Android 11 is taking away the camera picker, forcing use of the built-in camera(androidpolice.com)
androidpolice.com
Android 11 is taking away the camera picker, forcing use of the built-in camera
https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/18/android-11-camera-apps-chooser/?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4
24 comments
"Some users were tricked into setting a malicious camera app as the default and then using it to capture things that should have remained private"
A Google search for "malicious camera apps" leads to this from January https://cybernews.com/security/popular-camera-apps-steal-dat...
Copy-paste of its summary of the top 30 "beauty camera" apps:
> More than half (16) of these apps are based in Hong Kong or China
> One app doesn’t ask for permission to use your camera, but turns the camera on anyways – without any permission
> Three seemingly separate developers seem to be run by the same group, and may be connected to apps previously found to contain a widely-dispersed Trojan
> The top-ranked app developer Meitu, with more than 300 million installs, had apps identified as malware, violating Google’s ad policies, or secretly collecting data
> One app developer was found to install malware through its software
> One app was accused of sending users pornographic content, redirecting them to phishing sites, or collecting their pictures
> These apps are requesting up to 7 dangerous permissions, 5 on average, most of which are unnecessary for the app to function
> Unnecessary permissions include recording audio, using GPS, and seeing users’ phone statuses
> While only a few permissions are required for the app function, one app includes a whopping 40 total permissions
A Google search for "malicious camera apps" leads to this from January https://cybernews.com/security/popular-camera-apps-steal-dat...
Copy-paste of its summary of the top 30 "beauty camera" apps:
> More than half (16) of these apps are based in Hong Kong or China
> One app doesn’t ask for permission to use your camera, but turns the camera on anyways – without any permission
> Three seemingly separate developers seem to be run by the same group, and may be connected to apps previously found to contain a widely-dispersed Trojan
> The top-ranked app developer Meitu, with more than 300 million installs, had apps identified as malware, violating Google’s ad policies, or secretly collecting data
> One app developer was found to install malware through its software
> One app was accused of sending users pornographic content, redirecting them to phishing sites, or collecting their pictures
> These apps are requesting up to 7 dangerous permissions, 5 on average, most of which are unnecessary for the app to function
> Unnecessary permissions include recording audio, using GPS, and seeing users’ phone statuses
> While only a few permissions are required for the app function, one app includes a whopping 40 total permissions
The screenshot is labeled "Camera picker on Android 10." Android 11 will remove the camera picker.
Yes, and frogblast is saying that they don't see a privacy issue in the camera picker for Android 10 that needs to be mitigated by removing it in Android 11.
Thanks, I misunderstood.
This change does not improve privacy, and may even reduce privacy by preventing the user from switching to a free and open source camera app, assuming that the stock camera app is proprietary.
This change does not improve privacy, and may even reduce privacy by preventing the user from switching to a free and open source camera app, assuming that the stock camera app is proprietary.
There is no privacy issue. Google wants exclusive right to spy on their users, plain and simple. They are not even trying to be subtle anymore.
I think the 'security' issue is:
* The default camera app always takes a photo from the front or back camera
* Custom apps might return a photo from a usb camera, a remote camera, a file or a webpage. Exif data could be faked too.
* The 'security issue' is therefore that apps that ask the user to take a photo to prove something (for example, taking a photo of your passport to prove who you are, taking a photo of a QR code in a shop, etc) cannot have the assurance they want that the photo was just taken.
Discuss!
* The default camera app always takes a photo from the front or back camera
* Custom apps might return a photo from a usb camera, a remote camera, a file or a webpage. Exif data could be faked too.
* The 'security issue' is therefore that apps that ask the user to take a photo to prove something (for example, taking a photo of your passport to prove who you are, taking a photo of a QR code in a shop, etc) cannot have the assurance they want that the photo was just taken.
Discuss!
Not an Android developer, but they list Image Capture and Image Capture secure. Wouldn't it make sense for something like Image Capture Secure to be used by those sorts of apps, and for that to use the optionless device default camera rather than breaking all apps?
I believe "secure" here refers to the camera that is allowed to open even when the phone is locked. It can take pictures, but shouldn't leak user data (eg. Allow viewing old pictures, or browsing contacts in a 'share' dialog, or have any links to webpages which would then allow browsing the internet without unlocking the phone)
[deleted]
If you want to constrain the actions of corporations, you need to pass laws banning their abuses. Whining will do no good whatsoever. Makers of popular platforms ought to be required as a matter of law to keep those platforms open, because it's in the general interest of the public that infrastructure be a platform and not a product.
Platform providers shouldn’t be allowed to try to limit malware?
Can you define "malware"? I am categorically and maximally against viewpoint-based censorship. If an otherwise well-behaving app can be "malware" because it espouses a particular viewpoint, I oppose allowing platforms to ban "malware". If you can define "malware" without reference to viewpoint, sure, censor away.
For example, banning Gab is egregious and unacceptable under my framework.
For example, banning Gab is egregious and unacceptable under my framework.
This sucks. I have a bespoke app that throws ugly HUD data on top of what I'm photographing but that saves me a ton of time by not having to switch to other apps to check. Now that's not gonna work any more? One more reason to move to a Linux phone I guess.
If I'm reading this right, this looks more like it's for intents, so that other apps have to specify exactly which external camera app to use. If they don't do that, then the built-in app is selected. You camera app should still function, though may require an update?
I hope that's correct. I don't mind setting it up, I just don't want to have to manually import pictures from it. Thanks for pointing it out.
So how does this stop malicious apps from using the same workaround that Google proposes, as mentioned in the article:
"The documentation advises explicitly checking for installed camera apps by their package names — meaning developers would have to pick preferred apps up front — and sending users to those apps directly. Of course, there are other ways to get options without identifying all package names, like getting a list of all apps and then manually searching for intent filters, but this seems like an over-complication."
"The documentation advises explicitly checking for installed camera apps by their package names — meaning developers would have to pick preferred apps up front — and sending users to those apps directly. Of course, there are other ways to get options without identifying all package names, like getting a list of all apps and then manually searching for intent filters, but this seems like an over-complication."
the decision now lies with the developer, not with the user. therefore, a malicious camera app developer would have to convince the developers of all targeted apps to support their app instead of the default camera app, which pretty much doesn't work.
[deleted]
If OEMs replace the stock camera app, does this mean that users will be stuck with the OEM version?
Can't one apply their "argument" to other intents, for instance to prevent user choice of browser?
I’m also not immediately seeing a non-privacy reason to make this change either...