Don't know, just getting increasingly annoyed with being blamed for other people's broken apps. It's totally ridiculous that Firefox disabled the sanity checks added in Android 7 with the justification that they "disagree" with having a proper storage security model...
Conversation
Replying to
They do raise valid concerns. A simple fix would be to "own" the download directory and change the model, but they'd be the ones getting flamed. How do Chrome/Brave solve this ?
2
Turns out they have users being confused: reddit.com/r/brave_browse
forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-3-xl/hel
1
Replying to
No, it doesn't, and you're the one that's confused. Brave wasn't using the modern downloads implementation. It was broken, but not because there's anything wrong with the new download implementation for Android 10. The default downloads location for Chromium is also the same...
1
Try downloading a file in Chrome on the stock OS or Vanadium on GrapheneOS. It will be saved to the regular Downloads directly and put into the Downloads category. It may still have the Storage permission due to the upgrade process but you can toggle it off and it still works.
2
Replying to
I see, it's only when sharing to other apps. So that means that if you uninstall the web/file browser with which you opened a document, you can no longer access the document with a content uri in the target app.
1
Replying to
It'd be strange to enable the toggle to grant persistent access for a file shared that way in the first place. If the app needs persistent access, it should request it. This is how sharing files / storage access works on Android. Storage permissions have been legacy for years.
1
Due to apps like Firefox screwing things up, users have a total misunderstanding of how things work and don't realize that the Storage permissions aren't needed. Users don't realize they've already been making heavy use of the modern system and that not much will change for them.
1
1
The reason so many apps require the legacy Storage permissions is not because that many apps actually require it but because everyone needed to add it to work around broken apps like Firefox deliberately not acting as good citizens and screwing over other app developers.
1
It hasn't been necessary to support Storage for compatibility since Android 7 phased out passing file: URIs at least in theory. That was assuming apps didn't go out of the way to disable the sanity checks and refuse to move away from a legacy approach broken with modern apps.
1
By default, access granted this way is temporary. Once the Storage permissions are finally gone it'd make sense to offer a new storage permission control panel for revoking persistent access that has been explicitly granted case-by-case. It's supported but not exposed via the UI.
The issue is that right now, with those legacy permissions still around it would be confusing as hell to expose fine-grained control over the modern system. Storage permissions really needed to be fully removed in Android 10 to move things forward but there was too much pushback.
1
App developers won with their misinformation campaign. It was successful because users and the media don't understand how things work and just believe the BS being peddled to avoid needing to overhaul apps to start finally respecting user privacy, security and consent for files.
1
Show replies