Hey Paypal, why do you need access to my microphone, camera and photos?

http://thepcspy.com/read/paypal-permissions-microphone-camera-photos/

by oliwarner • 12 years ago

124 58 12 years ago

Their app can also OCR the face of your credit card, for what it's worth.

adyus2• 12 years ago

The poster's point still stands, though. The user should decide whether to allow that permission on a case-by-case basis.

Sadly, that's a problem with Android, not Paypal.

wodenokoto• 12 years ago

If it's Androids problem and not Paypals, I'm not really sure if it stands, then.

lost_name• 12 years ago

Indeed, the developer can only explain the permissions in the description.

Perhaps developers should be able to explain permissions in the application's manifest file (where permissions are defined).

Or, maybe there should be a method by which permissions are permanently granted (as it is today), and a method by which permissions are granted on a case by case basis, asking the user's permission. With this model, installing the app would only notify the permanent grants. I'm probably forgetting something here, but this seems like an ok compromise between all or nothing and not harassing the user for the general (non-malicious) case.

patmcc• 12 years ago

You're blaming the wrong people - assuming those are good and valid features (and they are for some users), what do you expect Paypal to do? They can't send you a stripped down app with only some permissions but give me one where I can take a pic of my credit card.

Android needs to support granular permissions at runtime, then you can deny Paypal access to your microphone if it ever tries to run.

oliwarner• 12 years ago

I completely agree. This needs to be fixed in Android...

But I still find it annoying that I can't install the Paypal app without giving them a free wiretap in return. In my eyes, bloating an application out to a state where it needs all this stuff is almost as harmful because it puts users in situations where they're handing this access out without thinking.

Edit: I've pushed a pretty major edit to the post to give a bit more focus to Android but also to point out that Paypal could be a lot more responsible too. They could (for example) farm out all the privileged code to plugins and package them as separate apps. It's more of a pain for some users, less invasive for others.

e40• 12 years ago

I completely agree. This needs to be fixed in Android...

This is the primary reason I root my Android device and why I buy Nexus devices (I don't do Android development). XPrivacy and other apps allow you to revoke permissions individually, which is what Google should have baked into Android itself, without the need to root.

dwild• 12 years ago

It was once supported in Android to do that but it was an masked feature. They quickly realized that most apps weren't made with fail over in place and they would simply crash so they removed it completely.

It's sad that they took that decision but what's done is done...

scott_karana• 12 years ago

Apps can seemingly call external ones: for example, Google Authenticator hands QR code reading off to Barcode Reader, and thus doesn't require the permission for itself.

Having a PayPal "Till" app to augment the main one for microphone/QR users would be ideal, and not violate the permissions.

So there is some blame, though I agree: Android's permission model being fixed is more important.

mikestew2• 12 years ago

Seems the post is less about "why u need camera?", as the author gives reasonable explanations for the "why", but more about why aren't Android permissions more granular? I think the answer to that question is how often should the user be bothered to think about permissions? Android gets it all done up front, at the cost of it being "all or nothing". Apple let's you deny permissions at runtime, at the expense of bothering you each time the app wants to use (say) the camera.

None of which makes the post particularly front page worthy. "Why does $RANDOM_APP need to use my microphone?" Because Android permissions model, which has been rehashed to death; next question.

zipperhead• 12 years ago

I don't think the solution is to ignore it though. Maybe it needs more calls to change the implementation and fix the core issue.

lordbusiness• 12 years ago

Just to clarify, the "at runtime" is a bit misleading. It doesn't mean every single time the app function in question is called. It's a toggle done once, and you won't be asked again unless you turn it back off manually.

Asking me if I need the camera, when the camera is to be used, and then being cleared to use it henceforth is my preferred operation. As I said above, it can always be turned back off if I change my mind.

ttola• 12 years ago

This is a problem with android/ios or the app development process entirely. If permissions could be requested on demand within an app after installation, the the initial permissions sought won't be as intrusive. For PayPal, thier userbase is quite large, and because you don't use a feature, doesn't mean a million users elsewhere don't.

So, imo, the apps permission handling is to blame here

theatrus2• 12 years ago

iOS has always supported at-runtime permission requests (microphone, camera, camera roll, location, contacts, etc).

kyriakos• 12 years ago

so does windows 8+

carterparks• 12 years ago

Camera is used for their mobile check deposit feature: https://personal.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&...

Microphone could be used for some kind of dictation feature?

Bedon292• 12 years ago

The microphone is bundled with the camera within the permissions. That means they have to ask for permission to use both in order to have the camera for the feature you mentioned.

maxxxxx• 12 years ago

Haven't they cancelled that feature? I remember getting an e-mail

http://consumerist.com/2014/06/16/paypal-discontinues-mobile...

mhb• 12 years ago

Why does X need access to Y?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dcentral1....

Animats• 12 years ago

For a while, there was an Android app, App Ops, which let you turn off permissions for other apps.

Google took it out. They claimed it would cause "user confusion", when badly-written apps crashed trying to use some feature they were barred from using.

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-android-wont-be-getting-app-ops...

Someone12344• 12 years ago

As a long term Android user and a mostly happy one at that, let me just say that Android's permissions are terrible and basically not fit for purpose.

I'm going to ignore third party solutions that require root, because those aren't part of the equation for 95%+ of Android users.

Android should have three levels of permissions: Implied (i.e. all apps get these), explicit (at installation), and prompted (user is asked at runtime).

- Implied ("freebies"): internet connectivity, store data, get a unique device ID (per app?), store the app's own accounts within the accounts API.

- Explicit (installation): Run in background, use GPS, use the camera, use the microphone, etc.

- Prompted ("personal information"/"cost you money"): Access your cellphone number, access your contact list, access your calendar, access your email, read/send texts, make calls, etc.

Users in the current Android ecosystem learn to ignore permissions pretty quick as most are for trivial stuff (e.g. internet access, store data on the SD card, store an account, etc).

Worse still a lot of users will skip apps that ask for too many permissions which is bad for both the app developer AND users. Most developers want to offer functionality (e.g. share to contacts) but don't want to do so at the cost of losing users ("Why is this asking to see my contact list?").

Android needs to drop a bunch of "silly" permissions that have no inherent cost to the user. They're clearly created by an engineer who just wanted to slap permissions on every kind of API for no good reason. It benefits nobody.

They then need to take permissions which have a cost (either literally or to user privacy) and set them up rationally so they're either something you get when installing OR something you'll be prompted for.

Lastly Android needs to add a description field to the permissions manifest where the developer can put in a short explanation for why they need permission XYZ. Limit it to 128 characters if you wish. The app store can display these.

I install less apps on Android largely because many ask for too many permissions. If Google makes it really easy for me to protect my personal information (e.g. prompts) I'll literally spend more money on their store because I'll feel more safe to do so. As a developer I'll also offer more functionality to my apps as there is no permission "cost."

jonemo2• 12 years ago

I would argue that no permission should be "implied". For each example you list in that category, I can find an argument to not make it implied. For example: Many people are on plans with capped data per month and are therefore concerned about how much data an app uses. As such a user I would want to make sure apps like a flashlight app do not use internet connectivity at all. Likewise if you are concerned about privacy and want to know when an app connects to the internet and thereby automatically reveals your location, possibly usage pattern, etc.

snfernandez• 12 years ago

Another example is when keyboard apps need internet connectivity, it's a no-no for me.

Someone12344• 12 years ago

I would argue that no permission should be "implied". For each example you list in that category, I can find an argument to not make it implied.

I'm sure you can. But ultimately it is losing battle.

When you turn something which 99.99% of normal apps require into a "permission" it isn't really a permission at all. Just an obstruction which teaches the users permissions can be safely ignored (i.e. stupid permissions hurt good permissions).

If a user ONLY gets a permissions pop-up when it actually matters they're far more likely to take it seriously than if they get it every time and 9 times out of 10, it is just nonsense (e.g. Reddit app needs internet access, store accounts, SD card write, etc).

Likewise if you are concerned about privacy and want to know when an app connects to the internet and thereby automatically reveals your location, possibly usage pattern, etc.

Without getting boringly into the intricacies of Android's underbelly, even without the "internet" permission (which is now standard with higher API levels anyway), you can connect to the internet through other APIs and inform a server that you exist.

Literally an app with zero permissions on Android can make API calls which let a server know they're installed at that IP address.

The internet permission was just a good example to throw into the set because Google already moved in the direction of effectively removing it. Now they just need to do more permissions in a similar vein.

jessaustin2• 12 years ago

This is great stuff. I kind of wish they would hire you to run this. Another idea I've had would be for the user to be able to install an app without giving it the perms it "requires" (perhaps by unchecking some boxes in the dialog). Then apps would be responsible for handling a "no you can't see the contact DB" API response. Or they could crash I guess. The point is that users could effectively renegotiate with apps, e.g. "yes I'd like to use NFC to pay, no I don't want you to be able to record everything that's going on around my phone".

wnevets• 12 years ago

IIRC Cyanogenmod's privacy guard reenables a lost Android feature that basically does this. Its a main reason why I use cyanogenmod these days.

ptaffs• 12 years ago

i completely agree. to avoid crashes the OS could return innocuous zeros, for example, the contacts has no entries, silence on the mic, zero for location, no connection on a network interface. To level the playing field, the vendor should be able to know i declined the request and not provide me the software, that's if their business model is based on advertising or data collection defeated by my choice.

bdamm• 12 years ago

Totally agree with you here - Android's permissions model would be fine if only I could selectively refuse permissions to applications that ask for them, and have the application continue to operate but without the permissions I refused it. So that would mean my banking application wouldn't be able to take pictures of checks, if I refused it access to my camera, for example.

TheLoneWolfling3• 12 years ago

Actually, you'd want three settings:

Yes, No, and spoof. Otherwise far too many apps would just go "I won't work until you enable the settings I ask for" - and then we're right back at the current situation.

wtracy• 12 years ago

I can't find the reference right now, but that feature was present in beta versions of Android 4.3 (?) and removed because it broke certain existing apps.

kileywm• 12 years ago

I share the same feelings about overreaching app permissions. My solution would be similar, but deviate notably in that I'd prefer every app have a permissions menu where each permission can be toggled on/off. The permissions menu itself would only be enabled if Developer Options is enabled (via the 7 taps).

This would, of course, break certain actions within the app and would require disabling buttons in the app and/or displaying friendly errors about "This action requires access to your camera. See permissions etc...". Even then, people disabling permissions and 'breaking' the app by their own actions would probably generate some unjustifiably negative reviews on the Play store.

Not perfect, but a great way to reign in app permissions. My only control right now is to simply not install the app (or disable hardware like the radio when I run it).

contingencies• 12 years ago

Logical thoughts. For some of mine (semi-recently elucidated to the FirefoxOS people as a volunteer contribution but yet to see much traction) check out https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=945047 especially https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8407268

Summary: More granular network permissions model, remove assumptions around specific link-layers that underpin existing mobile app security models, encourage additional link-layers.

makmanalp• 12 years ago

A lot of comments seem to be missing that the issue is less about permission granularity and more about pre-asking for any and all permissions that the app may use. Runtime permissions would solve the issue - using the camera? Ask the user. Then the user can decide to allow once or allow every time. Of course, you'd have exceptions for some common things - store data etc.

The current model is rather like giving a teenager a credit card and hoping they'll be responsible rather than giving them an allowance or having them ask you when they need money. The user has no clue how the permissions are being used after they're forced to allow during installation.

TheLoneWolfling3• 12 years ago

Better yet: allow once / allow for <x> period of time / allow in foreground [ ] allow in background [ ].

gokhan• 12 years ago

Too complex.

ck2• 12 years ago

lots of permission managers for cyanogenmod

sevenproxies• 12 years ago

Device fingerprinting is a big boon to fraud prevention. The more data sources that can help uniquely identify a device the better. I know some fraud prevention companies require merchants to include an image (png), javascript and flash file on the checkout pages to profile a customer. Flash can access your microphone, camera and local storage (flash cookies).

Fraud is a big deal for Paypal, although I'm do not know if such permissions are needed in device fingerprinting on apps.

Interestingly from a privacy point of view, more granular permissions to device features might not necessary equate to greater anonymity. If most device users do not care or know about the privacy implications and accept the app's permission request, those who don't accept become the minority.

qwerta• 12 years ago

It is windows all over again. Just block internet access on everything and allow only a few apps to access internet.

xienze• 12 years ago

If I had to take a guess they're using something like Phonegap/Cordova (i.e., this is a hybrid mobile app -- basically just a browser view with HTML content and JavaScript that can make use of the device's hardware and accounts). A common mistake I've seen is people using the stock Android manifest that comes with Phonegap/Cordova. This manifest enables ALL permissions so all the native functionality plugins "just work" out of the box. However, you're supposed to pare down the manifest to remove permissions for things you don't actually use so you don't end up in this situation.

yourad_io2• 12 years ago

This is PayPal, remember? The likelihood they're using PhoneGap is so low that I'm going to state it isn't, without Googling it. (gasp) Did you read the first article?

abitsios• 12 years ago

And indeed it isn't (got the latest com.paypal.android.p2pmobile from play store and checked). They do to have an HTML component to their app, a Tour guide found in assets/ ("Pay with PayPal in Stores!").

I'm the same person as above, btw. I have noprocrast on that account. It is working very well for me ;)

They have, however, authored a Cordova plugin for others to use the PayPal SDK easily from their PhoneGap apps [1]

[1] https://github.com/paypal/PayPal-Cordova-Plugin

yawz• 12 years ago

A good workaround to having to ask for too many permissions is for the app to explain the intent before the permission pops up. I find this offers a much better experience in general.

buzzgen2• 12 years ago

Yet another example of why "smart" phones aren't.

buzzgen2• 12 years ago

Yet another example of "Why Smart Phones Aren't". Google it.

Hey Paypal, why do you need access to my microphone, camera and photos?

Related Stories