Restrict dangerous and restrict system apps 2 different check marks.

[SWADED]

I want to restrict some system apps while maintaining the dangerous list.
So for instance restrict the build in gallery from accessing the internet without getting inet pop-ups.

Basically I think restrict dangerous functions and restrict system apps should be 2 different check marks.

In order to restrict the Play Store (or even the built in Gallery app) in getting my location, I have to restrict dangerous settings and then go through a ''on demand hell''.

It would be much easier if you could restrict system apps like this without crashing your phone every time a inet request pops-up.

System apps are just a big of invasion of privacy as normal user apps imho.

[banderos101]

+1

[an0n981]

I don't think they should be completely separated, since restricting system apps is dangerous, (from what I have seen, this is where most user errors come from). If this can be achieved by building a sub menu under 'restrict dangerous' then +1.
My idea: move 'use secure connection' to general. This no longer needs to be an expert option. If I remember correctly it was put there to test if it works properly. I believe by now we can say that it works (and should be enabled by default?). Then rename 'Expert Mode' to 'Expert Mode (Dangerous Functions)'. Then remove 'Restrict Dangerous' and replace it with the individual dangerous settings.

[dsbarry]

+1

[cesar65]

+1

[hollal]

I'm not sure I understand the proposed change. I have never particularly concerned myself with whether or not an app is a system one or not, and whether it's a dangerous function. I just bang ticks in all the restrictions like a machine and rejoice if it works out. +1 because I'm all about having more options/capabilities.

[M66B]

@hollal: please only give a +1 if you really need something. The system of +1's was introduced to prevent implementing things that most people don't need.

The total now is +2, since I count @an0n981 vote as -1.

[an0n981]

as -1 instead of just 0? If you don't count me (which is perfectly fair) and @hollal (also understandable) then it should still be +3. however you are of course judge, jury and executioner.

Edit: After rereading my comment, I now see where the -1 comes from. It is definitely a vote against the original proposal. (I didn't know it was possible to give a -1)

[hollal]

Please can someone explain what the proposed change would allow? I have yet to see a use for marking functions as dangerous as I have set up my template to how I like it. Or would this be granting the ability to restrict system apps? I don't really follow the opening two statements;

I want to restrict some system apps while maintaining the dangerous list.
So for instance restrict the build in gallery from accessing the internet without getting inet pop-ups.

Apologies for the somewhat cavalier approach to my +1.

[SWADED]

I want to restrict system apps like any other app, now you have to restrict dangerous functions.
I want to restrict them without having to restrict dangerous functions.

[Cadoow]

+1

[hollal]

Thank you for the clarification.

[DELANIS]

+1

[an0n981]

Although I cannot give a +1 (this is not a feature I need) I request that my -1 be changed to a 0

[M66B]

No problem.
If I count right there are now five +1's

[Magissia]

Is that really required? We don't already have two check mark?

[Cerberus-tm]

This sounds like a good idea, I would like this. +1

[pylerSM]

+1

[M66B]

I am sorry, but there were not enough +1's for this feature request.

[M66B]

There is a fairly simple workaround to get this feature:

• Disable 'restrict dangerous' in the main settings
• Set the dangerous functions in the template to not restricted

This will not change existing restrictions, but even if I had implemented this feature, existing restrictions wouldn't have changed to not cause trouble for existing installations (which there certainly would have been).

[M66B]

I am reopening this issue, because I have added a new label 'pullwelcome', which means that despite that there were not ten +1's, a pull request for thoroughly tested code from another developer is welcome. Although I have done almost all the work for this project, I still see XPrivacy as a community project and I don't want to prevent other developers from contributing code. I do reserve the right to deny a pull requests if the quality of the code is insufficient.

[M66B]

Recent changes and #1704 makes this feature request obsolete