App can make phone calls without your knowledge!

grumbler

Come on... There is still no point in doing this, say, in the first half of the billing month.

Crabman

DUTR wrote: »

What charges am I challenging? You are bright enough to know you cross a bridge when you reach it, if ever this internet myth event occurs in reality , you can rest assured I will let you know 1st :cool:

You would appear to be a member of the Android fan club, classic example of dodging the question even though you realise you're wrong. Perhaps you also think Google can do no wrong?

Don't you think Google should take a more active role in vetting apps before they can be released to the public? Or is it fair for the "stupid" consumers to fall victim to these expensive scams?

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

This won't sound very MSE but opt for Paid Apps to stop Ad Tracking and this amount of intrusion.

Cash-Strapped.T32

If I found I got some charges from sending texts, what I'd do depends what app they came from and how the charge came about (random malware spamming loads of texts, taking me over my limit with the tel-co, premium-rate text numbers racking up charges with a 3rd party company, etc..).

thegoodman wrote: »

Come on. The Android is a mobile phone not some kind of geek device.
You can't expect users to know about app rights, which one are bonified sources, what apps on Google Play are safe and which one are not. Most mobile phones are used by children, people who do not have a lot inside knowledge of way Android work and many old people. Most people want to use the phone and Internet not try to learn the os or programming.

It seem the Google is happy to take money from people Who are not geek.

Despite what TGM says about most smartphone users being children, I am firmly of the opinion that once you've boot-strapped a powerful computer to your mobile phone and it's associated credit-account, and then fully integrated them, then you're in the realm of an adults-only device - The real children are the adults who give them to their kids.

If you're not responsible enough to use the same degree of responsibility you'd use on a computer with constant access to your bank account, then drill a hole through it & wear it round your neck like the fashion accessory it is, because you shouldn't be using it. That's not elitist, that's just being responsible with your finances.

You don't need to be a geek to be responsible, just read the writing on-screen that is in English & everything, and use the same skills you use every day when you use your home computer to avoid viruses & scams.
..And if you can't use one of those without falling for every scam-virus-haxxed-pirate con going, then really, is a smartphone for you at all?


Anyhow, back to my charges.
If the charges came from classic malware, a "virus" of some kind, or a haxxed game executable downloaded from a pirate site that also sends texts to a premium rate # and charged to my phone bill, then I'd pay T-mobile in the short term, and see if the premium rate company can be chased later for running a con operation. Since they probably won't be in the UK, then this is unlikely. Damn, why did I lose my normally steely self-control & download that Kate Middleton sex-tape off Virus-Tube?
Why did I ever think that downloading Angrybirds do Dallas from Ruski-Jim's Android Market was a good idea?

In that instance, I've been a mug and downloaded an infected file, had I done the same thing on my computer & my bank-details been stolen, I'd have been equally responsible.
Just because in this country the banks always pay you back, doesn't means it's not sometimes (or usually?) the customer's fault - same goes in this case, only the Telcos don't pay you back.

If the charges came from a legit app but I've not paid attention to charges going onto my account - Say some pointy faced anime-MMRPG that has paid for credits in-game and I rack up charges without having done anything to warrant it, then I'd chase the company in question, users shouldn't have to be that aware of their bill when the app comes from a genuine company.



** But, all this is just fluff, Grumbler got to the nub of the OP's question ages imo - It's a programming question, which to be fair, kinda is getting into geek territory.

grumbler wrote: »

However, the question remains. Why on earth does this weather app need these permissions?!

No one's really given an answer to this, but it's the most pertinent point to answer the OP imo, leave TGM's mad ramblings out of it.

The answer most likely lies in sloppy or lazy coding by the programmer, or possibly it does some other functions that makes use of those parts of the OS.
Android's permissions allow the app to call upon parts of the OS, and obviously by extension when not enabled (granted) they are a limitation.

Proper programming practice has *always* been in any situation to leave the smallest footprint possible, so for example when using constructs like variables, arrays or objects - whatever - You'd always declare it at the lowest possible level, so only the bits that directly interact with it can access it, and other parts of the program can't even see it.

I've not written anything for Android nor am I particularly familiar with it's components, but I believe firmly the same mindset would apply to permissions among Android programmers, in that it's frowned upon to use solutions in your programming that need too many permissions for what you're trying to achieve, or that use a permission which grants too much access if you only wanted it for a minor function in your program.

For instance, if an app needs to know your phone number, the programmer might write in that it needs permission to allow Phonebook access just for this once-only check that only happens the first time you run the app.
Better practice might be a textbox that allows the user to input their number upon the first startup & stores it.

Now that's an insanely simple example, but I hope it helps illustrate the point.
Imo the OP is sort of overreacting, permissions are a helpful way of assessing, but as I think DUTR said above, using them as too much a guide can be a bit misleading as it relates to what the OS would allow the program to do if the coders so wished, it's not a list of things that the app will do when you run it.

DUTR

Crabman wrote: »

You would appear to be a member of the Android fan club, classic example of dodging the question even though you realise you're wrong. Perhaps you also think Google can do no wrong?

Don't you think Google should take a more active role in vetting apps before they can be released to the public? Or is it fair for the "stupid" consumers to fall victim to these expensive scams?

I am not a member of any OS fan club, there is no point you asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you want to hear
Perhaps you do not realise like yourself and TGM , I am not insecure about what device I use or what others are using, it is up to them, or how much cash I can get back for a handset (when I feel to change my handset I simply buy a new one sim free) it is not like I have to re-mortgage. As mentioned I know no one in the real world who has become a victim of 'malware ' if it was rife like portraid then I am sure we we see plenty more posts about the issue. For me personally I avoid getting an iphone as they do not meet my handset needs and even if it did, there seems to be a stigma attached with owning one .

DUTR

grumbler wrote: »

Come on... There is still no point in doing this, say, in the first half of the billing month.

No it is not essential, just as it is not essential for me to check the weather report on the handset as it is quicker to look out of the window. It takes little time or effort as it is simply activate the app, enter the passcode and all the details are there, it is not as if it costs anything to check . With my bundle allowance of 600mins 1000texts, the average daily allowance is 20mins and 33 txts per day (data is unlimited anyway) , so for me it is prudent to check from the early part or any time of the monthly cycle.

Crabman

DUTR wrote: »

I am not a member of any OS fan club, there is no point you asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you want to hear
Perhaps you do not realise like yourself and TGM , I am not insecure about what device I use or what others are using, it is up to them, or how much cash I can get back for a handset (when I feel to change my handset I simply buy a new one sim free) it is not like I have to re-mortgage. As mentioned I know no one in the real world who has become a victim of 'malware ' if it was rife like portraid then I am sure we we see plenty more posts about the issue. For me personally I avoid getting an iphone as they do not meet my handset needs and even if it did, there seems to be a stigma attached with owning one .

Yet you feel the need to check your mobile account on a daily basis... that sounds like the behaviour of someone who feels entirely confident in the platform

For the record, I know of two individuals who have lost money because Google decided to release Apps to the Android market without checking them properly. The charges came up on the bill and I'm not aware that they managed to successfully dispute the charges. Of course, Google had no issues harvesting its own revenue out of it whilst providing no support whatsoever. It's what Google does best.

It's like blaming those who fall victim to double glazing cowboys whilst allowing the cowboys to continue finding new victims.

DUTR

Crabman wrote: »

Yet you feel the need to check your mobile account on a daily basis... that sounds like the behaviour of someone who feels entirely confident in the platform

For the record, I know of two individuals who have lost money because Google decided to release Apps to the Android market without checking them properly. The charges came up on the bill and I'm not aware that they managed to successfully dispute the charges. Of course, Google had no issues harvesting its own revenue out of it whilst providing no support whatsoever. It's what Google does best.

It's like blaming those who fall victim to double glazing cowboys whilst allowing the cowboys to continue finding new victims.

At the end of day I check my accounts (banking and phone frequently) because I can, I won't be bullied or frightened by the scare stories (I don't know what apps your friends fell victim to) my next handset appears to be the Sony Xperia Acro S :cool:

Crabman

DUTR wrote: »

At the end of day I check my accounts (banking and phone frequently) because I can, I won't be bullied or frightened by the scare stories (I don't know what apps your friends fell victim to) my next handset appears to be the Sony Xperia Acro S :cool:

They're not scare stories, they are common events. If you decide to take the "I'm alright Jack" approach and isolate yourself from the reality of what happens to consumers on Android (and occasionally on Apple) then that's up to you. It's widely accepted that Apple carry out more thorough checks than Google before releasing apps to their customers.

I'm saying that it's not appropriate to blame consumers for not scrupulously reading terms and conditions. If we look at the bank charges fight, just because the banks said they would charge £30 for going 1p overdrawn didn't mean it was correct or lawful. The banks didn't do too well in that battle.

Similar for PPI - just because some consumers didn't notice they were being ripped off doesn't make it ok that the banks and loan providers made a lot of money out of them. Financial institutions have accepted this was wrong and have had to refund billions back to consumers.

DUTR

Crabman wrote: »

They're not scare stories, they are common events. If you decide to take the "I'm alright Jack" approach and isolate yourself from the reality of what happens to consumers on Android (and occasionally on Apple) then that's up to you. It's widely accepted that Apple carry out more thorough checks than Google before releasing apps to their customers.

I'm saying that it's not appropriate to blame consumers for not scrupulously reading terms and conditions. If we look at the bank charges fight, just because the banks said they would charge £30 for going 1p overdrawn didn't mean it was correct or lawful. The banks didn't do too well in that battle.

Similar for PPI - just because some consumers didn't notice they were being ripped off doesn't make it ok that the banks and loan providers made a lot of money out of them. Financial institutions have accepted this was wrong and have had to refund billions back to consumers.

This is the thing though, other than you typing that you personally know two people this has occured to, other than that I have not heard of it happening to real people, so you must understand why I do not accept this is a common occurance (after all TGM has an android , hates them but yet he spouts on about malware). Thankfully unlike TGM, you accept that this could occur on any platform irrespective of the amount of checks anybody carries out. At one time I used to have an MBNA CC they wrote to me to say that they are sending out a new card to me as they had detected attempts of use in the Phillipines (never been there) I only used the card for petrol purchasing so anything other than that would easily be detected, I could sit with my other cards and say "well the provider can take care of all the vigilence" but I am along the lines that the customer can also be vigilent .
Yes there maybe a battle but just like the banks people did not close the accounts and switch to a bank that have never issued PPI schemes, and so whilst there is a risk of malware..... the answer is not for some, to switch to Apple products if the devices do not meet their requirements