I just don’t think it’s an effective way of solving the problem.
If internet access wasn't granted by default, a lot more apps would function without it.
Many other apps wouldn't exist at all, because their only reason to exist is to spy on users.
Even if it's not the most effective way to raise awareness, it does put pressure on developers to be explicit about the connectivity requirements with users. It would also be a great way to audit an app's local-first / offline-first claim without having to do a network packet capture.
Want telemetry? Send it through Apple and Google. Given Apple's late history and latest trends in Android development, I see them both favoring this approach.
Apple could refuse to publish them, then. Isn't that why we are forced to go through the App Store? Because Apple ensures every app there works in the best interest of the user?
I just flat out think this is bullshit
The only way to prevent malicious apps from affecting your privacy is to not install them or not give them network access.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/ios/comments/aib10i/in_china_ios_al...
You could of course disable network access to Play Services, but at least for me that broke a bunch of apps or made them unreliable.
What AOSP ROMs need besides the network permission toggle is IPC scopes functionality, akin to storage scopes.
But yes, agreed it should be everywhere.
(Yes, you can disable network access to Play Services, but it sometimes breaks things and the general point of IPC as a hole still stands.)
They also added the sensors permission.
It would severely depend on how you categorize "most apps" because I would say I pretty much only use apps that need the Internet, barring Calculator, Camera, and a PDF reader (only because I prefer how it zooms books vs browser. Everything else implicitly needs the Internet as that app is just a better UI to using their mobile web site, if they even offer one.
It is called app transport security. if you don't set it up your app boots in a sandbox with no network.
Settings -> Privacy Security -> App Privacy Report
Unfortunately 1 - as a _user_ you cannot opt-in or out. I wish Apple would take the next step and let us select which sites an app is not allowed to communicate with. Or ideally even globally for all apps.
Unfortunately 2 - the list of sites the app wants to communicate with is not clearly communicated upfront like before you install.
Unfortunately 3 - the list can also contain wildcard domains
Small steps - they really need to push this to the next phase IMO.
Problem is there's no way for users to actually know that. iOS has no "this app can't reach the internet" indicator, so the whole guarantee is invisible. I even had people assume the opposite — app reads your whole library, therefore it must be uploading it somewhere. Exactly backwards.
This is the Apple mindset. Make things easy. Do not make things complicated.
Citation needed.
Looking through my phone the vast majority of third party apps I have installed obviously require internet access:
- Social media
- Travel (rideshare/airlines/hotels)
- Streaming
- Finance (credit cards/banks)
- Shopping
Not counting built-in apps like the calculator I'd estimate 80-90% of the apps I have installed require internet access.
- Photo/Video editors - Snapsheed, Lightroom, Video trimmers etc.
- Document readers & scanners - PDF viewers, e-readers, OCR scanners
- Note taking - Obsidian
- File/Password managers - Authenticators etc.
- Single player games - Chess, puzzles etc.
- Audio/Video players - VLC players
We've just become conditioned to accept that every app needs to phone home for tracking and ad-delivery.
In the U.S., device setup time (to the second) very conservatively gets you clubbed into a single group of 100 individuals as an "advanced persistent threat" tracker. Even compressing activations to "80/20 during business hours" the math kindof maxes out at a pool of ~5 people, and assuming worst case "20x" of that still means you're still pretty darned identifiable.
If you get ~6-8 more bits of entropy (eg: Device Type + Capacity is easily 2-3 bits, and Time Zone is probably another 2-3 bits) you're cooked!
The "Installed Apps Probe" leak also surprised me. It is better than the current state of Android, though.
And nothing stops from using reset it every day.
Any way to reset it as an end user? (Not enough awareness of the issue for search engines to find much.)
Apple added these restrictions because installed app lists can be used for fingerprinting and privacy invasive profiling.
And a data broker/aggregator can purchase such data from many (e.g. thousands) of apps and aggregate it, then sell it.
Thank you for the clarification!
You cannot provide a large list of unrelated applications since Apple rejects that during app review.
It does not need to be a large list though I think? You just need a small list that is very discriminative and adds enough additional entropy to uniquely identify you in combination with the other data leaked.
And this was heavily exploited by Facebook before Apple patched it
E.g. I had no idea a random app you install (and give no permissions to) instantly has a list of every app installed on the device (e.g. can infer whether you're dating [or cheating!] from presence of tinder/bumble/hinge). That alone seems instantly monetizable by unscrupulous actors via 'is-my-partner-cheating' as a service: charge $10 to give a probable answer.
It makes sense that there's some discovery mechanism - since Google loves to use it to prefer Chrome, GMail, etc when you're in one of their apps. I wish that there were more restrictions though where you only get implicit permission to query from apps that have the same developer ID. Maybe a mutual allowlist that has to be formed, or some sort of privileged intent where you at least have to tell Apple what's going on and that gives them some contractual right to sanction you if you're using it for nefarious purposes instead.
[1] excluding the clipboard copy count, that was novel!
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/15/34...
It’s crazy to me that people are being so skeptical of the idea. A lot of people share their logins freely with their spouses. I have never done it nor would I condone it, but it would be trivial for me to install spyware on the devices of many people I know, because they rightfully trust me. Not only do I know some of their device passwords¹, being “the computer guy” I could just outright ask for it or get them to input it anywhere while fixing some issue they have.
¹ And many more I have forgotten, because I make it a point to not record them, even mentally.
Fighting devs being able to make money in this manner is not dissimilar to getting made a drug dealers. As long as users want their product, they will sell the product.
> Loupe also builds for macOS. The Mac version is mostly complete, but a few things still need work before it's polished.
I got that feeling just seeing the title use "native" as a synonym of "not a website".
I have not spent a lot of time thinking about why certain things like 50 apps install queries, boot volume timestamps, etc are provided to developers. But I think Apple will close these loopholes.
Also love the idea of outbound network connections being disabled by the user per app
iPhone
I am against cars for the most part, but I can’t just get rid of my car. In this case, I can’t get rid of Slack (and other apps) because of work and unfortunately I do not work at a company that will buy me a work phone for work things.
Ultimately this has to start at a more root level. We need to claw back privacy.
More APIs, less friction selling stuff, business presence right on the homescreen.
I have a LG modern TV. Smart shit. I also use a Linux install on a NUC. HDMI.
For some godsdamned reason, the TV was able to initiate an IP bridge with the Linux NUC and get an IP address on my network.
Nobody typed it in the TV. And I'm unsure how it did so itself.
What I do know is that Mikrotik allows DHCP-server blocks of wildcard MAC addresses. Blocked the whole fucking 24 bits of their allocation.
AND if it does get back online, I also shitcanned its routing on the IP side based on hostname.
People always say, "jUsT dO nOt CoNnEcT your TV to you WiFi" which is asinine.
People say that theoretically TVs can get an internet connection through HDMI, but apparently none are actually doing so.
The only solution I suggest is physically removing WiFi cards from the guts before turning on.
Why is not connecting your TV to wifi asinine? Generally works fine but I suppose there are rumors that some TVs scan for open networks and connect to them automatically.
> The only solution I suggest is physically removing WiFi cards from the guts before turning on.
It's going to be very unusual to find a TV using removable PC components like wifi cards. Another option is to connect it to your network but block it from the internet
What?! How on earth would this work?
Apple should be ashamed that they aren't putting effort to randomize these fingerprints....
But very cool.
Thank you!
> information such as apps installed
This is what surprised me too, but if you read their hint, it’s not like list API. They probe various ‘open URL in app’ to see what apps registered them, so are installed. I guess this i) won’t allow you to track apps that don’t have ‘open in app’ urls, and ii) probably hard to limit without affecting UX
> number of copy actions
This is odd, yeah, not sure why is it exposed
> last wipe
They deduce this from the volume creation date. Probably possible to hide, but also not really that important, at least to me. Fingerprinting will work with way fewer info anyway
To summarize, I think iOS is still very solid in terms of involuntary info exposure (if you trust Apple itself). Most of really sensitive info requires separate permissions. Yes, you can harden it further, but that will be more like a paranoid mode
Fingerprinting is extensively used and can't be defeated without a decent hit to browsing experience. Mullvad and Tor browser are likely the best at anti-fingerprinting.
The only completely reliable way to avoid this tracking is by not visiting websites with fingerprinting. A tool that can help with this is LibRedirect which redirects you from sites like Twitter to privacy front ends like xcancel.
The extensive web tracking is detrimental to privacy, but it doesn't compel you to add additional PII like phone numbers, which is much worse than cross-site tracking for a surveillance capitalism threat model.
https://odysee.com/@techlore:3/permission-not-required-the-o...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n_SpEWtqog
I built something similar, for the web. https://neberej.github.io/exposedbydefault/
It seems a bit quixotic, but anything that goes against $_BIGCORP is tilting at windmills, anyway.
Of course, the one narrative I almost never hear, no matter who it is, is "Simply don't collect any extra data."
It's that simple. If you don't have the data, your app could be Swiss cheese, and no one can get anything dangerous.
But, in today's tech world, data is money, so every app and Web site out there, goes to any length, to hoover up as much data as possible.
I regularly get prompted to join "teams," and "leaderboards," or do "challenges," on my solitaire games.
