4 ms·

Put a lot of scary warnings around it then. It's for the user to decide if they want to take the risk or not. Google took something that solved real problems be

Put a lot of scary warnings around it then. It's for the user to decide if they want to take the risk or not. Google took something that solved real problems better than any alternative could, did so for many years, and destroyed it for no real reason other than to further tighten control they have of the supposedly "open" platform.

izacus 2y ago
They did, the upstading app developers like this one just forced people to give them full access to all data in the app (or the app wouldn't run) and ended up not implementing scoped storage - something HNers outright demanded several times and exposed as a good upside of iOS. So stick had to come out. The full filesystem access is now reserved for apps that manage full filesystem (e.g. file explorers) and that's it. Scoped storage APIs were introduced in 2013, 11 years ago and Play started enforcing them in 2020, so the experiment with scary warnings was running for 7 years and developers refused to give up on that sweet full private file access. Granted, SAF is quite a shitty API.
- monocasa 2y ago
  I mean, syncthing is exactly the kind of app I would expect to have full filesystem access.
  - growse 2y ago
    Why? I want it to have access to the folders I want it to sync, not everything on my device. Seems like a perfect fit for SAF.
    - lukeschlather 2y ago
      In a perfect world, what Syncthing does would be handled at the OS level and all OSes would seamlessly interoperate. In the real world the OS vendors are hostile to interoperability so the only way to get that is with a third-party tool that has OS-level access.
      - izacus 2y ago
        There are Android APIs to let syncthing integrate as cloud provider itself and the author didn't use those either.
      - evilduck 2y ago
        In reality, Syncthing is also pretty good at destroying battery life unless you go above and beyond to configure it in a way that then hampers Syncthing's ability to provide seamless file continuity between devices. I know that there will be disagreement here, but in my own opinion OS vendors are correct in being hostile to these apps under current circumstances. They could provide better ways to have third parties implement it and provide cross platform support for their platform solutions, but I've had Syncthing be the #1 cause of battery life drain on multiple devices and platforms before and it's honestly just not worth fighting with it. To get it under control relegates it to being not much better than rsync.
        Zak 2y ago
        I think it's important to draw a distinction between OS providers and app store providers here. The fact that they're the same entity in most cases is or should be largely irrelevant. OS vendors shouldn't make it impossible to create apps that have unlimited access to the filesystem or that suck battery in the background. There are reasons users might want to run apps that do either or both - a file indexer, for example. All the OS should do is ask the user if the app has permission to do those things. An app store provider on the other hand might reasonably have many criteria for inclusion, such as F-Droid only allowing FOSS. This only becomes problematic when the app store in question is effectively a monopoly.
    - sdoering 2y ago
      No. Not in my world. Because I actually want to be able to backup my phone - not only demarcated parts of it. I want to be able to get all data from my phone - regardless of what it is and what app put it there. If I decide to only sync specific folders. So be it. But I want to be able to sync "/"
    - pmontra 2y ago
      I want it to be able to browse to another app's private folder to sync the data of that app to my computer. If browsing to there it's not the job of syncthing then I need a file manager with those permissions.
    - andrepd 2y ago
      For 3 years now I can't open my Downloads or Pictures folder without root, because their shitty API is unbelievely bad that it would take around 30 minutes to open a folder with that many files.
    - out_of_protocol 2y ago
      > Seems like a perfect fit for SAF. Except SAF is slow as hell, working on multiple files means separate calls for every little thing like file size via java API. Means everything going to be VERY slow and drain battery a lot. I've seen test from 2019 where directory listing operation is 25-50 times slower in SAF https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/130261278 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/130261278
    - brokenmachine 2y ago
      I use syncthing to back up my entire Android phone. At least the parts it can access, anyway: /storage/emulated/0
- smashed 2y ago
  It's my phone. It's my data. It's my choice to install the app. It's my choice to grant the permissions to all files. Because guess what, I'm using the app to sync all my files. I really can't agree with Google in this particular case.
  - izacus 2y ago
    And yet you'll blame Android when some app steals a lot of data just like it always happens on this site.
    - swatcoder 2y ago
      Have you considered that it's a plural "you" that you're choosing to pit yourself against, with different people each weighing different complaints? Almost by definition, the people who argue strongly for free use of their hardware and software are almost never the same people who argue strongly for safety and security restrictions. You seem to be frustrated by a contradiction or inconsistency that doesn't exist. It's true that Google can't win the hearts of both sides, but they surely know that -- you don't need to get so personally frustrated on their behalf. It's just a company with a product in a market, and the market is never going to be uniform.
  - sdoering 2y ago
    I couldn't agree more. Given how much frigging hoops I had to jump through to get my Obsidian over syncthing setup to sync with my company iPhone - I nearly gave up. I grew up when computers didn't babysit me and tried to act like the good old GDR, knowing every thing better than their citicens. Nowadays, I feel more and more hindered by computers, not enabled. Computers used to be a production device (I could create things with them). Phones are not a computer - phones are a just "consume like we want you to" device. The problem is, I want my phone to be a creation device. A device that allows me to create content, text, to do lists, shopping lists, ideas and store them. And(!) sync them using the tools I decide to use. And not force me to use tools I friggin hate, because they just don't get the job done.
    - 2y ago
- beeflet 2y ago
  It's an open-source program, it shouldn't be held to the same standards as a closed-source program that just shuttles all of your data to someone else's computer. The risk here isn't misuse of the data, it's that some exploit is found in the code, and the additional protection of limiting its filesystem access is marginal (but nice to have).
- tw04 2y ago
  So Google drive doesn’t have full filesystem access anymore?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ants_everywhere 2y ago
> Google took something that solved real problems better than any alternative could, did so for many years, and destroyed it for no real reason other than to further tighten control they have of the supposedly "open" platform. Technically, the guy who inherited Syncthing Android maintenance destroyed it because he didn't want to use the file permission APIs. Which, of course, is a reasonable decision for a maintainer to make when they're working with limited resources. But I have to say in this case I find some of the maintainer's behavior to be a bit surprising for a project as mature as Syncthing.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Or maybe this, plus Panic removing GDrive support from Transmit, plus iA dropping Android support from Writer because of it, point to a common perception that Google's API for doing things "the right way" suck to the point of unusability. If iA and Panic and Syncthing -- all who've supported Android for many years -- can't manage to make it work, then I suspect it's broken. Google use to allow just any app to access the whole drive. That's probably too permissive. Now they've obviously swung too far the other direction, where even well intended, experienced devs are unable to work within Google's new constraints.
  - ants_everywhere 2y ago
    I guess I'm a bit at a loss about why these app developers feel they need access to things like medical records stored on the work phone of everybody at your doctor's office. If they do need access to literally everything on the device, then it seems reasonable that they have to pass some minimum security bar. After all, several of the apps whose data they want access to are used to secure things like private medical records, classified information, etc. At some point, the encrypted data has to be mounted as plaintext so apps can work with it. It seems reasonable to ask for some kind of permission system so that apps have to declare they need to read these files and so users can make a decision about whether to allow that access. But these developers are refusing to even ask for that permission.
    - 2y ago
mcherm 2y ago
> for no real reason other than to further tighten control they have of the supposedly "open" platform I think you're overlooking the obvious motivation of "maintain a lock on a substantial profit stream".
- gruez 2y ago
  You mean google drive subscriptions? Are such revenues even "substantial"? AFAIK google makes the overwhelming majority of its revenue from ads.

izacus 2y ago

They did, the upstading app developers like this one just forced people to give them full access to all data in the app (or the app wouldn't run) and ended up not implementing scoped storage - something HNers outright demanded several times and exposed as a good upside of iOS. So stick had to come out. The full filesystem access is now reserved for apps that manage full filesystem (e.g. file explorers) and that's it. Scoped storage APIs were introduced in 2013, 11 years ago and Play started enforcing them in 2020, so the experiment with scary warnings was running for 7 years and developers refused to give up on that sweet full private file access. Granted, SAF is quite a shitty API.

monocasa 2y ago
I mean, syncthing is exactly the kind of app I would expect to have full filesystem access.
- growse 2y ago
  Why? I want it to have access to the folders I want it to sync, not everything on my device. Seems like a perfect fit for SAF.
  - lukeschlather 2y ago
    In a perfect world, what Syncthing does would be handled at the OS level and all OSes would seamlessly interoperate. In the real world the OS vendors are hostile to interoperability so the only way to get that is with a third-party tool that has OS-level access.
    - izacus 2y ago
      There are Android APIs to let syncthing integrate as cloud provider itself and the author didn't use those either.
    - evilduck 2y ago
      In reality, Syncthing is also pretty good at destroying battery life unless you go above and beyond to configure it in a way that then hampers Syncthing's ability to provide seamless file continuity between devices. I know that there will be disagreement here, but in my own opinion OS vendors are correct in being hostile to these apps under current circumstances. They could provide better ways to have third parties implement it and provide cross platform support for their platform solutions, but I've had Syncthing be the #1 cause of battery life drain on multiple devices and platforms before and it's honestly just not worth fighting with it. To get it under control relegates it to being not much better than rsync.
      - Zak 2y ago
        I think it's important to draw a distinction between OS providers and app store providers here. The fact that they're the same entity in most cases is or should be largely irrelevant. OS vendors shouldn't make it impossible to create apps that have unlimited access to the filesystem or that suck battery in the background. There are reasons users might want to run apps that do either or both - a file indexer, for example. All the OS should do is ask the user if the app has permission to do those things. An app store provider on the other hand might reasonably have many criteria for inclusion, such as F-Droid only allowing FOSS. This only becomes problematic when the app store in question is effectively a monopoly.
  - sdoering 2y ago
    No. Not in my world. Because I actually want to be able to backup my phone - not only demarcated parts of it. I want to be able to get all data from my phone - regardless of what it is and what app put it there. If I decide to only sync specific folders. So be it. But I want to be able to sync "/"
  - pmontra 2y ago
    I want it to be able to browse to another app's private folder to sync the data of that app to my computer. If browsing to there it's not the job of syncthing then I need a file manager with those permissions.
  - andrepd 2y ago
    For 3 years now I can't open my Downloads or Pictures folder without root, because their shitty API is unbelievely bad that it would take around 30 minutes to open a folder with that many files.
  - out_of_protocol 2y ago
    > Seems like a perfect fit for SAF. Except SAF is slow as hell, working on multiple files means separate calls for every little thing like file size via java API. Means everything going to be VERY slow and drain battery a lot. I've seen test from 2019 where directory listing operation is 25-50 times slower in SAF https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/130261278 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/130261278
  - brokenmachine 2y ago
    I use syncthing to back up my entire Android phone. At least the parts it can access, anyway: /storage/emulated/0
smashed 2y ago
It's my phone. It's my data. It's my choice to install the app. It's my choice to grant the permissions to all files. Because guess what, I'm using the app to sync all my files. I really can't agree with Google in this particular case.
- izacus 2y ago
  And yet you'll blame Android when some app steals a lot of data just like it always happens on this site.
  - swatcoder 2y ago
    Have you considered that it's a plural "you" that you're choosing to pit yourself against, with different people each weighing different complaints? Almost by definition, the people who argue strongly for free use of their hardware and software are almost never the same people who argue strongly for safety and security restrictions. You seem to be frustrated by a contradiction or inconsistency that doesn't exist. It's true that Google can't win the hearts of both sides, but they surely know that -- you don't need to get so personally frustrated on their behalf. It's just a company with a product in a market, and the market is never going to be uniform.
- sdoering 2y ago
  I couldn't agree more. Given how much frigging hoops I had to jump through to get my Obsidian over syncthing setup to sync with my company iPhone - I nearly gave up. I grew up when computers didn't babysit me and tried to act like the good old GDR, knowing every thing better than their citicens. Nowadays, I feel more and more hindered by computers, not enabled. Computers used to be a production device (I could create things with them). Phones are not a computer - phones are a just "consume like we want you to" device. The problem is, I want my phone to be a creation device. A device that allows me to create content, text, to do lists, shopping lists, ideas and store them. And(!) sync them using the tools I decide to use. And not force me to use tools I friggin hate, because they just don't get the job done.
  - 2y ago
beeflet 2y ago
It's an open-source program, it shouldn't be held to the same standards as a closed-source program that just shuttles all of your data to someone else's computer. The risk here isn't misuse of the data, it's that some exploit is found in the code, and the additional protection of limiting its filesystem access is marginal (but nice to have).
tw04 2y ago
So Google drive doesn’t have full filesystem access anymore?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ants_everywhere 2y ago

> Google took something that solved real problems better than any alternative could, did so for many years, and destroyed it for no real reason other than to further tighten control they have of the supposedly "open" platform. Technically, the guy who inherited Syncthing Android maintenance destroyed it because he didn't want to use the file permission APIs. Which, of course, is a reasonable decision for a maintainer to make when they're working with limited resources. But I have to say in this case I find some of the maintainer's behavior to be a bit surprising for a project as mature as Syncthing.

kstrauser 2y ago
Or maybe this, plus Panic removing GDrive support from Transmit, plus iA dropping Android support from Writer because of it, point to a common perception that Google's API for doing things "the right way" suck to the point of unusability. If iA and Panic and Syncthing -- all who've supported Android for many years -- can't manage to make it work, then I suspect it's broken. Google use to allow just any app to access the whole drive. That's probably too permissive. Now they've obviously swung too far the other direction, where even well intended, experienced devs are unable to work within Google's new constraints.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  I guess I'm a bit at a loss about why these app developers feel they need access to things like medical records stored on the work phone of everybody at your doctor's office. If they do need access to literally everything on the device, then it seems reasonable that they have to pass some minimum security bar. After all, several of the apps whose data they want access to are used to secure things like private medical records, classified information, etc. At some point, the encrypted data has to be mounted as plaintext so apps can work with it. It seems reasonable to ask for some kind of permission system so that apps have to declare they need to read these files and so users can make a decision about whether to allow that access. But these developers are refusing to even ask for that permission.
  - 2y ago

mcherm 2y ago

> for no real reason other than to further tighten control they have of the supposedly "open" platform I think you're overlooking the obvious motivation of "maintain a lock on a substantial profit stream".

gruez 2y ago
You mean google drive subscriptions? Are such revenues even "substantial"? AFAIK google makes the overwhelming majority of its revenue from ads.