As long as your quoting my blog, you might as well read it. If you do
- you'll quickly find out that your whole protection scheme is moot.
Yes, like I said, ANDROID_ID is spoofable - it is "less so" since it
was moved into the secure.settings. Though IMEI is also spoofable,
along with any other id
Alex, it also trivial to spoof the IMEI if you really wanted to.
The general user is not going to be spoofing their ANDROID_ID.
On Dec 2, 1:25 am, AlexK wrote:
> ANDROID_ID compromized
>
> http://strazzere.com/blog/?tag=android_id
>
> On Dec 1, 12:23 am, strazzere wrote:
>
> > Alex, can you plea
ANDROID_ID compromized
http://strazzere.com/blog/?tag=android_id
On Dec 1, 12:23 am, strazzere wrote:
> Alex, can you please clarify something for us?
>
> > Today we did check of our sales. And found interesting aspects:
> > 1) 4% of people that install pirated copy after "black list"
> > discus
On Dec 1, 12:23 am, strazzere wrote:
> Alex, can you please clarify something for us?
>
> > Today we did check of our sales. And found interesting aspects:
> > 1) 4% of people that install pirated copy after "black list"
> > discussions and news over internet decide to buy application;
>
> How a
Alex, can you please clarify something for us?
> Today we did check of our sales. And found interesting aspects:
> 1) 4% of people that install pirated copy after "black list"
> discussions and news over internet decide to buy application;
How are you getting this number -- from your technical su
Hi,
Today we did check of our sales. And found interesting aspects:
1) 4% of people that install pirated copy after "black list"
discussions and news over internet decide to buy application;
This is really good news!
2) after changing protection and converting old versions into "honey
pots" we c
The amount of return I get from my efforts is already so minuscule
there is no way I would spend more time trying to protect myself from
piracy which the average user who walks into best buy to grab a phone
has no idea how to do. Eagerly waiting for some king of magical Market
update that improves
Ask copilot how well that worked out for them...
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Dmitry.Skiba wrote:
> > Huh? Regarding (1). That's almost the same as normal pc applications
> > that require online activation. They either get cracked, someone
> > creates a serial number generator, or people star
implementation = authentication :)
On Nov 30, 1:56 pm, LambergaR wrote:
> You could implement an oauth-ish implementation. Basically, that would
> mean:
> - user has to register on-line and purchase the application
> - at the first application run, user is redirected to web (using
> webview for e
You could implement an oauth-ish implementation. Basically, that would
mean:
- user has to register on-line and purchase the application
- at the first application run, user is redirected to web (using
webview for example) and is required to login
- application should send some information to the s
Yes, alternative shops is a solution.
But not so good, as it complicates user experience. User must somehow
become aware of this market, install it, and finally search for apps
in both markets.
On 24 ноя, 17:20, Juan Delgado wrote:
> "nor can we generate an apks"
>
> I guess that if you implement
> Huh? Regarding (1). That's almost the same as normal pc applications
> that require online activation. They either get cracked, someone
> creates a serial number generator, or people start posting stolen
> activation codes.
Yes, it all looks like PC situation.
Also, everything can be cracked, bu
Well, thanks for the info.
I was prepared it all works like that :)
And I came up with the following:
(1) We obligate user to run application within N minutes after the
purchase.
(2) Every N minutes we update application on the market (each update
effectively updates an unique id inside of applica
Huh? Regarding (1). That's almost the same as normal pc applications
that require online activation. They either get cracked, someone
creates a serial number generator, or people start posting stolen
activation codes.
On 24 Nov, 11:15, "Dmitry.Skiba" wrote:
> Nice discussion you have there...
>
"nor can we generate an apks"
I guess that if you implement your own shop (shelling through your own
website) you could generate the apks server side upon request? Not
sure this would completely fix the problem, but if you are not happy
with the Android Market there's always the possibility to rol
On Nov 24, 10:15 am, "Dmitry.Skiba" wrote:
> (1) Be able to supply an unique token to the user when he buys an app,
> and have him enter that token later in the app to activate it.
Short of (a) requiring the user to send you personal information, and
(b) manually matching up that information wit
Nice discussion you have there...
For the last few days I was thinking about how to implement protection
technics for Android apps.
One way is to go with alternative markets (like slideme) which provide
online activation (slidelock in case of slideme).
But more challenging (and interesting!) is
You are talking about general cases. In our case, any developer using
Google Checkout as a Merchant gets a lot of information from placed
order. Such information includes REAL name of customer (card issuer,
card holder name, last digits of card number, etc. ). Using this
information you may precise
As I have said, it might be legal to store some content for your
company use (though I am pretty sure that this is included somewhere
in the EULA) but I don't think it is legal to publicly share it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers"
Then wouldn't this apply to the AndroidID also?There is no permissions
needed for this information. Is google violating some laws by allowing the
"personal" information out without asking permission?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:54 AM, LambergaR wrote:
> In actuality IMEI number can be used i
You might be allowed to store personal data in some countires if you
first ask a supervisory authority if you can do so. That is what e.g.
banks are doing.
On 20 Nov, 15:29, AlexK wrote:
> ok... I got your point.
>
> Maybe you know how it's possible to have shared database of user
> history betw
@nEx.Software: Coding this kind of protection is trivial :) Effects on
the other hand are not
@AlexK: You can have that kind of history only if the employees are
informed that it exists and he agrees with it. You can require that by
including it in your employment contract if you wish.
The proble
One more note - in case if I will store IMEI proccessed by some kind
of algorithm that will make impossible reverting of the original data
the user will be 100% safe?! for example calculate MD5/ASH1 hash and
store it instead of original IMEI?!
On Nov 20, 3:53 pm, LambergaR wrote:
> You can report
ok... I got your point.
Maybe you know how it's possible to have shared database of user
history between loan companies?
My point is: everywhere where involved money give you possibility to
collect personal data and use it for own customers protection. of
course that does not mean that you can pu
You can report the user to some sort of LEGAL authority and they can
get and process users data. You (as a person that is not an law
officer) are not allowed to store and process any personal data
without my explicit permission.
So, you can report the user to police but if you are using any data
g
Any protection based on identification of the user.
So without unique information that personally related to end-user copy
protection can not be build.
>From you quotes looks like I can not report about thief because I'll
open his/here personal information?!
On Nov 20, 12:34 pm, LambergaR wrote:
Hmm... Seeing how this has now become a law debate much more so than
anything related to development (not sure if it was ever really about
development)... This should probably be shifted over to -discuss. Just
saying...
On Nov 20, 4:54 am, LambergaR wrote:
> In actuality IMEI number can be used i
In actuality IMEI number can be used identify the user.
Directive 95/46/EC article 2 paragraph a clearly states:
'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified
or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable
person is one who can be identified, directly or i
Just saying that an IMEI is not "personal data".. in the country where
I live in, at least (and that's in the EU). An IMEI alone can uniquely
identify a mobile device, not the actual person who is using it. In
broad terms, it's the same as the serial number on the back of your TV
or fridge. (quotin
Here we are talking about an EU legislation that is valid in all EU
states, but similar laws exist in US and other countries. Keeping and
processing some person data without their knowledge and allowance is
simply not allowed - and I definitely think that IMEI is something
that can identify me as a
That does of course depend on in which country you do it. You wouldn't
be allowed to do it in Sweden, and you could be sued there.
On 19 Nov, 18:51, LambergaR wrote:
> Which law do you break by gathering personal data without informing
> the user?
--
You received this message because you are
IANAL, but I think your misquoting it there.
> - in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or;
Meaning in order to protect the vital interests of the /data subject/.
The data subject being the person you are collecting data from, not
the person who is collecting the data.
On No
{QUOTE}
The legitimacy of data processing: personal data may be processed only
if the data subject has unambiguously given his/her consent or
processing is necessary:
- for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party
or;
- for compliance with a legal obligation to which the co
On Nov 19, 11:11 am, niko20 wrote:
> Seriously, stop worrying so much about this. It's a fact of life, get
> used to it. I don't think you have reached the acceptance stage yet in
> your seven stages of grieving about your app being pirated...:)
LOL...
Being pirated is a compliment isn't it? I m
Dude, next thing you'll want a dongle hanging out the side of the
phone in order to use the app.
Seriously, stop worrying so much about this. It's a fact of life, get
used to it. I don't think you have reached the acceptance stage yet in
your seven stages of grieving about your app being pirated..
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l14012_en.htm
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Which law do you break by gathering personal data without informing
the user?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send emai
On Nov 19, 2:04 pm, LambergaR wrote:
> There are a few things I would like to point out. First of all, I
> think, that Google (or the OHA) are not there to support some lazy
> developers that are not able to implement some simple web activation
> mechanism. Java apps ware (and will be) subject t
Catch You! Ha-ha!
BTW he wrote own applications not only for our company!
On Nov 19, 5:31 pm, strazzere wrote:
> > As a developer, I will definitely integrate their protection system in
> > my application and WILL deny activation if IMEI is in the black list.
>
> It would make sense for a softwa
On Nov 19, 6:10 pm, G wrote:
> Honestly I think you guys are spending way too much time and energy on
> this thing.
Less talks, more actions... Critics that authors place here helps a
lot, but in most cases are covered by our team "brainstorming".
Solution will become better if we find support
Just as a helpful suggestion, you'd be best off tracking based on some
pub/priv key system, which developer issued "evidence", so when the
inevitable happens, you can retract evidence from a certain user.
Otherwise, even with a captcha, this is just asking to be hit hard...
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at
Honestly I think you guys are spending way too much time and energy on
this thing.
Here are the facts:
FACT: Piracy is a part of life, you will never stop it, ever.
FACT: On the first page of this thread someone mentioned that we are
now in 2009 where every major application has online activation
Thanks for yours nice ideas. I'll install CAPTCHA on form.
On Nov 19, 5:04 pm, Kaj Bjurman wrote:
> So how do they they expect piracy to be reported? How do they handle a
> worm or malicious program / user that reports all IMEI numbers that it
> finds (or generates)?
>
> Creating a program that g
I think that's intended for companies that develop software...
On Nov 19, 4:01 pm, Kaj Bjurman wrote:
> Do they really expect people to manually report each phone?
>
> On 19 Nov, 12:09, Paul Turchenko wrote:
>
> > Guess they are gathering data from different application vendors. As
> > far as I
I full-heartedly agree with you LambergaR. It is an extremely flawed
plan and it simply cannot work as the creator expects.
On Nov 19, 8:27 am, LambergaR wrote:
> @nEx.Software: How can this make any sense? And, even if you do use
> this wannabe anti-piracy software, you will still have to provid
> As a developer, I will definitely integrate their protection system in
> my application and WILL deny activation if IMEI is in the black list.
It would make sense for a software developer who works at ArtfulBits
to use their own "protection", wouldn't it?
http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulturchenk
@nEx.Software: How can this make any sense? And, even if you do use
this wannabe anti-piracy software, you will still have to provide some
sort of mechanism to discover all the phones with illegal software
installed, get their IMEIs and report them to some trustworthy company
so they can process th
It would be incredibly easy to do, and I am sure that at least one
person has already thought of that as a way to prove this is not a
viable solution.
On Nov 19, 8:04 am, Kaj Bjurman wrote:
> So how do they they expect piracy to be reported? How do they handle a
> worm or malicious program / user
So how do they they expect piracy to be reported? How do they handle a
worm or malicious program / user that reports all IMEI numbers that it
finds (or generates)?
Creating a program that generates IMEI and then reports them shouldn't
be that hard.
On 19 Nov, 15:40, "nEx.Software" wrote:
> @Lam
@LambergaR: Because they are trying to trick the user into
"registering" their phone to justify they are not a pirate, but in
actuality, they user is being forced to report himself/herself as a
potential pirate and to give their personal information so that it may
be used against them in the future
Thanks but what about the easiest solution without having to set up
your own web hosting?
On Nov 19, 3:14 am, kc3000 wrote:
> compare version info from app on the device and from a latest version
> text file on the web
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Gr
Do they really expect people to manually report each phone?
On 19 Nov, 12:09, Paul Turchenko wrote:
> Guess they are gathering data from different application vendors. As
> far as I can tell, they will tell that device is 100% blacklisted only
> if 2 of 3 application vendors have reported that p
compare version info from app on the device and from a latest version
text file on the web
On Nov 18, 1:24 am, westmeadboy wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:57 pm, André wrote:
>
> > Note the users that an update is available from within your game, e.g.
>
> Out of interest, what's the easiest way to set
And BTW ... why do you force user to give you their personal data when
they try to get their device checked?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubsc
There are a few things I would like to point out. First of all, I
think, that Google (or the OHA) are not there to support some lazy
developers that are not able to implement some simple web activation
mechanism. Java apps ware (and will be) subject to reverse
engineering.
Android platform is open
Guess they are gathering data from different application vendors. As
far as I can tell, they will tell that device is 100% blacklisted only
if 2 of 3 application vendors have reported that particular IMEI has
pirated application installed. Look here:
http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/try/reportPira
AlexK - you didn't mention where you get your data for the blacklist.
I am guessing its based on pirated copies of your app. How are you
determining which users have illegal copies?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post t
+1 to Andre
Wasting time worrying about this will prevent you from doing what you
should, namely, pleasing the customers you do have.
-niko
On Nov 18, 1:24 am, westmeadboy wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:57 pm, André wrote:
>
> > Note the users that an update is available from within your game, e.g.
>
>
An a similar note -- it looks like you've enraged the user who has the
IMEI "123456789123456" - since now they're at a level 1 piracy watch!
Yikes!
http://www.artfulbits.com/android/antipiracycheck.ashx?IMEI=123456789123456
On Nov 18, 1:39 pm, Paul Turchenko wrote:
> Why emulator says that my st
Why emulator says that my status is 1??? I've just installed a fresh
one!
On Nov 18, 7:25 pm, AlexK wrote:
> Today we release anti-piracy black list check application.
>
> You can download it from Android Market - search: aiAntiPiracy
>
> Alternative Market:https://slideme.org/application/aiantip
Today we release anti-piracy black list check application.
You can download it from Android Market - search: aiAntiPiracy
Alternative Market: https://slideme.org/application/aiantipiracy
On Nov 16, 1:12 pm, AlexK wrote:
> Our company starts today anti-piracy initiative against piracy that
> alr
On Nov 18, 2:57 pm, André wrote:
> Note the users that an update is available from within your game, e.g.
Out of interest, what's the easiest way to set up something that
allows an app to auto-detect new updates?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Andr
I'm trying to counter piracy in a slightly different way: Providing
quality updates on a regular basis.
Assume you have a game and release new features (like new characters,
levels, achievements and other gimmicks) every few weeks or months.
Note the users that an update is available from within y
Just do it within those 325 characters, and hope you don't have anything
more important to say :)
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Paul Turchenko wrote:
> I'm pretty sure we, as a developers, can warn users and explain why we
> need certain permissions and assure him that we will not abuse them.
I'm pretty sure we, as a developers, can warn users and explain why we
need certain permissions and assure him that we will not abuse them.
On Nov 17, 3:30 am, Jason Van Anden wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM, nEx.Software
>
> wrote:
> > If I don't believe an application should require I
On Nov 17, 3:24 pm, Guy Cole wrote:
> So let them find another app. That isn't the point.
>
> The point is that some people don't work for free.
>
> I have already decided not to create any new "stand alone" applications for
> Android. Only services, which effectively reduces Android to a clie
So let them find another app. That isn't the point.
The point is that some people don't work for free.
I have already decided not to create any new "stand alone" applications for
Android. Only services, which effectively reduces Android to a client.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Kaj Bjurma
I doubt that it would be as much as 10%. Most people will just try to
find another app instead.
On 17 Nov, 19:12, AlexK wrote:
> On Nov 17, 7:14 pm, strazzere wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:32 am, AlexK wrote:
>
> > > In my case was stolen application with price $1.29 - pirates copies
> > > reach
What app is this? Out of curiosity...
On Nov 17, 11:12 am, AlexK wrote:
> On Nov 17, 7:14 pm, strazzere wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:32 am, AlexK wrote:
>
> > > In my case was stolen application with price $1.29 - pirates copies
> > > reach 100-300 per day, sales become dead.
>
> > > So black lis
On Nov 17, 7:14 pm, strazzere wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:32 am, AlexK wrote:
>
> > In my case was stolen application with price $1.29 - pirates copies
> > reach 100-300 per day, sales become dead.
>
> > So black list is the only way to protect my product for now.
>
> So you have had 100-300 new ins
On Nov 17, 10:32 am, AlexK wrote:
> In my case was stolen application with price $1.29 - pirates copies
> reach 100-300 per day, sales become dead.
>
> So black list is the only way to protect my product for now.
So you have had 100-300 new installs of pirated apps a day?
Or consistently have 1
In my case was stolen application with price $1.29 - pirates copies
reach 100-300 per day, sales become dead.
So black list is the only way to protect my product for now.
On Nov 17, 4:48 pm, Kaj Bjurman wrote:
> It's incorrect to believe that hackers/crackers wouldn't care about
> removing the p
Thanks for good explanation! Greatly done.
first - I do not see current version of anti-piracy implementation as
a peniciline for piracy cure. It will prevent piracy in 60-70% of
cases. I think this is more then sufficient.
Also curreny solution is mostly oriented on Android Market (AMar), and
wi
It's incorrect to believe that hackers/crackers wouldn't care about
removing the protection from a cheap products. The hackers/crackers
don't care about the price of the product, they just want to get
famous so they crack the most popular applications regardless of
price. They don't think in econom
That is TRUE. But at least that will make two things right:
1) User will think twice before install pirated software
2) User that install it without knowing that it is a pirate copy can
return "good face"
On my prognoses only 10% from that 80% will pay for application (and
my experience on other s
Idea is good. And we already brain storm it. Problem is in Google -
they don't want to listen us. They simply ignore all our requests.
For today we theoretically possible only one implementation:
1) on start application request activation with user name and device
id;
2) activation server check go
On Nov 17, 12:01 am, strazzere wrote:
> It's hard to get into all the dynamics of it, but I'll gladly have a
> conversation offline with you if you'd like to have one. I'll try to
> touch briefly upon most of this though.
>
> Yes - I agreed the protection Google has implemented does not suffice
To be honest, I don't like the unknown permitssion. I have ever used an
input method which is amazing. But it needs locating permitssion. I don't
know why. So, I abandoned it.
2009/11/17 Jason Van Anden
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM, nEx.Software
> wrote:
> > If I don't believe an applicat
One effective way I have ever considered is:
Market application maintains a list which contains the buying
information for all the applications. Example:
App foo: packageName;orderNumber;...
Market check the list period: check all the order number with the
google count in the mobile; if the orderN
"Only 20% of all installs are legal, other 80% are in
piracy hands."
I believe that in case of perfect copy protection only few of that 80%
would buy your app.
On 16 ноя, 14:12, AlexK wrote:
> Our company starts today anti-piracy initiative against piracy that
> already happened on Android Marke
>From the technical side, I suspect they intended to eventually do something
like that. But on arm (for whatever reason) iptables incurred a -huge-
performance impact, so it was shelved/skipped. (And while you could probably
muck about with the API and restrict well-behaved apps, you couldn't
restr
I have always felt that there needs to be more granular permissions
for Internet usage. For example, with Google Analytics for Mobile... I
would like to see an "Analytics" variant of the Internet permission.
Or as you mentioned, if there is a phone home aspect, there could be
permission and associa
Presumably all these apps are just 'phoning home' for tracking usage
stats and such - nothing malicious (whether it's a good ideas is
another question). Couldn't the same thing be done by an open intent
that is called by all of these apps? Then the apps themselves don't
need to request internet a
Personally, I am not interested in how or if they continue to use my
app. That is their business, not mine.
On Nov 16, 6:30 pm, Jason Van Anden wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM, nEx.Software
>
> wrote:
> > If I don't believe an application should require Internet, I don't
> > install it
I stand by my statement... Be up front, don't hide your intention and
I will most likely be okay with it. Some developers actually do this,
more need to.
I would not necessarily think it is odd that a music app would want
internet access. There are lots of good reasons why it might want this
permi
>>> Not to mention that just because someone might have pirated some app
>>> at some time, doesn't mean that they pirated your app.
>>> That's why it needs to be able to check against Google Checkout or
>>> whatever payment processor is used...
>>
>> Also not to mention how many people buy out-of-
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM, nEx.Software
wrote:
> If I don't believe an application should require Internet, I don't
> install it. I hope that there are others who do the same. To require
> internet permissions (with the current generic internet permission) on
> an app which really does not n
It's hard to get into all the dynamics of it, but I'll gladly have a
conversation offline with you if you'd like to have one. I'll try to
touch briefly upon most of this though.
Yes - I agreed the protection Google has implemented does not suffice
for now. One would have hoped it could have been r
sounds like conservation talks. I'm afraid because I don't understand
what they are doing. I will not sit into train, because I don't know
who in the front of it...
Good application on which spent a lot of efforts requires good
protection. You pay money for application and it services, and in
righ
You are making right comments.
Yes, in some very rear cases user without internet connection will not
have possibility to activate product. But let's look into reality -
what channel used for legal application installing?! Right answer is -
Android Market that download application over internet. (
By the way... Dan, I love your apps and you can user stat me all you
want... :)
On Nov 16, 2:28 pm, strazzere wrote:
> On Nov 16, 4:24 pm, AlexK wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, strazzere wrote:
> > Measures:
> > - always sign application by digital signature;
> > - distribute only over verifie
sorry man, but Google did not do own "home work" well. There copy
protection does not work.
The only way to protect after that is server side license generation -
activation. If I will know better solution I'll use it, but I do not
have other solutions for today that can prevent effectively stolen
On Nov 16, 4:24 pm, AlexK wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, strazzere wrote:
> Measures:
> - always sign application by digital signature;
> - distribute only over verified channels;
> - try to use obfuscation;
> - use server side activation.
This hasn't protected any applications released yet, it
No, I completely understand that developers might use it but... Given
the generic permission, I'd prefer not to use it unless completely
necessary. That being said, if a developer is up front about it and
tells me why they want those permissions, I am far less cautious...
Generally speaking, I don'
On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, strazzere wrote:
> Since reversing an application is a rather menial task now, whats to
> prevent a user from taking your application - stripping the protection
> and re-releasing it? Not to mention that IMEI spoofing to an
> application can be done with a little bit of resea
I understand your point completely, but just pointing out a very legitimate
reason for some of those apps would be user stats (flurry, google
analytics), or ad serving (admob, etc). :)
- Dan
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM, nEx.Software
wrote:
> If I don't believe an application should require I
On Nov 16, 4:04 pm, Paul Turchenko wrote:
> I highly doubt that anyone would do that for $1 application. Effort
> not worth trying.
Maybe a 99 cent application wouldn't be worth reversing, but we aren't
talking about one application. We're talking about applications that
specifically are accessin
On Nov 16, 9:02 pm, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:34 AM, nEx.Software wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that just because someone might have pirated some app
> > at some time, doesn't mean that they pirated your app.
> > That's why it needs to be able to check against Google Checkout
If I don't believe an application should require Internet, I don't
install it. I hope that there are others who do the same. To require
internet permissions (with the current generic internet permission) on
an app which really does not need it, such as aiFlashlight, gives me
reason to question the
Yes, INTERNET permission required.
For example In our application we show activation dialog with
description about activation process.
In your cases can be done something different.
On Nov 16, 8:16 pm, "nEx.Software"
wrote:
> Of course, now you have to add Full Internet permission to every app
>
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
