5 ms·

Google seems to have no interest in protecting android users from this either. There was an app called 'App Ops' that gave android users the ability to choose

Google seems to have no interest in protecting android users from this either. There was an app called 'App Ops' that gave android users the ability to choose which permissions they wanted to grant applications. No root required. Get too many notifications from an app, or don't need location functionality? You used to be able to turn these features off one-by-one for each app. You could also see the last time an app used location services. Android developers have a bad habit of requesting every permission under the sun, so I've gotten in the habit of disabling the permissions that don't add value for me. Unfortunately, Google later removed this feature saying that its release was accidental. I thought it was a clean solution to a major problem. Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/google-removes-vital-privacy-features-android-shortly-after-adding-them https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/google-removes-vital-p...

Pxtl 12y ago
What really disappoints me is the terrible placement Google uses for privacy features in the Play store. They're really hidden away instead of being prominent searchable fields. Microsoft of all companies does far better with their Windows Store.
- TheCraiggers 12y ago
  I would agree with you except for the part where they force you to see them before you're allowed to even install an app. It's hard to get much less hidden than that.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    It's not particularly useful if the permissions aren't displayed on lists and aren't searchable. The only option now is a brute force search by hand, clicking Install on each app in a category until you find a version of 2048 that doesn't demand SD card, camera, and full net access...
scep12 12y ago
It was never released -- they removed access to a feature that was not intended for the public. That seems well within their right. For you to declare "Google seems to have no interest in protecting android users from this either." seems quite misguided, given that they are clearly working on a solution for this exact problem.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  >given that they are clearly working on a solution for this exact problem. Evidence?
  - scep12 12y ago
    The "App Ops" settings that they accidentally released seems evident enough that the feature is forthcoming. Am I missing something?
    - huxley 12y ago
      No it just means that there is permissions infrastructure not that they intend to make it available. What would show Google working actively would be to modify APIs or provide solid guidelines for developers to ensure that arbitrarily closed permissions didn't cause an app to crash or freeze. Making app privacy a high priority for future Android development would be clearly working towards it. Having a hidden privacy infrastructure means nothing at all. [fixed unclear sentences]
      - rasz_pl 12y ago
        no need to change APIs, just let AppOps insert shim between apps and API calls and return empty datasets instead of null/failing whole calls. Let that app ask for my location, but let me define location it returns when I refuse real location. Same for contacts/messages.
        jessaustin 12y ago
userbinator 12y ago
Why wouldn't Google want users to have such powerful control over their devices? It's always explained like this: Because it's "simpler." Because "things will break if the user does something wrong." Because "the average user won't need it." Those same poor excuses have been responsible for so much loss of privacy and freedom elsewhere, not just by Google. To me, they're deliberately preventing users from having too much power to control their devices, so they can better persuade them in the direction they want. Then they accidentally gave the users too much, so of course they would say it wasn't intended, but the reaction certainly says that it's precisely what the users want...
- untog 12y ago
  That's exactly the reason, and it's more legitimate than you give it credit for. I can foresee numerous situations where users disable location tracking (in the name of saving battery) without realising the effect it will have (rendering a location-based app useless). A nice middle ground would be to keep App Ops, but hidden away somewhere, much like the Developer Tools are.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    >users disable location tracking (in the name of saving battery) without realising the effect it will have (rendering a location-based app useless). If you can assume that location data would be available, you can also assume that users will be sentient.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      And random developers start getting one-star "Doesn't work!" reviews because our "sentient" user forgot to change their settings.
  - jessriedel 12y ago
    This is easy to fix. Just have the app notify the user that feature X will break without permission Y. The user can then make the decision.
  - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
presootto 12y ago
There's always going to be some conflict of interest when the company who builds the OS is the same one that runs the advertising platform.

Pxtl 12y ago

What really disappoints me is the terrible placement Google uses for privacy features in the Play store. They're really hidden away instead of being prominent searchable fields. Microsoft of all companies does far better with their Windows Store.

TheCraiggers 12y ago
I would agree with you except for the part where they force you to see them before you're allowed to even install an app. It's hard to get much less hidden than that.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  It's not particularly useful if the permissions aren't displayed on lists and aren't searchable. The only option now is a brute force search by hand, clicking Install on each app in a category until you find a version of 2048 that doesn't demand SD card, camera, and full net access...

scep12 12y ago

It was never released -- they removed access to a feature that was not intended for the public. That seems well within their right. For you to declare "Google seems to have no interest in protecting android users from this either." seems quite misguided, given that they are clearly working on a solution for this exact problem.

davidgerard 12y ago
>given that they are clearly working on a solution for this exact problem. Evidence?
- scep12 12y ago
  The "App Ops" settings that they accidentally released seems evident enough that the feature is forthcoming. Am I missing something?
  - huxley 12y ago
    No it just means that there is permissions infrastructure not that they intend to make it available. What would show Google working actively would be to modify APIs or provide solid guidelines for developers to ensure that arbitrarily closed permissions didn't cause an app to crash or freeze. Making app privacy a high priority for future Android development would be clearly working towards it. Having a hidden privacy infrastructure means nothing at all. [fixed unclear sentences]
    - rasz_pl 12y ago
      no need to change APIs, just let AppOps insert shim between apps and API calls and return empty datasets instead of null/failing whole calls. Let that app ask for my location, but let me define location it returns when I refuse real location. Same for contacts/messages.
      - jessaustin 12y ago

userbinator 12y ago

Why wouldn't Google want users to have such powerful control over their devices? It's always explained like this: Because it's "simpler." Because "things will break if the user does something wrong." Because "the average user won't need it." Those same poor excuses have been responsible for so much loss of privacy and freedom elsewhere, not just by Google. To me, they're deliberately preventing users from having too much power to control their devices, so they can better persuade them in the direction they want. Then they accidentally gave the users too much, so of course they would say it wasn't intended, but the reaction certainly says that it's precisely what the users want...

untog 12y ago
That's exactly the reason, and it's more legitimate than you give it credit for. I can foresee numerous situations where users disable location tracking (in the name of saving battery) without realising the effect it will have (rendering a location-based app useless). A nice middle ground would be to keep App Ops, but hidden away somewhere, much like the Developer Tools are.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >users disable location tracking (in the name of saving battery) without realising the effect it will have (rendering a location-based app useless). If you can assume that location data would be available, you can also assume that users will be sentient.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    And random developers start getting one-star "Doesn't work!" reviews because our "sentient" user forgot to change their settings.
- jessriedel 12y ago
  This is easy to fix. Just have the app notify the user that feature X will break without permission Y. The user can then make the decision.
- 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

presootto 12y ago

There's always going to be some conflict of interest when the company who builds the OS is the same one that runs the advertising platform.