[guardian-dev] Orbot 15.4.0-beta-1 (ARM ONLY)

arrase arrase at gmail.com
Thu Mar 23 10:18:38 EDT 2017


For my, after read the google documentation, is clear than that is one of
the exceptions allowed by google, i'm offering a network service so is a
main feature to maintain that service up.

Reading the documentation at
https://developer.android.com/training/monitoring-device-state/doze-standby.html
:

Doze and App Standby break the core function of the app

About the benefits without wakelock:

If doze is enabled:

Network access is suspended.

But if you request the permissions:

An app that is whitelisted can use the network



2017-03-23 15:00 GMT+01:00 Michael Rogers <michael at briarproject.org>:

> On 06/03/17 14:34, Nathan of Guardian wrote:
> > For now, Orbot does prompt you to disable the battery optimization
> > features for Orbot when you enable a hidden service. Otherwise, I think
> > it is up to the app server/process itself to handle their own wake lock
> > needs, depending on what kind of availability they are expected to have.
> >
> > ChatSecure/Zom already does quite a bit of wakelock management for
> > instance, and so if we added a Ricochet, Briar or other protocol support
> > into that stack, I wouldn't expect Orbot to directly handle it.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> The situation with doze mode and app standby is far from clear to me,
> even after a lot of digging, but it seems to me that whichever app holds
> the wake lock also needs to request whitelisting, otherwise the wake
> lock won't be honoured in doze mode.
>
> So if you think the wake lock should be held by the client app rather
> than by Orbot (which I would agree with, because it puts the battery
> blame on the client), then the client app should also request
> whitelisting. I don't understand the benefit of Orbot requesting
> whitelisting without also holding a wake lock.
>
> Another issue to consider is that apps have been removed from the Play
> Store for requesting the REQUEST_IGNORE_BATTERY_OPTIMIZATIONS
> permission, if Google decides that the permission isn't needed for "the
> core function of the app" (see
> https://commonsware.com/blog/2015/11/11/google-anti-trust-issues.html).
> If a client app needs a hidden service and Orbot provides one, which of
> them would Google consider to have a legitimate case for requesting the
> permission? I have no idea, and frankly it's stupid that we even have to
> worry about it, but such is the platform.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev
> To unsubscribe, email:  guardian-dev-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/guardian-dev/attachments/20170323/101ce677/attachment.html>


More information about the guardian-dev mailing list