3 ms·

I noticed this a while ago. I can't see any reason besides Google finding a nice submarine for getting everybody to leave location services enabled constantly.

I noticed this a while ago. I can't see any reason besides Google finding a nice submarine for getting everybody to leave location services enabled constantly. As Bluetooth slowly becomes ubiquitous, eventually everyone will need location turned on 24/7. Google clearly wants this, but can't do anything overt about it without attracting bad press. So they attached location permissions to a new technology they know everybody will use eventually.

buckminster 7y ago
This is a guess: if an app can do a Bluetooth scan it can then look up the device IDs online and figure out where you are. So it needs location permission. Perhaps Android should give apps anonymized Bluetooth IDs.
- markmark 7y ago
  Bluetooth can also be used to track location with those beacon things shops us. I believe this is the reason they changed it (Bluetooth didn't used to need Location perm).
- panpanna 7y ago
  That is a really silly excuse. Basically what they say is that this information can theoretically be calculated so we demand you just give it (and some more) to us.
  - tylerhou 7y ago
    I mean, it's not just a theory -- Tile uses BLE to track devices around a city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_(company) > The application can locate Tiles beyond the 100-foot Bluetooth range, using "crowd GPS": if an item with an attached Tile device is reported lost and comes within range of another user's Tile application, the nearby user's application will send the item's owner an anonymous update of that item's location.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    It's reasonable if you look at it from user's point of view: this application can calculate your location through BLE[0], giving BLE access is essentially giving coarse location access, so we should let the user know. Permissions ideally shouldn't overlap, but in this case, they somewhat do. -- [0] - and given the disastrous lack of ethics in the tech sector, it's very likely it will do that, or one of 30 adtech libraries it includes will.
    - panpanna 7y ago
      This is not an "informational" use of a permission, Google has actually started to record your location. See my other comments.

buckminster 7y ago

This is a guess: if an app can do a Bluetooth scan it can then look up the device IDs online and figure out where you are. So it needs location permission. Perhaps Android should give apps anonymized Bluetooth IDs.

markmark 7y ago
Bluetooth can also be used to track location with those beacon things shops us. I believe this is the reason they changed it (Bluetooth didn't used to need Location perm).
panpanna 7y ago
That is a really silly excuse. Basically what they say is that this information can theoretically be calculated so we demand you just give it (and some more) to us.
- tylerhou 7y ago
  I mean, it's not just a theory -- Tile uses BLE to track devices around a city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile_(company) > The application can locate Tiles beyond the 100-foot Bluetooth range, using "crowd GPS": if an item with an attached Tile device is reported lost and comes within range of another user's Tile application, the nearby user's application will send the item's owner an anonymous update of that item's location.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's reasonable if you look at it from user's point of view: this application can calculate your location through BLE[0], giving BLE access is essentially giving coarse location access, so we should let the user know. Permissions ideally shouldn't overlap, but in this case, they somewhat do. -- [0] - and given the disastrous lack of ethics in the tech sector, it's very likely it will do that, or one of 30 adtech libraries it includes will.
  - panpanna 7y ago
    This is not an "informational" use of a permission, Google has actually started to record your location. See my other comments.