Conversation

Replying to

It was mandatory, and that was changed due to widespread outrage over Scoped Storage due to a successful misinformation campaign against it. That's what I was talking about here: twitter.com/DanielMicay/st It's still going to be mandatory, but it has been delayed by a year to R.

Quote Tweet

Replying to @DanielMicay @Ishan_Ishana and 4 others

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.

2

1

Replying to

Removing the coarse access control model via Scoped Storage is clearly the best approach and is what they want to do, but Google didn't care enough about privacy to fight a campaign against it that had successfully turned user communities and the media against it in advance.

2

1

Replying to

So, it has been delayed by at least a year to Android R. It will become mandatory for the Android R API level, but it could take even longer for it to be enabled for apps targeting legacy API levels. The implementation works and it's a compatibility/usability vs. privacy choice.

1

1

Replying to

From the perspective of someone that cares about privacy and security, the fine-grained Storage Access Framework model has been around since Android 4.4 and the coarse access control model was clearly a major issue. I wanted apps to use SAF for ages, and it's what I used myself.

1

1

2

Replying to

Most developers don't care about privacy and security, especially when it comes to respecting user consent and giving them control over their information. If improving those takes any effort, they won't do it. Users will usually just authorize whatever is needed to run the app.

1

1

Replying to

So, for example, Signal doesn't have this issue because it doesn't put media files in shared storage. It doesn't mean it isn't an OS issue though, because the OS shouldn't support a coarse access control model for shared data. It applies more broadly to things like contacts too.

1

1

Replying to

Ugh don't even get me started on apps requesting access to contact lists -_- You just know it's headed back to Palentir

1

Replying to

The sad part is that it's another case where Android already supports a fine-grained alternative. Apps have the ability to request that the user take a picture, without the Camera permission. Similarly, they can request that the user pick a contact, without Contacts permissions.

1

1

1

Replying to

In many cases, Android has 2 approaches: fine-grained access based on explicit case-by-case user consent using intents and bulk data access via permissions. Apps nearly always choose to request permissions for bulk data access. Storage, contacts, camera, etc. are all similar.

1

2

1

Replying to

It's entirely possible to apply the Scoped Storage approach to other permissions. For example, remove the Contacts permission and instead provide a per-app contacts list. Apps using the approach of case-by-case user content for contacts would still be able to use global contacts.

2

1

2

Replying to

Contacts app could be extended with the ability to browse and work with the per-app lists. That's exactly what Scoped Storage is doing for shared storage. Once Scoped Storage is mandatory, the only difference between internal vs. direct external storage is the user having access.

4:26 PM · Jul 20, 2019Twitter Web Client

Replying to

Having access includes the ability to provide access to apps on a case-by-case basis where the user is explicitly selecting files / directories to provide access to another app. It's how access control models should work in general. Persistent bulk permissions are a failed model.

1

1

Replying to

Persistent bulk permissions was a lazy model.

1