Is that cursed? Seems like the right privacy-focused default behavior and good design to me
Imo the cursed part is that only some do that and not all.
It's the silently part that is the problem. If you want your personal pictures to be stored on your personal cloud, you're a lot more likely to want location tags attached. If it just told you that it was stripping the tags, then you could disable it for certain apps, Rather than not noticing until you already deleted the original images from the phone.
So if I download an image from the web with GPS data, and then open it in an app that just reads images (so it doesn't need location permissions)... That app (on some phones) gets a modified version of the file?
Which could make me think that the image doesn't have location information.
Which could result in me uploading that file using a browser (that does have location permission turned on) to a website, and I think it's safe to share because there's no private information in the image, but my phone has conspired to mislead me.
Yes, that is cursed.
I'm also worried that this is why gallery apps would require GPS location just for viewing photos (and their Metadata). Once gallery app has the permission, it can track your location in real time. It's like this should be a separate permission rather than bundled together.
I agree completely.
I understand the motivation here — apps that lack location permission shouldn't be able to get backdoor access to your location via your camera roll. That makes sense, because you know damn well every
spywaresocial media company would be doing that if they could.But the reverse is also true: apps that legitimately need to read photos and access all their metadata shouldn't need to be granted full location access.
I was thinking this as well
Permanently Deleted
That Javascript date indexing one is almost as cursed as fucking tire sizes.
This included that as well.
Where can I find this library?
This is completely fine
