• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

[Profile] [front Camera] Photo/email image of device intruder

does your phone need to be rooted for this to work? im on an s3 and have followed this guide but it is not working.

if i run it from the Tasker task edit window it will run but it will not work if i put in 2 incorrect patterns.
 
Not on my phone it doesn't. Have you got "failed logon attempts" enabled in secure settings as a condition?
 
ok now this profile is not working on my phone also. When in enter the pattern wrong i can see the SL4a showing up in the top bar it starts and ends and i get an picture in my tasker folder but the email portion of this does not work. I dont get any email with the picture. This was working when i had setup the task( have not used the task cause i was using a pin lock not pattern). I have checked and the username and password and email address are all correct. I tried running the task manually also the camera comes on takes a pic but i dont get an email with the pic. Any ideas?
 
One of the variables must be wrong? OR you need to uninstall SL4a and reinstall it and then re install Python. I've had to do that before.
 
Outstanding.
I already had sl4a and python on my phone.

Didn't know you could send email with that, but apparently someone spent a lot of time on that python script.

Tried this out and got it working in about 30 minutes.
Two small hitches along the way:
1 - it only works if your using a gmail account to send (yahoo doesn't work). I figured this out by looking inside the Python script file.
2 - The photo action caused problems with parameters supplied (for example can't get that particular resolution on my camera). Just had to delete the take photo action and recreate it.

Might not work with gmail 2-step verification that I have on my main account. I used another gmail without 2-step verification that I rarely use... just set it up to give to salesmen etc to avoid spam on my main account.

There are some enhancements I'm gonna add. Turn on data (in case it wan't on.. mine often isn't) and wait a few seconds before emailing. Then turn on gps, wait for fix and send another email with location.

All very minor comments. A great roadmap. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out in good detail. It'll give me some peace of mind knowing I'll have a fighting change if my phone ever gets stolen.
 
phonephreak32 said:
does your phone need to be rooted for this to work? im on an s3 and have followed this guide but it is not working.

if i run it from the Tasker task edit window it will run but it will not work if i put in 2 incorrect patterns.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Secure Settings condition is not even working to initiate the profile
Two thoughts
1 - Confirm the profile is not firing (rather than getting hung up after firing). Either check run log, or put an Alert/popup first thing in your task to see if it activates.

2 - Assuming the problem is with the secure settings condition, check the setup of secure settings. Settings / Location and Security / Device Administators.. mine has both Secure Settings and Tasker.... I think those are required. Also settings / accessibility / tasker... at least that's the way mine is set up.
 
yes i know. i used the context of input pattern incorrect 2 times and it will display a popup. i did this to see if the context is working. but i didnt receive any popup. so its telling me that it is a secure settings issue but i have all the admin rights allowed for it and tasker.
 
SUroot said:
Popup what? It doesn't matter what the task is because you know the task works. It's the context that's the problem.
Click to expand...
As I said, the purpose of suggesting the popup was to "confirm the profile is not firing".

In other words, it's something we already believe to be the case, but just wanted to double check to make we weren't missing something (it could have been that the camera or email action was intermittently failing and didn't have "continue on error" checked... ruled out now).
 
We already knew it was the context because the task works. It was already confirmed earlier in the thread ;)
 
I guess you'll be surprised to find out that I knew from the beginning that the task executed ok when run directly. It's the reason I used the word "confirm" in my first post. And it's the reason I used the word "intermittent" in my response to you. There is no logical reason for me to use those words if I didn't know that history.

Let me explain a little further. My email action fails intermittently (that means some times, but not every time). I think it is due to internet connection (on occasion I'll get failure to connect to internet in many different applications even when wifi shows connected... retry and it works fine the 2nd time).

It would truly have been a waste of time to spend significant time troubleshooting secure settings if the explanation was something as simple as intermittent failure of an email action (or for that matter any other action within the task which fails intermittently... camera is another one I would have reservations about).

So personally, I thought it was worth spending 15 extra seconds of time to confirm our conclusions by putting the simplest possible action (popup) at the beginning of the task before we proceed to the next phase of our troubleshooting. Or instead, we could spend our time on multiple posts saying why we don't think others' suggestions are worthwhile. Different people have different views on what constitutes a productive use of time ;-)
 
Indeed. The logical, methodical IT specialist in me who wrote the profile would have used the knowledge that the python scripts execution is 100% transparent, regardless of internet connectivity or even if all variables were missing.

But sure, if you think I'm too stupid and overlooked that fact and feel the need to re confirm everything, I've got another 20,000 posts for you to look through.

Thanks babe :)

Anyway, guess that's the end of that. Lost interest in this discussion. Its a waste of my time
 
Indeed. The logical, methodical IT specialist in me who wrote the profile would have used the knowledge that the python scripts execution is 100% transparent, regardless of internet connectivity or even if all variables were missing.
Click to expand...
Aside from pounding your chest, it doesn’t really seem to support your point.
On the contrary, it suggests you should be able to follow the simple logic that I spelled out.

So let me spell it out again.
The action fails if internet connection is not present.
The action fails intermittently if the internet connection is intermittent.
Nothing is proven until you check.
Hence my suggestion.

If the popup did work, we know it's not secure settings.
If the popup did not work, we know it’s secure settings problem, regardless of the connection.

Yet somehow with your vast logical, methodical IT specialist understanding, you chose to argue with this simple recommendation even AFTER it was already completed. And you kept arguing every time I explained it. And you’re the one complaining about a waste of time?

Unbelievable. It takes all kinds. See ya.
 
Phonefreak, as already suggested - we need to understand why the context is not working. If you're certain all the settings are correct, it needs presenting to the dev.
 
As far as your prior attack on my suggestion to try a popup, it remains a mystery to me why you continued arguing that point. I have still not heard the slightest hint of reversal or apology for that attack. From your latest response I can only conclude that's the way you'd prefer to leave it. The curious reader is left to decide for themselves among two alternative explanations:
A - you still think your attack was valid
OR
B - you eventually recognized the basis for my recommendation, but were too proud to backtrack on your attack

Fair enough.... it does not seem a difficult decision at all to me.

Phonefreak, as already suggested - we need to understand why the context is not working. If you're certain all the settings are correct, it needs presenting to the dev.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Actually I couldnt be bothered to indulge you in your pointless conversation. You annoyed me quite early on but to satisfy the other readers of this thread, I will certainly offer one final comment on this matter, although I had previously decided to rise above it. Then from this post on, I will consider anything else you say with the content I feel you deserve.

So to everyone else, I replied to phonefreak asking what popup be was refering to admittedly completely missing anything posted by the member above. I also stated to phonefreak that we knew the task worked and we did not need to further confirm this above and beyond the confirmation we already had. I didn't know it was a suggestion from someone else. I thought it was phonefreaks idea and I wanted to assure him he did not need to do that as he already has his confirmation

Anyway, this guy puts forward an argument of "logic and reason" in a condescending manner. There was no need to be condescending but that is no matter. What really annoyed me was his condescending approach whilst ignoring the very fact that an argument of logic and reason only stands when supported by knowledge and fact which is unfortunately where this member's post fell down.

So now he engages me in yet another pointless argument to try to prove what? Who knows? Who cares? As a top poster here, creating guides, tips and Support, it's not uncommon that I get attacked by people trying to prove they know more or that I know less, so I can only assume that is the case here. Even if that is the case, I am not interested to be honest.

But I digress... the final comment on the matter that I mentioned earlier that I would give....

Phonefreak knows the task runs with a manual trigger. If the task runs, it can only be the context (trigger) that is failing. The task runs regardless of internet connectivity as incorrectly pointed out earlier. Sure, an email might not arrive but that is not an indication of trigger failure. We can quite clearly see sl4a running the script.

The moment we see "sendemailA.py started", we know the task is running. The python script starts regardless of network connectivity. It runs in airplane mode, which you can all feel free to test. So if the secure settings context is met and the task doesn't run, we KNOW the context isn't working because the sl4a status is not presented to the user. Nothing other than the context failing, could cause a proven working task to not work.

This is my final word on the matter. I hope we can keep this on topic from now on.

Apology? No. Reversal? No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom