7 ms·

9 years of the api working, then Google shuts them down. I expect an interface to be consistent after working for 9 years. I think they're trying to keep their

9 years of the api working, then Google shuts them down. I expect an interface to be consistent after working for 9 years. I think they're trying to keep their story simple, for the sake of clarity. I believe the nextcloud team when they say they need the permission. Part of the issue is that nextcloud has many use cases, including ones where your files don't get synced to your mobile device until you touch the file, replacing them with a reference to a file. It's cool cause you can access and manage a tb of pictures or documents from a 64gb android.

deng 1y ago
> I believe the nextcloud team when they say they need the permission. I don't (and I do use NC). The sentence "SAF cannot be used, as it is for sharing/exposing our files to other apps" is simply wrong and llm_nerd is right that SAF should be able to handle that use case,see https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/documents-files#grant-access-directory https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/d... There are some restrictions regarding which directories you can access, but for most use-cases it should be perfectly fine. It's also not that this should come as a surprise to them. In fact, there's an issue about this from the NC team themselves from August '22: https://github.com/nextcloud/android/issues/10123 https://github.com/nextcloud/android/issues/10123 Why they still think SAF cannot be used is a mystery to me.
threeseed 1y ago
> I expect an interface to be consistent after working for 9 years Even if that interface is insecure and harmful to users ? As an industry we've learnt a lot about how apps siphon and sell your data. And I appreciate this probably doesn't apply to NextCloud but it can be difficult to build an API that is flexible and secure so you will get casualties.
- lenkite 1y ago
  How is this interface "insecure and harmful to users" ?
  - Zak 1y ago
    Shady apps use file access to do tracking of various sorts and simply ingest private data that has nothing to do with their nominal purpose. Sophisticated users probably wouldn't install those apps, and certainly wouldn't agree to their request for filesystem access, but that's not who Google is trying to protect here. It's obviously not a security problem or a harm when used by an open source file synchronization app, and Google is being unsophisticated with its policy here.
    - apitman 1y ago
      Do you have links to stories about any of these shady apps that have now been stopped by this policy?
      - Zak 1y ago
        Most of the time, when apps are caught doing something really shady, they're removed from the Play Store for doing the shady thing. A story wouldn't report that they stopped working because of a policy change, but some of these wouldn't make it into the store now: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/apps-with-15m-installs-on-google-play-send-your-data-to-china/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/apps-with-15m... https://www.zdnet.com/article/phantomlance-spying-campaign-breaches-google-play-security/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/phantomlance-spying-campaign-b... https://www.welivesecurity.com/2023/05/23/android-app-breaking-bad-legitimate-screen-recording-file-exfiltration/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2023/05/23/android-app-breaki... There are also examples of apps using the filesystem to try to detect rooted devices, an invasion of user privacy: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/g6cdl6/apps_have_access_to_your_file_system_without/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/g6cdl6/apps_have_a...
        apitman 1y ago
        Thanks, definitely looks like it's been abused. But does the policy solve this problem? The first link is a file explorer app. In theory that app should be granted the permision by Google. They could get established and then start collecting data later. So how does the policy help? In practice the only way it helps is by Google basically telling everyone other than big trusted orgs no, and that's not an open ecosystem. Why not just give the user a big fat warning, even telling them that apps which request this permission have been known to steal data in the past, then let them decide for themselves?

deng 1y ago

> I believe the nextcloud team when they say they need the permission. I don't (and I do use NC). The sentence "SAF cannot be used, as it is for sharing/exposing our files to other apps" is simply wrong and llm_nerd is right that SAF should be able to handle that use case,see https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/documents-files#grant-access-directory https://developer.android.com/training/data-storage/shared/d... There are some restrictions regarding which directories you can access, but for most use-cases it should be perfectly fine. It's also not that this should come as a surprise to them. In fact, there's an issue about this from the NC team themselves from August '22: https://github.com/nextcloud/android/issues/10123 https://github.com/nextcloud/android/issues/10123 Why they still think SAF cannot be used is a mystery to me.

threeseed 1y ago

> I expect an interface to be consistent after working for 9 years Even if that interface is insecure and harmful to users ? As an industry we've learnt a lot about how apps siphon and sell your data. And I appreciate this probably doesn't apply to NextCloud but it can be difficult to build an API that is flexible and secure so you will get casualties.

lenkite 1y ago
How is this interface "insecure and harmful to users" ?
- Zak 1y ago
  Shady apps use file access to do tracking of various sorts and simply ingest private data that has nothing to do with their nominal purpose. Sophisticated users probably wouldn't install those apps, and certainly wouldn't agree to their request for filesystem access, but that's not who Google is trying to protect here. It's obviously not a security problem or a harm when used by an open source file synchronization app, and Google is being unsophisticated with its policy here.
  - apitman 1y ago
    Do you have links to stories about any of these shady apps that have now been stopped by this policy?
    - Zak 1y ago
      Most of the time, when apps are caught doing something really shady, they're removed from the Play Store for doing the shady thing. A story wouldn't report that they stopped working because of a policy change, but some of these wouldn't make it into the store now: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/apps-with-15m-installs-on-google-play-send-your-data-to-china/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/apps-with-15m... https://www.zdnet.com/article/phantomlance-spying-campaign-breaches-google-play-security/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/phantomlance-spying-campaign-b... https://www.welivesecurity.com/2023/05/23/android-app-breaking-bad-legitimate-screen-recording-file-exfiltration/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2023/05/23/android-app-breaki... There are also examples of apps using the filesystem to try to detect rooted devices, an invasion of user privacy: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/g6cdl6/apps_have_access_to_your_file_system_without/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/g6cdl6/apps_have_a...
      - apitman 1y ago
        Thanks, definitely looks like it's been abused. But does the policy solve this problem? The first link is a file explorer app. In theory that app should be granted the permision by Google. They could get established and then start collecting data later. So how does the policy help? In practice the only way it helps is by Google basically telling everyone other than big trusted orgs no, and that's not an open ecosystem. Why not just give the user a big fat warning, even telling them that apps which request this permission have been known to steal data in the past, then let them decide for themselves?