Slashdot Mirror
Google Puts Android Accessibility Crackdown On Hold (slashgear.com)
Last month, Google issued a warning to Android app developers that they will no longer be able to access Android accessibility service functions in their apps, unless they can demonstrate that those functions are specifically used to help users with "disabilities." Since a lot of password managers use the Accessibility API, as well as poplar apps like Tasker automation and Greenify battery saver, there was a large amount of backlash from developers and users alike. According to SlashGear, Google is putting the Android accessibility crackdown on hold. From the report: Google has now sent another email that basically says "we'll think about it." It is evaluating "responsible and innovative use" of those services on a case to case basis. It is also requiring developers to explicitly inform users why they are asking for accessibility permissions rather than just informing them. This, of course, puts a heavier burden on Google, as it has to be more involved in the screening of apps rather than just rely on good ol' machine learning and automation. Developers and users probably won't mind, if it means still having access to those features that make Android a platform above all the rest.
How about cracking down on manufacturers who don't provide five years of security updates? They can control this through the licensing of Google Mobile Services, and use it to impose other restrictions on manufacturers. Let's stop making excuses for Android and Google. This is far more important than the topic of the story, and should be a much higher priority for Google.
The accessibility functions are also a massive security issue for apps that use them improperly. None of that is mentioned in the summary, yet it's very important to provide that context for this discussion.
Developers and users probably won't mind, if it means still having access to those features that make Android a platform above all the rest.
Why are biased trollish statements left in the summary? That's an opinion that distracts from the real issue, which is what the permissions do and why they're a risk for users. Perhaps I prefer iOS to Android, and there's no good reason for flamebait like that to be in the summary.
The real issue here is that there are plenty of useful things that can be done with those permissions, but they also pose a security risk for apps that use them improperly. Given that the user can't see the source of the apps or verify that they compile to the same binary that is distributed, the user is left needing to trust that the permissions are being used.