4 ms·
> There are legitimate user-centric reasons for doing this This trope is dragged out often. The answer is no. No, these are not legitimate use cases. Just lik
by inetknght 6y ago
> There are legitimate user-centric reasons for doing this
This trope is dragged out often. The answer is no. No, these are not legitimate use cases.
Just like Cambridge Analytica wasn't a legitimate use case, neither is polling a clipboard for changes.
An application should be told of changes. If there were a permission dialog to allow the user to opt-in the application to being told instead of requiring the user to explicitly paste, then maybe. Only maybe. But allowing any (third party) application to see the communication between two (first party) applications is completely unacceptable.
- scubbo 6y agoCan you elaborate on why not? More specifically, what is illegitimate about those use cases? Do you deny that users would want these features? I will readily concede that the infrastructure and tools that enable those use-cases also potentially enable exploits - but what is that you know about users that I don't which leads you to believe that these use-cases are not legitimate?
- kstrauser 6y agoYou’re speaking for yourself. For me, those are legitimate use cases and I like it when apps use that functionality appropriately. The key is that I want to decide if and when I allow an app to do it. In the case of Parcel, 99% of the time I open the app (as opposed to looking at its widget), it’s to add a new package to track. If I didn’t have something in my clipboard that I wasn’t about to add to it, I probably wouldn’t have opened the app in the first place.