5 ms·

"Recently Apple added a feature to iOS that allows you only to allow selected photos to be accessible by an app." What we really need to see from Apple is a pe

by rsync 6y ago

"Recently Apple added a feature to iOS that allows you only to allow selected photos to be accessible by an app." What we really need to see from Apple is a permissions index in the app store that allows me to inspect, and consider, the permissions that an app will request before installing that app. I shouldn't have to install the app (or do laborious research online) to discover what permissions it will attempt to utilize and which of them are required to function. It would be trivially easy to list that in the app store, for each app.

l8rpeace 6y ago
+1 and a filter you can use on related permissions when searching for apps
lanstin 6y ago
All these permission choices should be invisible to the app. If I say no contacts the call should succeed but with a zero Len response. It shouldn’t be possible for apps to say you have to agree to this or I won’t run. I can run the software and as the root user control what data the software can use.
- lanstin 6y ago
  Or even as a a service fake data - feed fake location data and fake contact list. Full of 202-555-1234 type numbers. I always put fake data into web forms and it is a sign that I don’t truly own the phone that I can’t do the same for local software.
  - lanstin 6y ago
    Like I want a pop up: this application is requesting your location data. Shall we give the real data, no data, or simulated data. Same for contacts, photos, apps installed, etc.? Not saying that would solve all the problems but it would be user centric in a way the privacy conversation just isn’t.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Giving fake location data could create real problems. Suppose you do this then forget. If it’s a safety or navigation app, you tell the phone to give it fake data, then you forget and maybe use the app much later. Now you’re using a service that thinks you’re in a different location. One of the examples given here was an app that gives you safety alerts. A navigation app might give you useless directions. There are a thousand ways this could go horribly wrong. I suppose iOS could present some warning, but that might interfere with the UI, or be misunderstood.
    - Viliam1234 6y ago
      > Shall we give the real data, no data, or simulated data. Or even a selected subset of real+fake data. (With the ability to define sets that could be reused across application.) Sometimes I want the app to have access to some of my contacts, but not all of them. For example, my work contacts but not my personal friends, or vice versa. Or simply "my contacts that told me they were also using this app". PLUS hundred fake contacts to poison the data.
- djrogers 6y ago
  > It shouldn’t be possible for apps to say you have to agree to this or I won’t run. It's not - that's a violation of the App Store TOS. That's also not what's happening here - you can use clubhouse without allowing contacts access, but you can't invite someone to the closed beta without allowing it.
  - lanstin 6y ago
    They must know that I have disallowed access in that case.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    GP means that it shouldn't be technologically possible, not just that it shouldn't be possible as a matter of policy. The policy solution clearly doesn't work in all scenarios because Clubhouse is still on the store. But an on-they-fly permission model that allowed the user to deny the permission invisibly or share a subset of their contacts would completely solve the problem regardless of whether or not Apple was effective at moderating. Apple could still do whatever moderation they wanted to reduce annoyances for the end user, but the sandboxing approach would catch any apps they missed or refused to moderate. This would also solve the problem where an app legitimately needs some access to contacts to run, but doesn't need access to the entire list. Clubhouse does need access to some contacts to invite someone to the beta, but it does not need access to the entire contacts list, and there's no reason for it to have the ability to tell whether or not a user is providing the full list.
  - chii 6y ago
    > that's a violation of the App Store TOS. not if the app still functions with deliberately reduced functionality. What i want to have is for the app to be unable to tell the difference between being denied permission, and having no data (or be sent fake data).
- dheera 6y ago
  > If I say no contacts the call should succeed but with a zero Len response. Actually I would take it further and say that I should be able to define its response or have it render a random but plausible template response. Otherwise a zero len response is too obvious that you didn't give it permissions. I once had an app yell at me for not giving my GPS permission, but then yell at me again when I enabled a mock GPS on Android. It really shouldn't have been able to know I was mocking location.
- Larrikin 6y ago
  This works fine for contacts, but what should happen when I deny the microphone permission? Should I be able to send Shazam a monotone beep or even worse a sample of random sounds that can't even be filtered out?
djrogers 6y ago
> and which of them are required to function. On the iOS App Store, none of the optional permissions can be required for an app to perform it's basic functions - that's a store policy, and it's generally well enforced. Obviously if your app's function is mapping, GPS can be required to use those features (but only at the user's discretion - ie while running or all the time, granular or coarse), but the app can't just refuse to launch without it.
- DanAtC 6y ago
  Tell that to Citizen which refuses to operate without location enabled, and even worse, refuses to operate with coarse location. And being a free app there's no place on Apple's site to report this bad behavior.
  - 3825 6y ago
    To those who like me are not in the know, I think the parent comment is about an app that used to be called vigilante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_(app) > Citizen is a mobile app that sends users location-based safety alerts in real time.[1][2][3][4] It allows users to read updates about ongoing reports, broadcast live video, and leave comments.[1][2] The app uses radio antennas installed in major cities to monitor 911 communications,[5] with employees filtering the audio to generate alerts.[5] In March 2020, Citizen added the COVID-19 digital contact tracer SafePass. The app is currently available for iOS and Android devices[6] in 20 cities,[7] including New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, Baltimore, Los Angeles,[8] Philadelphia.[9] Detroit,[10] Indianapolis,[11] Phoenix,[12][13] Cincinnati,[14] Chicago, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and Cleveland.[15]
  - diebeforei485 6y ago
    Yes, they are extremely aggressive. Also, their payment screen about "start for free" leads to a $199 payment after a short two-week trial.
behnamoh 6y ago
They have added that, but it's written by the app developers so you still can't trust what they claim they're gathering from you.
- simonh 6y ago
  I think Apples app reviewers have tools to analyse what APIs and permissions an app tries to access to check this.
aeternum 6y ago
I'm not sure the permission index would be very useful. Most iPhone chat apps for example work perfectly fine with zero permissions granted yet provide the option to send pictures, invite contacts, use mic/camera, send gps location, etc if a user is so inclined. With a permissions index, you would likely end up with the majority of apps listing all permissions and users would simply ignore it.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  So? Just give me the possibility to see it.
andai 6y ago
I didn't realize iOS doesn't have that. Google Play shows each app's permissions on the listings page.

by rsync 6y ago

l8rpeace 6y ago

+1 and a filter you can use on related permissions when searching for apps

lanstin 6y ago

All these permission choices should be invisible to the app. If I say no contacts the call should succeed but with a zero Len response. It shouldn’t be possible for apps to say you have to agree to this or I won’t run. I can run the software and as the root user control what data the software can use.

lanstin 6y ago
Or even as a a service fake data - feed fake location data and fake contact list. Full of 202-555-1234 type numbers. I always put fake data into web forms and it is a sign that I don’t truly own the phone that I can’t do the same for local software.
- lanstin 6y ago
  Like I want a pop up: this application is requesting your location data. Shall we give the real data, no data, or simulated data. Same for contacts, photos, apps installed, etc.? Not saying that would solve all the problems but it would be user centric in a way the privacy conversation just isn’t.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Giving fake location data could create real problems. Suppose you do this then forget. If it’s a safety or navigation app, you tell the phone to give it fake data, then you forget and maybe use the app much later. Now you’re using a service that thinks you’re in a different location. One of the examples given here was an app that gives you safety alerts. A navigation app might give you useless directions. There are a thousand ways this could go horribly wrong. I suppose iOS could present some warning, but that might interfere with the UI, or be misunderstood.
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    > Shall we give the real data, no data, or simulated data. Or even a selected subset of real+fake data. (With the ability to define sets that could be reused across application.) Sometimes I want the app to have access to some of my contacts, but not all of them. For example, my work contacts but not my personal friends, or vice versa. Or simply "my contacts that told me they were also using this app". PLUS hundred fake contacts to poison the data.
djrogers 6y ago
> It shouldn’t be possible for apps to say you have to agree to this or I won’t run. It's not - that's a violation of the App Store TOS. That's also not what's happening here - you can use clubhouse without allowing contacts access, but you can't invite someone to the closed beta without allowing it.
- lanstin 6y ago
  They must know that I have disallowed access in that case.
- danShumway 6y ago
  GP means that it shouldn't be technologically possible, not just that it shouldn't be possible as a matter of policy. The policy solution clearly doesn't work in all scenarios because Clubhouse is still on the store. But an on-they-fly permission model that allowed the user to deny the permission invisibly or share a subset of their contacts would completely solve the problem regardless of whether or not Apple was effective at moderating. Apple could still do whatever moderation they wanted to reduce annoyances for the end user, but the sandboxing approach would catch any apps they missed or refused to moderate. This would also solve the problem where an app legitimately needs some access to contacts to run, but doesn't need access to the entire list. Clubhouse does need access to some contacts to invite someone to the beta, but it does not need access to the entire contacts list, and there's no reason for it to have the ability to tell whether or not a user is providing the full list.
- chii 6y ago
  > that's a violation of the App Store TOS. not if the app still functions with deliberately reduced functionality. What i want to have is for the app to be unable to tell the difference between being denied permission, and having no data (or be sent fake data).
dheera 6y ago
> If I say no contacts the call should succeed but with a zero Len response. Actually I would take it further and say that I should be able to define its response or have it render a random but plausible template response. Otherwise a zero len response is too obvious that you didn't give it permissions. I once had an app yell at me for not giving my GPS permission, but then yell at me again when I enabled a mock GPS on Android. It really shouldn't have been able to know I was mocking location.
Larrikin 6y ago
This works fine for contacts, but what should happen when I deny the microphone permission? Should I be able to send Shazam a monotone beep or even worse a sample of random sounds that can't even be filtered out?

djrogers 6y ago

> and which of them are required to function. On the iOS App Store, none of the optional permissions can be required for an app to perform it's basic functions - that's a store policy, and it's generally well enforced. Obviously if your app's function is mapping, GPS can be required to use those features (but only at the user's discretion - ie while running or all the time, granular or coarse), but the app can't just refuse to launch without it.

DanAtC 6y ago
Tell that to Citizen which refuses to operate without location enabled, and even worse, refuses to operate with coarse location. And being a free app there's no place on Apple's site to report this bad behavior.
- 3825 6y ago
  To those who like me are not in the know, I think the parent comment is about an app that used to be called vigilante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_(app) > Citizen is a mobile app that sends users location-based safety alerts in real time.[1][2][3][4] It allows users to read updates about ongoing reports, broadcast live video, and leave comments.[1][2] The app uses radio antennas installed in major cities to monitor 911 communications,[5] with employees filtering the audio to generate alerts.[5] In March 2020, Citizen added the COVID-19 digital contact tracer SafePass. The app is currently available for iOS and Android devices[6] in 20 cities,[7] including New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, Baltimore, Los Angeles,[8] Philadelphia.[9] Detroit,[10] Indianapolis,[11] Phoenix,[12][13] Cincinnati,[14] Chicago, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and Cleveland.[15]
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  Yes, they are extremely aggressive. Also, their payment screen about "start for free" leads to a $199 payment after a short two-week trial.

behnamoh 6y ago

They have added that, but it's written by the app developers so you still can't trust what they claim they're gathering from you.

simonh 6y ago
I think Apples app reviewers have tools to analyse what APIs and permissions an app tries to access to check this.

aeternum 6y ago

I'm not sure the permission index would be very useful. Most iPhone chat apps for example work perfectly fine with zero permissions granted yet provide the option to send pictures, invite contacts, use mic/camera, send gps location, etc if a user is so inclined. With a permissions index, you would likely end up with the majority of apps listing all permissions and users would simply ignore it.

NeutronStar 6y ago
So? Just give me the possibility to see it.

andai 6y ago

I didn't realize iOS doesn't have that. Google Play shows each app's permissions on the listings page.