Android requiring location services enabled for Bluetooth?

[SiliconWizard]

So what's the fricking crap with Android requiring location services enabled for using Bluetooth at all?
Is that a sad joke?
That would be one good reason for me never to use Android again, or a Bluetooth device. Let's see what happens first.

[edpalmer42]

Are you referring to regular Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).  BLE has always needed location services active, but regular Bluetooth (i.e. earphones, headsets, etc.) doesn't unless the new version has changed that.

Basically, if you have to pair a device, you don't need location but if it just magically happens, you do.

Ed

[Halcyon]

I wouldn't be concerned about enabling location services in order to use the Bluetooth stack, rather, you should be only granting location services on a per-app basis and only when you actually need an application to know your location. It's by design. It doesn't mean your applications are leaking your location information.

[SiliconWizard]

Are you referring to regular Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).  BLE has always needed location services active, but regular Bluetooth (i.e. earphones, headsets, etc.) doesn't unless the new version has changed that.

Basically, if you have to pair a device, you don't need location but if it just magically happens, you do.

Ed

It's indeed for BLE devices, which are themselves a big joke in terms of security.
And yes indeed, this is not new in Android. Didn't say it was. Just annoying when you actually have to deal with a BLE device.

Now if someone can give us the rationale for that, I'll be all ears.

[edpalmer42]

Are you referring to regular Bluetooth or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).  BLE has always needed location services active, but regular Bluetooth (i.e. earphones, headsets, etc.) doesn't unless the new version has changed that.

Basically, if you have to pair a device, you don't need location but if it just magically happens, you do.

Ed

It's indeed for BLE devices, which are themselves a big joke in terms of security.
And yes indeed, this is not new in Android. Didn't say it was. Just annoying when you actually have to deal with a BLE device.

Now if someone can give us the rationale for that, I'll be all ears.

Yeah, I'd love to see them try to justify that in front of a senate committee.    

[RoGeorge]

So what's the fricking crap with Android requiring location services enabled for using Bluetooth at all?
Is that a sad joke?
That would be one good reason for me never to use Android again, or a Bluetooth device. Let's see what happens first.

Joke?  No, it's surveillance by design, brought to you by Google.  The question is on who's request?

Seems there is a workaround, discover all BT instead of BLE, not sure if that still works.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33045581/location-needs-to-be-enabled-for-bluetooth-low-energy-scanning-on-android-6-0

[JPortici]

Yes, it has been mandated since android 10 if i remember correctly. Before android 10 you could trick the device into using older APIs for the app so that it didn't require permissions and everything else
You need to give location permission
You also need to have location enable to scan for new devices.
Why? because you can have an approximate location based on signal strenght (i know, i know) or rather if your device is in proximity of an ibeacon which is geolocalized you have an exact location without user intervention. That's all in the android Docs regarding BLE

From what i understand they will finally change this requirement in the next version of android (13 is it?) and introduce specific permissions for scan, advertisement and such.

[SiliconWizard]

I still don't get it.

BLE devices are visible only a few meters away (say 10 typically, sometimes up to 20-30m) and location services (especially indoors) are even worse than this in terms of accuracy. So what's the point? It's virtually impossible to know for instance if some BLE device is yours or is someone else's being in your vicinity. Particularly noticeable when you are in an office or appartment building.

BLE can be used with bonding (which I think is the right term for BLE rather than pairing?) or without, and the latter is more common (for ease of use), but of course that's absolutely terrible in terms of security. But they say that it's not a big deal, because ubiquitous BLE devices that can be connected to without authentication are usually just doing simple stuff that is supposed to cause no security or privacy issues, such as giving temperature or something. That is debatable.

I'm personally for boycotting BLE altogether - even outside of this Android shit.

[alm]

I see it the other way around: because BLE can be used for location tracking using beacons. Let's say your inside an airport, and the airport has an app that can track the location of the user inside the airport, then this app should ask the user for location permission before being able to do this.

[Halcyon]

I see it the other way around: because BLE can be used for location tracking using beacons. Let's say your inside an airport, and the airport has an app that can track the location of the user inside the airport, then this app should ask the user for location permission before being able to do this.

It's not just a case of "the app should ask" but it will ask, otherwise Android won't allow it access to those specific resources.

Enabling location services for the Bluetooth side of things won't automatically allow applications access to location information, you have to specifically allow it. That being said, some applications will refuse to work or continue to nag you if you deny the permission, but then that comes down to whether you want to actually use those kinds of applications. Personally, unless I can have ultimate control, those "pushy" applications don't get installed on my devices.