4 ms·

Feels like you don't know what "the sandbox" is. It's not "their" sandbox, it's from AOSP. When you run an app on Android, it runs in a sandbox. Meaning that y

by palata 9mo ago

Feels like you don't know what "the sandbox" is. It's not "their" sandbox, it's from AOSP. When you run an app on Android, it runs in a sandbox. Meaning that your social media app cannot access the files of your banking app by default. They are "sandboxed". On a normal Android, the Play Services are installed as a system app. It is privileged app that has "system" access. A system app is not sandboxed. GrapheneOS allows you to install the Play Services and the Play Store as "sandboxed" apps in that they run unprivileged, just like WhatsApp or TikTok or your banking app. So running the proprietary Google apps in the sandbox is obviously more private than running them as system apps, wouldn't you say?

ForHackernews 9mo ago
If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". I agree there's some marginal benefit that sandboxed GApps need to prompt the user for permissions (rather than having privileged system level access) but at the end of the day, Google Maps will get GPS perms and Google will know everywhere your phone goes.
- palata 9mo ago
  > If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". Sure, but that's the same if you run TikTok with microG (which will relay your data to the Google servers just like the Play Services) or in waydroid on a Mobile Linux. But you can't blame the system for what the apps are allowed to do by the user. Take your Google Maps example: if the user wants to run Google Maps, obviously they will be sharing data with Google. It's very weird to blame the system for that. What the sandbox brings is that for users who want to run the Play Services (because they want to run TikTok, knowing that it will share data with some servers, including but not limited to the Google servers through the Play Services), then at least the Play Services are not root on their OS. So then instead of running microG, you can run the Play Services and have the same kind of benefits. Now if you don't want your apps to contact Google, then by all means, don't install the Play Services! But don't install microG either! And don't install Google Maps! It's all about trade-offs, it's not an all or nothing situation. Sandboxed Play Services is better than privileged Play Services.
  - ForHackernews 9mo ago
    I agree it's about trade-offs. I think MicroG - which provides dummy no-op implementations of Google Play tracking APIs, and allows you to select alternative Location Providers and notification backends - is a better option than running first-party Google software. You're of course correct that we can't blame the system for choices made by users, but I do think GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps: https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
    - palata 9mo ago
      > I think MicroG - which provides dummy no-op implementations of Google Play tracking APIs, and allows you to select alternative Location Providers and notification backends - is a better option than running first-party Google software. microG still forwards the requests to the Google servers. Not sure what you mean by "tracking APIs"? microG is a reverse-engineered, open source implementation of a subset of Play Services, right? It's not obviously a better option: for instance, some things that are supported in Play Services are not supported in microG, and microG sometimes breaks (because of changes in the API). > allows you to select alternative Location Providers GOS does that, too. > I do think GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps I don't get that. It does not encourage them to install Play Services, it makes it available. Because for many (most?) users, it is important to have it. I am not sure what you are trying to say: is your opinion that there is no point in using an alternative OS (like GOS, /e/OS, LineageOS, IodeOS, ...) or are you trying to say that GOS is not the most secure/private alternative OS?
      - ForHackernews 9mo ago
        I'm trying to say the same thing I said up at the top: GOS's approach to privacy is obtuse. They deliberately conflate security with privacy (you even write "secure/private" as though they're the same thing) in a way that does a disservice to users. My opinion is that GOS is very successful at its own stated goal of having an extremely secure mobile OS that rolls out patch updates quickly. I think it's far less successful at protecting user privacy because — as you even admit, many/most of them will find their phones unusable with vanilla GOS and immediately follow the GOS user guide to install Google Play and help them securely upload their personal data to the world's biggest adtech firm. I think iodéOS and /e/OS are more in line with what I want from a mobile OS.
- tranq_cassowary 9mo ago
  Communication between apps using IPC happens on mutual consent and is explicit. You can't just throw data to Play Services and expect it to accept it and process it well, that's not how it works. Communication via IPC is always very intentional and specific, so it will be very structured data for specific purposes, not just a dump of all your data. Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) is a push messaging service, it doesn't need to be used to send the actual notification. It's perfectly possible to just use FCM to wake the device and then handle notifications by yourself as app. The way FCM can be used is much different from Apple's system. Apple forces you to use their services for notifications while Google allows you to use FCM just for waking your device. It's also possible for apps to not use FCM at all and to just use WebSockets or UnifiedPush. If you just grant Google Maps location permission and don't give it to Play Services and keep your sandboxed google play settings to the default, the location requests are rerouted through the GrapheneOS servers. If you want to use network location to get quicker location locks and location indoors, you can also use GrapheneOS network location, so you don't need to use the Google implementation for that. And, even if you would decide to use Google directly for the location, you can perfectly avoid giving permanent location access. You can hand it over only once or only when the app is in use. So Google doesn't know everywhere your phone goes, at all.

by palata 9mo ago

ForHackernews 9mo ago

If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". I agree there's some marginal benefit that sandboxed GApps need to prompt the user for permissions (rather than having privileged system level access) but at the end of the day, Google Maps will get GPS perms and Google will know everywhere your phone goes.

palata 9mo ago
> If the Tiktok app passes your data to Play Services (say, to support notifications with GCM) then it doesn't make any difference that Play Services is nominally "sandboxed". Sure, but that's the same if you run TikTok with microG (which will relay your data to the Google servers just like the Play Services) or in waydroid on a Mobile Linux. But you can't blame the system for what the apps are allowed to do by the user. Take your Google Maps example: if the user wants to run Google Maps, obviously they will be sharing data with Google. It's very weird to blame the system for that. What the sandbox brings is that for users who want to run the Play Services (because they want to run TikTok, knowing that it will share data with some servers, including but not limited to the Google servers through the Play Services), then at least the Play Services are not root on their OS. So then instead of running microG, you can run the Play Services and have the same kind of benefits. Now if you don't want your apps to contact Google, then by all means, don't install the Play Services! But don't install microG either! And don't install Google Maps! It's all about trade-offs, it's not an all or nothing situation. Sandboxed Play Services is better than privileged Play Services.
- ForHackernews 9mo ago
  I agree it's about trade-offs. I think MicroG - which provides dummy no-op implementations of Google Play tracking APIs, and allows you to select alternative Location Providers and notification backends - is a better option than running first-party Google software. You're of course correct that we can't blame the system for choices made by users, but I do think GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps: https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
  - palata 9mo ago
    > I think MicroG - which provides dummy no-op implementations of Google Play tracking APIs, and allows you to select alternative Location Providers and notification backends - is a better option than running first-party Google software. microG still forwards the requests to the Google servers. Not sure what you mean by "tracking APIs"? microG is a reverse-engineered, open source implementation of a subset of Play Services, right? It's not obviously a better option: for instance, some things that are supported in Play Services are not supported in microG, and microG sometimes breaks (because of changes in the API). > allows you to select alternative Location Providers GOS does that, too. > I do think GOS lulls users into complacency by focusing on the security angle only and encouraging users to install sandboxed GApps I don't get that. It does not encourage them to install Play Services, it makes it available. Because for many (most?) users, it is important to have it. I am not sure what you are trying to say: is your opinion that there is no point in using an alternative OS (like GOS, /e/OS, LineageOS, IodeOS, ...) or are you trying to say that GOS is not the most secure/private alternative OS?
    - ForHackernews 9mo ago
      I'm trying to say the same thing I said up at the top: GOS's approach to privacy is obtuse. They deliberately conflate security with privacy (you even write "secure/private" as though they're the same thing) in a way that does a disservice to users. My opinion is that GOS is very successful at its own stated goal of having an extremely secure mobile OS that rolls out patch updates quickly. I think it's far less successful at protecting user privacy because — as you even admit, many/most of them will find their phones unusable with vanilla GOS and immediately follow the GOS user guide to install Google Play and help them securely upload their personal data to the world's biggest adtech firm. I think iodéOS and /e/OS are more in line with what I want from a mobile OS.
tranq_cassowary 9mo ago
Communication between apps using IPC happens on mutual consent and is explicit. You can't just throw data to Play Services and expect it to accept it and process it well, that's not how it works. Communication via IPC is always very intentional and specific, so it will be very structured data for specific purposes, not just a dump of all your data. Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) is a push messaging service, it doesn't need to be used to send the actual notification. It's perfectly possible to just use FCM to wake the device and then handle notifications by yourself as app. The way FCM can be used is much different from Apple's system. Apple forces you to use their services for notifications while Google allows you to use FCM just for waking your device. It's also possible for apps to not use FCM at all and to just use WebSockets or UnifiedPush. If you just grant Google Maps location permission and don't give it to Play Services and keep your sandboxed google play settings to the default, the location requests are rerouted through the GrapheneOS servers. If you want to use network location to get quicker location locks and location indoors, you can also use GrapheneOS network location, so you don't need to use the Google implementation for that. And, even if you would decide to use Google directly for the location, you can perfectly avoid giving permanent location access. You can hand it over only once or only when the app is in use. So Google doesn't know everywhere your phone goes, at all.