5 ms·

Happened to me, I had to disable Play Protect scanning... interestingly, in ghe deacription in Android settings, it claims Play Protect will scan and WARN, not

Happened to me, I had to disable Play Protect scanning... interestingly, in ghe deacription in Android settings, it claims Play Protect will scan and WARN, not remove, apps. That is clearly a lie.

Zambyte 3y ago
My phone forces me to reject "Play Protect" every single time I want to install an app. If I have to explicitly reject it more than once, it is obviously malware. Once is already arguable.
- throwaway914 3y ago
  The only acceptable phone for me has been a Pixel phone, with GrapheneOS installed. I do wish the permission to install/uninstall were separated for something like this (I may be naive). I have everything installed to a work profile in Android (using the Shelter app). I can globally pause all work-profile apps. It's not the best, because when unpaused I'm not getting some notifications. I need to figure that out.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37880628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37880628
    - TimeBearingDown 3y ago
      It’s still the best of all worlds for many people, a great intersection of privacy tool availability and general app usability.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        I do not dispute that. If you have to run random untrusted apps, grapheneOS is more suitable. But it's not a long-term solution.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Graphene is not acceptable either, since it requires putting trust in someone who does not exibit enough stability or rationality to justify that kind of trust. I mean it's only the keys to your whole life, no big.
    - jrib 3y ago
      Can you elaborate?
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      I agree but he's not involved anymore since even Louis Rossman called him out on his behaviour. Edit: apparently according to a post below he's still involved just not lead dev anymore. Sorry I missed that part.
      - Brian_K_White 3y ago
        Oh, that actually changes things, assuming whoever steers things these days isn't more or less the same. No denying the guy isn't a no-joke developer, so, his code and work would be valuable, but only if the bigger picture didn't depend on his judgement. It's not that I have a specic scenario of a particular bad thing he might do, like make a backdoor for the government or secretly collect & sell data, or even something like somehow ban you from using as an individual he didn't like because you criticized him or something. It's that once someone is shown to be that irrational, then all bets are off. You don't have to have a specific proposal of what they might do, because they might do anything. Anyone might do anything, and the only way you can function is you just have to trust other people, and the only thing you have to go on is very little in most cases. So you have to give strangers the benefit of the doubt until there is some reason to doubt. And this guy acting this way is more than enough to avoid. It's not like there haven't been countless examples of people who seemed good at first going off the rails and taking a bunch of users down with them. It is entirely valid to see this guy and go "Nope. Avoid.", and that would not be a case of just ignorant discrimination against non-conformity, it would be using your nose for what it's for. But if we don't actually have to trust him as much as before, that changes things.
- dessant 3y ago
  The constant nagging when you tell Google "no" shows how little respect they have for their users. Messages by Google, which is primarily an SMS app, is asking me every 1-2 weeks to enable RCS chats. The link for declining the request is small and easy to miss, while the AGREE button below it takes up 25% of the area of the popup. Dear Google UX designers, the way you present your little "decline" links is illegal in the EU. I'm sure you've got these design directives from a product manager, but you can still say "no" to breaking the law.
  - berdario 3y ago
    I dislike how there's no complete open source RCS implementation, and after trying it out a few years ago, I now actively avoid it (I instead use QKSMS on Android)... But I don't see the problem with the decline link and EU law? AFAIK, most EU regulations are about tracking and consent in using your information... In this case, you're already using a Google product (the Messages app), and Google is just (aggressively) nudging you to use extra features that they have shipped in their app. It doesn't follow that Google is definitely going to use more information to track you than it would've done before (though it could be possible, of course) ...of course, I fully agree that this doesn't embody their "respect the user" ethos, but frankly... If you worked on new features for your users, I think it's fair to nudge them to try to make sure that what you worked on will end up benefitting them (of course, a company behaves differently than an individual, and it's not guaranteed that the work done might actually have merit... But that's orthogonal to this discussion)
    - dessant 3y ago
      Personal data is shared with Google and the carrier, that's why they need to ask for consent to enable the feature. Here's the consent popup: https://imgur.com/a/PIqcDgR https://imgur.com/a/PIqcDgR The design of such consent popups has been deemed illegal in the EU, Google was also previously fined [1] for a similar consent popup. The "REJECT" button needs to be just as accessible and needs to have about the same visual weight as the "ACCEPT" button, dark patterns like the ones you see in the RCS consent popup above are illegal. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/7/22871719/france-fines-google-facebook-cookies-tracking-dark-patterns-eprivacy https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/7/22871719/france-fines-goog...
- TwoNineFive 3y ago
  I agree this is google doing evil and there should be government intervention for this kind of shit. There's a timer that re-enables the Play Protect nag after a certain period of time. I can't remember how many days it is. You can permanently disable it by running the following over ADB or a local shell. Works for me. # This should disable Play Protect. Maybe. # https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/187097/is-there-a-way-to-control-use-google-play-protect-together-with-microg-open-sou settings put global package_verifier_enable 0 settings put global package_verifier_user_consent -1 settings put secure package_verifier_user_consent -1 settings put global upload_apk_enable 0 settings put global PACKAGE_VERIFIER_SETTING_VISIBLE 1 settings put global PACKAGE_VERIFIER_INCLUDE_ADB 0

Happened to me, I had to disable Play Protect scanning... interestingly, in ghe deacription in Android settings, it claims Play Protect will scan and WARN, not remove, apps. That is clearly a lie.

Zambyte 3y ago

My phone forces me to reject "Play Protect" every single time I want to install an app. If I have to explicitly reject it more than once, it is obviously malware. Once is already arguable.

throwaway914 3y ago
The only acceptable phone for me has been a Pixel phone, with GrapheneOS installed. I do wish the permission to install/uninstall were separated for something like this (I may be naive). I have everything installed to a work profile in Android (using the Shelter app). I can globally pause all work-profile apps. It's not the best, because when unpaused I'm not getting some notifications. I need to figure that out.
- fsflover 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37880628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37880628
  - TimeBearingDown 3y ago
    It’s still the best of all worlds for many people, a great intersection of privacy tool availability and general app usability.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      I do not dispute that. If you have to run random untrusted apps, grapheneOS is more suitable. But it's not a long-term solution.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Graphene is not acceptable either, since it requires putting trust in someone who does not exibit enough stability or rationality to justify that kind of trust. I mean it's only the keys to your whole life, no big.
  - jrib 3y ago
    Can you elaborate?
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    I agree but he's not involved anymore since even Louis Rossman called him out on his behaviour. Edit: apparently according to a post below he's still involved just not lead dev anymore. Sorry I missed that part.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      Oh, that actually changes things, assuming whoever steers things these days isn't more or less the same. No denying the guy isn't a no-joke developer, so, his code and work would be valuable, but only if the bigger picture didn't depend on his judgement. It's not that I have a specic scenario of a particular bad thing he might do, like make a backdoor for the government or secretly collect & sell data, or even something like somehow ban you from using as an individual he didn't like because you criticized him or something. It's that once someone is shown to be that irrational, then all bets are off. You don't have to have a specific proposal of what they might do, because they might do anything. Anyone might do anything, and the only way you can function is you just have to trust other people, and the only thing you have to go on is very little in most cases. So you have to give strangers the benefit of the doubt until there is some reason to doubt. And this guy acting this way is more than enough to avoid. It's not like there haven't been countless examples of people who seemed good at first going off the rails and taking a bunch of users down with them. It is entirely valid to see this guy and go "Nope. Avoid.", and that would not be a case of just ignorant discrimination against non-conformity, it would be using your nose for what it's for. But if we don't actually have to trust him as much as before, that changes things.
dessant 3y ago
The constant nagging when you tell Google "no" shows how little respect they have for their users. Messages by Google, which is primarily an SMS app, is asking me every 1-2 weeks to enable RCS chats. The link for declining the request is small and easy to miss, while the AGREE button below it takes up 25% of the area of the popup. Dear Google UX designers, the way you present your little "decline" links is illegal in the EU. I'm sure you've got these design directives from a product manager, but you can still say "no" to breaking the law.
- berdario 3y ago
  I dislike how there's no complete open source RCS implementation, and after trying it out a few years ago, I now actively avoid it (I instead use QKSMS on Android)... But I don't see the problem with the decline link and EU law? AFAIK, most EU regulations are about tracking and consent in using your information... In this case, you're already using a Google product (the Messages app), and Google is just (aggressively) nudging you to use extra features that they have shipped in their app. It doesn't follow that Google is definitely going to use more information to track you than it would've done before (though it could be possible, of course) ...of course, I fully agree that this doesn't embody their "respect the user" ethos, but frankly... If you worked on new features for your users, I think it's fair to nudge them to try to make sure that what you worked on will end up benefitting them (of course, a company behaves differently than an individual, and it's not guaranteed that the work done might actually have merit... But that's orthogonal to this discussion)
  - dessant 3y ago
    Personal data is shared with Google and the carrier, that's why they need to ask for consent to enable the feature. Here's the consent popup: https://imgur.com/a/PIqcDgR https://imgur.com/a/PIqcDgR The design of such consent popups has been deemed illegal in the EU, Google was also previously fined [1] for a similar consent popup. The "REJECT" button needs to be just as accessible and needs to have about the same visual weight as the "ACCEPT" button, dark patterns like the ones you see in the RCS consent popup above are illegal. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/7/22871719/france-fines-google-facebook-cookies-tracking-dark-patterns-eprivacy https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/7/22871719/france-fines-goog...
TwoNineFive 3y ago
I agree this is google doing evil and there should be government intervention for this kind of shit. There's a timer that re-enables the Play Protect nag after a certain period of time. I can't remember how many days it is. You can permanently disable it by running the following over ADB or a local shell. Works for me. # This should disable Play Protect. Maybe. # https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/187097/is-there-a-way-to-control-use-google-play-protect-together-with-microg-open-sou settings put global package_verifier_enable 0 settings put global package_verifier_user_consent -1 settings put secure package_verifier_user_consent -1 settings put global upload_apk_enable 0 settings put global PACKAGE_VERIFIER_SETTING_VISIBLE 1 settings put global PACKAGE_VERIFIER_INCLUDE_ADB 0