity as all or nothing permissions. If I want to allow a single photo, but not all photos, no such luck. If I want to allow access to save photos, but not read photos, tough. Etc etc If Apple really cared about privacy instead of using it as a marketing ploy, this would be mandated already.

anyfoo 8y ago
Access to Camera is different from access to Photos.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  You entirely missed the point, but thanks for stating the obvious.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal swipes aren't allowed and will get your account banned here, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
saagarjha 8y ago
This already exists, it's just that the API for this is not being used by apps.

anyfoo 8y ago

I share your sentiments about how software that was designed to be "open" with the best intentions (often done so before the world was as connected as it was), is now facing problems. A big part of the solution is getting rid of old and now insufficient practices and replacing them with new models that fit into the current world. For example, in-process plugin models with e.g. dynamic libraries loaded into the app are highly problematic, but can increasingly be replaced by out-of-process plugin executables (using very controlled communication channels like explicit shared memory regions), coupled with the proper sandboxing for those plugin executables, individually. As an aside, access to the Camera and access to Photos is already separate on iOS, you have to approve both separately (which becomes apparent if you use Instagram, for example). Sometimes when I want to save an image, instead of allowing access to Photos, I copy the image into the clipboard.

Groxx 8y ago

For Android specifically (perhaps this is not still the case, but at one point it was): Android puts you in a terrible place for all this. Downright hostile to sane permissions IMO. Say you, as an app developer, want to improve the camera experience (say to recognize QR codes. it's a sane, useful thing to do). You need camera permission to do this, so you add it to your permissions list (users can still deny it). Great. So say you want to allow people to reject it, and instead use their own camera app that they trust. Easy, you can do that with an open-camera intent, which doesn't require any permissions. You just get the image they took. The problem is this: if you had your "let me control the camera and all photos" access rejected, Android also rejects your "open any camera" request. So now you're entirely unable to access cameras, and at best you can let users share an image to your app (which is extremely problematic and usually still requires file permissions in practice, since nobody builds file providers correctly (and legacy apps don't at all)). Meanwhile, if you never requested camera access in the first place, "open any camera" will always work. But then you're unable to streamline anything. --- tl;dr API permissions very nearly everywhere in consumer products are 100% shit, and something like 99% hostile to the very concept they're trying to support. It's ridiculous and in no way necessary and I don't know why companies keep doing it, except perhaps fear of alienating their ad revenue sources.

barbecue_sauce 8y ago
We need something akin to SELinux/Mandatory Access Control, but that's user friendly for consumer devices while also being fine-grained, meaning you can give programs permissions to access your photos, contacts, etc. but you can also audit and control the individual points of data that are being accessed. Then, once you're comfortable with the access patterns, you can automate approval if you trust the application/institution enough.

charleslmunger 8y ago

On Android, camera is a separate permission from reading storage. In addition, the permission is not even required if you're just getting a photo from the user - your app can launch the camera app, and get a callback when the user has taken a photo, with access only to that photo.

dwild 8y ago
> your app can launch the camera app, and get a callback when the user has taken a photo, with access only to that photo I did that on an Android app I had to build for a client. It was quite a nightmare to make it works on different phone because many manufacturer added their own camera apps. Some were giving a full size image, other were giving a tiny thumbnail, but you were able to get the full size from the file system, but some didn't returned anything at all, so to actually get the picture, I had to scan the gallery pictures beforehand, scan it afterward, and take the new one. It was a long time ago though, near 2011, Honeycomb was just released, so maybe it's different now but I seriously doubt it.

baroffoos 8y ago

I'm very much the same. When I was young my devices were filled with every program and extension I could find and my devices were slow, full of ads and likely sucking up all my personal info. These days I have everything trimmed down to the bare minimum open source programs only. My "old" phone runs faster than everyones current year phone and I have no adverts on anything. I use next to no social media and I feel I live a better life and get better experiences with tech than the general public. Most modern tech is actively hostile to the user and having some restraint and avoiding the crap will reward you well.

arvinsim 8y ago

> Why is the default not to launch a sandboxed camera app that only exists to take the receipt photo, and then disappears taking with it any permissions the app needed to carry this out? Mobile OS and phone makers are incentivize not to do this because of various vested interests.

jimjimjim 8y ago

When looking at google play store I will only look for non-free apps. Using the 'follow the money' idea, if the app maker can get income from selling it they are LESS likely to try to make money by mugging you for data. It's not 100% but it helps.

yellowapple 8y ago
By that logic, Windows 10 ought to be ad-free.
- jimjimjim 8y ago
  ought to be. sigh.
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  by that logic it should have less ads than android
opan 8y ago
You could go the other route and only use apps from F-Droid. Speaking from experience, it works quite well.