|
|
|
|
|
by jonemo
4253 days ago
|
|
I would argue that no permission should be "implied". For each example you list in that category, I can find an argument to not make it implied. For example: Many people are on plans with capped data per month and are therefore concerned about how much data an app uses. As such a user I would want to make sure apps like a flashlight app do not use internet connectivity at all. Likewise if you are concerned about privacy and want to know when an app connects to the internet and thereby automatically reveals your location, possibly usage pattern, etc. |
|
I'm sure you can. But ultimately it is losing battle.
When you turn something which 99.99% of normal apps require into a "permission" it isn't really a permission at all. Just an obstruction which teaches the users permissions can be safely ignored (i.e. stupid permissions hurt good permissions).
If a user ONLY gets a permissions pop-up when it actually matters they're far more likely to take it seriously than if they get it every time and 9 times out of 10, it is just nonsense (e.g. Reddit app needs internet access, store accounts, SD card write, etc).
> Likewise if you are concerned about privacy and want to know when an app connects to the internet and thereby automatically reveals your location, possibly usage pattern, etc.
Without getting boringly into the intricacies of Android's underbelly, even without the "internet" permission (which is now standard with higher API levels anyway), you can connect to the internet through other APIs and inform a server that you exist.
Literally an app with zero permissions on Android can make API calls which let a server know they're installed at that IP address.
The internet permission was just a good example to throw into the set because Google already moved in the direction of effectively removing it. Now they just need to do more permissions in a similar vein.