
I should be able to opt out an app's feature based on the permission required - lando2319
https://medium.com/@mikepland/sling-tv-do-you-really-need-access-to-my-photos-so-i-can-watch-tv-7f17422e21b1#.b8k8uaj5d
======
SlashmanX
Isn't this post just asking for something that has already been implemented in
iOS and in later versions of Android?

~~~
mikeash
Yes, and that's now pointed out in an update at the bottom.

The overall idea is still important, though. Even if the OS supports granular
permissions, that doesn't mean the app does. I've seen apps ask for irrelevant
permissions and then refuse to proceed if you deny them.

~~~
kaoD
Just a random thought: would feeding dummy data solve the issue? E.g. an app
requests contacts, OS returns seemingly-innocent randomly generated contact
information. Or app requests to send an SMS, the OS informs the app the SMS
was sent, but it wasn't.

Is there any permission where dummy data would still be easily detected or
produce inconvenient (for the user, not the developer) results?

~~~
JoshTriplett
No need to return randomly-generated contacts; just hand the app an empty
contact database. Likewise, tell the app that you just don't have a location
fix.

For requesting to send an SMS, tell the app that there was a failure to send
the SMS (for reasons unrelated to permissions). Act as though you have no
signal.

~~~
wlesieutre
I wouldn't be surprised to see apps choke up and crash with an empty contacts
database. It goes to inspect your contacts, tries to read the first one
alphabetically, and fails to handle "There is no first contact."

It _shouldn 't_ happen, but you could say the same about any untested edge-
case bug.

~~~
cmdrfred
I concur, maybe give the user an option?

------
astazangasta
The larger issue is that the app stores are full of predators who are simply
interested in stealing data and selling us ads. Actually finding useful apps
is tough. For a long time I used ES File Explorer on android, a popular file
browser, until I realized that the whole app is just lbuilt to scrape my data
and show me ads. I now favor Ghost Commander, which only requires permissions
to access my files and is GPLd; the latter seems to me the best indicator of
not trying to fuck me over.

~~~
soylentcola
ES used to be a solid app but I think they were bought by another company
which added all of the dodgy "value add" crap that got me to uninstall it.

Thankfully there are several other file explorers with similar functionality
although I've not settled on one yet. I've mainly been trying out a few when I
happen to need a file explorer.

------
jdlyga
iOS is fantastic with this. You don't want the app to access your location or
camera? Deny permission when it asks for it. It's as simple as that. This
should be implemented across the board.

------
lando2319
UPDATE: Sling TV Support Response: @mikepland In regards to your inquiry, the
user is prompted for this permission because the AP stores log files on
external storage. *MD

[https://twitter.com/slinganswers/status/703255132935356420](https://twitter.com/slinganswers/status/703255132935356420)

~~~
vitd
Can an Android user explain what this means to me? Why does storing log files
on an external storage device require access to photos? That makes no sense to
a user.

~~~
arantius
There's only one external storage. And in an attempt (irony alert!) to make
permissions "easy" for users to understand, some Android people decided to
call the permission that grants access to external storage "Photos". Because
that's where the photos are stored, and it's sometimes/often the most
important/sensitive thing there.

------
dudul
Another option would be for permissions to be a bit more fine grained.

Also, forcing apps to fill in a form explaining why they need permissions Foo
and Bar could help.

Having "opt-out" features put the burden of the developer. It may not be
trivial to provide this functionality.

~~~
csydas
It's a great idea, but wouldn't this only work for well curated repositories?
Basically, it only works if someone is actually enforcing it?

Forgive my ignorance since I've only had two iPhone freebies as smart phones,
but I was under the impression with Android that you could load apps from
virtually anywhere and that for the Play store there wasn't much in the way of
curation.

As far as the implementation goes, at least, with iOS, if you forbid access
even to a key service such as Location Services for an app, the app still
launches, it just doesn't do the function requiring the service, and you get a
small nag every time you launch the app/try to use the service telling you "X
service is disabled for this app, go to Settings to enable". I can't imagine a
similar function for Android is that much more difficult.

~~~
dudul
I have very little experience with mobile apps. I only worked on a few iPhone
apps, and on the backend :) I wasn't suggesting this for store admins to
review and approve. Simply to force devs to provide informaiton.

Maybe we can trust users to curate. The form should be there at submission
time, a field per requested permission, devs should be forced to put at least
100 characters for example. If they put garbage, we can trust that the users
who care will do the right thing and ignore the app.

A lot of apps already try to provide this information on their website, or
apps description. Maybe the next step is to embed that in the store itself.

------
lanestp
All the permissions models are flawed. IMO Marshmallow actually makes it
worse. They have permissions groups so, if you request access to Play Games
accounts to reduce the login friction the app asks you for access to Contacts.
When a user opts out they get a painful login process. The real answer is for
Google to stop asking the user for permission on the group and instead ask at
the actual permission level.

------
ape4
Apps should have core permissions and optimal permissions. This way the dev
can assume some permissions and the app won't crash.

------
chakalakasp
The first problem this guy has is that he's using Sling. Sling is a terrible
service at the moment, with terrible app UI, terrible stream performance and
reliability, and terrible TV integration. Just terrible all around. Great
concept, though.

~~~
Larrikin
I used to use it years back and thought it was perfectly fine, although a
little costly. Has it degraded recently? I just recommended it to a friend
that is moving overseas, but they haven't bought it yet. Is there something
significantly better?

