Groups > comp.mobile.android > #33030 > unrolled thread

Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone?

Started by	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
First post	2016-08-02 19:37 +0000
Last post	2016-08-08 05:49 +0200
Articles	7 on this page of 127 — 17 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

#33443

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2016-08-16 22:01 +0000
Message-ID	<e1hgpiFbjkU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#33440

Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2016 01:11:57 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
>> More insults showing you have nothing further of substance to add to the
>> conversation. Troll on.
> 
> Again, you entirely missed the point.

Your decision to resort to insults nullifies any supposed point you claim
to be making. Troll on.

[further insults and troll ramblings omitted]

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33273

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-10 20:47 +0700
Message-ID	<nofb9h$1t9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33255

On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 14:21:34 -0400, nospam wrote:

> privacy on ios is well ahead of anything you can possibly get on
> android, mainly because apple doesn't track users the way that google
> does and greatly limits what apps can do.

Without getting into your bullshit, do you have *any* evidence whatseover
to your claim of the big hairy blue monster in the bedroom closet?

As a test, I just ran a factory reset and loaded back all my automatically
saved APK files, all without *any* need for Google Play. 
http://i.cubeupload.com/TUcOci.gif

In the last experiment, I completely eliminated both Google Play and the
underlying services that generate the AdID.

In this test, I simply didn't bother to have a Google Play account.

I know how you Apple people work - you simply parrot what Mommy Apple
Marketing tells you - but really - think about it - there is no Google
account, so there is no Google Advertising ID. Period.

It just doesn't exist.

You claiming that the big hairy blue monster is still in the closet is just
your fear welling up inside of you. The fact is that there is no Google ID
that anyone can possibly find. 

I *expect* the Michael Eyd, Lewis and Jolly Troll to scream bloody murder
that it's just not fair, and that the blue hairy monster is still in the
closet, simply because they're too ill educated to even *think* for
themselves.

You are very often blinded yourself, by believing everything Mommy Apple
tells you, so, if *she* tells you there's no monster in the closet, then
(and only then) will you believe it (whether it's true or not).

However, in this case, Mommy Apple isn't saying anything about an Android
device with Google Play uninitialized.

I've only been factory reset for a few hours, but it seems like there is no
advertising id anywhere - and that almost all the apps work just fine, even
those which were initially downloaded long ago using Google Play, plus
those downloaded using the F-Droid and Guardian Repositories.
http://i.cubeupload.com/yPXgso.png

So, as far as I can tell, there is no Google ID. 
In addition, location services are turned off, and all Google collection of
data is turned off (AFAIK).

While this is trivially simple to do, I realize most people aren't as
clever as I am - so the *only* thing I ask of you are *facts* of why you
(factually) think the "big bad hairy blue monster" is still in the closet.

I also ask the Android users - but it seems that there are only two types
of users responding to this thread:
a. The trolls (Eyd, Jolly Troll, Lewis, etc.) who don't know anything
b. You (who *sometimes* knows what you are talking about)

It would be nice if a brave Android user tried to reproduce this, but it
seems that none (so far anyway) are as brave as I am to simply eliminate
the Google AdID spying in one easy fell swoop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33176

From	tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
Date	2016-08-07 01:44 -0400
Message-ID	<fc29vdq9fnqt.1jdyk7h5ghjmb.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to	#33164

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:03:21 -0400, Aardvarks wrote:

> Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
> that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
> debuted years ago.

Indeed. Corollary: noone can exploit the battery-status spyware
capabilities using Safari; i.e., Safari (precisely because of its greater
primitivity) is a more secure browser in that regard.

I should have thought that should make you happy :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33179

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-08-07 03:57 -0400
Message-ID	<070820160357005494%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to	#33176

In article <fc29vdq9fnqt.1jdyk7h5ghjmb.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:03:21 -0400, Aardvarks wrote:
> > Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
> > that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
> > debuted years ago.
> 
> Indeed. Corollary: noone can exploit the battery-status spyware
> capabilities using Safari; i.e., Safari (precisely because of its greater
> primitivity) is a more secure browser in that regard.

except that it's not more primitive because it shares a common codebase
with android, chrome and opera, just different forks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33182

From	Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
Date	2016-08-07 19:48 +1000
Message-ID	<57a71eb6$0$59629$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#33179

On 07/08/16 17:57, nospam wrote:
> In article <fc29vdq9fnqt.1jdyk7h5ghjmb.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
> <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:03:21 -0400, Aardvarks wrote:
>>> Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
>>> that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
>>> debuted years ago.
>>
>> Indeed. Corollary: noone can exploit the battery-status spyware
>> capabilities using Safari; i.e., Safari (precisely because of its greater
>> primitivity) is a more secure browser in that regard.
>
> except that it's not more primitive because it shares a common codebase
> with android, chrome and opera, just different forks.

By now, they're *very* different forks. There's been
close to zero cross-pollination for some time.

Can you folk please drop sci.electronics.repair from
the newsgroup list? Android v iOS discussions have no
place there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33187

From	Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date	2016-08-07 18:06 +0000
Message-ID	<e0pblnF6j2qU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#33182

Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:
>
> Can you folk please drop sci.electronics.repair from
> the newsgroup list? Android v iOS discussions have no
> place there.

You can certainly ask the OP, Aardvarks (a well known Apple hating nym
switching troll), to refrain from including that group. Just don't hold
your breath.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33195

From	Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>
Date	2016-08-08 05:49 +0200
Message-ID	<no8vkf$10hk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#33176

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 01:44:52 -0400, tlvp wrote:

> Safari (precisely because of its greater
> primitivity) is a more secure browser in that regard.

The main point is/was that the more primitive and inflexible iOS
environment has security holes in it just as the more modern and highly
customizable Android environment has holes in it.

The difference is that the holes in Firefox can be easily plugged by the
user, while the iOS users can't plug even the Safari holes they know about
- they can only trust in their Apple Marketing deity to plug the holes for
them.

In this new case of the 2012 HTML5 battery-api exploit, plugging the hole
in the more modern and customizable Firefox is as easy as type tap done.

1. Type "about:config" to search for "battery".
2. Toggle "dom.battery.enabled" from true to false.
3. Done.

I thank Jeff for bringing this issue up, and, for me, at least, the new
privacy hole in the modern customizable browsers is resolved with that
simple "type tap done".

NOTE: sci.electronics.repair removed as per John McWilliams' request.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

csiph-web

Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone?

Contents

#33443

#33273

#33176

#33179

#33182

#33187

#33195