Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "R.Wieser" Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: Android keyboard: your choice. Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:14:01 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <20240617114559.a2970ac2923facc44a2ec355@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:15:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="feb5a5d2e22200e8e785bac44e28606b"; logging-data="3263749"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oMFLWwv4D6UfTQQoTBAYNV5OooOpkRrN7Skq4FQWDJQ==" Cancel-Lock: sha1:UZpnXYrIJd6VD5A7TqXsoVPAzTs= X-Priority: 3 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Bytes: 3242 Arno, > An app *must* contain the permission request in the manifest, > regardless if it actually uses it or not. I take that as "regardless if it *directly* uses it or not." But do you recognise that way of doing stuff might be problematic ? If you lend your phone to someone a friend or your kid(s) get a hold of it (wanting to play a game perhaps) they might cause the permission to be asked for, and than it won't be you answering the question. Time will tell if my phone uses the same "late binding" mechanism. I hope not though. > It will only access contact data, when you enable the setting for it in > the app, otherwise not. :-) You talk as if you are smart enough, but at the same time you seem to blindly trust an apps honesty in obeying a setting it manages it itself. I don't. .... and the phone-OS makers don't either, proven by the existence of an OS-enforced "permissions firewall". > Also see the options in the app - "Suggest Contact names" is a good > hint what the permission for contact reading is used for. You're sounding rather gullible there. :-( They *tell you* that they will /just/ take the contact names, and leave everything else (you know, phone numbers, adresses, etc.) alone, and you believe them ? Again, I don't. Its not about what they /tell you/ what they are going to do, its about *whats possible* they could do. Also, there is a reason why some phone OS-es offer you to provide apps asking for such a permission a fake list. > Better than just assuming that the app does not respect your privacy just > because of an *optional* permission. You sound like you will have no problem with handing off your wallet (containing money, bank cards and passport) to a random stranger when he asks for it. What ? You would not trust a random stranger like that ? But you still expect me to (blindly) trust a random app ? Really ? Regards, Rudy Wieser