[Frazzydee]

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-p...

[userbinator]

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...

[Karunamon]

Or, rather, it could be because the feature was unfinished and tended to crash applications when they don't get the stuff that's called for (and the user authorized) on the permission manifest.

http://pocketnow.com/2013/12/17/app-ops

Something something malice stupidity. But no, let's bring out the torches and pitchforks...

[wahsd]

I would bet money it has to do with business decisions that relate to carrier demands to support Android. People forget that Android is not in the same position as iOS to impose its will on carriers. Rather, the power dynamics are rather significantly the opposite, Android has to do far more negotiation and accommodating to assuage carriers.

Unfortunately, with the waning and sobering infatuation with iPhones and iOS, I have a sense that iOS will start and maybe even has made concessions that it otherwise would not be willing to. We have to realize that as long as network carriers are not what they should be, dumb pipes for data who make their money simply on competitive network performance, we are all subject to a protection racket type dynamic.

[untog]

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.

[oshepherd]

So I have an application which can attach location information to posts made from it. It requests access to location data (as is necessary) when installed, then lets you turn that feature on or off from an internal setting.

The request for location data implies the usage of the location feature, so the Android package manager won't let you install it on devices without a coarse location provider.

Therefore, like most Android apps which lookup location information, it just assumed that it could do location lookups. No point testing for a feature which will always be present, right?

Now guess what would happen if you used AppOps to turn location off? That's right, it would crash.

Not exactly acceptable user experience.

Now, what Google should do is probably: * For apps targetting Android 4.5+, certain features with privacy implications will default to OPTIONAL rather than REQUIRED when implied by a permission request. * AppOps is then able to toggle access to features which are declared optional, which apps must handle the absence of anyway.

[fleitz]

Because Android isn't the product, you are the product.

[presootto]

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.

[scep12]

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]

>given that they are clearly working on a solution for this exact problem.

Evidence?

[Pxtl]

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.

[fooqux]

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.