My issue is with Apple acting as the arbiters of what consent looks like. You have to consent with the flow to go through with it, right? Nobody's forcing our users to continue.
And like I have already said, it's not like we can't do what you're suggesting. In fact, we have, but that it equates to more churn in our flows because users get confused or are fatigued by the amount of hoops they have to jump through to make the product work, which was my original point to this whole thread.
Apple does not have a trusted relationship with you, the software developer. And Apple doesn't know about a trust relationship between the user and the software developer until the OS sees confirmation from the user.
It then follows that consent must be given at or inside the security boundary to be provable; the web page you refer to is outside of it. You are asking to move from a less trusted environment (a web browser, generally watched like a hawk) to a more trusted environment (an application, with additional implicit permissions and the explicit ability to ask for others). That isn't a decision you are allowed to make and it isn't something that, for all Apple knows, you confused-deputy'd your way around a user's affirmatively consenting to.
It's turtles all the way down. You have to acquire consent at a trustable level. That means the OS or, if the OS isn't sure, the user themselves, through an OS-verifiable method. Sorry that your third-party vendor doesn't count, but it shouldn't. "Just trust me" isn't security.
"But nobody cares" might be next up, so let's settle that now: nobody cares because they pay Apple to care for them.
Yeah, they do, because they have to trust the certificates and entitlements that my app is signed with. All I'm asking for is an extension of that same idea to other parts of the app experience.
I just don't think we're going to agree on this, and that's fine. Care to call it a day and we can respectfully both walk away?
That's a 401 vs 403 distinction. They know who you are, they don't know that you're authorized to do this.
Are you willing to provide signed proof that the user consented to this action? The same way you provide signed code to prove you're the one uploading the code. Presumably this would have to be via a key that you don't have access to (only the user would be able to consent to this).
Because that seems like the parallel here.
Technically, apple should be auditing your flows at that point too, to make sure there aren't any dark patterns.
But, yeah, at that point, I think you could make that argument stick.
They do not have the capability to exhaustively check all uses thereof in a way that obviates the need for a user to consent to having you monitor their pasteboard.
They could develop it, expending significant resources on an edge-case for a tiny fraction of app developers, or they could ask the user for permission because the user has the context to expect this request (or to not).
What I'm suggesting is a predicate like only allow NSPasteboard access without prompting iff the predicate passes something like let predicate = NSPredicate(format: "SELF MATCHES %@", "^/.\\?var=.$")
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
You already have a compromise: you can, if you insist and if your user consents--not Apple through some "trusted certificate" granting process but the user themselves--choose to not follow standard system flows. Or you can follow standard system flows and receive implicit consent by the user when they click 'Copy' in the share sheet.
Why is seeking consent so terrifying a prospect? And why should anyone privilege "your flows" over that consent?