So the other day I decided to get myself an upgrade from my old Moto Milestone. I moved on up to the HTC Desire HD.
While there are other phones on the market in canada that are also very good, or even better (ergo, Moto Atrix), I'm not big on locked bootloaders. I am however, big on HTC Sense. I've only read all the great things about it.
Using my phone for only a few days, Sense is great. But I'm looking at the community seeing much room for improvement, since my carrier is historically bad for updates and there's a mostly stock 2.3.3 update floating around the community... So within a week, I switch my phone Eng S-Off and went ahead with the flashing, I couldn't be happier. It's amazing the amount of battery life improvements that google made, software side, between 2.2 and 2.3 simply amazing.
I chose a very stock rom to maintain HTC Sense and all the features in sense. I especially love Locations, where you can browse maps, offline. Which is amazing.
With this new knowlege, of flashing on HTC, I'm starting to take an interest in Android as a platform. I'm probably going to try to pick up some Java coding manuals, and get started on some apps. What I was hoping to ask, if I could, is if anyone wants to see an app that does not yet exist. The simpler the better. Has to be for Android. I'm looking for start-up projects to get me started learning the coding so that I can learn how, while producing something useful.
When posting please include your device, so I know what platforms I should expect to make the app work on.
I'll try to post again soon if I get some good ideas.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
HTC EVO 3D
I just came across this little tidbit
http://youtu.be/JSuD45mRl_o
now, I have a lot of mixed feelings about the supposed "3D" technologies, but one outcry I keep hearing is how horrid they are for straining your eyes. Having products on the market, like 3D Televisions, and the Nintendo 3DS is bad enough, but they want to take something you use, all day, every day, and make it 3D? talk about eye strain.
Prescription glasses time.
I'm sorry HTC, but if you produce this, I will NEVER BUY IT.
as a side note, could you guys POSSIBLY, put out a newest generation cellphone (no 3D please), that has a dual-core 1+Ghz CPU and MORE THAN 512MB RAM, running android 2.2 or newer, that has a keyboard? possibly? please?
My moto milestone is getting dated.
http://youtu.be/JSuD45mRl_o
now, I have a lot of mixed feelings about the supposed "3D" technologies, but one outcry I keep hearing is how horrid they are for straining your eyes. Having products on the market, like 3D Televisions, and the Nintendo 3DS is bad enough, but they want to take something you use, all day, every day, and make it 3D? talk about eye strain.
Prescription glasses time.
I'm sorry HTC, but if you produce this, I will NEVER BUY IT.
as a side note, could you guys POSSIBLY, put out a newest generation cellphone (no 3D please), that has a dual-core 1+Ghz CPU and MORE THAN 512MB RAM, running android 2.2 or newer, that has a keyboard? possibly? please?
My moto milestone is getting dated.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Android
Dear Google,
I love your android operating system, but I have one, very serious, very important suggestion.
Not to assume I know any way to implement what I'm suggesting, or if it's even possible. Not at all. Nor would I suggest that Android is not the best mobile OS I've ever seen; I would never do such a thing.
In fact, Android is so good, that I'm already planning my next-new phone purchase, and limiting myself only to Androids. I've thoroughly enjoyed the system and will continue to do so.
Finally, before I get to my point, I'd like to say that I know you don't control the app community, you merely facilitate it, which is fine! We appreciate the centralized distribution of apps. It's great in fact, simply wonderful, that even someone programming Java out of their basement can put out something simple and entertaining.
My suggestion is: make application permissions variable. 90% of the time, 90% of permissions are not necessary. Prime example, why does an application like slice it (I've been picking on them) require GPS? If I put my phone into "airplane" mode, I'm sure the app will function just fine, without GPS or network access. Obviously some applications will simply fail if they don't, like Google Maps. This is why I would recommend to give the control back to the users. Rather than have it setup where you either accept whatever permissions they're requesting of you, or don't use the application, you can still install/use an application and deny it access to something like, your phone book, text messaging, phone ID, GPS and network location services, SD Card access, etc.
I don't believe it would be difficult to do, and you could even have it default to whatever permissions the application requests... maybe add a "change allowed permissions" type feature to the bottom of the market page when you go to install a new application.
I think all consumers understand that if you want to do geotagging on your facebook photos, you'll need to give the facebook for android application permission to read GPS, access the internet, and permission to use the camera. I think we get that.
As I'm sure you'll be ignoring our cries again, I'm sure this is all just wasted breath.
Some flexability would be nice though.
Try not to turn into Apple.
Thanks.
Bye.
I love your android operating system, but I have one, very serious, very important suggestion.
Not to assume I know any way to implement what I'm suggesting, or if it's even possible. Not at all. Nor would I suggest that Android is not the best mobile OS I've ever seen; I would never do such a thing.
In fact, Android is so good, that I'm already planning my next-new phone purchase, and limiting myself only to Androids. I've thoroughly enjoyed the system and will continue to do so.
Finally, before I get to my point, I'd like to say that I know you don't control the app community, you merely facilitate it, which is fine! We appreciate the centralized distribution of apps. It's great in fact, simply wonderful, that even someone programming Java out of their basement can put out something simple and entertaining.
My suggestion is: make application permissions variable. 90% of the time, 90% of permissions are not necessary. Prime example, why does an application like slice it (I've been picking on them) require GPS? If I put my phone into "airplane" mode, I'm sure the app will function just fine, without GPS or network access. Obviously some applications will simply fail if they don't, like Google Maps. This is why I would recommend to give the control back to the users. Rather than have it setup where you either accept whatever permissions they're requesting of you, or don't use the application, you can still install/use an application and deny it access to something like, your phone book, text messaging, phone ID, GPS and network location services, SD Card access, etc.
I don't believe it would be difficult to do, and you could even have it default to whatever permissions the application requests... maybe add a "change allowed permissions" type feature to the bottom of the market page when you go to install a new application.
I think all consumers understand that if you want to do geotagging on your facebook photos, you'll need to give the facebook for android application permission to read GPS, access the internet, and permission to use the camera. I think we get that.
As I'm sure you'll be ignoring our cries again, I'm sure this is all just wasted breath.
Some flexability would be nice though.
Try not to turn into Apple.
Thanks.
Bye.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Usage Based Billing
I had a few thoughts that I originally posted elsewhere and thought it would be a good addition here too.
I havn't updated in a while and this is relevant.
Canada has been undergoing some changes in the form of Usage Based Billing, aka, use more internet, pay more...
ON THE SURFACE, aka a consumer view, it's completely unfair to charge someone for a service they've been getting. eg, 200GB, or an Unlimited cap, etc.
but the reality of the situation, that most people don't know/understand, is that UBB has existed for a long time, not just on the client side. It's actually fairly standard practice in the business internet sector to always provide the fastest links possible and just charge for usage. This is mainly due to, when you need the data, you need it now, not 50 minutes from now, so transferring it as fast as possible increases productivity, but normally, you'll have to transfer that much data regardless.
In Hamilton, Burlington, and the west-side of the GTA, give Atria networks (formerly fibrewired) a call and ask them about their billing. Atria is the fiber provider that used to be part of the hydro-electric company, they're geared towards extreme high-speed (typically business) applications. I'm sure they'll have a flat fee for hookup and a set usage that they don't bill for, but after the usage "cap" you're paying by the GB.
Since Consumer based usage is on so much of a dramatic increase, with youtube, netflix, torrents and other peer-to-peer sharing becoming even more popular as we fill up the IPv4, it used to make sense to give out unlimited, since most customers would not use a lot of it, and they wouldn't really notice, and/or care that their super fast connection wasn't really being used.... while others would use it to an extreme level, everything used to balance out. Now, the usage has gone up so much that they're losing a lot of profit because of the bandwidth fees that the ISPs are incurring due to high usage from their customers and the smaller ISPs.
All this aside, I don't fully agree nor disagree with UBB (I disagree for obvious reasons, so I'll only discuss what I agree with). UBB would be written into the service agreement between (for example), bell and teksavvy. each would have to sign it saying that for service X from bell, that teksavvy will contribute X to bell (where the latter "X" here would usually be money). THAT agreement should either include or not include UBB. if it does not, and bell applies it to the agreement without first re-negotiating with Teksavvy, then bell should be taken to court for breach of contract. This goes double for Bell's capping of "GAS" customer's p2p traffic. If they want to do it to their own customers, fine, but if those customers switch to Teksavvy, then Teksavvy should have a contract stating that they shouldn't be capped like they would be on Bell.
The distribution network is OWNED by Bell here, and as their property, they can police it as they wish. To me, this is no different than hiring security guards to keep your property safe. You set the rules and policies that the guards have to abide, then send them out to protect the land. If anyone trespasses or breaks some arbitrary rule that you've set fourth, then the guards should spring into action, protecting your land from usage other than what you permit.
The dilemma I have with this is that the lines used for the DSL distribution network that Bell is policing, is public property, has been for quite some time. This is why we have choices when it comes to home phones... The switched network is public, bell just maintains it. They established it, they know everything about it, so that just makes sense.
With your Cable providers, whether it's Rogers, Cogeco, or otherwise, they own the cable lines into your house, so they can regulate what goes on there too. AFAIK, those are NOT public property, so we're all focused on bell, rather than rogers or cogeco.
In the end I'm torn, because all of this makes sense, but I hate UBB just like everyone else. But I can't deny the fact that I can see both sides of this argument. I really hope UBB is regulated, because the current laws allow for the consumer, who doesn't have many good options, to be completely ripped off by the companies that provide internet. I can understand UBB, but at a reasonable level. Teksavvy had some overly generous levels, but they were better than overly restrictive (as bell has).
I havn't updated in a while and this is relevant.
Canada has been undergoing some changes in the form of Usage Based Billing, aka, use more internet, pay more...
ON THE SURFACE, aka a consumer view, it's completely unfair to charge someone for a service they've been getting. eg, 200GB, or an Unlimited cap, etc.
but the reality of the situation, that most people don't know/understand, is that UBB has existed for a long time, not just on the client side. It's actually fairly standard practice in the business internet sector to always provide the fastest links possible and just charge for usage. This is mainly due to, when you need the data, you need it now, not 50 minutes from now, so transferring it as fast as possible increases productivity, but normally, you'll have to transfer that much data regardless.
In Hamilton, Burlington, and the west-side of the GTA, give Atria networks (formerly fibrewired) a call and ask them about their billing. Atria is the fiber provider that used to be part of the hydro-electric company, they're geared towards extreme high-speed (typically business) applications. I'm sure they'll have a flat fee for hookup and a set usage that they don't bill for, but after the usage "cap" you're paying by the GB.
Since Consumer based usage is on so much of a dramatic increase, with youtube, netflix, torrents and other peer-to-peer sharing becoming even more popular as we fill up the IPv4, it used to make sense to give out unlimited, since most customers would not use a lot of it, and they wouldn't really notice, and/or care that their super fast connection wasn't really being used.... while others would use it to an extreme level, everything used to balance out. Now, the usage has gone up so much that they're losing a lot of profit because of the bandwidth fees that the ISPs are incurring due to high usage from their customers and the smaller ISPs.
All this aside, I don't fully agree nor disagree with UBB (I disagree for obvious reasons, so I'll only discuss what I agree with). UBB would be written into the service agreement between (for example), bell and teksavvy. each would have to sign it saying that for service X from bell, that teksavvy will contribute X to bell (where the latter "X" here would usually be money). THAT agreement should either include or not include UBB. if it does not, and bell applies it to the agreement without first re-negotiating with Teksavvy, then bell should be taken to court for breach of contract. This goes double for Bell's capping of "GAS" customer's p2p traffic. If they want to do it to their own customers, fine, but if those customers switch to Teksavvy, then Teksavvy should have a contract stating that they shouldn't be capped like they would be on Bell.
The distribution network is OWNED by Bell here, and as their property, they can police it as they wish. To me, this is no different than hiring security guards to keep your property safe. You set the rules and policies that the guards have to abide, then send them out to protect the land. If anyone trespasses or breaks some arbitrary rule that you've set fourth, then the guards should spring into action, protecting your land from usage other than what you permit.
The dilemma I have with this is that the lines used for the DSL distribution network that Bell is policing, is public property, has been for quite some time. This is why we have choices when it comes to home phones... The switched network is public, bell just maintains it. They established it, they know everything about it, so that just makes sense.
With your Cable providers, whether it's Rogers, Cogeco, or otherwise, they own the cable lines into your house, so they can regulate what goes on there too. AFAIK, those are NOT public property, so we're all focused on bell, rather than rogers or cogeco.
In the end I'm torn, because all of this makes sense, but I hate UBB just like everyone else. But I can't deny the fact that I can see both sides of this argument. I really hope UBB is regulated, because the current laws allow for the consumer, who doesn't have many good options, to be completely ripped off by the companies that provide internet. I can understand UBB, but at a reasonable level. Teksavvy had some overly generous levels, but they were better than overly restrictive (as bell has).
Monday, January 17, 2011
Anti-virus hoax
The Antivirus hoax is one that I think infects all layers of antiviral software, both legitimate and non.
Hello folks, sorry I havn't posted in a while. Seems tonight is an insomnia night so I thought I'd update you all based on some observations in the past few days.
It's no secret that I work with the public, on their computers, and often when they become infected with malware/virii. The customers I've dealt with have had just about every antivirus program under the sun. Everything from McAfee, to Norton, to AVG (the paid version)... the list goes on and on. At work, our systems use Nod32, so everything is in the mix. I still have yet to see anything that would remotely constitute a "good" antivirus.
Internet Explorer's best-known trait is that it's vulnerable. A program can install itself by ActiveX almost always without the user's knowledge or permission. A lot of my customers use IE. I use IE at work because some of our software only works correctly in IE. An interesting thing happened today, but first, some background.
Many of the recent virus programs (or malware if you insist), are part of a new trend called "rogue antivirus". We've seen a few of these, including Security Tool 2011, Thinkpoint, and Palladium, to name a few. All pose as Antiviral software, proporting to be internationally renowned as excellent software (usually "worlds leading antivirus" or something like that), all of which ask for a payment for services (usually around $80), to fix the supposed issues on your system. Fact is, the issues don't exist, the program is a fraud, and paying for it won't change a thing...
These Rogues get onto your computer by very crafty webpages that utilize a large amount of Javascript to animate, what looks to be, a Windows Explorer, showing several infections in shared folders, local disks, etc. with very convincing progress bars and the sort. To the untrained eye, a prompt like this represents a huge problem, and any attempts to close it are met by a prompt asking if you're sure you want to 'navigate away' from the page, and often, the page will re-open itself when closed. To the trained eye, this is an obvious fraud, and should be destroyed with great Prejudice.
Well, while googling something for a customer early this morning (now yesterday morning), I came across one of these pages, hosted from an IP, and "impossible" to close. My first instinct was to destroy it, however, if I killed IE, half the pages I needed to perform my job would go away too, so I opted to block the site... with the URL clearly visible, I opened Internet Options and added the IP to the list of restricted sites... after a short bout of trying to refresh the page, it returned with a blank page (all scripts were blocked, so no content was showing)... interesting, I can now painlessly close the page and return to work.
I decide to check something, so I remove the restriction, and refresh the page. I select to download whatever software they're pimping out, and save the file to the desktop. I ask Nod32 to scan it... 2 files scanned, 0 viruses.
Interesting.
I'm certain the situation would be the same for Norton, McAfee, AVG, Trend... the list goes on.
I renamed the file to "THIS IS A VIRUS.exe" and left it on my desktop, now in my roaming profile. I'll see how long it will be until the file get's picked up. My guess is at least 3-4 weeks, if ever.
All antivirus software is like this. The majority of the time people just keep eliminating the virus and the SOURCE of the virus just moves on and stops hosting the old virus... so it goes away... this is more likely to happen than a definition being put out that will actually stop the software from infecting your computer.
I havn't used an Antivirus in many years on any of my main PCs, in my humble opinion, they're useless. Knowing when to close a browser window and knowing when to deny a UAC prompt is about a million times more useful than any antivirus.
User education over user protection. Unfortunately, not many users want to learn, they just want their farmville.
Hello folks, sorry I havn't posted in a while. Seems tonight is an insomnia night so I thought I'd update you all based on some observations in the past few days.
It's no secret that I work with the public, on their computers, and often when they become infected with malware/virii. The customers I've dealt with have had just about every antivirus program under the sun. Everything from McAfee, to Norton, to AVG (the paid version)... the list goes on and on. At work, our systems use Nod32, so everything is in the mix. I still have yet to see anything that would remotely constitute a "good" antivirus.
Internet Explorer's best-known trait is that it's vulnerable. A program can install itself by ActiveX almost always without the user's knowledge or permission. A lot of my customers use IE. I use IE at work because some of our software only works correctly in IE. An interesting thing happened today, but first, some background.
Many of the recent virus programs (or malware if you insist), are part of a new trend called "rogue antivirus". We've seen a few of these, including Security Tool 2011, Thinkpoint, and Palladium, to name a few. All pose as Antiviral software, proporting to be internationally renowned as excellent software (usually "worlds leading antivirus" or something like that), all of which ask for a payment for services (usually around $80), to fix the supposed issues on your system. Fact is, the issues don't exist, the program is a fraud, and paying for it won't change a thing...
These Rogues get onto your computer by very crafty webpages that utilize a large amount of Javascript to animate, what looks to be, a Windows Explorer, showing several infections in shared folders, local disks, etc. with very convincing progress bars and the sort. To the untrained eye, a prompt like this represents a huge problem, and any attempts to close it are met by a prompt asking if you're sure you want to 'navigate away' from the page, and often, the page will re-open itself when closed. To the trained eye, this is an obvious fraud, and should be destroyed with great Prejudice.
Well, while googling something for a customer early this morning (now yesterday morning), I came across one of these pages, hosted from an IP, and "impossible" to close. My first instinct was to destroy it, however, if I killed IE, half the pages I needed to perform my job would go away too, so I opted to block the site... with the URL clearly visible, I opened Internet Options and added the IP to the list of restricted sites... after a short bout of trying to refresh the page, it returned with a blank page (all scripts were blocked, so no content was showing)... interesting, I can now painlessly close the page and return to work.
I decide to check something, so I remove the restriction, and refresh the page. I select to download whatever software they're pimping out, and save the file to the desktop. I ask Nod32 to scan it... 2 files scanned, 0 viruses.
Interesting.
I'm certain the situation would be the same for Norton, McAfee, AVG, Trend... the list goes on.
I renamed the file to "THIS IS A VIRUS.exe" and left it on my desktop, now in my roaming profile. I'll see how long it will be until the file get's picked up. My guess is at least 3-4 weeks, if ever.
All antivirus software is like this. The majority of the time people just keep eliminating the virus and the SOURCE of the virus just moves on and stops hosting the old virus... so it goes away... this is more likely to happen than a definition being put out that will actually stop the software from infecting your computer.
I havn't used an Antivirus in many years on any of my main PCs, in my humble opinion, they're useless. Knowing when to close a browser window and knowing when to deny a UAC prompt is about a million times more useful than any antivirus.
User education over user protection. Unfortunately, not many users want to learn, they just want their farmville.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Untangle!
The upcoming, soon-to-be-released, Version 8.1 of Untangle, which (as you may have guessed), inspired the naming of this blog, is finally going to be released... It's undergoing final testing, and the one aspect that I've seen in similar products (such as IPCOP, and similar), is finally being included.
Web Caching!
They just finished the plugin and everything... this is awesome.
What's the big deal? (you may ask) ... well, Web Caching, is something that your browser does automatically. It pulls a page down, and saves it, and if you're like me and keep reloading contect from the same pages over and over, over the course of a few hours, then the browser just reloads the content it already has, rather than download everything all over and over again.
You just said computers already do this, why is this a big deal at all?
... well curious reader, Untangle is a routing system, so it replaces the in-house router in your home (Kind of like a d-link or linksys system), however, because it's a full-fledged computer system it has a lot more options available. Web caching at the router means that if you're sitting at home, and you have guests in your house, and you see that picture that makes you "ZOMG SO AWESOME!!!111one", and you send it to everyone else in the house (presuming you're like me and all your friends bring laptops to your house), then it just reloads from the copy stored on the router.
ALSO, if you're like me, this is important because bandwidth is expensive. So rather than downloading the same content 5 or 6 times, it can be downloaded once from the internet, the router intercepts the requests and responds with the locally cached version. This saves you bandwidth, and probably more importantly, saves you time. As long as it's implemented right, the local web cache is much faster than most web server's response times, and it's much faster at transferring to you than it would be through the web.
Best example of the positive contribution to bandwidth is Windows Updates!! the dreaded evil things. They go out all the time and annoy you constantly saying they need to install, reboot, etc. Now, with web caching, those updates are stored locally on the router, so when your computer goes to download them (sometimes several hundred MB in size) it simply retrieves it from the router, which goes faster, so updating is less painful (but still painful), and it doesn't cost you in your monthly usage (eg update size times number of systems).
This is surely an exciting time, and I think I'll have to dust off one of my old P4 units and reinstall this new version of Untangle...
if you havn't heard of them or used them yet, check them out at http://www.untangle.com/
Web Caching!
They just finished the plugin and everything... this is awesome.
What's the big deal? (you may ask) ... well, Web Caching, is something that your browser does automatically. It pulls a page down, and saves it, and if you're like me and keep reloading contect from the same pages over and over, over the course of a few hours, then the browser just reloads the content it already has, rather than download everything all over and over again.
You just said computers already do this, why is this a big deal at all?
... well curious reader, Untangle is a routing system, so it replaces the in-house router in your home (Kind of like a d-link or linksys system), however, because it's a full-fledged computer system it has a lot more options available. Web caching at the router means that if you're sitting at home, and you have guests in your house, and you see that picture that makes you "ZOMG SO AWESOME!!!111one", and you send it to everyone else in the house (presuming you're like me and all your friends bring laptops to your house), then it just reloads from the copy stored on the router.
ALSO, if you're like me, this is important because bandwidth is expensive. So rather than downloading the same content 5 or 6 times, it can be downloaded once from the internet, the router intercepts the requests and responds with the locally cached version. This saves you bandwidth, and probably more importantly, saves you time. As long as it's implemented right, the local web cache is much faster than most web server's response times, and it's much faster at transferring to you than it would be through the web.
Best example of the positive contribution to bandwidth is Windows Updates!! the dreaded evil things. They go out all the time and annoy you constantly saying they need to install, reboot, etc. Now, with web caching, those updates are stored locally on the router, so when your computer goes to download them (sometimes several hundred MB in size) it simply retrieves it from the router, which goes faster, so updating is less painful (but still painful), and it doesn't cost you in your monthly usage (eg update size times number of systems).
This is surely an exciting time, and I think I'll have to dust off one of my old P4 units and reinstall this new version of Untangle...
if you havn't heard of them or used them yet, check them out at http://www.untangle.com/
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Your apps are spying on you.
big surprise.
Remember TextPlus4 that you installed? yep, now ad agencies have your phone's unique ID, location, and sometimes even your gender and age... who knows what else? your contact list?
This article comes as no surprise to me.
I have beef with Apple and Google wiping their hands of the responsibility by having applications require to disclose what permissions they're asking for, because honestly, if you want to use an application, the stuff it doesn't tell you it's doing, doesn't really matter, right?
wrong.
My beef with this is that they're putting the focus on the consumers giving permissions that the software is requesting. A lot of users don't even know what these permissions are, or what they include. "Location" ... okay, so if I turn on GPS, and open that app, are they going to know the address of the house I'm sitting in? Or if I've recently "closed" the application (and it's still running a service in the background), and get in my car and activate my GPS for navigation, are they going to know where I am then? and where I'm going?
The biggest complaint I have with the permissions isn't just that noone seems to understand them, it's that there's no options. You either grant all permissions, or don't. by declining, you're also opt-ing out of using the application.
How about this: The application requests permissions and you choose what permissions it should have access to. For example. If I go to install the game Slice It (which I believe is available on both iPhone and Android), and it requests (these are the actual permissions requested on Android) Your Location (both network and GPS), Network Communication (Full Inet access, Network state, Wifi state), Storage (SD Card access), Phone calls (read phone state and identity), System tools (retrieve running apps, change wifi state).
Why does it need all that?
Do I want Slice It to know where I am? not really. Do I get a choice? not if I want to use the application. Why does it need to know my identity and phone state? does the application want to know if I'm on a call while playing the game? Doubtful.
Do you think that if I asked the developer why they wanted all these permissions, that they would give me a straight answer? Probably not. Additionally, there's no way to revoke permissions other than to remove the application. This is my biggest gripe... Do you really believe that an application, such as Slice It would NOT WORK if there was no location data and no network access? I'm guessing it would, I can put my phone into airplane mode (all radios off) and start up the game, and it would likely run fine.
I get some of the permissions, they make sense, like SD card access to save games and stuff, and Network access to download levels without the need to update the whole application in the market, etc... but I should have the capability of granting or revoking those as I see fit.
The permissions shouldn't be "these are the permissions it wants, is that ok?" it should be that the permissions requested by the application are granted individually, rather than as a group.
But hell, what the hell do I know? I'm just a paranoid consumer right?
Remember TextPlus4 that you installed? yep, now ad agencies have your phone's unique ID, location, and sometimes even your gender and age... who knows what else? your contact list?
This article comes as no surprise to me.
I have beef with Apple and Google wiping their hands of the responsibility by having applications require to disclose what permissions they're asking for, because honestly, if you want to use an application, the stuff it doesn't tell you it's doing, doesn't really matter, right?
wrong.
My beef with this is that they're putting the focus on the consumers giving permissions that the software is requesting. A lot of users don't even know what these permissions are, or what they include. "Location" ... okay, so if I turn on GPS, and open that app, are they going to know the address of the house I'm sitting in? Or if I've recently "closed" the application (and it's still running a service in the background), and get in my car and activate my GPS for navigation, are they going to know where I am then? and where I'm going?
The biggest complaint I have with the permissions isn't just that noone seems to understand them, it's that there's no options. You either grant all permissions, or don't. by declining, you're also opt-ing out of using the application.
How about this: The application requests permissions and you choose what permissions it should have access to. For example. If I go to install the game Slice It (which I believe is available on both iPhone and Android), and it requests (these are the actual permissions requested on Android) Your Location (both network and GPS), Network Communication (Full Inet access, Network state, Wifi state), Storage (SD Card access), Phone calls (read phone state and identity), System tools (retrieve running apps, change wifi state).
Why does it need all that?
Do I want Slice It to know where I am? not really. Do I get a choice? not if I want to use the application. Why does it need to know my identity and phone state? does the application want to know if I'm on a call while playing the game? Doubtful.
Do you think that if I asked the developer why they wanted all these permissions, that they would give me a straight answer? Probably not. Additionally, there's no way to revoke permissions other than to remove the application. This is my biggest gripe... Do you really believe that an application, such as Slice It would NOT WORK if there was no location data and no network access? I'm guessing it would, I can put my phone into airplane mode (all radios off) and start up the game, and it would likely run fine.
I get some of the permissions, they make sense, like SD card access to save games and stuff, and Network access to download levels without the need to update the whole application in the market, etc... but I should have the capability of granting or revoking those as I see fit.
The permissions shouldn't be "these are the permissions it wants, is that ok?" it should be that the permissions requested by the application are granted individually, rather than as a group.
But hell, what the hell do I know? I'm just a paranoid consumer right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)