I really hope your response is sarcastic or sarcastic.

You advocate for people who are “smart” enough to believe they can install something twice, but not smart enough to understand that if you want to run something, there may be risks?

Is this also why we will soon have to sit in a self-driving car, which knows exactly where I drive, stop, get off at what time of day and how much time I spend there? Because people might just love it Gas Being able to depress the gas pedal all the way, but then do not understand that driving through the city at 200 kilometers per hour is dangerous?

I’m sorry, but if we all had to regress into the stupidity of a bunch of fools, we might as well give up all hope for humanity at once… if there was still hope.

It’s also not about having options that can be turned on or off. The problem is that you are disenfranchised and some choices (especially disadvantaged) seem to only work for the big companies. We are now talking about a feature that offers many interesting options and is of interest to many people. You can of course also create an additional security layer that first warns you before an app can access a certain API. (something happens anyway see the photo in the article)

Everything can be abused… and if you don’t sideload it, it’s probably also on the Play Store, because quality control and customer security aren’t exactly Google’s forte.
What about other app stores? Are they able to prevent “abuse”?

I sideload all my apps because I disable Google** on the phones I’m using. Now I’m wondering if that doesn’t work, even though I’m downloading apps from G-Play.
(**something that Google doesn’t allow anymore since Android 11, if I’m not mistaken)

The development team can better focus on options that all fall under one address, better secure Internet traffic (built-in firewall is not a redundant luxury), and make Google connections less mandatory (eg notifications; [van 3rd party apps] It won’t work if you block googleusercontent), not having to enable/disable certain features individually in the settings of each individual app…etc. but not…Instead, we make it hard for something useful… and it also seems like we’re doing something good and immediately distracts us from things we’re consciously ignoring.

We increasingly live in a world where everything is decided for you…and Google is good at that.

…then arrogance;

“to is yours Security, this setting is not currently available”

“For your security, Ring has locked your doors and you are no longer allowed to go outside.”

Although the question is, is everyone aware of the potential risks?

Shouldn’t we do things because the risks are (few)?
Don’t drive a car, don’t fly, don’t cross the street, don’t plug in the jack, don’t eat or drink, don’t take a shower… The list is very, very, very long?

On the other hand, app users might be happy to give up my name, phone number, and anything else that is stored in their contact list to any app that requests it, without my consent.
This is more of a risk to me…but yes…this is legal data theft and because it is for the benefit of Google & Co. You don’t hear anyone about it.

These are false decisions that belong to the category of “propaganda”.
Google doesn’t seem to trust that they can or can’t protect the API after access is denied because you can also deny Google access so they just throw it that way so it looks like they’re doing something positive.

Edit: Slight modification because it looked like I@daoka He called arrogant.

[Reactie gewijzigd door Dazenet op 6 mei 2022 04:04]