5 ms·

Don't hold your breath. XPrivacy software for rooted Android could give fake data to apps 7+ years ago [1], effectively accomplishing what that policy would. B

Don't hold your breath. XPrivacy software for rooted Android could give fake data to apps 7+ years ago [1], effectively accomplishing what that policy would. But rooting has become more difficult and more undesirable due to SafetyNet, and Google has not implemented such a feature in official Android. They are actively hostile to user control. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36645100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36645100

qwerty456127 3y ago
Yes, I used XPrivacy in the past. But it has became more weird and I don't even understand if it or any successor still is maintained or not.
- folmar 3y ago
  LuaXPrivacy is not maintained but works and is updated for Android 13.
realusername 3y ago
Slightly unrelated but we really need an equivalent to userscripts on mobile so that users can inject modifications to their apps for adding changes they need. I really liked the xprivacy concept and it should be extended to full scripts.
- Zak 3y ago
  That's effectively what Xposed, the framework used by Xprivacy was. Of course the security implications of malicious code running inside Xposed would be nightmarish.
  - realusername 3y ago
    I'm going to have a look then, I heard the name but I did not know it was I think. Sure there's security issues with this concept but it's so powerful that it's worth it.
criley2 3y ago
>They are actively hostile to user control. These lines are wild. Android has great privacy controls and has had them as long or longer than Apple has. Android gives 0 permissions by default in an app. Android requires 1 by 1 permission granting following a standard of least-required. Android's default permission selection is "Only this time" and not "Forever", meaning most users only grant temporary permission to the app. Android then automatically removes "forever" permissions that are unused after a period of 30-90 days without user input. Android is so aggressive about it that most "background" apps (widgets/battery monitors/weather) silently stop working as Google ruthlessly rips permissions away. Heck -- unlike Apple, Google distributes nearly all of their apps and even system components through the App Store and still relies on standard user permissioning! You still have to grant Google the same permissions you grant any other app, even though it's "OS level". Imagine Apple authentically asking you for permission when you open a first party app and respecting it! It's basically impossible to have an app use a permission you didn't know about on Android these days. And in light of the great reality we live in, you have some crazy Apple stans in here saying "Google is actively hostile to user control". That line is wild considering almost every major iOS UX or hardware enhancement was ripped straight from an Android device that debuted it years prior... Between Apple and Google, there is no argument that Apple is the most hostile device company to "user control" in history. That's their thing! There's one way to do it, the Apple way, and if you want to customize it differently, you're the problem! ("Hostile to user control")
- realusername 3y ago
  > Heck -- unlike Apple, Google distributes nearly all of their apps and even system components through the App Store and still relies on standard user permissioning! You still have to grant Google the same permissions you grant any other app, even though it's "OS level". Imagine Apple authentically asking you for permission when you open a first party app and respecting it! That's clearly the big difference between both. Who knows what the internal apps are using on iOS, certainly not anything standard. That's also why it's usually the first attack vector on zero days.
  - photonerd 3y ago

qwerty456127 3y ago

Yes, I used XPrivacy in the past. But it has became more weird and I don't even understand if it or any successor still is maintained or not.

folmar 3y ago
LuaXPrivacy is not maintained but works and is updated for Android 13.

realusername 3y ago

Slightly unrelated but we really need an equivalent to userscripts on mobile so that users can inject modifications to their apps for adding changes they need. I really liked the xprivacy concept and it should be extended to full scripts.

Zak 3y ago
That's effectively what Xposed, the framework used by Xprivacy was. Of course the security implications of malicious code running inside Xposed would be nightmarish.
- realusername 3y ago
  I'm going to have a look then, I heard the name but I did not know it was I think. Sure there's security issues with this concept but it's so powerful that it's worth it.

criley2 3y ago

>They are actively hostile to user control. These lines are wild. Android has great privacy controls and has had them as long or longer than Apple has. Android gives 0 permissions by default in an app. Android requires 1 by 1 permission granting following a standard of least-required. Android's default permission selection is "Only this time" and not "Forever", meaning most users only grant temporary permission to the app. Android then automatically removes "forever" permissions that are unused after a period of 30-90 days without user input. Android is so aggressive about it that most "background" apps (widgets/battery monitors/weather) silently stop working as Google ruthlessly rips permissions away. Heck -- unlike Apple, Google distributes nearly all of their apps and even system components through the App Store and still relies on standard user permissioning! You still have to grant Google the same permissions you grant any other app, even though it's "OS level". Imagine Apple authentically asking you for permission when you open a first party app and respecting it! It's basically impossible to have an app use a permission you didn't know about on Android these days. And in light of the great reality we live in, you have some crazy Apple stans in here saying "Google is actively hostile to user control". That line is wild considering almost every major iOS UX or hardware enhancement was ripped straight from an Android device that debuted it years prior... Between Apple and Google, there is no argument that Apple is the most hostile device company to "user control" in history. That's their thing! There's one way to do it, the Apple way, and if you want to customize it differently, you're the problem! ("Hostile to user control")

realusername 3y ago
> Heck -- unlike Apple, Google distributes nearly all of their apps and even system components through the App Store and still relies on standard user permissioning! You still have to grant Google the same permissions you grant any other app, even though it's "OS level". Imagine Apple authentically asking you for permission when you open a first party app and respecting it! That's clearly the big difference between both. Who knows what the internal apps are using on iOS, certainly not anything standard. That's also why it's usually the first attack vector on zero days.
- photonerd 3y ago