Re: [luv-talk] Facebook.. Privacy? What privacy?
From: "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net>
As I understand it from this discussion, the current approach is to ask the user to grant all permissions that might be needed during installation, and then the app author can simply assume throughout the code that security restrictions won't stand in the way of the actual operations.
There are still mystifying permission requests. E.g. the YouTube app: Camera - take pictures and videos Allows the app to take pictures and videos with the camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation. I want to watch YouTube - not YouTube watching me! Why is nearly everyone asking for the permission to get the list of running applications, and the caller Ids of incoming calls? My solution is not using a smartphone at all - I don't consider the merging of phone and tablet as done in a reasonably safe way, and I don't like the idea of bugging my bedroom myself. If wanted, there would be practical simple solutions in place. E.g. a mechanical switch to connect microphone and camera to the system. Regards Peter
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Petros wrote:
From: "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net>
As I understand it from this discussion, the current approach is to ask the user to grant all permissions that might be needed during installation, and then the app author can simply assume throughout the code that security restrictions won't stand in the way of the actual operations.
There are still mystifying permission requests. E.g. the YouTube app:
Camera - take pictures and videos Allows the app to take pictures and videos with the camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.
I want to watch YouTube - not YouTube watching me!
“The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.” -- Tim Connors
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Tim Connors wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Petros wrote:
There are still mystifying permission requests. E.g. the YouTube app:
Camera - take pictures and videos Allows the app to take pictures and videos with the camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.
I want to watch YouTube - not YouTube watching me!
“The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.”
It sounded familar .. Funnily I read Orwell's 1984 in East Germany, copied and bound as a "book" by a friend. It was forbidden then. We related it to our environment: "When three of us sit together, one of us is from the Stasi". Well, the 1000 pages about a 24 years old one written by 17 people, school-mates, "friends" and church people speak volumes about how true it was, literally. Yesterday I read an article by Daniel Ellsberg (the man with the Pentagon Papers): http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427629_1_daniel-ell... "Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago." In 1971, America was a much less punitive country. Look the witch-hunt against Assange, Snowden, Manning, look at Guantanamo - the gloves are off and the majority of people support it. Add the technical means available to the authorities and you know where we're heading. I consider Open Source as more important than ever. To protect our privacy. Regards Peter
On 9 July 2013 10:58, Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
My solution is not using a smartphone at all - I don't consider the merging of phone and tablet as done in a reasonably safe way, and I don't like the idea of bugging my bedroom myself.
It will be interesting to see what develops with FirefoxOS. The problem with Android, while the base OS might be really good, the culture of Android is a platform to distribute closed source software to generate a profit, either through advertising or app sales, for Google and the software authors. Why else would software authors right software if they can't make money is the mindset. Even free apps written for public use (e.g. public transport) with public money are closed source. Closed source software means you have to trust the software author that it does what they say it does, and nothing else. Yes, permission model is suppose to help this, in a practical sense I suspect they are of limited value. How many people really check the permissions and refuse to install an app just because the list looks excessive? Closed source software means that the code is probably of poor quality also [1]. In the past I have seen arguments with Android software developers along the lines of "Why do you need permission X?" "To allow debugging." "No you don't!" <no response>. I suspect many authors blindly add permissions because they eliminate the apparent errors, without actually considering if the permission is really required or not. Also, there is no good catalogue of open source Android software for example (F-Droid last I checked was missing a number of open source applications I commonly use). Notes: [1] For that matter, I suspect there are Android applications that don't save data when the app is moved to the background, resulting in risk of data loss. e.g. incoming phone call. Android is free to kill background apps without notice, this is (and probably always has been) clearly documented. People continue to get this wrong however. Any app that has a "save" button is suspect, I think, although some apps will do the right thing. e.g. one I am testing now appears to do a silent implied save when you put it into the background, which is OK, just not completely expected. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
participants (4)
-
Brian May -
Peter -
Petros
-
Tim Connors