7 ms·

This feels like treating one particularly visible symptom of the problem instead of fixing the actual problem. What Google should do instead is prevent apps fro

• supriyo-biswas 4y ago
  That approach would leave users confused as they see fake contacts or photos being surfaced through the app that was denied said permissions.
  • waboremo 4y ago
    Only if you use fake contacts and photos that look real. Instead whenever this is done elsewhere, there is text on the image and the names are obvious. Google can even add a page within privacy where you see the fake options before you can enable it system-wide/per-app.
    • supriyo-biswas 4y ago
      The app could also detect the fake text based on general testing (after all, there's gonna be only so many variations of "Biggus Dickus") and refuse to dispense the functionality in question.
      • fbdab103 4y ago
        Hence the suggested rule that blocking functionality based on this access should be an app store violation.
      • joshuaissac 4y ago
        The OS could add an option to automatically generate realistic mock data. It could be tuned based on the distribution of names in the location that is revealed to the app (whether that is the real location or a mocked one).
  • asddubs 4y ago
    it should just present an empty list, like a newly installed phone with no pictures taken yet / no contacts added. if apps detect that and refuse to function, ban them from the app store
• michaelmior 4y ago
  > 2. Make Android present convincing fake data to apps when permissions are denied What about apps that aren't malicious? How can they tell the difference between a user who denied the permission to reasonably offer alternatives?
  • fbdab103 4y ago
    Reminder the user on the screen that permissions have been denied?
  • amluto 4y ago
    As a good rule of thumb, apps are malicious. If they are not, the libraries they include are. If, somehow, even the libraries aren’t malicious, the attackers who compromise the app or its backend are definitely malicious.
    • HeavyFeather 4y ago
      With that logic you really shouldn't use your computer.
      • fbdab103 4y ago
        We are rapidly approaching that point. Apple is/was/will going to enable on-device scanning for someone's definition of naughty. Not hard to imagine that naughty will soon includes images of Winnie the Pooh, union formation, abortion, minority group X, what have you. Automatic notification of the authorities to follow. Edit: To be clear, I am obviously opposed to CSAM, but on-device scanning is a privacy violation. Nobody knows what hashes trigger a flag, and they could be updated at anytime without the user being aware.
        • wilg 4y ago
          The problem is the top-level poster was also suggesting banning apps based on their definition of naughty (and "related" features).
      • 4y ago
• waselighis 4y ago
  > 2. Make Android present convincing fake data to apps when permissions are denied That reminds me, years ago I used to run a module called XPrivacy that does exactly this. It does require a rooted Android device though. I haven't used it for a long time, but seems it continues to live on as XPrivacyLua.
  • aceazzameen 4y ago
    I used to use that too. It was great! I haven't run a rooted device in like 8 years though. These days I don't bother installing most apps on my devices anymore. I mainly use the phone, messaging, camera, and Firefox. And I use Netguard to block the uninstall-able apps from internet access.
• vitehozonage 4y ago
  >2. Make Android present convincing fake data to apps when permissions are denied GrapheneOS can do this. I believe you can even choose to make only chosen photos visible to a certain app
  • charrondev 4y ago
    This functionality is built into iOS as well.
    • GoblinSlayer 4y ago
      iOS implements access permissions, GrapheneOS implements sandboxing.
• marissachan 4y ago
  "2. Make Android present convincing fake data to apps when permissions are denied" This is actually a feature with MIUI, though I am not sure if this is part of the global release or only Xiaomi.eu, a modified version of the chinese release). https://xiaomi.eu/community/attachments/screenshot_2022-10-23-01-07-46-224_com-miui-securitycenter-edit-jpg.44453/ https://xiaomi.eu/community/attachments/screenshot_2022-10-2...
  • riedel 4y ago
    This is cool, why is that not a wider available feature in custom ROMs particularly. I used XPrivacy with xposed some time ago to inject that functionality. It was even possible to only expose randomised or fixed GPS and an excerpt from the address book (only favourites).
• hakre 4y ago
  Additionally there should be a sandbox mode. While you give the app access to Photos and Contacts, it's an actual sandbox not containing any photo nor any contact. So the app gets what it asks for (the permission) while the user can still control the data.
  • charrondev 4y ago
    This is how photos access on iOS works. An app can ask for access to photos and you can choose 3 options: - no photos - only specific photos (the system picker will appear to select them) - all photos
    • patch_cable 4y ago
      Regretfully, it seems on iOS apps can tell they’ve been given access to only specific photos. Googles Photo app refuses to work unless it gets access to all photos.
      • actionablefiber 4y ago
        WeChat will loudly grumble every time you try to send a photo if you haven't given access to all photos. But at least it works.
        • hakre 4y ago
          And if you tell me now, that it works without having access to contacts, its lightyears ahead of WhatsApp. But still, these moaning dialogs aren't trust-building. I wish there would be better guidance with UX in the industry.
          • throwaway290 4y ago
            WhatsApp works without access to contacts now, no?
            • 4y ago
• causality0 4y ago
  I seem to remember this worked a lot better a few years ago. Nowadays you can't even deny an app permission to access the internet.
  • aembleton 4y ago
    I can deny the internet to individual apps on my Pixel 7 running Android 13. I can even deny just mobile data. I often do it when I first install an app that shouldn't need internet access.
• celdon25 4y ago
  The actual problem is that travesties of this scale are allowed to happen on Google’s watch for so long, despite the Orwellian grip it has on deciding what apps are allowed to be listed. A good example of why that system needs to be reformed. This particular issue didn’t get addressed until at least 8 months after TechCrunch exposed the practice. Where was Google? Control of the App Store and Play Stores should be carefully transferred to an independent organization, with an open governance model and a mission to serve consumer interests. It won’t be perfect but it would be a big step up. If that can’t be done for whatever reason, find another way to disrupt the App Store. I struggle to think of why not doing so is a net good for society.
  • KyeRussell 4y ago
    [flagged]
• amelius 4y ago
  I wrote almost exactly this comment more than five years ago. It is a shame that it is taking them so long to get security right. Do they even use their own software?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• akomtu 4y ago
  Isn't the entire business model of Android that it's a data collection platform with zillion of sensors linked to PII that apps and phone vendors can use for profit? If Android did what you're siggesting, Samsung and others would simply fork Android and cut ties with Google.
• rblatz 4y ago
  I don’t have much faith in Google for doing that. The Google Photo app only works on iOS if you allow it access to the iOS photo library. I wanted to use it to access photos shared with me, or otherwise stored in Google Photos, not to give google access to all the photos on my phone.
  • prepend 4y ago
    It’s pretty funny that Google has this rule and then slurps up all data for their own purposes and there’s no way to opt out on android if you use the google distro.
• zaphirplane 4y ago
  It’s ok to give credit to Apple for doing this already
• 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  Android has this issue. There is the new permissions for locations. Accurate and not so accurate. Apps are told that "you are given coarse location" so they refuse to work. Same for contacts. I refuse to use truecaller because it "requires" contacts access. I don't want it so I am at an impasse. Permissions should be transparent. As you said, if the user decides on system level to disable location, apps should be told "no signal" or "no location for now, carry on"
• plagiarist 4y ago
  > Make Android present convincing fake data to apps when permissions are denied. I have wanted this for years. I eventually left Android because the permissions models were deranged (IIRC the number of apps that "need" phone access to pause something during a call). iOS isn't perfect but they seemed to be enforcing your prong #1 at least a little more than Android when I switched.
• UncleMeat 4y ago
  #1 is a nice recommendation, but not trivial. You've got three major systems for detecting policy violations: static analysis, dynamic analysis, and human interaction. You don't want too many false negatives or else you get bad media coverage complaining that you aren't doing enough to enforce policy. You don't want false positives or else you hurt benign users. Static tooling will be able to detect specific kinds of ways that an app might refuse to work if you don't have a permission, but will struggle mightily in general. Dynamic analysis needs to be driven to the specific feature that triggers the behavior. Both will struggle if the app's response is something like returning to a home screen with a custom message. And good luck teaching one of these systems what "disabling unrelated functionality" looks like. Human interaction works better but is a gazillion times more expensive. Training people is also harder than one might think. You can train humans to identify "disabling unrelated functionality" but that's fuzzy enough that there are going to be some errors. Doable, but every single new policy costs significant amounts of money. Policy overload is also a problem for developers. There are already a lot of rules on both app stores. Developers get a new "hey this is a new rule you need to comply with" email all the time. You can only roll things out so fast or developers will get overwhelmed with just validating that their apps remain in compliance. These are often solvable problems in isolation, but when taken as part of the overall effort of policy enforcement on app stores they become quite a bit more challenging.