I’ve been an Android user since the HTC Desire in 2010.
I’m unsure what the author of the article is advocating, since the “raw deal” appears to be geared towards making the Android environment more secure.
The author laments that they now have to manually enable security bypass settings and that some (they call it developers, but I’m not sure if they’re referring to Application Development or Phone Platform Development) “developers” can lock down with further API checks.
I’ve been an ICT professional for over 40 years and security is always a balance. On the one end it looks like a phone in a locked room, inaccessible to anyone, on the other end it’s a free-for-all, open to anyone.
I’m not at all sure what the author wants, except for wanting to roll back time to something less secure.
Ultimately, the user should be able to decide for themselves how much security they are willing to compromise for power and flexibility. Whether this particular compromise is acceptable would depend on just how annoying it is in practice, but it’s a trend I’m not a fan of.
On the plus side, if this compromises third party app store usage even more, it may be more fuel for the anti-trust lawsuits aimed at Google (although who knows how that will play out given who is becoming president).
These new security features do not (and can not) apply to apps distributed outside of the Play Store, so it won’t compromise third party stores whatsoever.
deleted by creator
they do. that’s the definition of sideloading. or why do you think the opposite?
As someone who’s always been side loading apps and doing custom configs, it’s just so much harder compared to what it used to be. So many hidden settings. So many menus you have to go through in the right order. So many reverts that happen each update.
You say it’s in the name of security, but I don’t see it. Something is fundamentally broken here, if Google really believes this is the best path forward
Edit: and btw, I work in big tech too. I know how this update came to be. Some L6 looking for his packet decided to “decrease infected devices by 10%” by adding this friction, and everyone nodded along since the negative impact isn’t measurable.
It makes it frustrating to use, not secure. When installed program stops working after 30 or whatever days of me not using it because my great white master decided that it doesn’t need what was granted by me at installation is not security it’s just spitting in my face. I don’t care about what “developers” want why should anyone?
Removed by mod
Users are further forced to sacrifice their privacy to Google and Google Play rather than use something like F-droid.
deleted by creator
You have a very distorted view of security. The Apple computer ecosystem closely mirrors their phone and tablet system.
Microsoft Windows is an absolute shitshow and continues to get worse at every iteration.
deleted by creator
Actually, no you cannot. You need to adjust and grant permissions for anything you install on a Mac OS system today.
Source: I own a Mac, it’s less than six months old. Installing stuff is full of permission requests.
As for Linux, I’ve used and installed it for over 25 years. It’s not ready for 3 billion home users and at the rate it’s going, it won’t ever get there.
Yes, I know, Android is Linux, well done, here’s an elephant stamp.
I’ve also been using Linux for a similar amount of time, and it’s only at work now I have to use Windows.
And as for home users using Linux? I have a few family members quite happy with Ubuntu / Firefox since all they need is a browser and VLC for their “PC”, so I don’t know where you got that “it’ll never get there” metric from.
Alright they don’t have a clue how Jellyfin works on that box, but they sure do appreciate and use it a lot these days now they’ve got used to it / dumping Netflix.
deleted by creator
Yeah, the author and people are fussing over without reason. Regular users do not understand the implication of sideloading apps. I have had people get their telegram/whatsapp hacked because someone sent them a malicious link and they sent their login credentials to that website/app.
Restricting sensitive permissions will mean such people are better protected from such mistakes. Advanced users can still bypass the requirements even though it may be slightly complicated.
One can justify it however they like but it’s going to end up making the experience worse for competent users anyway. Much like this Android 12 security change that made it permanently more annoying to manipulate files.
Yeah, this change (scoped storage) is annoying. You need adb, root or system level apps to bypass the requirement. File access is also slow. That’s the reason image loading and image deletion is slow in Google Photos app compared to the native gallery app of my smartphone.
Anyway, the trend is clear. More security for the end user. You can root, flash a custom rom, or use a linux based smartphone if you do not like the restrictions. It’s more friction but that’s not going to change for the better.
I just wish the system had a global setting for “I know what I am doing, stop trying to protect me”. Stop revoking permissions you think I don’t need. stop restricting everything. Just turn all of those things off by default. I only have a couple apps installed, let me be the judge of me. And stop having me reconfigure every app individually just so you’ll let it run for as long as I want it to.
Though I understand the reason, I find this ironic given how invasive play store apps can be. My cars official app requires full location access all the time, otherwise it pops up asking for it every time you open it. Meanwhile some FOSS app that can be code reviewed and sideloaded is more difficult to give needed acess.
and FOSS apps that can be fully code reviewed and confirmed safe, unlike anything proprietary, will still cause banking apps to refuse to run on your unrooted device. I had to go back to carrying a physical key around with me. (the foss apps were there first)
deleted by creator
They need it for 2 things I believe.
- They show a map where vehivle last parked compared to you.
- They could use it for their proprietary phone as key feature that doesn’t work and is unreliable compared to using UWB.
- Gonna add this one since its totally the reason, sell your data. They store the car data, why not get the phones location data so you can get them all the time!
deleted by creator
I haven’t deved android since before all of the permission overhauls but I believe aprpximate would suffice for those cases, and I don’t think they are actually needed. Luckily with a little bit of work and someones open source project I was able to get a home assistant integration to use their API and give them 0 of those permission requests.
(deleted content)
I don’t think it’s quite a bad as the title implies, though I wonder how long this slow process of locking down Android will
containedcontinue for. Hopefully the EU demands from the likes of Epic will stop too much control being taken away from the user.This is why I decided to not use Google services this Graphene install. I have zero doubt Google is going to try and lock down the ability to use anything outside of the PlayStore in an IOS type move. Just hope a better Linux based phone gets done quickly because I’m not sure how many iterations of alternate Android OS generations will be able to exist as they lock things down.
all it does is prevent sideloaded apps from having access to sensitive permissions by default, which is a good thing.
True, but if it’s good for users, it should be the rule for ALL apps
Well, all apps on your phone are sideloaded, right? You’re not using Google play, are you?
Will the permissions still be allowable by goinv to the app info page from the settings, clicking the 3 dot menu in the corner and taping to allow restricted settings?
The pros for Android is sadly gone :(
deleted by creator
Extra cons:
Sidelining is not a option(yes you can do sideloady way but it will get deleted later the sideloaded and libre app support (like a invidious client for ios)
