3 ms·

> One more time, what mobile phone owners need is an intermediary layer in the mobile OS where they can either manually or programmatically (via e.g. a random n

> One more time, what mobile phone owners need is an intermediary layer in the mobile OS where they can either manually or programmatically (via e.g. a random number generator) lie to higher-level application layers about the phone's data. On Android, if you install Xposed, there's XPrivacy [0], which essentially had this premise. Unfortunately, it only supports versions 4.0.3-5.1.1 (and is no longer maintained). I haven't been following the rooting community for a while, so someone can probably correct me if there's a better alternative now, but I believe the replacement is XPrivacyLua [1]. [0] https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy [1] https://www.xda-developers.com/xprivacylua-xposed-module-privacy/ https://www.xda-developers.com/xprivacylua-xposed-module-pri...

Avamander 7y ago
You can use XPrivacyLua on later Androids: https://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacylua6-0-android-privacy-manager-t3730663 https://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacylua6...
NegativeShape 7y ago
Many applications force-stop when you use Xprivacy. Even worse, applications like instagram refuses to login on a phone with xprivacy installed.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  The fact that this is possible is a symptom of the wider problem - the OS should ensure that it's impossible for the other app to know if Xprivacy is running or installed. Instagram should be running in a sandbox that gets truth only if the user actually wishes to give it the truth, and if they want to demand unnecessary info from the user (e.g. access to data about other installed apps), then the app should be either lied to by the OS or banned by the platform provider. There's an inherent conflict between the needs of the app developers and users. The device manufacturers have to take a side in that conflict, presumably the side of the user who's paying them for the device.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    I really like this approach
    - close04 7y ago
      > then the app should be either lied to by the OS or banned by the platform provider The problem with it is that at least one of the big the platform providers is in a conflict of interest, given how they engage in the exact same practices as a business model. Google cannot hit at anyone for any practice they also use without shooting themselves in the foot. So the status quo is maintained with everyone being allowed to take a swing at vacuuming as much personal user data as humanly possible without ever informing the user or getting proper (informed) consent.
      - PeterisP 7y ago
        I'm not getting a phone from Google, I'm paying money to Samsung or Motorola or Huawei or Sony or whatever who all already control and customize the OS installed on the phone; have an incentive to compete with other somewhat interchangeable manufacturers by being user-friendly; and don't have any vested interest in third party app vendors being able to obtain and sell data.

Avamander 7y ago

You can use XPrivacyLua on later Androids: https://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacylua6-0-android-privacy-manager-t3730663 https://forum.xda-developers.com/xposed/modules/xprivacylua6...

NegativeShape 7y ago

Many applications force-stop when you use Xprivacy. Even worse, applications like instagram refuses to login on a phone with xprivacy installed.

PeterisP 7y ago
The fact that this is possible is a symptom of the wider problem - the OS should ensure that it's impossible for the other app to know if Xprivacy is running or installed. Instagram should be running in a sandbox that gets truth only if the user actually wishes to give it the truth, and if they want to demand unnecessary info from the user (e.g. access to data about other installed apps), then the app should be either lied to by the OS or banned by the platform provider. There's an inherent conflict between the needs of the app developers and users. The device manufacturers have to take a side in that conflict, presumably the side of the user who's paying them for the device.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  I really like this approach
  - close04 7y ago
    > then the app should be either lied to by the OS or banned by the platform provider The problem with it is that at least one of the big the platform providers is in a conflict of interest, given how they engage in the exact same practices as a business model. Google cannot hit at anyone for any practice they also use without shooting themselves in the foot. So the status quo is maintained with everyone being allowed to take a swing at vacuuming as much personal user data as humanly possible without ever informing the user or getting proper (informed) consent.
    - PeterisP 7y ago
      I'm not getting a phone from Google, I'm paying money to Samsung or Motorola or Huawei or Sony or whatever who all already control and customize the OS installed on the phone; have an incentive to compete with other somewhat interchangeable manufacturers by being user-friendly; and don't have any vested interest in third party app vendors being able to obtain and sell data.