Skip to main content


Google had accepted a version of #Conversations_im with address book integration that explicitly asks the user for consent to process the contact list locally on their device before requesting contacts permission. Our privacy policy included explicit wording w.r.t. local processing of the contact list.

However it’s unthinkable for Google that someone would request contacts permission and then not upload them. A few days later they changed their mind and threatened to remove the app again.
#XMPP

This entry was edited (9 months ago)
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

Makes one wonder what exactly the contact permission is for, then.

If you're not allowed to process the contacts locally, and obviously not remotely, why exactly is the permission even a thing?

in reply to Jonas Schäfer

@jssfr
If I understand correctly what @daniel is saying, you *are* allowed to process the contacts remotely, as long as you tell the user that you're doing it
in reply to Wolf480pl

Yes I believe that if I were to change the consent screen to say we are uploading the contact list it would be fine with Google.

That would obviously be extremely confusing for our users.

This entry was edited (9 months ago)
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

I tried arguing with Google for a while however their 7 day deadline to admit publicly that I'm uploading the contact list is running out tomorrow so to not risk the app being removed again I was forced to publish a version without address book integration.

It seems like you can only have an app that requests contacts permission on the PlayStore if you boldly declare that you upload them.

in reply to Daniel Gultsch

Folks, get it on F-Droid and pay the author anyway (donate).
This entry was edited (9 months ago)
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Jonas Schäfer

Okay and they just don't believe you that you are not doing that?

And you are not even syncing contact names into the remote roster or something like that?

in reply to Daniel Gultsch

In the meantime, the WhatsApp client does not even offer basic features until you give it address book permission (you can't initiate a new chat, for instance). But I guess Meta has proven that they don't do shady stuff, so that's all good.
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

how dare you asking for access to personal data and not immediately upload it to your server and sell it? What do you think you are the cleverest? That breaks the whole business model11
in reply to Daniel Gultsch

I like how #google nowadays cannot even comprehend the concept of being a decent app/service...