16 ms·

When an app asks for permissions, it should have a “feed fake data” option

1102 points by janandonly 3y ago

shadowgovt 3y ago
This wouldn't stem the requests; it would just lead to data analysts figuring out how to algorithmically filter the junk data. ... which is fine. Incentives to refine data analysis are always welcome.
- edrxty 3y ago
  That's good because either way it costs them money. Also fake data being more chaotic would be good because it would ultimately cause them to over filter and throw out real chaotic data, effectively over fitting their marketing efforts to slightly more average people. Additionally, a good arms race would be fun here. Keep making the data more and more realistic each generation. Add an option to use plugin datasets so wallstreetbets can crowdsource fucking with investment banks (ie why is everyone suddenly spending all their time at targets?)
codetrotter 3y ago
> When an app asks for permissions, the OS should not only let you answer yes or no. Every category should have a "yes, but feed the app fake data" option. A significant amount of people don’t even know how to forward an email. Imagine the havoc that would ensue when people try to use Google Maps for navigation, and they choose to feed it fake data because they don’t understand what it means. Google Maps: “Turn right” Guy driving alongside the ocean: “ok” Car: *splash*
- easterncalculus 3y ago
  This is an entirely UX problem then. You could bury the data faking deep in the settings, clearly explain what it does in plain language before enabling it as well as plainly telling the user onscreen that the application is being fed information for privacy reasons that they themselves enabled (and can easily disable). There is always someone who will end up enabling this erroneously, but it would provide a lot of value to a lot of users that didn't.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    The people who are savvy enough to jump through those hoops are savvy enough to rock a phone that is modded to feed fake data already.
    - easterncalculus 3y ago
      There's truth to that, but jailbreaks to install those on most smartphones depend on exploits for those systems to install your own software. It would be nice if some of this stuff came stock.
    - pavel_lishin 3y ago
      I'm savvy, but I'm also lazy.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Right, locking the functionality off to only people with a deep understanding of it would work but it’s sidestepping the problem. People without understanding would still benefit from it so it’s a shame to lock them out of it and it’s harder to justify a feature only 0.5% of your user base will use.
    - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
      Maybe just seed it with very sensible default settings like "send real data when asking for directions"?
      - internetter 3y ago
        It's impossible for the OS to know the intent of the app requesting location with certainty. That being said, android at least has options for "Approximate" and "Precise" locations and locations in the background or only when the app is open.
        kennyloginz 3y ago
- bdcravens 3y ago
  Then make the setting a power-user opt-in, so that the uninitiated wouldn't even see the option.
  - fmx 3y ago
    No, the whole point of the original post is that a lot of users see (and use) the option, so that the app's database of personal data is full of rubbish. I don't think the GP's scenario is realistic. A user would see that their location on the map is wrong before they even get a chance to begin navigation. Besides, Google Maps already sometimes tells people to drive through roadblocks and locked gates and such (which it isn't aware of), so it already requires the driver to think for themselves to some extent.
- chongli 3y ago
  Do a lot of people use Google Maps on iOS? I ask because the “feed fake data” option is something I could imagine Apple doing but never in a million years would I believe Google would do it. Apple Maps wouldn’t have this issue. It’s capable of running offline (without a data connection) because it can download maps to the device.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    So is Google Maps (on Android at least, or at least it was 10 years ago when I last did that).
  - 0ld 3y ago
    a lot of people do, for example me. apple maps sucks badly where i live (eu). say, it has no idea my house (built 6 years ago) exists, it builds routes via non-existing roads, is not aware of road works, detours or most of the businesses around apple maps is completely useless here, even though i don’t like using a google app, there’s no alternative
    - hattmall 3y ago
      Apple maps sucks badly here in the US as well. Just last month it took me down a road that had been closed and diverted many years ago, we almost missed a wedding.
    - chongli 3y ago
      That makes sense, though that's highly specific to where you live. Where I live it works perfectly so I have no reason to use Google Maps at all.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    > Apple Maps wouldn’t have this issue. It’s capable of running offline (without a data connection) because it can download maps to the device. Why would that matter? Even if the map data is cached locally, a navigation app obviously needs a GPS location from the phone, which requires it to be granted permissions. And the fake data would be equally disastrous to any navigation app. Or are you suggesting that if Apple were to add a feature for generating fake data, it'd only apply to 3p apps and not their own? I'll admit that it would be totally on-brand behavior.
- GravitasFailure 3y ago
  >Google Maps: “Turn right” >Guy driving alongside the ocean: “ok” >Car: *splash* This seems like a learning opportunity. Or a Darwinian opportunity. Either way, self-solving.
  - davidjfelix 3y ago
    That feeling when hacker news user endorses eugenics as long as its just stupid people.
    - evandale 3y ago
      What makes you think GP is talking about eugenics? If anything, they're talking about natural selection which is not eugenics. Eugenics is when you select fitness at birth. GP would be endorsing genocide, or maybe epigenetics if anything, based on the small out of context comment. I highly doubt either was the intention and wonder how you got to the eugenics conclusion.
      - rhn_mk1 3y ago
        It's not natural selection if you help it.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        evandale 3y ago
        >This seems like a learning opportunity. Or a Darwinian opportunity. Either way, self-solving. I took either as meaning a learning opportunity for one or all of the 1) GPS app makers, 2) the person who blindly followed the directions of a robot, or 3) the rest of us who learn about the event. What interpretation did you have that suggests they were referring to eugenics?
        davidjfelix 3y ago
- severino 3y ago
  Well, you don't really need to feed fake GPS data to have Google Maps make you drive into the ocean or things like that.
- zzo38computer 3y ago
  In that case, people who are driving the car are failing to see properly which way they are going. That problem is a different problem. > the OS should not only let you answer yes or no. Every category should have a "yes, but feed the app fake data" option Well, I think perhaps "Yes", "No", and "Custom". If you select "Custom" then perhaps there could be a warning message displayed in the "Custom" menu if that would help, but it should not block you from customizing it as you want to do.
progbits 3y ago
XPrivacy for rooted android could do this 7+ years ago and there are other modern alternatives (but I haven't rooted my phone for a long time so I can't vouch for them): https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy Obviously that is not mainstream, I agree it should come built in. But then both Android and iOS allow bullshit like region-locked apps or preventing screenshots from DRM content, so good luck with that.
- Nereuxofficial 3y ago
  XPrivacy was incredibly cool. But on modern phones rooting and installing Xposed has either gotten massively more complicated or disabled ougright. GrapheneOS wasn't working with banking apps, Google broke rooting via Magisk multiple times on the Android Beta and at some point and i stopped bothering. Maybe GrapheneOS or similar Projects could do this
  - flutas 3y ago
    FWIW: Rooting seems fairly easy at this point in time, at least for pixel devices. Flash with magisk, install Universal Safetynet Fix (https://github.com/Displax/safetynet-fix/ https://github.com/Displax/safetynet-fix/) and you're passing safetynet / play integrity API. I haven't come across a single app that doesn't work due to root currently, but I limit my installed apps.
    - kevincox 3y ago
      You pass basic safety net. You do this by claiming that your device is an older device that doesn't support hardware attestation. I can only assume that in some small number of years hardware attestation is going to be required and will require software exploits to work around.
    - e4e5 3y ago
      Thank you, I rooted my phone a few days ago and have been putting off fixing safety net. But that worked and was absolutely painless.
    - 3y ago
halfstep 3y ago
I really wish browsers would take this approach with notifications. If a website asks if I have notifications enabled, tell them yes, and send them all into the oblivion. Edit: to clarify, I already disable all notifications in Firefox. I was referring to websites that check via JavaScript whether you have notifications turned on and trigger a pop up to ask you to enable them.
- OJFord 3y ago
  How's that different from just having it globally disabled? I've never had a site refuse to work at all because I haven't allowed it to send desktop notifications, does that happen?
  - maxk42 3y ago
    I think he's saying the JavaScript nag message every time you visit one of these sites is annoying.
- grishka 3y ago
  You can disable notifications globally. I did it. Zero regrets. My browser is a hypertext document viewer, not an operating system. Here's also a userscript that removes the service worker API from Chromium browsers: // ==UserScript== // @name Remove service worker API // @namespace http://tampermonkey.net/ // @version 0.1 // @description try to take over the world! // @author You // @match https://*/* // @grant none // @run-at document-start // ==/UserScript== delete Object.getPrototypeOf(navigator).serviceWorker; In Firefox, iirc you can disable that API somewhere in about:config.
- latexr 3y ago
  On macOS you can disable notifications for any app in System Settings. When an app first requests it, you’ll get a system notification asking if you want to allow the app to send any. On Safari you can even disable the option for websites to request notification access. It’s on the Websites tab in Settings.
- 3y ago
notsahil 3y ago
There is an app for creating data-poisoning contacts: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/me.billdietrich.fake_contacts https://f-droid.org/en/packages/me.billdietrich.fake_contact... Source code: https://github.com/BillDietrich/fake_contacts https://github.com/BillDietrich/fake_contacts
Havoc 3y ago
Unfortunately this approach makes you quite unique for fingerprinting
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  Or can. Numerous anti-Fingerprinting systems have been discovered to make you more fingerprintable.
- sleepybrett 3y ago
  not if its an os feature.
- nonplus 3y ago
  I don't think this assessment is correct. No one said completely random data. It certainly could make fingerprinting possible (or, easier than no spoofing at all) if the right considerations are not taken.
  - Havoc 3y ago
    >No one said completely random data. It doesn't have to be random to be a problem. In general any sort of intervention that moves you away from Joe average is bad news for fingerprinting. More sophistication in this context often makes things worse not better. e.g. In this context volunteering info on every request (fake or random doesn't matter) certainly makes you unique, because the average user doesn't do that
    - nonplus 3y ago
      I took issue with your use of 'makes'. Your statement incorrect. It could open someone up to fingerprinting if done incorrectly. It could also provide utility to a user. The draconian rhetoric you are using is the same logic someone uses to advocate for no symmetric encryption because it can be implemented incorrectly. Reiterating your basic fact about fingerprinting doesn't change this, or negate the rest of my statements you ignore because you think nuance and user requirements can be reduced to a binary.
- 3y ago
charcircuit 3y ago
This will just make app developers angry at your platform. If this is just some hack users are doing apps will increasingly use attestation to make sure you are not feeding them fake data. Apps want to be able to give users a good user experience and if they are given fake data users will get angry that the developer's app is broken and leave 1 star reviews. Denying permissions and letting apps know something is denied is much better because they can adapt their app's experience to work around it.
- firefoxd 3y ago
  This doesn't make sense. If the dev asks permission that creates good experience, the user is incentivized to give real data. Example, gps is required to navigate or find near by service. The user will happily provide. But if you require gps to make a post, the user does not benefit from it. Unless they have an incentive to share their location, they do not need to give real data. Maybe the dev should give an explanation. If they receive a one star review, the developers should use it as feedback.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >But if you require gps to make a post, the user does not benefit from it. This behaviour would get an app rejected from the app stores. The app stores require you justify doing things like that and they require you to gracefully degrade if a user denies a permission.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  Apps don't want to give users a good experience. Apps want to milk users for all the data they posses. Denying permissions remains an option, but some digital trash will refuse to work unless you give them your address book and location history. Those apps deserve to be fed fake data. Clicking the "feed fake data" button is an explicit alternative to denying permissions, it's not a replacement.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >Apps want to milk users for all the data they posses. No, they don't. Please go and actually talk to app developers for their motivations. Look at the mission statements of the companies making the apps. >Those apps deserve to be fed fake data. Or you can just not use the app if the experience it offers is not something you want. >Clicking the "feed fake data" button is an explicit alternative to denying permissions, it's not a replacement. It's a worse alternative because apps can not properly handle this case unless they detect the data being fed in is fake.
squarefoot 3y ago
> Every category should have a "yes, but feed the app fake data" option. I would prefer it to be per app and not category. I may not want to feed positional data to pretty much everything but Google Maps and any app that calls for help in case of emergency. Same for contacts, personal data etc. I'd however expect an app like that to meet fierce resistance from Google and other businesses that profit from users profiling.
- zzo38computer 3y ago
  I agree, although it should be both per app and per category. For example, one app can have real data available for one permission but fake (or customized or manually entered data) for another one and denied permission for a third one, for example. You might also want to be able to temporarily change the setting, e.g. for testing purposes, or if an app gives you weather for your location and you want to temporarily change it to another location to view that location's weather before changing it back to use the real location afterward.
ryandrake 3y ago
I’m all for the “fake data” idea, but also: Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data. I know last time I developed for iOS, it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Apps must gracefully handle it and continue running. Also, and this was even longer ago, apps could not require users to have “an account” in order to run. I remember (this was over a decade ago) my company making a product change that forced users to have an account in order to function and we got (rightfully) rejected by the AppStore for this. It seems they must have softened this stance because I am seeing more and more apps that require an account to function.
- aftbit 3y ago
  Every smart home app seems to want an account on Android. Maybe they have a different path on Apple, related to HomeKit or similar, but I'm a bit skeptical.
  - skinner927 3y ago
    Tasmota + CloudFree + Home Assistant and never make an account again and have full control over the devices in your home. No accounts and your lights still work when your internet is down.
    - qwerpy 3y ago
      I love my home assistant installation and didn’t even know about Tasmota/Cloudfree. Thanks for sharing, this is the next logical step to fully detaching from subscriptions/accounts.
      - progman32 3y ago
        Esphome is also good to learn about here.
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      I also like the part where it is harder for a device to call home if it doesn't have wi-fi at all.
jasonmarks_ 3y ago
As an app developer I do not like this idea. You want to break the contract on what that permission is intended to be. ("Weather the Trip" road trip weather app for the U.S.)
- barnabee 3y ago
  As an app user, I want you as an app developer to have no control whatsoever over how I use your app and no way whatsoever to know if any data it gets from my device is real.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    For Android versions 8-12 there's XPrivacyLua, which will override the system APIs to feed apps fake data if you wish to do so. It requires a rooted device, obviously, but its predecessor worked like a dream last time I've tried it. These days I'm more of a "one star review and uninstall" kind of user but I've had good experiences with XPrivacy. Sadly, XPrivacyLua has been discontinued. I don't know any alternative for modern Android releases.
  - jasonmarks_ 3y ago
    Great :thumbs up: it does that
- grishka 3y ago
  As another app developer, I don't care. You aren't meant to request permissions you don't legitimately need for the app to function. Everyone understands that a map or weather app needs access to precise location, or that an app that takes pictures needs access to the camera. But games requesting storage or location or microphone or contacts, and refusing to run without these permissions? They should rightfully get what they deserve. Heck, even the internet access (android.permission.INTERNET) should be a runtime permission. A fakeable one, too.
  - deleted 3y ago
fnord77 3y ago
any browser plugins do this for fingerprinting mouse movements?
gavinhoward 3y ago
So I'm building a build system with a permission system. The permissions are checked at runtime and each time the permission is needed. (For example, if a build script tries to phone home twice, the build system will run the permission checker twice.) In addition, the permission checker will have the option of delivering fake data and making the requester think they got permission when they didn't. This is why I added that, even though it is much more complexity.
jklinger410 3y ago
Yeah man, totally.
abrax3141 3y ago
“If someone asks you a question they’ve got no business asking, you’re under no obligation to tell them the truth.” — Leonard Schiffman (From: “Blend me in: Privacy-Preserving Input Generalization for Personalized Online Services” https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OmoqMmHFcb7PsQtaU_GW4aCAJeiLBa4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OmoqMmHFcb7PsQtaU_GW4aCAJe...)
firefoxd 3y ago
That's funny, I was just asking for that a few days ago on a similar thread [1] > There needs to be a feature on android to give fake gps data on a real device. This would be useful for any app that requires gps for no good reason. > If your flashlight app needs gps to turn on, no problem. You are currently on mount Kilimanjaro. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36486587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36486587
landgenoot 3y ago
I think this is a technical solution for a social problem. Compare it with the "unsubscribe" button in spam newsletters that does nothing. Sure, fuck you, I will just block the unique email address you are using and you won't be able to contact me at all. If everyone was playing nicely, we would not need it.
- ImaCake 3y ago
  I think the fake data is more like “block and report spam”. Which is what I do for every email that I don’t want to see. I agree that there is no need to play nice. Companies are not respecting my time so they can suffer the consequences.
johnwheeler 3y ago
Unpopular opinion: No, it shouldn’t. That would be unethical. Aggregating cohorts of data to determine what you might or might not like to buy, and vigorously safeguarding that data since you know it will cost your business billions in market cap if it is exposed is far more reasonable. Yours is just a passive aggressive way to “ruin Facebook”. If you want to ruin Facebook, push for legislation. Do it the right way.
- 23B1 3y ago
  Gosh, you mean big corporations will be forced to compete on the basis of the quality of their products – instead of their ability to aggregate, destroy, and exploit the privacy of their users?
- rcstank 3y ago
  Legislation will just hurt the little guys trying to start up. Once so much red tape is involved, it’s very difficult for innovation and competition.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    It's unclear to me how the inability to hoover up data and exploit users' privacy would prevent someone from creating an innovative experience.
beefield 3y ago
I have long thought there should be a virtual sandbox available for apps that generates fake data to apps according to preset stories. Like, tell one app I am a rich bachelor spending time in french riviera and another I am homeless in New york. Spoof gps, wifi and whatnot data that fits the pattern to the app. (I know, it would be hard)
theawless 3y ago
Samsung phones have a camera access and microphone access toggle. Here's what I get when I turn it off: ``` Turn off Camera access? All apps will be blocked from using the camera. Apps will still work, but they will only be able to access an empty black screen. For example, you can still make and receive video calls, but the other person won't be able to see you. ```
- theawless 3y ago
  For microphone access: ```Turn off Microphone access? All apps will be blocked from using the microphone Apps will still work, but they won't be able to access any sounds from the microphone. For example, you can still make and receive calls, but the other person won't be able to hear you.```
  - hoffs 3y ago
    All apps seems like not very useful
    - thaeli 3y ago
      It's not ideal, per app would be preferable, but at least global can be a toggle in the global quick settings UI.
crazygringo 3y ago
But why? Just don't grant it permissions if you don't want to. And if it refuses to function without (for no good reason), then don't use the app because it's scammy. Is there some other situation I'm missing here? Like is there some legitimate app people need to install that won't work if you don't grant it unneeded permissions?
- tredre3 3y ago
  On Android I've had so many apps crash, get stuck in a loop, or refuse to run when a unnecessary permission is denied. And it's not just scummy apps, things like the Fitbit app used to go ballistic if you denied them access to your contacts. In an ideal world Google would force the developers to handle such cases gracefully. But for whatever reason, they don't care. Though like any technical solution trying to fix a culture problem, the fake data generation won't be all roses either. Users will inadvertently enable it and then the app won't work properly and they won't know how to fix it; Think a calendar app where you enabled the fake calendar access by mistake, so you see random crap instead of your expected schedule. Where do you go to fix it? The app doesn't know you're feeding it lies, that's the whole point, so it can't help. So in Android fashion you have to dig twelve levels deep in convoluted menus to revert that. Assuming you even know where to look or what the problem is.
blincoln 3y ago
I'd love to see this generalized to a toolkit in mobile and desktop/server operating systems. A year or two ago, I suggested calling something like it a "hellban" add-on, because my main use for it would be to improve the UX for software I can't really avoid by putting that software in an invisible cage. It would basically be a "swords into plowshares" version of a rootkit. One could implement the same effects using Frida, but I imagined something more like a browser add-on repository, where users could submit modules for specific software/apps, or that would gatekeep device/OS-level functionality, instead of everyone having to create custom rules in a lower-level general-purpose toolkit like Frida. There are lots of possibilities in this area for taking back some control of what's happening on one's devices by feeding procedurally-/ML-generated data when software tries to query sensors, GPS, camera/mic, etc. It would also often be useful for software testing, to make certain test cases more practical and reproducible by looping through recorded data.
pciexpgpu 3y ago
I am surprised there isn’t a browser that opens shadow webpage(s) that is unrelated but a peer to a website you are visiting. Perhaps it’s the ad companies that need to be fed fake data not the app / site.
oliverulerich 3y ago
Android introduced the approximate location option (I believe it was in version 11) as a per-app toggle in the permission settings. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6179507?hl=en#:~:text=Approximate%20location%3A%20The%20app%20can,the%20app%20to%20do%20something https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6179507?hl=en#:~:....
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  That only disables the permission or increases the uncertainty, it doesn't really feed fake data. If apps refuse to work unless you provide detailed location info or other permissions, there's no "provide fake data" option like the post suggests.
  - immibis 3y ago
    Apps can use GeoIP to get an approximate location most of the time, and there's nothing Google can do to prevent it.
    - supertrope 3y ago
      There's a significant difference between "Your ISP's IP block suggests you are near Stockton,CA" and "Your exact location +/- 5 meters"
  - aembleton 3y ago
    It's frustrating that the app knows you haven't provided it with exact location. Approximate location is usually sufficient and I wish android could just feed that into the app as an exact location.
jasec57322 3y ago
Here's an idea: (medium-complexity) port of android to TCB which partitions /hardware/ (cpu-cache, RAM), on a per app basis. Android's app-based permissions API doesn't require too much work to do this. My perspective: Either cheap-monolithic-SOCs get really cheap, (for low end devices), with long-term-support, and low power, or compartmentalised architectures start to gain the traction that will kill of SOCs.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
memeMaker 3y ago
Hell yeah, fake data should totally be an option! This could be achieved with something like Xposed, a cool project is https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacyLua https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacyLua. I actually made a "clone" with the option to generate data per permission as a school project, good times
jwr 3y ago
This makes a lot of sense. If an app needs my data to improve my experience (and only mine), then feeding it fake data should only degrade my experience. It shouldn't matter to the app developers/authors/owners. But if (as in most cases) the goal is to data-mine me, fake data should work nicely to impede that. Of course it won't matter for things like WhatsApp, where people happily sync their entire list of contacts with Facebook/Meta just to have a slightly nicer messaging experience.
- sircastor 3y ago
  >Of course it won't matter for things like WhatsApp, where people happily sync their entire list of contacts with Facebook/Meta just to have a slightly nicer messaging experience. I was very unhappy to have to do this, but it wasn’t a slightly nicer experience. The app and the service are only marginally usable until you do this. (At least on mobile)
dumdumchan 3y ago
That's the guy who made the first successful indie games within a deep forest and knytt. https://nifflas.ni2.se/games/ https://nifflas.ni2.se/games/
d_sem 3y ago
I would make the case that fake data isn't a sustainable model as it spend fuel and energy to support an activity that does not have meaningful contribution to society and the economy. We should base our state of the art on best use of the finite resources we have.
mr_frank_jaeger 3y ago
I love the idea of feed fake data!!! That would be an easy app to write, kinda like bouncer
corn13read2 3y ago
Jailbreaks on iOS have this, I wish apple would allow us to have more control.
- activiation 3y ago
  "Apple knows what's good for you" has been their motto since the beginning of times which is why I never had an Apple device.
eredengrin 3y ago
GrapheneOS has features that allow this to various extents, for example storage scopes which trick the app into believing it has all the storage permissions it requested, or contact scopes which give an app access to whatever subset of contacts you decide on (including none). Similar feature exists for sensors and possibly others I've forgotten or am unaware of.
sircastor 3y ago
I recall holding off on WhatsApp for so long because they wanted access to my contacts to do anything really useful. With Exchange students it really became critical to have it, so I caved and gave Meta the data. I’m still a little mad about it. Clearly they could’ve made an app that did not require access to my contact information, but they wouldn’t.
jstummbillig 3y ago
Why do we need to be awful? Here is a simple rule: No is an option, unless it's really not an option. If it's not an option, you need to be very clear about why (in the app application process maybe), otherwise your app gets declined. i.e. if tiktok/ig asks for permissions on camera and microphone, no is an option, because you don't need either to use either. If parts of your app can feasibly be used by a user without certain permissions it is on you to design the app in a way where that is possible. No camera or microphone enabled? Conditionally disable the functionality that would require those. To make this simpler, the burden is on the asker. If you are not clear or trying to be clever, the answer is no. If that sounds draconian, keep in mind, that the app creator has the option to completely forgo this additional step by creating an app that makes permissions optional. Focusing on enforcing that would make a petty army race unnecessary, and it's the better call for humans anyway.
- dweinus 3y ago
  Sounds good, but enforcing it how? The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store. I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already.
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    > The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store Sounds good to me, though I think there should be a second component, which would be app sdks: Make designing with conditional permissions in mind a first class citizen, and create clear guidelines, as to how to do that, and why you really, really should do that. > I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already. Alas, this is probably where legislation would so some convincing (see gdpr)
  - cmdli 3y ago
    Apple already enforces this, at least to some extent. If you just tell the user “you cannot use our app without allowing us to track you”, your app will get denied from the App Store. Apple is incentivized to do this because they get their value charging access to the ecosystem, and so it’s in their incentive to make sure their ecosystem is nice to users.
Misdicorl 3y ago
Similarly, I'd like all the scam emails to be auto responded to with fake data rather than black holed
- immibis 3y ago
  Sometimes I do this with emails in my spam folder, but nothing interesting ever happens
  - Misdicorl 3y ago
    Point is to make the signal to noise on response too low for the scammers to deal with. Today, they can feasibly have a person look at every response and choose the most promising targets. If auto respond to even 0.01% of scam email, they suddenly need to have tools to weave through ridiculous amounts of data. Expensive. Scam becomes negative ROI
- gigel82 3y ago
  I'd prefer to have an option for the provider to send a genuine "invalid recipient" (554) auto-reply for addresses we mark as spam.
  - aembleton 3y ago
    I think zoho does this
sircastor 3y ago
I really like iOS’ “only while using the app” option for location data, or “give the app access to only these photos” and I wish that premise extended to other things conceptually, like “give access only to this subset of contacts”
paradite 3y ago
WeChat has this feature. When you authorize a third party mini program in WeChat to access your personal information, you can choose to generate a fake profile for the mini program instead of supplying your real information. Here's an article in Chinese describing the feature: https://www.woshipm.com/pd/2612572.html https://www.woshipm.com/pd/2612572.html Another article with slightly worth page experience: https://jingyan.baidu.com/article/c275f6ba22f54ca23d7567c6.html https://jingyan.baidu.com/article/c275f6ba22f54ca23d7567c6.h...
- supertrope 3y ago
  Wechat itself asks for GPS data upon startup. On Android if you deny the permission the app closes.
karaterobot 3y ago
Feels like something a third-party password manager could handle. I would not expect Apple or Google to ever do this on their own initiative though. In fact they would probably disallow the third-party app from doing it, as it would likely violate some term of service or other. Neither Apple nor Google has any incentive to make it easy to pollute data, or foster the expectation that you have a right to obfuscation. If you started expecting it from apps you installed, I think you'd eventually start to expect it from Apple and Google themselves, and that'd be bad for them.
Animats 3y ago
Someone had that on Android a decade ago. I saw it demoed. Whatever happened to that?
hermannj314 3y ago
I love this idea. For now, all laws are location based because sovereignty is defined by geographical boundaries for historical reasons. If you use "feed fake data" to avert those laws, I think that is ok. As an example, I am the criminal if I lie to an app to say I am in Pennsylvania to bet on sports. I don't think my phone manufacturer should conspire with law enforcement to prevent me from being able to lie to commit that crime.
CalRobert 3y ago
lineageOS had this...
- yarolig 3y ago
  Yes! There was exactly this in Cyanogen Mod for Android 2.3. It seems that Google did not like it so in Android 4.0 it is working any more and nobody ported this feature to 4.0.
ineedasername 3y ago
That doesn’t seem like a good idea unless your goal is to burn down the current paradigm. And I’ll grant some people have arguments for doing so, but this doesn’t seem a productive way to go about it. Either advocate for tearing the status quo out by its roots, hopefully with some inclination of what to put in its place lest something worse grow instead. Or demand transparent control w/ easily revocable consent ( or something along those lines.) Maximizing chaos and distrust and belligerent behavior beyond the already intolerable levels isn’t going to get a net improvement in things anytime soon.
balaji1 3y ago
it seems a bit of unrealistic expectation, users spoilt from the freemium generation
enachtry 3y ago
Am opinion so naive it's harmful. Google will NEVER harm itself by supporting fake data feeds. The only reason G exists at all is because they can exploit the data they harvest from you. If you're given the power to poison that data Google implodes and the whole Android platform becomes extremely unattractive to other massive companies that live off of leeching your private data one way or another. Yes, an OS built first & foremost for its users/customers would have LOTS of options like that. A mobile web browser built the same would support plugins from day 1. Etc. Etc. But Android, Chrome, Windows 10+, iOS are ABSOLUTELY not built for their users. They're built as vehicles that enable other services from a slew of big names and it's essential for these platforms to ensure users are NOT given the power to fight against those services.
- aembleton 3y ago
  It would be beneficial to Google if they were to get your information but not just hand it out to any app that gets installed. Google can have my contacts and location information. But if I download some random app, it doesn't need my exact location. Maybe it needs a rough location like within 100km of my real location. Android could feed it a fake location and say its exact.
kubik369 3y ago
I am surprised no top comment mentions this — on iOS, you cannot distinguish if you were granted a permission or not. As an example, if an app asks you for access to your photos, it will always get an array. The trick is that when you deny this permission, the array will be empty, so you cannot know if the user simply has an empty library or if he denied you access. I like it, simple and elegant. Naturally, in the case of photos, you can use a heuristic, because basically everyone will have at least some pictures. However, in the case of other types of data, say, health data, it is not so clearcut.
- rappatic 3y ago
  What about other permissions where you can't realistically send an empty object? For example, if the user grants permission to view location, the location object passed to the app will obviously have the pertinent information. Would the OS simply pass an empty location object and wouldn't that make it obvious that permission was denied? Or is it hidden behind some kind of error
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    They are wrong; you can determine whether you have permission in iOS. For location, you have CLAuthorizationStatus: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corelocation/clauthorizationstatus https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corelocation/claut... In any case, the iOS location services don’t work that way. You can’t call them and get a location back due to the way the system works. It simply doesn’t have location data at times and needs to wait for it to become available. You tell the operating system you want to receive location updates and then it delivers zero or more when that information becomes available and when it becomes more accurate or changes. So if iOS needed to withhold information, it wouldn’t have to give an empty object back, it would just not deliver any location updates at all.
- H8crilA 3y ago
  How does that work for location? Also, an empty folder with photos is almost certainly implying lack of permissions. Very few people never took a picture.
gigel82 3y ago
I was mulling the idea of building a "garbage telemetry producer" thing for Windows. It's a losing battle trying to keep up with new endpoints to block more and more often, and I imagine it's easier for folks to build and run a small program that constantly pushes out telemetry events. If we poison the data maybe Microsoft will realize providing a true "all telemetry off" option would be easier (and cheaper for their bandwidth and storage budgets).
hvis 3y ago
Feeding actively random data can put you into a special category of users, though. If the recipient does any relevant analysis. So if one was looking to preserve privacy and reduce one's own track-ability, sending ambient sounds and 5x5 island location might work against that.
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
Impossible. Politically impossible.
YmiYugy 3y ago
Using top down regulation by app stores seems like a better way to deal with the issue of apps refusing to work without a permission that don't really need. Imagine the amount of needless support requests that will be triggered by people accidentally pressing the wrong thing.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Yes because we need more government involvement because people don’t have agency just not to use an app.
thih9 3y ago
Is that practical though? Apps could just accept that and break. Food delivery app could show suggestions from the fake island, social media app could let your friends know you’re 6383km away, calculator app might switch to local currency conversion, etc.
- str3wer 3y ago
  just put some warnings like "by selecting this option this application won't be able to access X, therefore some applications might not work properly".
- zzo38computer 3y ago
  Sometimes doing such things are deliberately what the user intended, which might be necessary if the app does not have its own options to specify what location you want, whether to avoid the social media publishing your location, or to specify your own currency conversions.
dirkragnarok 3y ago
Brave does something similar but as a browser against websites: https://brave.com/privacy-updates/4-fingerprinting-defenses-2.0/#2-fingerprinting-protections-20-farbling-for-great-good https://brave.com/privacy-updates/4-fingerprinting-defenses-...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
OOPMan 3y ago
This is a nice ask, also completely unlikely to ever happened.
sourabhv 3y ago
I thought of this years ago and even tried implementing this but my knowledge that time was very limited. So eventually I gave up. I think before android implemented their permission system, os like Xiaomi’d implemented their permissions by feeding fake data to the app in case user reject a permission.
- zzo38computer 3y ago
  I think that feeding fake data by default in case use reject a permission is not appropriate. There should be an option to do that (or, like I suggested, a way for the user to write programs to program it to feed whatever data they want), although I think that by default if a permission is rejected it should just provide empty data (e.g. an empty contacts list) or an appropriate error code (e.g. network error or disk error or cannot acquire satellite, just as though that error had actually occurred), rather than making up fake data.
safeimp 3y ago
I used to share this sentiment until I offered similar to customers and it was rarely used beyond a quick glance to almost immediate, ‘I really need to see my x here to have a better sense of it…’ I found that people just generally lacked imagination for the most part and screenshots coupled with quick videos and/or demos did enough to incentivize them onto installing/evaluating using their environment.
techwizrd 3y ago
I can see why this would be useful, but we already spend a lot of time chasing down data quality issues in AI/ML models and statistics as-is. We may be requesting permissions to workaround/correct GPS accuracy issues, comply with local regulations, or turn on a feature flag. For example, if you're on your home network I should hit HomeAssistant via a different route than if you're away from home. Or maybe local regulations require me to limit certain features, deny access, or confirm age. Or it may be necessary for fraud prevention, such as determining whether your account is being accessed from an unusual device or location. I could see this leading to more data quality issues, legal liabilities, and difficult bugs. We should be able to deny access or provide coarser information (e.g., an age range rather than an age or a county/state rather than fine-grained GPS), and applications should be designed to handle those gracefully.
- gameman144 3y ago
  It sounds like the assertion here is that the data is used for reasonable purposes and improves the user experience. That's likely very true. If I prioritize privacy over that better user experience, though, that should absolutely be something I'm allowed to do. I might not want to give a stranger at a bar my real phone number, so I give them a fake one. Maybe this leads to a worse experience than if I just said "no thanks", but I really value the fact that I'm allowed to do that.
- viraptor 3y ago
  I understand all of those concerns, but... as a user they're not my problem. For example I don't care about where I am and neither should you for legal issues or features. This results is situations like me going no holiday and the bank app failing to work/install because they don't have presence in X country. Wanna know if the usage complies with regulations or I want a feature? Ask me, don't guess. Wanna know how to access my HomeAssistant? Ask me, because there's a ZeroTier network making HA available directly wherever I am. For fraud prevention it's not necessary to know more of my tracking info. It just makes it easier for the company at the cost of privacy issues for me. I get the developer's view here, it's harder when someone feeds you wrong data. Tough, we're supposed to deal with that as devs and maybe just ask the question directly rather than guessing through other means. You should be doing that already, because GPS is not always reliable, contacts change, people have complex lives in terms of which laws apply to them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dreamcompiler 3y ago
I've advocated this for a long time, with the added proviso that it must be impossible for apps to figure out whether you chose to feed them fake data or not.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  An unfortunate characteristic of data fuzzing is that given sufficient alternative sources of information it's actually reasonably easy to filter out the noise. A key issue is whether the noise refers to subjects which are entirely generated or which exist in the world, though even this only incrementally adds to the noise level. Take the case of contacts. If I were to use a random ID generate to create contacts and feed those to an app, then with sufficient independent sources of data the app could choose to reject any contact which appears only once. If you happen to be the One And Only True Friend of an Orphan Hermit, then yes, that rule would exclude that data, but if you happen to be personal BFFs with Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, the system could not only independently validate that such a person exists, but even that your own reported contact information is, say, directly personal rather than a mass-media point-of-contact. The other problem is that even with generated data, so long as that is intermixed with authentic data, it's often possible to tease out signal from noise. A case here might be with browser history. There are Web browsers which generate spurious traffic. This is "real" in the senses both that it refers to actual online Web resources, and represents traffic generated by your browser, but is generated in the sense that it does not represent volitional activity on your part. However, so long as both activities are present, your actual browsing patterns exist (so that if a concern is that you did in fact visit <https://example.com/xyz https://example.com/xyz>, it would be possible to determine that some entity (genuine or simulated) did so, and that if the URL were simply randomly generated or visited, odds are reasonably low that that URL would appear within a browser history. Similarly, in a combination of actual and faked contacts, if the question is "did the subject include Known Individual in their contacts", that fact can still be determined, and if statistically improbable, particularly amongst a group of individuals all including Known Individual in their contacts, the general inference of an actual relationship is strong. The case of being able to entirely separate actual and generated information changes this dynamic ... slightly, but not overhwhelmingly. My own upshots: - Data chaffing and fuzzing are hard. - The signal one wishes to obscure often leaks. - Entirely-fabricated data is usually reasonably evident, especially in aggregate. - Whilst some degree of chaffing has some value (signalling, protest, cost-increasing), the most effective course of action is likely effective privacy legislation and regulation. I really wish there were more effective individual actions. I increasingly feel that there aren't, other than opting out entirely. (Something I increasingly practice myself, FWIW.)
samtho 3y ago
This will only start a cat and mouse game between app developers and users feeding junk data. There will be statistical tells or artifacts in fake data that will be identified which will prompt vendors to improve the entropy or patterns it creates. The only solution (for a non development/testing uses) is for applications to accept no as an answer.
- zzo38computer 3y ago
  > The only solution (for a non development/testing uses) is for applications to accept no as an answer. Agreed; feeding fake data is not a substitute for writing good applications. However, that does not mean that feeding fake data is worthless. There are many uses (including, but not limited to, programmers/companies that have failed to write good applications; like you say, testing is also a use of such a thing).
yoyopa 3y ago
this is what i don't understand about browser fingerprinting. why would you design a browser to allow fingerprinting in the first place? there's no legitimate reason for a website to know what plugins or fonts i have installed, etc.
catchnear4321 3y ago
> when a bad thing posing as a good thing asks if you want to let it do bad things or not, it should also ask if you would rather just do bad things to it instead. shit in the ocean of piss? that’s the plan?
zzo38computer 3y ago
I think that "feed fake data" is the wrong way to do it. The good way should be something like "feed data from alternate source", where the alternate source can be any other program. This other source could be anything that the user wants to put in by that other programs, such as: empty data, random data, fake but consistent data, data from an alternate file (e.g. a separate contacts list, or a picture from a file instead of from the camera), transformed in some way (e.g. turning a picture from a camera upside-down), filtered, logged, or asking the user every time for each individual piece of data, feeding error codes instead of data (and allowing the user to specify which error codes), etc. (This should include everything even the current date/time access.) This is useful for better user control and for purposes of testing and accessibility purposes. (My own idea of operating system design, one of the ideas involved (there are many other ideas, but most of them are not relevant here) is the "proxy capabilities", with capability-based security including proxy capabilities; all I/O uses it, and it can also be used in a better way than the UNIX pipes (using the command shell), and in other ways. This also includes even the date/time. No system calls other than Yield and Quit can be used without being given a capability key.
- nine_k 3y ago
  I think this is the best approach, and the only really workable approach. Very often it's too hard for an app developer to play nicely with an unavailable permission, and it makes testing vastly larger and harder for a relatively marginal set of users, so smaller commercial apps mostly won't care to play nicely. Granting the permission bu feeding an alternative data source is easiest for both parties, the developers and the users. It, of course, will make some scams easier, too. Prepare for banks to use more complex device-enlisting procedures, for instance.
maerF0x0 3y ago
make your own https://faker.readthedocs.io/en/master/ https://faker.readthedocs.io/en/master/
bentley 3y ago
GrapheneOS implemented this feature for the filesystem—called “Storage Scopes”—and a similar feature for contacts is in alpha. Apparently camera, microphone, and location are in progress. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/110382189104598979 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/110382189104598979
NicoJuicy 3y ago
For fake data you need all data to reduce positives. I don't like it
slipmagic 3y ago
I think there’s a browser extension that interacts with all the ads on a page to paradoxically(?) give someone more privacy
- amai 3y ago
  https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/ https://noiszy.com/ https://noiszy.com/ https://www.trackmenot.io/ https://www.trackmenot.io/
PeterStuer 3y ago
Just this moring I was reading through the app permissions for the 51% state owned postal service package delivery tracking app they wanted me to install. Not only would they collect my 'sexual orientation' (how I wonder?) but they also would 'share it with 3rd parties'. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=be.bpost.mybpost https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=be.bpost.mybpo...
amai 3y ago
On iOS it would be nice to have the possibility to enter a fixed/fake position so apps like Google Transit or the Weather app just work, without the need to turn on GPS.
amai 3y ago
See also https://www.trackmenot.io/ https://www.trackmenot.io/ https://noiszy.com/ https://noiszy.com/ https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/
nephanth 3y ago
Iirc there's a software to do that if you have root, it's called Xposed/Xprivacy Dunno if it's still maintained though
fennecfoxy 3y ago
I think the more important thing is coming up with a better way to do these things _without_ permissions. The core issue of permissions systems in my mind is the user. All of the pop-up permissions boxes on phones are really nice, it's helpful that Android now removes permissions from apps if they're unused. But that doesn't stop the average user from just hitting "yes" to permissions without reading them because they just want to use the app they just installed. It's exactly the same problem as nobody reading Ts&Cs etc. Our species has an apathy for this stuff. We should really just be sandboxing the shit out of everything. On Android (as an example) if I install a file manager app, I can only give it access to _everything_. But also as a user, even if I could give it granular access, it's easier to just give it access to everything because it's...easier. The location pop-up is nice, I usually hit "only while using the app" but I'm sure plenty of other people give their apps access to fine location data at all times. Is this a platform problem? Maybe Apple is right in being so strict about usage of data, even though privacy is just marketing/a selling point to them (I laugh if people think the world's richest company _genuinely_ cares about privacy on a human rather than financial level).
janaagaard 3y ago
I'm sorry, but I really don't hope this catches on. Fair that you don't want to share your data, and yeah, a Flashlight app should not need access to list of contacts, but please don't mess it up the data for us developers. Example: We use information about the devices that access our web site (screen resolution, browser versions) to figure out how best spend our limited resources. This data is important to us.
rjmunro 3y ago
I think it's probably illegal to grant an app permission to access contacts in Europe or the UK as it's GDPR covered personal data about others who have not given consent.
yuhc 3y ago
Android has App Ops which is one of my most favorite tools.

1102 points by janandonly 3y ago

This wouldn't stem the requests; it would just lead to data analysts figuring out how to algorithmically filter the junk data. ... which is fine. Incentives to refine data analysis are always welcome.

edrxty 3y ago
That's good because either way it costs them money. Also fake data being more chaotic would be good because it would ultimately cause them to over filter and throw out real chaotic data, effectively over fitting their marketing efforts to slightly more average people. Additionally, a good arms race would be fun here. Keep making the data more and more realistic each generation. Add an option to use plugin datasets so wallstreetbets can crowdsource fucking with investment banks (ie why is everyone suddenly spending all their time at targets?)

codetrotter 3y ago

> When an app asks for permissions, the OS should not only let you answer yes or no. Every category should have a "yes, but feed the app fake data" option. A significant amount of people don’t even know how to forward an email. Imagine the havoc that would ensue when people try to use Google Maps for navigation, and they choose to feed it fake data because they don’t understand what it means. Google Maps: “Turn right” Guy driving alongside the ocean: “ok” Car: *splash*

easterncalculus 3y ago
This is an entirely UX problem then. You could bury the data faking deep in the settings, clearly explain what it does in plain language before enabling it as well as plainly telling the user onscreen that the application is being fed information for privacy reasons that they themselves enabled (and can easily disable). There is always someone who will end up enabling this erroneously, but it would provide a lot of value to a lot of users that didn't.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  The people who are savvy enough to jump through those hoops are savvy enough to rock a phone that is modded to feed fake data already.
  - easterncalculus 3y ago
    There's truth to that, but jailbreaks to install those on most smartphones depend on exploits for those systems to install your own software. It would be nice if some of this stuff came stock.
  - pavel_lishin 3y ago
    I'm savvy, but I'm also lazy.
- afavour 3y ago
  Right, locking the functionality off to only people with a deep understanding of it would work but it’s sidestepping the problem. People without understanding would still benefit from it so it’s a shame to lock them out of it and it’s harder to justify a feature only 0.5% of your user base will use.
  - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
    Maybe just seed it with very sensible default settings like "send real data when asking for directions"?
    - internetter 3y ago
      It's impossible for the OS to know the intent of the app requesting location with certainty. That being said, android at least has options for "Approximate" and "Precise" locations and locations in the background or only when the app is open.
      - kennyloginz 3y ago
bdcravens 3y ago
Then make the setting a power-user opt-in, so that the uninitiated wouldn't even see the option.
- fmx 3y ago
  No, the whole point of the original post is that a lot of users see (and use) the option, so that the app's database of personal data is full of rubbish. I don't think the GP's scenario is realistic. A user would see that their location on the map is wrong before they even get a chance to begin navigation. Besides, Google Maps already sometimes tells people to drive through roadblocks and locked gates and such (which it isn't aware of), so it already requires the driver to think for themselves to some extent.
chongli 3y ago
Do a lot of people use Google Maps on iOS? I ask because the “feed fake data” option is something I could imagine Apple doing but never in a million years would I believe Google would do it. Apple Maps wouldn’t have this issue. It’s capable of running offline (without a data connection) because it can download maps to the device.
- OJFord 3y ago
  So is Google Maps (on Android at least, or at least it was 10 years ago when I last did that).
- 0ld 3y ago
  a lot of people do, for example me. apple maps sucks badly where i live (eu). say, it has no idea my house (built 6 years ago) exists, it builds routes via non-existing roads, is not aware of road works, detours or most of the businesses around apple maps is completely useless here, even though i don’t like using a google app, there’s no alternative
  - hattmall 3y ago
    Apple maps sucks badly here in the US as well. Just last month it took me down a road that had been closed and diverted many years ago, we almost missed a wedding.
  - chongli 3y ago
    That makes sense, though that's highly specific to where you live. Where I live it works perfectly so I have no reason to use Google Maps at all.
- jsnell 3y ago
  > Apple Maps wouldn’t have this issue. It’s capable of running offline (without a data connection) because it can download maps to the device. Why would that matter? Even if the map data is cached locally, a navigation app obviously needs a GPS location from the phone, which requires it to be granted permissions. And the fake data would be equally disastrous to any navigation app. Or are you suggesting that if Apple were to add a feature for generating fake data, it'd only apply to 3p apps and not their own? I'll admit that it would be totally on-brand behavior.
GravitasFailure 3y ago
>Google Maps: “Turn right” >Guy driving alongside the ocean: “ok” >Car: *splash* This seems like a learning opportunity. Or a Darwinian opportunity. Either way, self-solving.
- davidjfelix 3y ago
  That feeling when hacker news user endorses eugenics as long as its just stupid people.
  - evandale 3y ago
    What makes you think GP is talking about eugenics? If anything, they're talking about natural selection which is not eugenics. Eugenics is when you select fitness at birth. GP would be endorsing genocide, or maybe epigenetics if anything, based on the small out of context comment. I highly doubt either was the intention and wonder how you got to the eugenics conclusion.
    - rhn_mk1 3y ago
      It's not natural selection if you help it.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - evandale 3y ago
        >This seems like a learning opportunity. Or a Darwinian opportunity. Either way, self-solving. I took either as meaning a learning opportunity for one or all of the 1) GPS app makers, 2) the person who blindly followed the directions of a robot, or 3) the rest of us who learn about the event. What interpretation did you have that suggests they were referring to eugenics?
        davidjfelix 3y ago
severino 3y ago
Well, you don't really need to feed fake GPS data to have Google Maps make you drive into the ocean or things like that.
zzo38computer 3y ago
In that case, people who are driving the car are failing to see properly which way they are going. That problem is a different problem. > the OS should not only let you answer yes or no. Every category should have a "yes, but feed the app fake data" option Well, I think perhaps "Yes", "No", and "Custom". If you select "Custom" then perhaps there could be a warning message displayed in the "Custom" menu if that would help, but it should not block you from customizing it as you want to do.

progbits 3y ago

XPrivacy for rooted android could do this 7+ years ago and there are other modern alternatives (but I haven't rooted my phone for a long time so I can't vouch for them): https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy Obviously that is not mainstream, I agree it should come built in. But then both Android and iOS allow bullshit like region-locked apps or preventing screenshots from DRM content, so good luck with that.

Nereuxofficial 3y ago
XPrivacy was incredibly cool. But on modern phones rooting and installing Xposed has either gotten massively more complicated or disabled ougright. GrapheneOS wasn't working with banking apps, Google broke rooting via Magisk multiple times on the Android Beta and at some point and i stopped bothering. Maybe GrapheneOS or similar Projects could do this
- flutas 3y ago
  FWIW: Rooting seems fairly easy at this point in time, at least for pixel devices. Flash with magisk, install Universal Safetynet Fix (https://github.com/Displax/safetynet-fix/ https://github.com/Displax/safetynet-fix/) and you're passing safetynet / play integrity API. I haven't come across a single app that doesn't work due to root currently, but I limit my installed apps.
  - kevincox 3y ago
    You pass basic safety net. You do this by claiming that your device is an older device that doesn't support hardware attestation. I can only assume that in some small number of years hardware attestation is going to be required and will require software exploits to work around.
  - e4e5 3y ago
    Thank you, I rooted my phone a few days ago and have been putting off fixing safety net. But that worked and was absolutely painless.
  - 3y ago

halfstep 3y ago

I really wish browsers would take this approach with notifications. If a website asks if I have notifications enabled, tell them yes, and send them all into the oblivion. Edit: to clarify, I already disable all notifications in Firefox. I was referring to websites that check via JavaScript whether you have notifications turned on and trigger a pop up to ask you to enable them.

OJFord 3y ago
How's that different from just having it globally disabled? I've never had a site refuse to work at all because I haven't allowed it to send desktop notifications, does that happen?
- maxk42 3y ago
  I think he's saying the JavaScript nag message every time you visit one of these sites is annoying.
grishka 3y ago
You can disable notifications globally. I did it. Zero regrets. My browser is a hypertext document viewer, not an operating system. Here's also a userscript that removes the service worker API from Chromium browsers: // ==UserScript== // @name Remove service worker API // @namespace http://tampermonkey.net/ // @version 0.1 // @description try to take over the world! // @author You // @match https://*/* // @grant none // @run-at document-start // ==/UserScript== delete Object.getPrototypeOf(navigator).serviceWorker; In Firefox, iirc you can disable that API somewhere in about:config.
latexr 3y ago
On macOS you can disable notifications for any app in System Settings. When an app first requests it, you’ll get a system notification asking if you want to allow the app to send any. On Safari you can even disable the option for websites to request notification access. It’s on the Websites tab in Settings.
3y ago

notsahil 3y ago

There is an app for creating data-poisoning contacts: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/me.billdietrich.fake_contacts https://f-droid.org/en/packages/me.billdietrich.fake_contact... Source code: https://github.com/BillDietrich/fake_contacts https://github.com/BillDietrich/fake_contacts

Havoc 3y ago

Unfortunately this approach makes you quite unique for fingerprinting

PaulHoule 3y ago
Or can. Numerous anti-Fingerprinting systems have been discovered to make you more fingerprintable.
sleepybrett 3y ago
not if its an os feature.
nonplus 3y ago
I don't think this assessment is correct. No one said completely random data. It certainly could make fingerprinting possible (or, easier than no spoofing at all) if the right considerations are not taken.
- Havoc 3y ago
  >No one said completely random data. It doesn't have to be random to be a problem. In general any sort of intervention that moves you away from Joe average is bad news for fingerprinting. More sophistication in this context often makes things worse not better. e.g. In this context volunteering info on every request (fake or random doesn't matter) certainly makes you unique, because the average user doesn't do that
  - nonplus 3y ago
    I took issue with your use of 'makes'. Your statement incorrect. It could open someone up to fingerprinting if done incorrectly. It could also provide utility to a user. The draconian rhetoric you are using is the same logic someone uses to advocate for no symmetric encryption because it can be implemented incorrectly. Reiterating your basic fact about fingerprinting doesn't change this, or negate the rest of my statements you ignore because you think nuance and user requirements can be reduced to a binary.
3y ago

charcircuit 3y ago

This will just make app developers angry at your platform. If this is just some hack users are doing apps will increasingly use attestation to make sure you are not feeding them fake data. Apps want to be able to give users a good user experience and if they are given fake data users will get angry that the developer's app is broken and leave 1 star reviews. Denying permissions and letting apps know something is denied is much better because they can adapt their app's experience to work around it.

firefoxd 3y ago
This doesn't make sense. If the dev asks permission that creates good experience, the user is incentivized to give real data. Example, gps is required to navigate or find near by service. The user will happily provide. But if you require gps to make a post, the user does not benefit from it. Unless they have an incentive to share their location, they do not need to give real data. Maybe the dev should give an explanation. If they receive a one star review, the developers should use it as feedback.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >But if you require gps to make a post, the user does not benefit from it. This behaviour would get an app rejected from the app stores. The app stores require you justify doing things like that and they require you to gracefully degrade if a user denies a permission.
jeroenhd 3y ago
Apps don't want to give users a good experience. Apps want to milk users for all the data they posses. Denying permissions remains an option, but some digital trash will refuse to work unless you give them your address book and location history. Those apps deserve to be fed fake data. Clicking the "feed fake data" button is an explicit alternative to denying permissions, it's not a replacement.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >Apps want to milk users for all the data they posses. No, they don't. Please go and actually talk to app developers for their motivations. Look at the mission statements of the companies making the apps. >Those apps deserve to be fed fake data. Or you can just not use the app if the experience it offers is not something you want. >Clicking the "feed fake data" button is an explicit alternative to denying permissions, it's not a replacement. It's a worse alternative because apps can not properly handle this case unless they detect the data being fed in is fake.

squarefoot 3y ago

> Every category should have a "yes, but feed the app fake data" option. I would prefer it to be per app and not category. I may not want to feed positional data to pretty much everything but Google Maps and any app that calls for help in case of emergency. Same for contacts, personal data etc. I'd however expect an app like that to meet fierce resistance from Google and other businesses that profit from users profiling.

zzo38computer 3y ago
I agree, although it should be both per app and per category. For example, one app can have real data available for one permission but fake (or customized or manually entered data) for another one and denied permission for a third one, for example. You might also want to be able to temporarily change the setting, e.g. for testing purposes, or if an app gives you weather for your location and you want to temporarily change it to another location to view that location's weather before changing it back to use the real location afterward.

ryandrake 3y ago

I’m all for the “fake data” idea, but also: Apps should be required to gracefully handle the cases where users deny permission to access real data. I know last time I developed for iOS, it was Apple’s policy that apps cannot punish users or exit() the app in retaliation for them denying a permission. Apps must gracefully handle it and continue running. Also, and this was even longer ago, apps could not require users to have “an account” in order to run. I remember (this was over a decade ago) my company making a product change that forced users to have an account in order to function and we got (rightfully) rejected by the AppStore for this. It seems they must have softened this stance because I am seeing more and more apps that require an account to function.

aftbit 3y ago
Every smart home app seems to want an account on Android. Maybe they have a different path on Apple, related to HomeKit or similar, but I'm a bit skeptical.
- skinner927 3y ago
  Tasmota + CloudFree + Home Assistant and never make an account again and have full control over the devices in your home. No accounts and your lights still work when your internet is down.
  - qwerpy 3y ago
    I love my home assistant installation and didn’t even know about Tasmota/Cloudfree. Thanks for sharing, this is the next logical step to fully detaching from subscriptions/accounts.
    - progman32 3y ago
      Esphome is also good to learn about here.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    I also like the part where it is harder for a device to call home if it doesn't have wi-fi at all.

jasonmarks_ 3y ago

As an app developer I do not like this idea. You want to break the contract on what that permission is intended to be. ("Weather the Trip" road trip weather app for the U.S.)

barnabee 3y ago
As an app user, I want you as an app developer to have no control whatsoever over how I use your app and no way whatsoever to know if any data it gets from my device is real.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  For Android versions 8-12 there's XPrivacyLua, which will override the system APIs to feed apps fake data if you wish to do so. It requires a rooted device, obviously, but its predecessor worked like a dream last time I've tried it. These days I'm more of a "one star review and uninstall" kind of user but I've had good experiences with XPrivacy. Sadly, XPrivacyLua has been discontinued. I don't know any alternative for modern Android releases.
- jasonmarks_ 3y ago
  Great :thumbs up: it does that
grishka 3y ago
As another app developer, I don't care. You aren't meant to request permissions you don't legitimately need for the app to function. Everyone understands that a map or weather app needs access to precise location, or that an app that takes pictures needs access to the camera. But games requesting storage or location or microphone or contacts, and refusing to run without these permissions? They should rightfully get what they deserve. Heck, even the internet access (android.permission.INTERNET) should be a runtime permission. A fakeable one, too.
- deleted 3y ago

fnord77 3y ago

any browser plugins do this for fingerprinting mouse movements?

gavinhoward 3y ago

So I'm building a build system with a permission system. The permissions are checked at runtime and each time the permission is needed. (For example, if a build script tries to phone home twice, the build system will run the permission checker twice.) In addition, the permission checker will have the option of delivering fake data and making the requester think they got permission when they didn't. This is why I added that, even though it is much more complexity.

jklinger410 3y ago

Yeah man, totally.

abrax3141 3y ago

“If someone asks you a question they’ve got no business asking, you’re under no obligation to tell them the truth.” — Leonard Schiffman (From: “Blend me in: Privacy-Preserving Input Generalization for Personalized Online Services” https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OmoqMmHFcb7PsQtaU_GW4aCAJeiLBa4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/10OmoqMmHFcb7PsQtaU_GW4aCAJe...)

firefoxd 3y ago

That's funny, I was just asking for that a few days ago on a similar thread [1] > There needs to be a feature on android to give fake gps data on a real device. This would be useful for any app that requires gps for no good reason. > If your flashlight app needs gps to turn on, no problem. You are currently on mount Kilimanjaro. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36486587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36486587

landgenoot 3y ago

I think this is a technical solution for a social problem. Compare it with the "unsubscribe" button in spam newsletters that does nothing. Sure, fuck you, I will just block the unique email address you are using and you won't be able to contact me at all. If everyone was playing nicely, we would not need it.

ImaCake 3y ago
I think the fake data is more like “block and report spam”. Which is what I do for every email that I don’t want to see. I agree that there is no need to play nice. Companies are not respecting my time so they can suffer the consequences.

johnwheeler 3y ago

Unpopular opinion: No, it shouldn’t. That would be unethical. Aggregating cohorts of data to determine what you might or might not like to buy, and vigorously safeguarding that data since you know it will cost your business billions in market cap if it is exposed is far more reasonable. Yours is just a passive aggressive way to “ruin Facebook”. If you want to ruin Facebook, push for legislation. Do it the right way.

23B1 3y ago
Gosh, you mean big corporations will be forced to compete on the basis of the quality of their products – instead of their ability to aggregate, destroy, and exploit the privacy of their users?
rcstank 3y ago
Legislation will just hurt the little guys trying to start up. Once so much red tape is involved, it’s very difficult for innovation and competition.
- 23B1 3y ago
  It's unclear to me how the inability to hoover up data and exploit users' privacy would prevent someone from creating an innovative experience.

beefield 3y ago

I have long thought there should be a virtual sandbox available for apps that generates fake data to apps according to preset stories. Like, tell one app I am a rich bachelor spending time in french riviera and another I am homeless in New york. Spoof gps, wifi and whatnot data that fits the pattern to the app. (I know, it would be hard)

theawless 3y ago

Samsung phones have a camera access and microphone access toggle. Here's what I get when I turn it off: ``` Turn off Camera access? All apps will be blocked from using the camera. Apps will still work, but they will only be able to access an empty black screen. For example, you can still make and receive video calls, but the other person won't be able to see you. ```

theawless 3y ago
For microphone access: ```Turn off Microphone access? All apps will be blocked from using the microphone Apps will still work, but they won't be able to access any sounds from the microphone. For example, you can still make and receive calls, but the other person won't be able to hear you.```
- hoffs 3y ago
  All apps seems like not very useful
  - thaeli 3y ago
    It's not ideal, per app would be preferable, but at least global can be a toggle in the global quick settings UI.

crazygringo 3y ago

But why? Just don't grant it permissions if you don't want to. And if it refuses to function without (for no good reason), then don't use the app because it's scammy. Is there some other situation I'm missing here? Like is there some legitimate app people need to install that won't work if you don't grant it unneeded permissions?

tredre3 3y ago
On Android I've had so many apps crash, get stuck in a loop, or refuse to run when a unnecessary permission is denied. And it's not just scummy apps, things like the Fitbit app used to go ballistic if you denied them access to your contacts. In an ideal world Google would force the developers to handle such cases gracefully. But for whatever reason, they don't care. Though like any technical solution trying to fix a culture problem, the fake data generation won't be all roses either. Users will inadvertently enable it and then the app won't work properly and they won't know how to fix it; Think a calendar app where you enabled the fake calendar access by mistake, so you see random crap instead of your expected schedule. Where do you go to fix it? The app doesn't know you're feeding it lies, that's the whole point, so it can't help. So in Android fashion you have to dig twelve levels deep in convoluted menus to revert that. Assuming you even know where to look or what the problem is.

blincoln 3y ago

I'd love to see this generalized to a toolkit in mobile and desktop/server operating systems. A year or two ago, I suggested calling something like it a "hellban" add-on, because my main use for it would be to improve the UX for software I can't really avoid by putting that software in an invisible cage. It would basically be a "swords into plowshares" version of a rootkit. One could implement the same effects using Frida, but I imagined something more like a browser add-on repository, where users could submit modules for specific software/apps, or that would gatekeep device/OS-level functionality, instead of everyone having to create custom rules in a lower-level general-purpose toolkit like Frida. There are lots of possibilities in this area for taking back some control of what's happening on one's devices by feeding procedurally-/ML-generated data when software tries to query sensors, GPS, camera/mic, etc. It would also often be useful for software testing, to make certain test cases more practical and reproducible by looping through recorded data.

pciexpgpu 3y ago

I am surprised there isn’t a browser that opens shadow webpage(s) that is unrelated but a peer to a website you are visiting. Perhaps it’s the ad companies that need to be fed fake data not the app / site.

oliverulerich 3y ago

Android introduced the approximate location option (I believe it was in version 11) as a per-app toggle in the permission settings. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6179507?hl=en#:~:text=Approximate%20location%3A%20The%20app%20can,the%20app%20to%20do%20something https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/6179507?hl=en#:~:....

jeroenhd 3y ago
That only disables the permission or increases the uncertainty, it doesn't really feed fake data. If apps refuse to work unless you provide detailed location info or other permissions, there's no "provide fake data" option like the post suggests.
- immibis 3y ago
  Apps can use GeoIP to get an approximate location most of the time, and there's nothing Google can do to prevent it.
  - supertrope 3y ago
    There's a significant difference between "Your ISP's IP block suggests you are near Stockton,CA" and "Your exact location +/- 5 meters"
- aembleton 3y ago
  It's frustrating that the app knows you haven't provided it with exact location. Approximate location is usually sufficient and I wish android could just feed that into the app as an exact location.

jasec57322 3y ago

Here's an idea: (medium-complexity) port of android to TCB which partitions /hardware/ (cpu-cache, RAM), on a per app basis. Android's app-based permissions API doesn't require too much work to do this. My perspective: Either cheap-monolithic-SOCs get really cheap, (for low end devices), with long-term-support, and low power, or compartmentalised architectures start to gain the traction that will kill of SOCs.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

memeMaker 3y ago

Hell yeah, fake data should totally be an option! This could be achieved with something like Xposed, a cool project is https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacyLua https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacyLua. I actually made a "clone" with the option to generate data per permission as a school project, good times

jwr 3y ago

This makes a lot of sense. If an app needs my data to improve my experience (and only mine), then feeding it fake data should only degrade my experience. It shouldn't matter to the app developers/authors/owners. But if (as in most cases) the goal is to data-mine me, fake data should work nicely to impede that. Of course it won't matter for things like WhatsApp, where people happily sync their entire list of contacts with Facebook/Meta just to have a slightly nicer messaging experience.

sircastor 3y ago
>Of course it won't matter for things like WhatsApp, where people happily sync their entire list of contacts with Facebook/Meta just to have a slightly nicer messaging experience. I was very unhappy to have to do this, but it wasn’t a slightly nicer experience. The app and the service are only marginally usable until you do this. (At least on mobile)

dumdumchan 3y ago

That's the guy who made the first successful indie games within a deep forest and knytt. https://nifflas.ni2.se/games/ https://nifflas.ni2.se/games/

d_sem 3y ago

I would make the case that fake data isn't a sustainable model as it spend fuel and energy to support an activity that does not have meaningful contribution to society and the economy. We should base our state of the art on best use of the finite resources we have.

mr_frank_jaeger 3y ago

I love the idea of feed fake data!!! That would be an easy app to write, kinda like bouncer

corn13read2 3y ago

Jailbreaks on iOS have this, I wish apple would allow us to have more control.

activiation 3y ago
"Apple knows what's good for you" has been their motto since the beginning of times which is why I never had an Apple device.

eredengrin 3y ago

GrapheneOS has features that allow this to various extents, for example storage scopes which trick the app into believing it has all the storage permissions it requested, or contact scopes which give an app access to whatever subset of contacts you decide on (including none). Similar feature exists for sensors and possibly others I've forgotten or am unaware of.

sircastor 3y ago

I recall holding off on WhatsApp for so long because they wanted access to my contacts to do anything really useful. With Exchange students it really became critical to have it, so I caved and gave Meta the data. I’m still a little mad about it. Clearly they could’ve made an app that did not require access to my contact information, but they wouldn’t.

jstummbillig 3y ago

Why do we need to be awful? Here is a simple rule: No is an option, unless it's really not an option. If it's not an option, you need to be very clear about why (in the app application process maybe), otherwise your app gets declined. i.e. if tiktok/ig asks for permissions on camera and microphone, no is an option, because you don't need either to use either. If parts of your app can feasibly be used by a user without certain permissions it is on you to design the app in a way where that is possible. No camera or microphone enabled? Conditionally disable the functionality that would require those. To make this simpler, the burden is on the asker. If you are not clear or trying to be clever, the answer is no. If that sounds draconian, keep in mind, that the app creator has the option to completely forgo this additional step by creating an app that makes permissions optional. Focusing on enforcing that would make a petty army race unnecessary, and it's the better call for humans anyway.

dweinus 3y ago
Sounds good, but enforcing it how? The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store. I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > The only party here that can do the enforcing is the Google/Apple/Microsoft App Store Sounds good to me, though I think there should be a second component, which would be app sdks: Make designing with conditional permissions in mind a first class citizen, and create clear guidelines, as to how to do that, and why you really, really should do that. > I'm not sure they all have the right incentives to expend the effort to enforce that in a consistent and user-friendly way. Otherwise would have already. Alas, this is probably where legislation would so some convincing (see gdpr)
- cmdli 3y ago
  Apple already enforces this, at least to some extent. If you just tell the user “you cannot use our app without allowing us to track you”, your app will get denied from the App Store. Apple is incentivized to do this because they get their value charging access to the ecosystem, and so it’s in their incentive to make sure their ecosystem is nice to users.

Misdicorl 3y ago

Similarly, I'd like all the scam emails to be auto responded to with fake data rather than black holed

immibis 3y ago
Sometimes I do this with emails in my spam folder, but nothing interesting ever happens
- Misdicorl 3y ago
  Point is to make the signal to noise on response too low for the scammers to deal with. Today, they can feasibly have a person look at every response and choose the most promising targets. If auto respond to even 0.01% of scam email, they suddenly need to have tools to weave through ridiculous amounts of data. Expensive. Scam becomes negative ROI
gigel82 3y ago
I'd prefer to have an option for the provider to send a genuine "invalid recipient" (554) auto-reply for addresses we mark as spam.
- aembleton 3y ago
  I think zoho does this

sircastor 3y ago

I really like iOS’ “only while using the app” option for location data, or “give the app access to only these photos” and I wish that premise extended to other things conceptually, like “give access only to this subset of contacts”

paradite 3y ago

WeChat has this feature. When you authorize a third party mini program in WeChat to access your personal information, you can choose to generate a fake profile for the mini program instead of supplying your real information. Here's an article in Chinese describing the feature: https://www.woshipm.com/pd/2612572.html https://www.woshipm.com/pd/2612572.html Another article with slightly worth page experience: https://jingyan.baidu.com/article/c275f6ba22f54ca23d7567c6.html https://jingyan.baidu.com/article/c275f6ba22f54ca23d7567c6.h...

supertrope 3y ago
Wechat itself asks for GPS data upon startup. On Android if you deny the permission the app closes.

karaterobot 3y ago

Feels like something a third-party password manager could handle. I would not expect Apple or Google to ever do this on their own initiative though. In fact they would probably disallow the third-party app from doing it, as it would likely violate some term of service or other. Neither Apple nor Google has any incentive to make it easy to pollute data, or foster the expectation that you have a right to obfuscation. If you started expecting it from apps you installed, I think you'd eventually start to expect it from Apple and Google themselves, and that'd be bad for them.

Animats 3y ago

Someone had that on Android a decade ago. I saw it demoed. Whatever happened to that?

hermannj314 3y ago

I love this idea. For now, all laws are location based because sovereignty is defined by geographical boundaries for historical reasons. If you use "feed fake data" to avert those laws, I think that is ok. As an example, I am the criminal if I lie to an app to say I am in Pennsylvania to bet on sports. I don't think my phone manufacturer should conspire with law enforcement to prevent me from being able to lie to commit that crime.

CalRobert 3y ago

lineageOS had this...

yarolig 3y ago
Yes! There was exactly this in Cyanogen Mod for Android 2.3. It seems that Google did not like it so in Android 4.0 it is working any more and nobody ported this feature to 4.0.

ineedasername 3y ago

That doesn’t seem like a good idea unless your goal is to burn down the current paradigm. And I’ll grant some people have arguments for doing so, but this doesn’t seem a productive way to go about it. Either advocate for tearing the status quo out by its roots, hopefully with some inclination of what to put in its place lest something worse grow instead. Or demand transparent control w/ easily revocable consent ( or something along those lines.) Maximizing chaos and distrust and belligerent behavior beyond the already intolerable levels isn’t going to get a net improvement in things anytime soon.

balaji1 3y ago

it seems a bit of unrealistic expectation, users spoilt from the freemium generation

enachtry 3y ago

Am opinion so naive it's harmful. Google will NEVER harm itself by supporting fake data feeds. The only reason G exists at all is because they can exploit the data they harvest from you. If you're given the power to poison that data Google implodes and the whole Android platform becomes extremely unattractive to other massive companies that live off of leeching your private data one way or another. Yes, an OS built first & foremost for its users/customers would have LOTS of options like that. A mobile web browser built the same would support plugins from day 1. Etc. Etc. But Android, Chrome, Windows 10+, iOS are ABSOLUTELY not built for their users. They're built as vehicles that enable other services from a slew of big names and it's essential for these platforms to ensure users are NOT given the power to fight against those services.

aembleton 3y ago
It would be beneficial to Google if they were to get your information but not just hand it out to any app that gets installed. Google can have my contacts and location information. But if I download some random app, it doesn't need my exact location. Maybe it needs a rough location like within 100km of my real location. Android could feed it a fake location and say its exact.

kubik369 3y ago

I am surprised no top comment mentions this — on iOS, you cannot distinguish if you were granted a permission or not. As an example, if an app asks you for access to your photos, it will always get an array. The trick is that when you deny this permission, the array will be empty, so you cannot know if the user simply has an empty library or if he denied you access. I like it, simple and elegant. Naturally, in the case of photos, you can use a heuristic, because basically everyone will have at least some pictures. However, in the case of other types of data, say, health data, it is not so clearcut.

rappatic 3y ago
What about other permissions where you can't realistically send an empty object? For example, if the user grants permission to view location, the location object passed to the app will obviously have the pertinent information. Would the OS simply pass an empty location object and wouldn't that make it obvious that permission was denied? Or is it hidden behind some kind of error
- JimDabell 3y ago
  They are wrong; you can determine whether you have permission in iOS. For location, you have CLAuthorizationStatus: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corelocation/clauthorizationstatus https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corelocation/claut... In any case, the iOS location services don’t work that way. You can’t call them and get a location back due to the way the system works. It simply doesn’t have location data at times and needs to wait for it to become available. You tell the operating system you want to receive location updates and then it delivers zero or more when that information becomes available and when it becomes more accurate or changes. So if iOS needed to withhold information, it wouldn’t have to give an empty object back, it would just not deliver any location updates at all.
H8crilA 3y ago
How does that work for location? Also, an empty folder with photos is almost certainly implying lack of permissions. Very few people never took a picture.

gigel82 3y ago

I was mulling the idea of building a "garbage telemetry producer" thing for Windows. It's a losing battle trying to keep up with new endpoints to block more and more often, and I imagine it's easier for folks to build and run a small program that constantly pushes out telemetry events. If we poison the data maybe Microsoft will realize providing a true "all telemetry off" option would be easier (and cheaper for their bandwidth and storage budgets).

hvis 3y ago

Feeding actively random data can put you into a special category of users, though. If the recipient does any relevant analysis. So if one was looking to preserve privacy and reduce one's own track-ability, sending ambient sounds and 5x5 island location might work against that.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago

Impossible. Politically impossible.

YmiYugy 3y ago

Using top down regulation by app stores seems like a better way to deal with the issue of apps refusing to work without a permission that don't really need. Imagine the amount of needless support requests that will be triggered by people accidentally pressing the wrong thing.

scarface_74 3y ago
Yes because we need more government involvement because people don’t have agency just not to use an app.

thih9 3y ago

Is that practical though? Apps could just accept that and break. Food delivery app could show suggestions from the fake island, social media app could let your friends know you’re 6383km away, calculator app might switch to local currency conversion, etc.

str3wer 3y ago
just put some warnings like "by selecting this option this application won't be able to access X, therefore some applications might not work properly".
zzo38computer 3y ago
Sometimes doing such things are deliberately what the user intended, which might be necessary if the app does not have its own options to specify what location you want, whether to avoid the social media publishing your location, or to specify your own currency conversions.

dirkragnarok 3y ago

Brave does something similar but as a browser against websites: https://brave.com/privacy-updates/4-fingerprinting-defenses-2.0/#2-fingerprinting-protections-20-farbling-for-great-good https://brave.com/privacy-updates/4-fingerprinting-defenses-...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

OOPMan 3y ago

This is a nice ask, also completely unlikely to ever happened.

sourabhv 3y ago

I thought of this years ago and even tried implementing this but my knowledge that time was very limited. So eventually I gave up. I think before android implemented their permission system, os like Xiaomi’d implemented their permissions by feeding fake data to the app in case user reject a permission.

zzo38computer 3y ago
I think that feeding fake data by default in case use reject a permission is not appropriate. There should be an option to do that (or, like I suggested, a way for the user to write programs to program it to feed whatever data they want), although I think that by default if a permission is rejected it should just provide empty data (e.g. an empty contacts list) or an appropriate error code (e.g. network error or disk error or cannot acquire satellite, just as though that error had actually occurred), rather than making up fake data.

safeimp 3y ago

I used to share this sentiment until I offered similar to customers and it was rarely used beyond a quick glance to almost immediate, ‘I really need to see my x here to have a better sense of it…’ I found that people just generally lacked imagination for the most part and screenshots coupled with quick videos and/or demos did enough to incentivize them onto installing/evaluating using their environment.

techwizrd 3y ago

I can see why this would be useful, but we already spend a lot of time chasing down data quality issues in AI/ML models and statistics as-is. We may be requesting permissions to workaround/correct GPS accuracy issues, comply with local regulations, or turn on a feature flag. For example, if you're on your home network I should hit HomeAssistant via a different route than if you're away from home. Or maybe local regulations require me to limit certain features, deny access, or confirm age. Or it may be necessary for fraud prevention, such as determining whether your account is being accessed from an unusual device or location. I could see this leading to more data quality issues, legal liabilities, and difficult bugs. We should be able to deny access or provide coarser information (e.g., an age range rather than an age or a county/state rather than fine-grained GPS), and applications should be designed to handle those gracefully.

gameman144 3y ago
It sounds like the assertion here is that the data is used for reasonable purposes and improves the user experience. That's likely very true. If I prioritize privacy over that better user experience, though, that should absolutely be something I'm allowed to do. I might not want to give a stranger at a bar my real phone number, so I give them a fake one. Maybe this leads to a worse experience than if I just said "no thanks", but I really value the fact that I'm allowed to do that.
viraptor 3y ago
I understand all of those concerns, but... as a user they're not my problem. For example I don't care about where I am and neither should you for legal issues or features. This results is situations like me going no holiday and the bank app failing to work/install because they don't have presence in X country. Wanna know if the usage complies with regulations or I want a feature? Ask me, don't guess. Wanna know how to access my HomeAssistant? Ask me, because there's a ZeroTier network making HA available directly wherever I am. For fraud prevention it's not necessary to know more of my tracking info. It just makes it easier for the company at the cost of privacy issues for me. I get the developer's view here, it's harder when someone feeds you wrong data. Tough, we're supposed to deal with that as devs and maybe just ask the question directly rather than guessing through other means. You should be doing that already, because GPS is not always reliable, contacts change, people have complex lives in terms of which laws apply to them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dreamcompiler 3y ago

I've advocated this for a long time, with the added proviso that it must be impossible for apps to figure out whether you chose to feed them fake data or not.

dredmorbius 3y ago
An unfortunate characteristic of data fuzzing is that given sufficient alternative sources of information it's actually reasonably easy to filter out the noise. A key issue is whether the noise refers to subjects which are entirely generated or which exist in the world, though even this only incrementally adds to the noise level. Take the case of contacts. If I were to use a random ID generate to create contacts and feed those to an app, then with sufficient independent sources of data the app could choose to reject any contact which appears only once. If you happen to be the One And Only True Friend of an Orphan Hermit, then yes, that rule would exclude that data, but if you happen to be personal BFFs with Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, the system could not only independently validate that such a person exists, but even that your own reported contact information is, say, directly personal rather than a mass-media point-of-contact. The other problem is that even with generated data, so long as that is intermixed with authentic data, it's often possible to tease out signal from noise. A case here might be with browser history. There are Web browsers which generate spurious traffic. This is "real" in the senses both that it refers to actual online Web resources, and represents traffic generated by your browser, but is generated in the sense that it does not represent volitional activity on your part. However, so long as both activities are present, your actual browsing patterns exist (so that if a concern is that you did in fact visit <https://example.com/xyz https://example.com/xyz>, it would be possible to determine that some entity (genuine or simulated) did so, and that if the URL were simply randomly generated or visited, odds are reasonably low that that URL would appear within a browser history. Similarly, in a combination of actual and faked contacts, if the question is "did the subject include Known Individual in their contacts", that fact can still be determined, and if statistically improbable, particularly amongst a group of individuals all including Known Individual in their contacts, the general inference of an actual relationship is strong. The case of being able to entirely separate actual and generated information changes this dynamic ... slightly, but not overhwhelmingly. My own upshots: - Data chaffing and fuzzing are hard. - The signal one wishes to obscure often leaks. - Entirely-fabricated data is usually reasonably evident, especially in aggregate. - Whilst some degree of chaffing has some value (signalling, protest, cost-increasing), the most effective course of action is likely effective privacy legislation and regulation. I really wish there were more effective individual actions. I increasingly feel that there aren't, other than opting out entirely. (Something I increasingly practice myself, FWIW.)

samtho 3y ago

This will only start a cat and mouse game between app developers and users feeding junk data. There will be statistical tells or artifacts in fake data that will be identified which will prompt vendors to improve the entropy or patterns it creates. The only solution (for a non development/testing uses) is for applications to accept no as an answer.

zzo38computer 3y ago
> The only solution (for a non development/testing uses) is for applications to accept no as an answer. Agreed; feeding fake data is not a substitute for writing good applications. However, that does not mean that feeding fake data is worthless. There are many uses (including, but not limited to, programmers/companies that have failed to write good applications; like you say, testing is also a use of such a thing).

yoyopa 3y ago

this is what i don't understand about browser fingerprinting. why would you design a browser to allow fingerprinting in the first place? there's no legitimate reason for a website to know what plugins or fonts i have installed, etc.

catchnear4321 3y ago

> when a bad thing posing as a good thing asks if you want to let it do bad things or not, it should also ask if you would rather just do bad things to it instead. shit in the ocean of piss? that’s the plan?

zzo38computer 3y ago

I think that "feed fake data" is the wrong way to do it. The good way should be something like "feed data from alternate source", where the alternate source can be any other program. This other source could be anything that the user wants to put in by that other programs, such as: empty data, random data, fake but consistent data, data from an alternate file (e.g. a separate contacts list, or a picture from a file instead of from the camera), transformed in some way (e.g. turning a picture from a camera upside-down), filtered, logged, or asking the user every time for each individual piece of data, feeding error codes instead of data (and allowing the user to specify which error codes), etc. (This should include everything even the current date/time access.) This is useful for better user control and for purposes of testing and accessibility purposes. (My own idea of operating system design, one of the ideas involved (there are many other ideas, but most of them are not relevant here) is the "proxy capabilities", with capability-based security including proxy capabilities; all I/O uses it, and it can also be used in a better way than the UNIX pipes (using the command shell), and in other ways. This also includes even the date/time. No system calls other than Yield and Quit can be used without being given a capability key.

nine_k 3y ago
I think this is the best approach, and the only really workable approach. Very often it's too hard for an app developer to play nicely with an unavailable permission, and it makes testing vastly larger and harder for a relatively marginal set of users, so smaller commercial apps mostly won't care to play nicely. Granting the permission bu feeding an alternative data source is easiest for both parties, the developers and the users. It, of course, will make some scams easier, too. Prepare for banks to use more complex device-enlisting procedures, for instance.

maerF0x0 3y ago

make your own https://faker.readthedocs.io/en/master/ https://faker.readthedocs.io/en/master/

bentley 3y ago

GrapheneOS implemented this feature for the filesystem—called “Storage Scopes”—and a similar feature for contacts is in alpha. Apparently camera, microphone, and location are in progress. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/110382189104598979 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/110382189104598979

NicoJuicy 3y ago

For fake data you need all data to reduce positives. I don't like it

slipmagic 3y ago

I think there’s a browser extension that interacts with all the ads on a page to paradoxically(?) give someone more privacy

amai 3y ago
https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/ https://noiszy.com/ https://noiszy.com/ https://www.trackmenot.io/ https://www.trackmenot.io/

PeterStuer 3y ago

Just this moring I was reading through the app permissions for the 51% state owned postal service package delivery tracking app they wanted me to install. Not only would they collect my 'sexual orientation' (how I wonder?) but they also would 'share it with 3rd parties'. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=be.bpost.mybpost https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=be.bpost.mybpo...

amai 3y ago

On iOS it would be nice to have the possibility to enter a fixed/fake position so apps like Google Transit or the Weather app just work, without the need to turn on GPS.

amai 3y ago

See also https://www.trackmenot.io/ https://www.trackmenot.io/ https://noiszy.com/ https://noiszy.com/ https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/

nephanth 3y ago

Iirc there's a software to do that if you have root, it's called Xposed/Xprivacy Dunno if it's still maintained though

fennecfoxy 3y ago

I think the more important thing is coming up with a better way to do these things _without_ permissions. The core issue of permissions systems in my mind is the user. All of the pop-up permissions boxes on phones are really nice, it's helpful that Android now removes permissions from apps if they're unused. But that doesn't stop the average user from just hitting "yes" to permissions without reading them because they just want to use the app they just installed. It's exactly the same problem as nobody reading Ts&Cs etc. Our species has an apathy for this stuff. We should really just be sandboxing the shit out of everything. On Android (as an example) if I install a file manager app, I can only give it access to _everything_. But also as a user, even if I could give it granular access, it's easier to just give it access to everything because it's...easier. The location pop-up is nice, I usually hit "only while using the app" but I'm sure plenty of other people give their apps access to fine location data at all times. Is this a platform problem? Maybe Apple is right in being so strict about usage of data, even though privacy is just marketing/a selling point to them (I laugh if people think the world's richest company _genuinely_ cares about privacy on a human rather than financial level).

janaagaard 3y ago

I'm sorry, but I really don't hope this catches on. Fair that you don't want to share your data, and yeah, a Flashlight app should not need access to list of contacts, but please don't mess it up the data for us developers. Example: We use information about the devices that access our web site (screen resolution, browser versions) to figure out how best spend our limited resources. This data is important to us.

rjmunro 3y ago

I think it's probably illegal to grant an app permission to access contacts in Europe or the UK as it's GDPR covered personal data about others who have not given consent.

yuhc 3y ago

Android has App Ops which is one of my most favorite tools.