6 ms·

They are removing the ability to get any device identifiers in newer Android versions - unless you ask the user for a permission. https://developer.android.com/

They are removing the ability to get any device identifiers in newer Android versions - unless you ask the user for a permission. https://developer.android.com/training/articles/user-data-ids https://developer.android.com/training/articles/user-data-id... There are advertising IDs and these can be reset. But I am not saying it's ideal in Android - up until recently you could easily fingerprint a device and you can do it today if you ask the users for permission (which the average user doesn't read or you can trick him into accepting the permission request).

scarface74 8y ago
“asking users for permission” never works. You end up with Vista style UAC. What about not allowing it all? Even before iOS and Android were a thing, Windows Mobile had a way for apps to uniquely identify a device but that unique identifier was per app/per user.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  Because there are some applications that have a real need for knowing the actual MAC address or the IMEI.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Which applications would that be? I’m sure there are applications that need unlimited access to your file system, read your text messages, and read your call logs. How has that worked out for the privacy and security of Android users?
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      Much better than the privacy and security of iOS, which has had hundreds of millions of users infected with XCodeGhost. All while allowing much more useful applications to be built. The fact that the application must request permission to see that data gets those applications extra scrutiny from not only the user but the app store and third party security researchers as well.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        And we have 30+ years of user behavior of computer users and almost 10 years of mobile user behavior with Android to know that most users aren’t going to give “extra scrutiny” to those applications and are just going to click “allow”. And even if “security researchers” do find an issue with an Android app, how does that information get disseminated to users? Even if Google decides to close the hole, Android doesn’t exactly have a great track record of getting updates to users.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > And we have 30+ years of user behavior of computer users and almost 10 years of mobile user behavior with Android to know that most users aren’t going to give “extra scrutiny” to those applications and are just going to click “allow”. A much better example is the massive XCodeGhost infection on the app store. Apple relies entirely on users for figuring out if things are misbehaving, while Android also has automated detection and the third party security ecosystem, as I pointed out in the comment you replied to. > And even if “security researchers” do find an issue with an Android app, how does that information get disseminated to users? By having the app removed from the store. Which Apple is unable to do because it doesn't allow third party security researchers to scrutinize its app store. This resulted in the massive XCodeGhost infection, which Apple couldn't fully remove from their store for weeks after. > Even if Google decides to close the hole, Android doesn’t exactly have a great track record of getting updates to users. The whole point is that it's not a hole. It's an app abusing an API. The correct thing to do is to simply remove the app from the store, which is exactly what happens.
        scarface74 8y ago
        By having the app removed from the store. Which Apple is unable to do because it doesn't allow third party security researchers to scrutinize its app store. This resulted in the massive XCodeGhost infection, which Apple couldn't fully remove from their store for weeks after. XCodeGhost was first found by Alibaba - a third party.
    - izacus 8y ago
      For example any kind of Bluetooth companion app, including sensor readers, watch companion apps and pretty much anything there requires access to MAC to complete pairing. Any kind of mDNS and direct WiFi apps. Any kind of Wifi scanning and environment survey apps. Any kind of Wifi helper apps to setup other devices. Are you seriously claiming that our portable computers should lock us out from creating these kind of new application experiences permanently and give ONLY Google and Apple the ability to create them? You want innovation in use of our portable computers to be permanently owned and controlled by Google and Apple exclusively? Come on, think for a while about what you're asking.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        For example any kind of Bluetooth companion app, including sensor readers, watch companion apps and pretty much anything there requires access to MAC to complete pairing. Your app on the phone wouldn’t need your Bluetooth ID (which is separate from the WiFi MAC ID). It would need the ID of the connecting device. Any kind of mDNS and direct WiFi apps. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/nehotspotconfiguration?changes=latest_minor https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/n... Are you seriously claiming that our portable computers should lock us out from creating these kind of new application experiences permanently and give ONLY Google and Apple the ability to create them? You want innovation in use of our portable computers to be permanently owned and controlled by Google and Apple exclusively? We have an existence proof with both Android and Windows - and less so with Macs but only because they aren’t as large of a target - with what happens when apps are given unfettered access to the hardware and privacy related information even with user permissions. How often have we seen yet another privacy invasion from Facebook but only against Android users?
        izacus 8y ago
        > We have an existence proof with both Android and Windows - and less so with Macs but only because they aren’t as large of a target - with what happens when apps are given unfettered access to the hardware and privacy related information even with user permissions. What exactly happens? A ton of innovative apps can be made? Bunch of enterpreneurs can innovate and built new products without approval from a huge american corporation? Yes, powerful tools can be abused. But powerful use-cases require powerful tools. What you're defending is akin to saying we should cut out everyone's tongue to defend against people accidentally telling their personal information to strangers. It's NOT a proportional response. You're effectively ceding full control of EVERYTHING you do on your computing device to Google and Apple forever because you're afraid that powerful tool, drivers of innovation and progress, might hurt someone occasionally. You can't have progress in a kindergarten - instead of demanding that large corporations babysit the public and tell them what to think, we NEED to make sure that people take responsibility for themselves. It's the only way you keep free market and freedom functioning.
- kllrnohj 8y ago
  You can't ask for permission for some of them anymore. MAC address queries just return a hardcoded 02:00:00:00:00:00, even if you have the appropriate premissions.
homero 8y ago
Most apps will just force you to accept it
- Larrikin 8y ago
  Users are starting to demand that apps justify their permissions. My Roku app tried to update and then ask for location permissions claiming that the app now needed your GPS location to connect to your Roku. Their ratings tanked and the next update removed making it mandatory. I'm currently still on an older version because the update overall was a disaster and they've shown they're not trustworthy.

scarface74 8y ago

“asking users for permission” never works. You end up with Vista style UAC. What about not allowing it all? Even before iOS and Android were a thing, Windows Mobile had a way for apps to uniquely identify a device but that unique identifier was per app/per user.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
Because there are some applications that have a real need for knowing the actual MAC address or the IMEI.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Which applications would that be? I’m sure there are applications that need unlimited access to your file system, read your text messages, and read your call logs. How has that worked out for the privacy and security of Android users?
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    Much better than the privacy and security of iOS, which has had hundreds of millions of users infected with XCodeGhost. All while allowing much more useful applications to be built. The fact that the application must request permission to see that data gets those applications extra scrutiny from not only the user but the app store and third party security researchers as well.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      And we have 30+ years of user behavior of computer users and almost 10 years of mobile user behavior with Android to know that most users aren’t going to give “extra scrutiny” to those applications and are just going to click “allow”. And even if “security researchers” do find an issue with an Android app, how does that information get disseminated to users? Even if Google decides to close the hole, Android doesn’t exactly have a great track record of getting updates to users.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > And we have 30+ years of user behavior of computer users and almost 10 years of mobile user behavior with Android to know that most users aren’t going to give “extra scrutiny” to those applications and are just going to click “allow”. A much better example is the massive XCodeGhost infection on the app store. Apple relies entirely on users for figuring out if things are misbehaving, while Android also has automated detection and the third party security ecosystem, as I pointed out in the comment you replied to. > And even if “security researchers” do find an issue with an Android app, how does that information get disseminated to users? By having the app removed from the store. Which Apple is unable to do because it doesn't allow third party security researchers to scrutinize its app store. This resulted in the massive XCodeGhost infection, which Apple couldn't fully remove from their store for weeks after. > Even if Google decides to close the hole, Android doesn’t exactly have a great track record of getting updates to users. The whole point is that it's not a hole. It's an app abusing an API. The correct thing to do is to simply remove the app from the store, which is exactly what happens.
        scarface74 8y ago
        By having the app removed from the store. Which Apple is unable to do because it doesn't allow third party security researchers to scrutinize its app store. This resulted in the massive XCodeGhost infection, which Apple couldn't fully remove from their store for weeks after. XCodeGhost was first found by Alibaba - a third party.
  - izacus 8y ago
    For example any kind of Bluetooth companion app, including sensor readers, watch companion apps and pretty much anything there requires access to MAC to complete pairing. Any kind of mDNS and direct WiFi apps. Any kind of Wifi scanning and environment survey apps. Any kind of Wifi helper apps to setup other devices. Are you seriously claiming that our portable computers should lock us out from creating these kind of new application experiences permanently and give ONLY Google and Apple the ability to create them? You want innovation in use of our portable computers to be permanently owned and controlled by Google and Apple exclusively? Come on, think for a while about what you're asking.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      For example any kind of Bluetooth companion app, including sensor readers, watch companion apps and pretty much anything there requires access to MAC to complete pairing. Your app on the phone wouldn’t need your Bluetooth ID (which is separate from the WiFi MAC ID). It would need the ID of the connecting device. Any kind of mDNS and direct WiFi apps. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/nehotspotconfiguration?changes=latest_minor https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension/n... Are you seriously claiming that our portable computers should lock us out from creating these kind of new application experiences permanently and give ONLY Google and Apple the ability to create them? You want innovation in use of our portable computers to be permanently owned and controlled by Google and Apple exclusively? We have an existence proof with both Android and Windows - and less so with Macs but only because they aren’t as large of a target - with what happens when apps are given unfettered access to the hardware and privacy related information even with user permissions. How often have we seen yet another privacy invasion from Facebook but only against Android users?
      - izacus 8y ago
        > We have an existence proof with both Android and Windows - and less so with Macs but only because they aren’t as large of a target - with what happens when apps are given unfettered access to the hardware and privacy related information even with user permissions. What exactly happens? A ton of innovative apps can be made? Bunch of enterpreneurs can innovate and built new products without approval from a huge american corporation? Yes, powerful tools can be abused. But powerful use-cases require powerful tools. What you're defending is akin to saying we should cut out everyone's tongue to defend against people accidentally telling their personal information to strangers. It's NOT a proportional response. You're effectively ceding full control of EVERYTHING you do on your computing device to Google and Apple forever because you're afraid that powerful tool, drivers of innovation and progress, might hurt someone occasionally. You can't have progress in a kindergarten - instead of demanding that large corporations babysit the public and tell them what to think, we NEED to make sure that people take responsibility for themselves. It's the only way you keep free market and freedom functioning.
kllrnohj 8y ago
You can't ask for permission for some of them anymore. MAC address queries just return a hardcoded 02:00:00:00:00:00, even if you have the appropriate premissions.

homero 8y ago

Most apps will just force you to accept it

Larrikin 8y ago
Users are starting to demand that apps justify their permissions. My Roku app tried to update and then ask for location permissions claiming that the app now needed your GPS location to connect to your Roku. Their ratings tanked and the next update removed making it mandatory. I'm currently still on an older version because the update overall was a disaster and they've shown they're not trustworthy.