4 ms·
There's a difference between being paranoid and not willing to risk it. You don't actually know which it was asking for, being that the access controls aren't f
by guerrilla 5y ago
There's a difference between being paranoid and not willing to risk it. You don't actually know which it was asking for, being that the access controls aren't fine grained enough is the problem here.
- slavik81 5y agoIt's the same permission because WiFi networks are basically landmarks. If you see the Eiffel tower, you know you're in Paris. Similarly, if you see network id X, you know you're near location Y. One day, the camera permission will probably have the same problem. The time of day and position of the sun can give a coarse location, and perhaps future algorithms will be able to search Google Street View to find your exact location.
- godelski 5y ago> perhaps future algorithms will be able to search Google Street View to find your exact location. So actually intelligence organizations already do this. If they have a mundane picture of an adversary they will try to pinpoint where the picture was taken. Of course there's more clues that they have because they know things about the target, but I guess I'm saying it's not unreasonable to believe such a thing could exist today.
- AshamedCaptain 5y agoIt's not an issue of the granularity (which I agree with), the problem is that giving the program access to the internet _at all_ (which does not require any permission) already gives the program more information about your geographical position than GPS, in most situations people care about.