google still does not get the fact that some apps do not need, and should not be able to transmit or receive data from the network. We still need root and install AFWall+ to secure our phones.
It's not the frequency or importance of popups. Users simply don't read them. From watching users, the users who don't read them usually have an image in their minds of what they're trying to accomplish and an image of the screens they need to go through to get there. Any popup or notification screen is instantly dismissed so that they can see the screen behind and try work out if it's where they expect to be. It's maybe 25% of users who do this, but they do it constantly regardless of what the popup is.
This alone is the reason I will not use Android 6 before they either change this or there is a good firewall available (and I am able to root my device)
I wrote a mental note that that when I have to start thinking in this manor and tread carefully in a minefield then the technology does not serve me any more and I don't want it.
Time up.
I think that Google is way aware of the situation. The problem is that most apps need internet access in order to work. A permission that most of the apps will have to ask for is useless because the casual user will just be trained to accept it in all cases. AFAIK, that's how iOS handles network access as well. Permissions are here to safeguard the access to your personal data, that's it.
PfSense is a free gateway firewall but the UI left much to be desired last I checked. Another option is the Sophos UTM, which has a firewall, web filter, and VPN server built into one.
Gateway protections are your last resort when it comes to protecting yourself from shady behavior like this.
I won't buy a phone that doesn't have that feature.
i still have one question in a forum about why Android browser's ignore etc/hosts, and every now and then (question is 6 years old) people comment how shocked they are to discover that is the case (still!)
Or feature? I'd love a firewall rule that could block any traffic that contains my contact list. Wouldn't be possible even if the traffic wasn't encrypted...
Maybe scatter a few of these contacts through the alphabet to catch apps sending in batches.
As responsible developers they wouldn't want to send your entire address book across the wire in the clear, would they? Why, someone could easily listen in and then you would have no privacy! /sarcasm.
To make it harder to write an ad blocker
Of course its ideal to not send the packets and waste the battery at all but when that's not an option, I'd rather use a firewall to block the traffic rather then just let it through, regardless of the hit to the battery due to it constantly retrying the blocked connection.
Compared to my experiences with the Sophos UTM, it's downright painful. With the UTM the UI elements of every part of a service are grouped together, and are duplicated in sections where it's intuitive to do so. Eg Certificate Management can be found in multiple places in the UTM but all things related to the web filter are in one place, all things related to routing are in one place, et al.
Luckily they are redesigning the GUI for the next version, I'm hopeful that they will rearrange it as well (even though that will obviously be awkward for everyone already familiar with it) but I don't know, haven't paid attention to the development.
Case in point: Reboot, shutdown and Backup/Restore ought to be under the "System" menu, right? Nope. It's under Diagnostics, which is a large alphabetically sorted list (not by functionality or anything else, so if you are unsure of which term was used, well, you're better off consulting google).
I much prefer to support PFSense because they seem more supportive of their community, I will be looking forward to trying out their new UI when its out!
The first 3 words are still "Don't be evil"
You're confused about the news that Alphabet now has a parent Code of Conduct that is "Do the right thing". But Google retains "Don't be evil".
I recall that "Don't be evil" was criticized for being passive and morally neutral; Alphabet's new motto addresses that.
I. Avoid Conflicts of Interest
II. Ensure Financial Integrity and Responsibility
III. Obey the Law
The internet permission was never accurate. Malicious apps had plenty of ways to get data off of the phone. The INTERNET permission was promising something that was not enforced. Something about it had to change, and seeing as connectivity is heavily assumed and ingrained into everything it makes sense to just nuke the false permission.
Practically speaking the main users that want INTERNET to be a permission and to revoke it are people that want to block ads. That's a moral grey area at best, so making that harder is far from "evil".
I'm not sure where the grey area is here. I am not under any moral compulsion to make requests on a network just because an app developer wants me to. Building structures to force me to make those requests is definitely leaning into evil.
In fact, it's the last straw for me, personally. I'm back to iOS and the "evil" walled garden that respects my rights as a network user.
bad news: iOS has always granted network access by default.