No. Government isn't the answer to most problems and certainly not this. The market fixes this. If you don't like the terms, don't use the app. As soon as "legislation" gets involved, then suddenly app developers are now under the same type of regulation that covers medical devices, etc. That's a huge burden. Imagine the patent trolls -- they use patent legislation to attack developers (often small indy shops) that "potentially" have infringed on some patent, despite the fact that the developer didn't even know a patent existed and the technology involved is sufficiently ambiguous as to be case based more on the financial resources of the participants rather than the merits of the claim.
With this permissions legislation, an app that does legitimately request a permission might have increased lawsuit exposure because of someone's interpretation of what the permissible purpose of that permission might be. Even if the developer is "right" they still have to spend thousands of dollars they likely don't have to defend themselves. We have patent trolls -- what's next, permissions trolls?
The free market is the answer. However, education of the public is necessary for them to realize the tomfoolery in which some apps engage. However, all the education in the world is unlikely to help -- this "general public" we're talking about is the same crowd that plays Farmville and Candy Crush.
iOS is a bit more "safe" in the privacy regards because each app must explicitly request permission for a specific use and Apple is rather rigorous when you attempt to use a permission outside the scope of the app. I don't know anything about Android, but if it covertly enables a permission without the user's knowledge, then that's something Android should fix. But legislation? Hell no. I don't trust legislators to paint white stripes on the road correctly, let alone pass laws about technology about which they are demonstrably ignorant much of the time.
There is no law of nature that suggests a free (laissez-faire) market fixes anything. More specifically, that style of pure capitalism only has one inherent trait: capital tends to become accumulated. While I, personally, think this kind of unidirectional focus is not healthy in the long run, the amount of regulation needed to mix into a market is a difficult and open questions.
> might have increased lawsuit exposure
Yes. That would be the entire point of regulation. You follow the legislated regulations or you get hit with some sort of lawsuit or fine or similar.
> because of someone's interpretation of what the permissible purpose of that permission might be.
I agree! This is a very difficult problem to describe in a clear, reliable manner. I suggest that the industry should be proactive on this; it would be a lot better if the people with the technical knowledge came up with some sort of permission scheme that avoided ambiguity and more accurately reflected what types of permissions the applications actually use.
The alternative is to wait for some well-meaning but technically inept legislation, and all the idiocy it implies.
> education of the public is necessary
Absolutely. This is always of vital importance.
> I don't trust legislators
Neither do I - which is why it is important to beat them to the punch with your own solutions and legislation.
"we had to create the future, or others will do it for us"
- Susan Ivanova, "Sleeping in Light", Babylon 5
