Why so many apps need sensor access?

treequell

You shouldn't disable the sensors permission for system apps.

Of my user apps, the Camera app is the only one I give the sensors permission. If I disable the sensors permission, any new landscape photos I take with the Camera get displayed in portrait in my Gallery app.

N1b

Yeah sorry all user apps is what I mean.

Anonymous

A list of system apps that actually require sensors permission would be useful. I bet it would be a very short list.

[deleted]

Anonymous It would be better if most system apps did not have the sensors permission by default, except a few that actually need It. User apps can continue to have the Sensors permission by default for compatibility, and the User can disable the auto-granting of the Sensors permission to apps installed afterwards anyway.

Anonymous

What would be ideal, is an OS that doesn't decide permissions on your behalf, like you're a child whom needs constant hand-holding, like you're not intelligent enough to have full control of your device... it feels so condescending. Provide a manual of recommended settings for optimal functionality and security. This project is time-consuming and challenging, I know! Compiling a list of necessary and optional settings would be so simple, comparatively. Teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves.

GrapheneOS

Anonymous The Sensors permission is added by GrapheneOS. This means apps aren't aware of it and don't have code for detecting if it's enabled and requesting it when they need it. It's enabled by default to avoid breaking app compatibility and making GrapheneOS harder to use. There's a toggle for choosing whether it's enabled by default for newly installed apps. It's your choice if you want it to be enabled or disabled by default for user installed apps. This complaint doesn't make sense.

If you're referring to system components, users aren't really meant to be changing those permissions and you're very likely to break the operating system and end up needing to undo your changes via an app preferences reset. Removing the sensors permission from components in the OS not requiring it would be internal OS hardening work with very low impact. There's a low priority planned feature for exhaustively determining which system components need the sensors permission and only granting it to those. Missing anything would break functionality and therefore shipping this has a high risk of causing regressions not just when making the initial change but any time there are new OS components requiring sensors access or existing ones start requiring it. It would be an ongoing maintenance burden. If you want the project to be able to implement more of our planned features, you should contribute. There are hundreds of planned privacy and security improvements. Many of those planned improvements are a lot more significant than this would be. The system components come from GrapheneOS and the benefit of removing unnecessary access is hardening against exploitation, since an attacker who exploited one of those components is limited to what it has available in the sandbox. There's no real world privacy or security benefit since in reality attackers aren't using code execution exploits to get limited sensor access. They're going to target privileged components and attempt to take over the OS as a whole, not simply gain very limited access within the sandbox for an unprivileged system component.

f13a-6c3a

Anonymous What would be ideal

What I think would be ideal if people spend the time to read forum, previously answered questions, educate themselves about topics they know nothing about first before assuming and doing dumb shit

[deleted]

Anonymous These apps do not have "Sensors" permissions on stock Android, this is a permission unique to GrapheneOS. All of these apps come with "Sensors" permission "Allowed" by default in order to avoid breaking them due to not knowing how they will function without the permission, which seems counterintuitive considering they never even had the permission in the past?

See, access to sensors is FULLY ALLOWED for ALL apps on Android. GrapheneOS has its own runtime permission for Sensors, which is allowed by default to avoid breaking comatibility. The GrapheneOS Official Project account has already stated that Removing the sensors permission from components in the OS not requiring it would be internal OS hardening work with very low impact. : GrapheneOS

GrapheneOS

The system components implemented as apps are the high level parts the OS. We don't bundle third party apps so every system app is from GrapheneOS. There are a tiny number of regular user facing apps bundled into the OS but the rest are parts of the OS itself. You can't see most of the access available to system components via the permission settings. You can only see the standard user facing settings available to regular apps. Most of the access available to system components is granted via privileged permissions only available to system components based on them being included in the OS as a priv-app, platform permissions requiring the platform signing key, custom SELinux policy for their app id / signature, having their app id on a specific allowlist such as the Vanadium WebView or other mechanisms. It's simply misguided to look through these app-based high level OS components in the way you're doing. You're only looking at a certain kind of OS component and you're only looking at which standard permissions they use which is not the main way system components are given the access they require.

Anonymous

GrapheneOS Thank you for taking the time to address this. I understand what happens when you delete things that have integrated dependency and then you break functionality and have to reset and start all over again, and again, and again, etc. I have also found that there are a lot of android apps that can be excluded safely. Most people don't go through their phones with a fine tooth comb as I do and many aren't as paranoid... though, to be fair, the paranoia is not without merit. I am happy to learn from those whom are more educated than myself and I understand why the complaint doesn't make sense... it is a layperson's complaint as humanity is offered less and less ability to control things in their lives. The complaint isn't directed specifically at GrapheneOS, it's more of a general question as to why people aren't just allowed to brick their phones... they paid for them! You've done a great job answering a question that is difficult to answer. Most people, myself included, just aren't that tech savvy. So, yes, toggle them off for user installed apps, but don't toggle them off for system as we simply don't know which apps require them and which don't at this point of development, correct?

[deleted]

Anonymous and also just to add a little off topic, it doesn't make sense trying to externally remove (i.e. via adb) system components as many attempt to do and mention it in various threads. It may break functionality and integrity of the OS and you are only likely to find them back where they were after the next OS update if you enrolled which you should.

[deleted]

f13a-6c3a I'm often strucked by people's reluctance to read official (and very good) documentation and yet not hesitate to create yet another account somewhere to ask a question that's already been answered elsewhere on the forum.

Anonymous

f13a-6c3a and [deleted] Have you read every thread? Because based on the titles, there is nowhere I have found that would indicate this had already been addressed. The referenced post with the so-called answer, was in regards to someone other than myself or the OP of this thread's assumption and no one actually addressed, directly, the ability to remove it. SO, what would be ideal and impressive and refreshing, would be if only those with a straightforward solution, specific to the question(s) asked, would be kind enough to not make assumptions about someone else's discovery due diligence prior to asking for help, and simply and directly, answer the question so that everyone can learn in an environment free from the gratuitous opinions of egotistical know-it-alls with impulse control deficit and a penchant for belittling others. I.e., if you don't have something constructive to say, sit down and shut up, stop wasting people's precious time. I ask questions, no matter how stupid they may seem, so that I can continue to evolve, and I hope comments like yours and other similar commentators, don't dissuade others from doing likewise. The only stupid question is the one that was never asked.

[deleted]

Anonymous I can only refer you to the two posts further above by GrapheneOS account. Read carefully and don't tamper with OS. You trusted them enough to install it in the first place.

f13a-6c3a

Anonymous sit down and shut up, stop wasting people's precious time

You should take your own advice, really. It not only stupid but utterly ridiculous to, despite numerous calls not to, screw with system files and then request support and post "what would be ideal' comment.

Anonymous

[deleted] I did read those posts. I did trust the GOS developers enough to flash their software. I trust no one, completely, and neither should anyone else. I obsessive, compulsively research, ask questions, even the 'stupid' ones, sometimes make mistakes and learn from them so I can trust myself... reasonably. If we all blindly, mindlessly, naively trusted, we'd all still be content with Google unchecked. Additionally, would the developers have provided the option and instructions for anyone to build their own GOS if they intended we not touch system components?

Anonymous

f13a-6c3a Did you inspect that inane babble before posting? I did not 'screw with system files' and then request support. And ideal, is an environment of free will and choice. It would be fantastic if humanity were allowed to evolve. Though, I doubt communists would agree with that sentiment.

[deleted]

Anonymous just to remind you, sensor permission is a GOS own invented permission and as such it mostly regards to control over user installed (not system) apps. If you were using usual stock Android, you would have absolutely no control over it. So please don't touch system apps, focus on the ones you choose to install.

Anonymous

What's so offensive about freedom with recommended guidelines?

Anonymous

It has occurred to me that, perhaps, the people commenting aren't aware of the relevance associated with the OP's question, since we've gone so off topic with how thing should or shouldn't be, what people should or shouldn't do with their personal property, etc.
Follow along if you want to understand "Lots of F-Droid apps have sensor access by default. Is this required?"
Settings/Privacy/Permission manager/Sensors.... behold, literally, every app, all 131, prior to selecting "Show system," are "Allowed." When you select "Show system," there are an additional 26 apps for which the option to decide whether to "Allow" or "Don't allow," is disabled, so the discourse on touching "System" apps is moot. I believe the misunderstanding is surrounding the confusion between the terms used; "User," "System" and "User installed" apps. When I was initially setting up my phone, I wondered why all 131 "User" apps had access to "Sensors" by default, and I believe this was what motivated undwersq's question in the first place, (correct me if I'm wrong.) To anyone whom knows their way around an Android phone, it is unusual and , therefore, a valid question.

In the future, for clarity sake, for new users whom may have the same questions:

At this point in time, there are 131 "User" apps and 26 "System" apps for a total of 157 apps that come preinstalled as part of Graphene OS. These apps do not have "Sensors" permissions on stock Android, this is a permission unique to GrapheneOS. All of these apps come with "Sensors" permission "Allowed" by default in order to avoid breaking them due to not knowing how they will function without the permission, which seems counterintuitive considering they never even had the permission in the past? You have the ability to toggle "Don't allow" on all 131 "User" apps, but not on the 26 "System" apps. It is unclear if toggling "Don't allow" on the 131 "User" apps will cause system or app specific dysfunction. You can, of course, choose "Allow" or "Don't allow" on any app that you install independent of preinstalled apps, "User installed" apps. If you go to "Settings" and then "Privacy," scroll down to "Allow Sensors permission to apps by default" and toggle it off to deny this default permission to "User installed" apps, but the change only applies to apps installed after it has been toggled off. If you installed apps prior to discovering this feature, and wish to change their access to "Sensors" permission, it will have to be done manually, either by going to "Settings" then "Apps," or "Settings then "Privacy" and then "Permission manager."

According to Google Pixel support, "Sensors" are as follows:
Pixel 4 and 5:
Proximity/Ambient light sensor
Accelerometer/Gyrometer
Magnetometer
Pixel Imprint™ – back-mounted fingerprint sensor for fast unlocking
Barometer
Spectral and flicker sensor
Pixel 6-7:
Ambient light sensor
Accelerometer
Gyrometer
Magnetometer
Barometer
Proximity sensor
Pixel Fold:
Same as 6 and 7
Hall effect

Is this correct? Also, if one were to toggle off any of the 131 preinstalled "User" apps, and an app needed the permission to function, do we know if the app will break, malfunction or ask for the permission to be enabled?

Anonymous

[deleted] Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "see access to sensors is FULLY ALLOWED for ALL apps on Android"... where can I see that? Based on the statement that I can see here, ("Removing the sensors permission from components in the OS not requiring it would be internal OS hardening work with very low impact"), it sounds like they are saying you can do it, but it may not be worth the effort?