On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Chris Stratton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2:59 pm, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Adding check boxes to let the users turn on and off the existing things > is > > in my opinion *not* an improvement. > > Without this, you must have a design that is perfect for all users for > all purposes. > > The scheduler/task killer is a great example of the android team's occasional insistence (at least in public) that they know better than the users and can perfect any system. (Until, of course, a few versions later where they implemented the 'stop tasks' button in the app manager and added the associated permission. As far as that goes, I think it is in a healthier place - better automatics plus the ability to override them. Except for the probably-neverending fight against autokillers created by their original claims that it was already perfect and the user must be doing something wrong...) With any luck, we've hit that "few versions" on this problem also and it'll get very quiet, then suddenly appear in a code dump... :) > With it, the user has the ultimate authority over their device, their > personal information and their bandwidth bill. > Remember when "no roaming data" wasn't even an option? I think a lot of the problems with data permission comes from the fact that the android team tends to be somewhat US-centric, where unlimited plans are the norm. In the US in general we're not used to thinking per-meg.. > No real-world engineering system can be so perfect as to not need > timely maintenance in the face of the unexpected (or noted but > unwisely dismissed) problems which develop over its user life, and no > carrier update system is going to be reactive enough. Android does > not provide app-store-level auditing, which is is fine (welcome > freedom to publish, really) - but android also does not let users > perform necessary permissions maintenance in the face of new security > threats, especially those unwisely played down by google. > > I think, outside the technical aspects, the other concern is advertising - "people will disable ads, then developers will stop doing 'free' apps and nobody will buy paid apps and the whole thing will fall apart." I also think it isn't an issue - devs that have that problem can simply upgrade to the new API, discover they have been blocked, and refuse to run... There was a post a very long time ago by hackbod indicating you could just use the ad provider as a separate app, thereby making sure that the app with the sensitive data doesn't need to request gps/internet perms solely for serve ads. Had that become "the way", I suspect we'd see a lot less support for this plan and a lot less "click ok to make it work" from the users. Huge permission lists would be the exception rather than the rule. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Security Discussions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]<android-security-discuss%[email protected]> . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-security-discuss?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Security Discussions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-security-discuss?hl=en.
