4 ms·

I don't think google did anything wrong here (at least in the first half), afaik android app privacy permissions don't differentiate between "app has access to

I don't think google did anything wrong here (at least in the first half), afaik android app privacy permissions don't differentiate between "app has access to contacts locally" and "app has access to contacts remotely". Probably because this would require thorough code review every time you shipped an update to ascertain as opposed to just identifying whether you accessed a specific API or not.

CountHackulus 4y ago
Of course that would be impossible to differentiate, but adding it to the privacy policy is what Google requests. Adding it and still having it refused can absolutely be blamed on Google.
- franga2000 4y ago
  What I don't get is why does sending contacts need to be added to the privacy policy? The point of the policy is to state what you will and won't do in a legally binding way. If my privacy policy says "the app may access contacts locally, but that information never leaves the device", that means users can sue me if I break that promise and I could even be criminally prosecuted. What more assurance does Google need?
savy91 4y ago
I do not agree. We were explicitly asking for permission to access the contact list, the user was granting it and the user also had the option not to grant it and still use the app by manually entering the phone number. What happened is that Google blocked our updates claiming we were doing something we were not doing, and even if we did access the entire phone book, the users agreed to it explicitly. Another issue is that we would have been fine sharing a single contact with the PICK_CONTACT intent, however there's a bug open in Android since 2018 that causes developers to have to ask for the full READ_CONTACTS permission even just to pick a single contact[1]. So in our case Google did not respect the user choice, claimed we were using user data in a way we were not (without any proof whatsoever), still rejected the update even when we added what they asked us to add to our Privacy Policy and in the end they also don't even fix bugs in the Android codebase to allow developers to use more privacy-friendly APIs in their OS. [1] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/118400813?pli=1 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/118400813?pli=1
ViViDboarder 4y ago
The permissions don’t differentiate, which is why an honest privacy policy is important. If they have access to the contacts but the policy states that they do not transmit, store, or process the contacts on their servers I can feel safer. It appears to me that Google is asking companies to lie about their policies or otherwise make it their policy to retain contact data on their servers. The only reason I can see for this is to make Google seem less bad when it comes to privacy compared to other companies because they can point to all these other companies you’re giving permission to store data with.

CountHackulus 4y ago

Of course that would be impossible to differentiate, but adding it to the privacy policy is what Google requests. Adding it and still having it refused can absolutely be blamed on Google.

franga2000 4y ago
What I don't get is why does sending contacts need to be added to the privacy policy? The point of the policy is to state what you will and won't do in a legally binding way. If my privacy policy says "the app may access contacts locally, but that information never leaves the device", that means users can sue me if I break that promise and I could even be criminally prosecuted. What more assurance does Google need?

savy91 4y ago

I do not agree. We were explicitly asking for permission to access the contact list, the user was granting it and the user also had the option not to grant it and still use the app by manually entering the phone number. What happened is that Google blocked our updates claiming we were doing something we were not doing, and even if we did access the entire phone book, the users agreed to it explicitly. Another issue is that we would have been fine sharing a single contact with the PICK_CONTACT intent, however there's a bug open in Android since 2018 that causes developers to have to ask for the full READ_CONTACTS permission even just to pick a single contact[1]. So in our case Google did not respect the user choice, claimed we were using user data in a way we were not (without any proof whatsoever), still rejected the update even when we added what they asked us to add to our Privacy Policy and in the end they also don't even fix bugs in the Android codebase to allow developers to use more privacy-friendly APIs in their OS. [1] https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/118400813?pli=1 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/118400813?pli=1

ViViDboarder 4y ago

The permissions don’t differentiate, which is why an honest privacy policy is important. If they have access to the contacts but the policy states that they do not transmit, store, or process the contacts on their servers I can feel safer. It appears to me that Google is asking companies to lie about their policies or otherwise make it their policy to retain contact data on their servers. The only reason I can see for this is to make Google seem less bad when it comes to privacy compared to other companies because they can point to all these other companies you’re giving permission to store data with.