6 ms·

Looks like no fine-grained control of app permissions, either dynamic/on-demand or manual. This approach (all or nothing) is one major issue that cripples Andro

by solrwnd 12y ago

Looks like no fine-grained control of app permissions, either dynamic/on-demand or manual. This approach (all or nothing) is one major issue that cripples Android usability for me. :(

vutekst 12y ago
This feature is one of the reasons I run CyanogenMod. You can drill down and toggle particular permissions for each app if you want, and set default policies for new apps.
hartzler 12y ago
I just can't install apps anymore. They all want everything. There is no reason for a todo list app to need my location, sms, camera, etc, etc... This needs to be fixed.
MichaelGG 12y ago
Google does not want people taking over permissions and privacy. This is demonstrated by the deliberate design of the phone state permission. Any app should be able to query "is the user on a voice call", but Google wrapped that up in a "get my device serial, as well as phone numbers I call or call me". Download a flashlight app, then call your cancer or fertility clinic? Awesome, now some random developer has that information.
- josho 12y ago
  Just wow. I was considering making a switch from ios, but this reality just put me off until their next release.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Chrome does other tricky stuff that's "evil". When you go to turn on "Do Not Track", they put up a very big warning. Much more than other privacy related features. But then!... They flip the OK and Cancel buttons around. Literally, for that one feature, they intentionally go out of their way to mess up the UI to trick people into keeping DNT disabled. Chrome doesn't do this for any other critical options. The permissions on Android are further weakened, with apps able to add permissions without any indication via updates. (So long the permission is in the same group.) It's well-known that all-or-nothing, say-yes-or-it-dont-work is a busted model -- MS proved that with ActiveX and Vista's plethora of UAC prompts. So it's very unlikely that Android's permission model and UI is accidental. And even then, consider the rampant abuse in the Google Play store. It's hard to find small apps, like a flashlight, that doesn't request all permissions. Yet Google does nothing, and takes no effort to inform users that such apps are likely to be doing things the users don't want. I've realized, unfortunately, Google is not a force for good. They're happy to protect users against other threats (like code execution exploits or SSL attacks), but they are actively working against privacy, openly hostile. Do no evil indeed.
    - lunarcave 12y ago
      Are you sure? I think it's just a flip switch which is tap, on and tap off [0]. [0] http://bit.ly/1u8avx3 http://bit.ly/1u8avx3
      - MichaelGG 12y ago
        http://imgur.com/zaZTRns http://imgur.com/zaZTRns Compare to when enabling "OK Google" where OK and Cancel are flipped. I guess they couldn't fit it in on Android?
  - on_and_off 12y ago
    I really doubt that it was an intentional 'grab all your info' move, it is just a decision made at the time where engineers were reigning at Google and thought that 'give the user a list of all the permissions required by the app' was a great solution. It kinda work ... except that generations of users have learned to always click yes when there is a warning .. Also, you sometimes have to ask for a permission like SMS, only because you will use it in a very specific case (in this example for SMS payments in that country where it is a popular form of payment). Now that we have been rolling with this system for quite a while, it is very hard to change it. Apple had a couple of issues as well, but mostly got it right from the start.
    - josho 12y ago
      I think we know that it's intentional, because after all these years they haven't improved. Take for example, Apple. They've adopted a bunch of Android first innovations. So, what is stopping Google from adopting Apple's security model? Either they are building it and we should see it soon, or Google doesn't want users to be mindful of their privacy because it puts their own business at risk, so the status quo will remain until a forcing function occurs (eg. user revolt due to malware).
      - on_and_off 12y ago
        permission, not security. Security is a broader issue by a very big margin. I am all for moving to Apple's model, but making this move while staying back-compatible is not trivial at all.

by solrwnd 12y ago

Looks like no fine-grained control of app permissions, either dynamic/on-demand or manual. This approach (all or nothing) is one major issue that cripples Android usability for me. :(

vutekst 12y ago

This feature is one of the reasons I run CyanogenMod. You can drill down and toggle particular permissions for each app if you want, and set default policies for new apps.

hartzler 12y ago

I just can't install apps anymore. They all want everything. There is no reason for a todo list app to need my location, sms, camera, etc, etc... This needs to be fixed.

MichaelGG 12y ago

Google does not want people taking over permissions and privacy. This is demonstrated by the deliberate design of the phone state permission. Any app should be able to query "is the user on a voice call", but Google wrapped that up in a "get my device serial, as well as phone numbers I call or call me". Download a flashlight app, then call your cancer or fertility clinic? Awesome, now some random developer has that information.

josho 12y ago
Just wow. I was considering making a switch from ios, but this reality just put me off until their next release.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Chrome does other tricky stuff that's "evil". When you go to turn on "Do Not Track", they put up a very big warning. Much more than other privacy related features. But then!... They flip the OK and Cancel buttons around. Literally, for that one feature, they intentionally go out of their way to mess up the UI to trick people into keeping DNT disabled. Chrome doesn't do this for any other critical options. The permissions on Android are further weakened, with apps able to add permissions without any indication via updates. (So long the permission is in the same group.) It's well-known that all-or-nothing, say-yes-or-it-dont-work is a busted model -- MS proved that with ActiveX and Vista's plethora of UAC prompts. So it's very unlikely that Android's permission model and UI is accidental. And even then, consider the rampant abuse in the Google Play store. It's hard to find small apps, like a flashlight, that doesn't request all permissions. Yet Google does nothing, and takes no effort to inform users that such apps are likely to be doing things the users don't want. I've realized, unfortunately, Google is not a force for good. They're happy to protect users against other threats (like code execution exploits or SSL attacks), but they are actively working against privacy, openly hostile. Do no evil indeed.
  - lunarcave 12y ago
    Are you sure? I think it's just a flip switch which is tap, on and tap off [0]. [0] http://bit.ly/1u8avx3 http://bit.ly/1u8avx3
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      http://imgur.com/zaZTRns http://imgur.com/zaZTRns Compare to when enabling "OK Google" where OK and Cancel are flipped. I guess they couldn't fit it in on Android?
- on_and_off 12y ago
  I really doubt that it was an intentional 'grab all your info' move, it is just a decision made at the time where engineers were reigning at Google and thought that 'give the user a list of all the permissions required by the app' was a great solution. It kinda work ... except that generations of users have learned to always click yes when there is a warning .. Also, you sometimes have to ask for a permission like SMS, only because you will use it in a very specific case (in this example for SMS payments in that country where it is a popular form of payment). Now that we have been rolling with this system for quite a while, it is very hard to change it. Apple had a couple of issues as well, but mostly got it right from the start.
  - josho 12y ago
    I think we know that it's intentional, because after all these years they haven't improved. Take for example, Apple. They've adopted a bunch of Android first innovations. So, what is stopping Google from adopting Apple's security model? Either they are building it and we should see it soon, or Google doesn't want users to be mindful of their privacy because it puts their own business at risk, so the status quo will remain until a forcing function occurs (eg. user revolt due to malware).
    - on_and_off 12y ago
      permission, not security. Security is a broader issue by a very big margin. I am all for moving to Apple's model, but making this move while staying back-compatible is not trivial at all.