Conversation

Replying to

GrapheneOS has planned to have a feature like Scoped Storage for many years. This issue was filed in 2016, but it was planned long before that: github.com/AndroidHardeni. The project hasn't had the resources to implement it, but now it can simply fully enable the standard feature.

add support for isolated shared storage · Issue #526 · AndroidHardeningArchive/legacy_bugtracker

In almost all cases, apps should be avoiding shared storage and using content providers and other sane mechanisms with fine-grained control for sharing data with other apps. However, the reality is...

1

1

3

Replying to

It would have been better for GrapheneOS if the campaign against this privacy / security enhancement hadn't been successful. Apps using the Storage Access Framework (i.e. having users choose files / directories via the system UI) provides better UX than scoping legacy access.

2

1

4

Replying to

Users on GrapheneOS will have a worse experience due to that anti-privacy activism and will need to learn to use the system file manager to move files / directories to and from the emulated external storage directories. The scoped access to external storage is for compatibility.

1

2

3

Replying to

As an example, a third party file manager implemented via SAF will continue working in the Scoped Storage model. It asks the user to choose the access scope, and they can make the explicit decision to select the root of the storage volume but the UI leaves it entirely up to them.

1

2

Replying to

It fits naturally into most apps, since from a user perspective, it simply means that apps are using the system file management interface. Apps requesting the legacy permissions and providing their own interface was usually a worse experience aside from privacy / security issues.

1

1

3

Replying to

An app can still provide their own file management interface though, by asking the user to select a directory. So, even the case of a generic file manager case still works fine. Obviously, many app developers don't want users to have control, and are completely opposed to this.

1

2

Replying to

However, since the Scoped Storage model being mandatory has been delayed until the next major API level in Android R, apps can keep relying on the legacy storage model for an extra year and users will have a worse experience with those apps with the feature enabled universally.

1

1

2

Replying to

An app using the legacy model will end up using their scoped external storage directory as if it's the external storage root. Users will often need to manually move files into the app's scoped directory to share files with it, and move files out they want saved after uninstall.

1

2

Replying to

I'll need to explain it to GrapheneOS users, and they'll need to deal with it rather than apps adapting. There will be another fight next year with Android R. Maybe next time, journalists will push Google to ship this important privacy feature instead of spreading FUD about it.

2

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

The simple answer is no, they can't do that, because they can't do it today. Apps can't access files outside of their own app sandbox / directories without consent. That's the status quo already. The issue is that there's a coarse permission for a shared external storage volume.

2:18 PM · Jul 20, 2019Twitter Web Client

Replying to

Scoped Storage drops support for this coarse access control model and storage permission, similar to how it went away for external drives in Android 4.4. Users can still grant access to the entire storage volume since when the app requests access the user can choose any scope.

1

2

Replying to

Apps have everything they need to avoid using the coarse, privacy-unfriendly storage permissions. The issue with the design is those coarse permissions existing at all. Apps demand them and aren't designed to work without them, and they store private data in that shared storage.

1

2

Show replies