I have always felt that there needs to be more granular permissions
for Internet usage. For example, with Google Analytics for Mobile... I
would like to see an "Analytics" variant of the Internet permission.
Or as you mentioned, if there is a phone home aspect, there could be
permission and associated URL listed in the manifest, so the user can
make that informed decision. I just find it hard to swallow that I
have to grant access to the entire Internet for something so narrow
and directed. Creating a public (trusted) intent would be a step in
the right direction... I think it would have to come from Google or be
a prominent open solution where users and developers could feel
comfortable that the information being passed through that app is
safe.
On Nov 16, 9:16 pm, Jeremy Slade <jeremy.g.sl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Presumably all these apps are just 'phoning home' for tracking usage
> stats and such - nothing malicious (whether it's a good ideas is
> another question). Couldn't the same thing be done by an open intent
> that is called by all of these apps? Then the apps themselves don't
> need to request internet access. Internet access would be limited to
> that one (presumably trusted) intent. In the case of the intent not
> being available on the phone, apps would still need to have a fallback
> policy.
>
> On Nov 16, 2:17 pm, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If I don't believe an application should require Internet, I don't
> > install it. I hope that there are others who do the same. To require
> > internet permissions (with the current generic internet permission) on
> > an app which really does not need it, such as aiFlashlight, gives me
> > reason to question the motives of that developer. I ask myself "Now,
> > why the heck would a flashlight app require internet permissions?" and
> > then move along to another app that does the same thing without
> > requiring those permissions. I usually recommend to others that they
> > do the same thing. Taking this route is, in my opinion, a band-aid,
> > not a solution.
>
> > On Nov 16, 2:09 pm, AlexK <kucherenko.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, INTERNET permission required.
>
> > > For example In our application we show activation dialog with
> > > description about activation process.
> > > In your cases can be done something different.
>
> > > On Nov 16, 8:16 pm, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Of course, now you have to add Full Internet permission to every app
> > > > and thus negate any usefulness of this permission for actual use.
> > > > As if this permission was not already useless enough in telling the
> > > > user what the app intended to do...
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 11:13 am, AlexK <kucherenko.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Source code which you can integrate into own application for checking
> > > > > black list.
>
> > > > > /**
> > > > > * Determines status of device's IMEI.
> > > > > *
> > > > > * @return -1 - imei status retrieval failed. 0 - Green status 1 to 3 -
> > > > > Yellow
> > > > > * status 3 to 5 - Brown status above 5 - Red status
> > > > > */
> > > > > public int getIMEIStatus()
> > > > > {
> > > > > // 1. Get device ID
> > > > > TelephonyManager manager = (TelephonyManager)getSystemService
> > > > > (Context.TELEPHONY_SERVICE);
> > > > > String sDeviceID = manager.getDeviceId();
> > > > > // 2. Fetch for IMEI data.
> > > > > // Will look like
> > > > >
> > > > > //http://www.artfulbits.com/android/antipiracycheck.ashx?IMEI=123456789...
> > > > > String url =
> > > > > "http://www.artfulbits.com/android/antipiracycheck.ashx?
> > > > > IMEI="
> > > > > + sDeviceID;
> > > > > // Server will return 200 if request post was successful.
> > > > > final int http_ok = 200;
> > > > > // Create new http client.
> > > > > HttpClient client = new DefaultHttpClient();
> > > > > // Create new http post.
> > > > > HttpPost post = new HttpPost(url);
> > > > > // Cache http response.
> > > > > HttpResponse response = null;
> > > > > // Will return -1 unless server provides its own value.
> > > > > int imeiStatus = -1;
> > > > > try
> > > > > {
> > > > > // Executind post.
> > > > > response = client.execute(post);
> > > > > // Making sure we've received correct status code.
> > > > > if(response.getStatusLine().getStatusCode() == http_ok)
> > > > > {
> > > > > // Retrieving content stream.
> > > > > InputStream stream = response.getEntity().getContent();
> > > > > // Decorating stream with Input stream reader
> > > > > InputStreamReader isr = new InputStreamReader(stream);
> > > > > // Decorating input stream reader with buffered stream reader.
> > > > > BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(isr);
> > > > > // Reading imei status from stream.
> > > > > imeiStatus = Integer.parseInt(reader.readLine());
> > > > > // Closing buffered reader will recursively close decorated
> > > > > input stream
> > > > > // reader and input stream.
> > > > > reader.close();
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > > catch(Exception e)
> > > > > {
> > > > > e.printStackTrace();
> > > > > }
> > > > > return imeiStatus;
>
> > > > > }
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 7:57 pm, AlexK <kucherenko.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I just did publishing of the web service!
>
> > > > > > All details can be found here:
>
> > > > > >http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/antipiracy.aspx
>
> > > > > > In 5 minutes I'll update database by our latest catched pirate
> > > > > > phones.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 16, 2:19 pm, "admin.androidsl...@googlemail.com"
>
> > > > > > <admin.androidsl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > +1
>
> > > > > > > This keeps coming up but I am bumping because it shouldn't be
> > > > > > > ignored
> > > > > > > by Google.
>
> > > > > > > Problem is people can buy and refund within 24 hours. So we need
> > > > > > > a web
> > > > > > > service apps can call where we can send a device ID plus a google
> > > > > > > checkout number which confirms a valid non-cancelled order. If
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > web service could be centralised to check other app markets too,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > would all be laughing.
>
> > > > > > > Its not cost effective for a single dev to work out a solution. A
> > > > > > > team
> > > > > > > of people should be driving this forwards where they can keep an
> > > > > > > eye
> > > > > > > on what the pirates are doing and continue to improve the system
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > the pirates continue to break it.
>
> > > > > > > So the question then becomes a monetary one. No one has the
> > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > to build a system without a monetary incentive. So how about all
> > > > > > > app
> > > > > > > devs who are interested in the scheme support the anti-piracy
> > > > > > > developers by paying a monthly subscription. Most app devs would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > happy to do so if they can claw back 100's of pirated copies of
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > apps.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
