3 ms·
Keep in mind that in a corporate context, not asking the user for permission or explaining what/why you are doing something is the (sociopathic imo, but neverth
by salawat 3y ago
Keep in mind that in a corporate context, not asking the user for permission or explaining what/why you are doing something is the (sociopathic imo, but nevertheless) norm. To the degree you do disclose something like that it is inevitably hidden away or obfuscated by being put somewhere in the UX that no one ever really goes.
Like seriously. I had the argument before;
Architect: we're going to fingerprint users.
Me: are you going to disclose that?
Architect: Of course not.
Me: It's their device. You should ask.
Architect: That defeats the point.
Me: You either don't understand property rights, or clearly have issues with the concept of consent.
The entire IT space has been decades of building while eliding the fact these experiences are fundamentally being driven on someone else's hardware.
But that's just the world we live in I suppose.
- dcdc123 3y agoHow does that apply to thise case though? Asking for permissions on iOS is the norm and many apps include a message indicating what and why they are about to request something non-obvious before sending the request and triggering the popup.
- heyoni 3y agoThis particular entitlement does not trigger any pop up and can’t be disabled by the user except by uninstalling the app.
- dcdc123 3y agoYes, I get that...I just meant his whole spiel about "not asking for permission being the norm". In the context of iOS permissions not asking is the exception.
- salawat 3y agoMore trying to enlighten the not yet enlightened to be on the look out for said behavior if they weren't already looking out for it. Also, with things like iOS entitlements, their entire purpose is to act as a permissions based contract. Where what I'm talking about comes into play is dropping in functionality that can be called if you know about it, but not making any attempts to advertise that you can. Maybe not relevant in this particular case, but again, was more intended in the sense of a BOLO.