Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #687539 > unrolled thread

How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app anon <anon@invalid.info> - 2025-03-16 14:22 +0100
    Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> - 2025-03-16 13:47 +0000
      Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-16 10:20 -0400
        Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-16 18:00 +0000
          Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-16 18:16 +0000
            Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-16 20:51 +0000
              Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-17 14:04 +0000
                Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-17 20:55 +0000
                  Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app black hats <tipped@partners.invalid> - 2025-03-18 09:52 +0100
          Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-17 21:07 +0000
            Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2025-03-20 17:33 +0100
      Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-16 11:10 -0400
        Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-03-17 14:43 +0100
        Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-17 21:16 +0000
        Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-19 03:13 +0000
    Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2025-03-16 17:28 -0400
    Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-03-18 12:09 +0100
      Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-03-18 14:37 +0000
    Re: How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-18 10:56 -0400

#687539 — How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app

https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#687541

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:22:25 +0100 (CET), anon wrote:

> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/

I'm pretty sure they all do this (Apple, Google, someotherguy).

I never expect ANY privacy on my phone, so never use is for things that 
require privacy. I assume that Google knows every keystroke I make. Then, 
on my only other device using Google (one browser on my desktop), I am 
careful what I do in that browser.

This is one reason I've never trusted encrypted comm apps at all. Since my 
phone can see what I type and read, so can Google. They can see it when 
it's not encrypted yet, or already decrypted.

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

#687546

On 2025-03-16 9:47 a.m., Retro Guy wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:22:25 +0100 (CET), anon wrote:
> 
>> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/
> 
> I'm pretty sure they all do this (Apple, Google, someotherguy).
> 
> I never expect ANY privacy on my phone, so never use is for things that
> require privacy. I assume that Google knows every keystroke I make. Then,
> on my only other device using Google (one browser on my desktop), I am
> careful what I do in that browser.
> 
> This is one reason I've never trusted encrypted comm apps at all. Since my
> phone can see what I type and read, so can Google. They can see it when
> it's not encrypted yet, or already decrypted.

This is why privacy-minded people should either not have a smartphone, 
use a basic phone or use a de-Googled phone. That's the path I'll be 
taking the next time around.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

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

#687552

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 10:20:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote :


>>> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure they all do this (Apple, Google, someotherguy).
>> 
>> I never expect ANY privacy on my phone, so never use is for things that
>> require privacy. I assume that Google knows every keystroke I make. Then,
>> on my only other device using Google (one browser on my desktop), I am
>> careful what I do in that browser.
>> 
>> This is one reason I've never trusted encrypted comm apps at all. Since my
>> phone can see what I type and read, so can Google. They can see it when
>> it's not encrypted yet, or already decrypted.
> 
> This is why privacy-minded people should either not have a smartphone, 
> use a basic phone or use a de-Googled phone. That's the path I'll be 
> taking the next time around.

Everything said above is dead wrong - it's said by people who know nothing.
Please do not try to "learn" from people who know nothing about Android.

Learn from people who know how trivially simple it is to kill that DSID.
You can negate the DSID cookie forever, by a simple single click action.

The only people who claim they can't have privacy are like those people who
are born as slaves who claim, just as wrongly, that you can't have freedom.

We have a detailed thread over here that shows you can instantly negate the
DataSetIdentifier (DSID) cookie by a simple action that is trivial to do.
 *Google Android "DSID" cookie, Android ID & Android System SafetyCore*
 <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=comp.mobile.android>
 <https://newsgrouper.org/comp.mobile.android/121580/0>
 <https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/JedCXG9A/google-android-dsid-cookie-android-id-android-system-safetycore>

As an aside, it's always the slaves who claim they can't have freedom.
It's an attitude problem. They give up instantly. 

The simplest way to negate the DSID cookie is to hit the skip button.
That singular act opens the way to making Android 10x more functional.

See the aforementioned thread for how to make (non rooted) Android 10x more
functional, and, at the same time, immediately divorce yourself from DSID.

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

#687553

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 18:00:37 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :


> We have a detailed thread over here that shows you can instantly negate the
> DataSetIdentifier (DSID) cookie by a simple action that is trivial to do.
>  *Google Android "DSID" cookie, Android ID & Android System SafetyCore*
>  <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=comp.mobile.android>
>  <https://newsgrouper.org/comp.mobile.android/121580/0>
>  <https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/JedCXG9A/google-android-dsid-cookie-android-id-android-system-safetycore>

Ooops. I apologize to RetroGuy! I didn't realize the RetroGuy was one of
the respondents, where I greatly admire The RetroGuy for what he does for
us (e.g., his archives are the best - and I respect him for doing that!)
 <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=alt.comp.os.windows-10>
 <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=,alt.privacy.anon-server>
 <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=comp.mobile.android>
 <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/thread.php?group=comp.os.linux.advocacy>

However, my reaction equating those who claim that you can't have privacy
to those who claim you must be slaves is based on facts about privacy.

You can have privacy.
You just have to NOT do exactly what the marketing orgs tell you to do.

You have to think for yourself.
Don't blindly accept all the defaults when setting up a system.

Think about what you're doing.
Make liberal use of that 'skip' button.

The fact that people make the claim that you can't have privacy bothers me
so much that I react vehemently to anyone who says "you can't have privacy"
on Android, since you have far more privacy on Android than on iOS simply
because an Android phone works 10x better (my guesstimate) after you hit
the skip button, while on iOS devices (which I have plenty of) the device
works 1/10th as well when you don't set it up with an Apple Account. 

Ask me how I know this fact.
 *Google Android  "DSID" cookie, Android ID & Android System SafetyCore*
 <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=57594&group=comp.mobile.android#57594>

There's more functionality on (non-rooted) Android when you hit that skip
button, and when you replace the Google Apps with their 1:1 equivalents.

Just *look* at the functionality of this search app, for example:
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=scadica.aq>

Which I get, for free, with full functionality, simply because I hit the
"skip" button, so no app has any way to directly charge me for anything.
 <https://skyica.com/appfinder/get/>

If that app doesn't have over 10 times the functionality of the Google Play
Store search engine, I'll never again post to Usenet. It's that good.

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

#687561

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 19:06:46 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote :


>> If that app doesn't have over 10 times the functionality of the Google Play
>> Store search engine, I'll never again post to Usenet. It's that good.
> 
> You can have a /greater/ degree of privacy by following your 
> instructions noted in the previous thread in relation to a Google 
> account and the DSID cookie. 

Hi Jeff,
We've worked together in the past, where privacy, like cleanliness, is
something that is never fully achieved but which should be strived for.

> But "privacy" isn't a term to be assumed where Android is concerned. 

If, by saying that, you're comparing to iOS, then that bothers me, as there
are many ways to achieve privacy on Android which are impossible on iOS.

But if you mean that privacy isn't a term to be assumed when using any
computer, or worse, any phone... then I can't disagree with that statement.

Privacy is like cleanliness.
There are degrees of privacy. 

But giving up isn't the correct option.

> There's an interesting article at 
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2025/03/13/googles-android-decision-bad-news-for-all-samsung-pixel-users/>
> "Google has an awkward Android problem that a recent report highlighted. 
> The AI space race between Google and Samsung and between Android and 
> iPhone has exposed long-standing issues that the companies need to 
> address, issues buried within Android's core."
> 
> Note in particular "...issues buried within Android's core".

Well, the DSID cookie is definitely buried within Android's core.
But it's disabled simply by hitting that "skip" button. 

So being "deeply buried" does not mean it's difficult to neuter.

> "None of this changes the nature of the bad news for Google or Samsung 
> users given Android's tracking, or the need for transparency and clarity 
> as to what is being done on-device, how and by whom. It would be good to 
> see a thorough review of the hidden tracking taking place without 
> consent or opt out �X that means silent Android tracking and digital 
> fingerprinting. It would be good to see default opt outs introduced 
> across the board."

While Apple's on-device SSID tracking is actually far worse than Google's
off-device SSID tracking, I can't disagree that "hidden tracking" is evil.

> Hmm."...hidden tracking taking place without consent or opt out �X that 
> means silent Android tracking and digital fingerprinting". And I 
> wonder how deep down those default op outs will be hidden if they are 
> forced to introduce them. :-(

While we'll never know what we can't know, much of that silent tracking is
self inflicted. If someone is dumb enough not to hit the "skip" button, for
example, then I can rightly claim that they deserve no privacy if they
won't even lift a finger (almost literally, although to hit the button you
have to lift and then drop the finger) to opt out of Google's silent
tracking.

It's not too strong of a statement for me to say nobody has the right to
claim they can't have privacy if they don't hit that skip button.

They're just whining.  Which isn't helpful. Because they're dead wrong.

> (*** NB - scrolling down the article webpage results in a message: 
> "Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the 
> browser console for more information)". The browser page is then lost. I 
> got round this by turning off my Wi-Fi immediately the page had loaded. 
> The whole page could then be read by scrolling down)

Let me look at that Forbes article... using the Epic Privacy Browser... 
Works for me. 

My problem with the media is that they don't know how iOS & Android work.
They only know the propaganda spewed by Google & Apple (and others).

Rarely does the media talk about a device, for example, which doesn't have
the Apple or Google mothership account set up on it - which my devices are.

It makes sense that they talk about devices where people do EXACTLY what
the Apple/Google marketing teams tell them to do - as most people do that.

But having NOT hit the "skip" button, they have no right to claim that
privacy is not possible - since they've never really thought about it.

For example, the Forbes article says (verbatim) this, which is wrong.
  "a study published by Trinity College, Dublin has exposed Google's 
   decision to track Android phones through cookies, identifiers and
   other data that Google silently stores on Android handsets, 
   through the default apps that are pre-installed. This happens 
   despite there being no consent sought for storing any of this 
   data and no opt out."

Given that's dead wrong, how can you believe anything in that article?

Having hit that "skip" button for, oh, I don't know, at least five or six
years running, my firm opinion is that anyone who complains that they can't
have privacy is no different than a slave complaining they can't have
freedom.

The first step in breaking free, is to hit that "skip" button.
That alone, gives you more privacy than you could possibly imagine.

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

#687585

On 16/03/2025 20:51, Marion wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 19:06:46 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote :
> 
> 
>>> If that app doesn't have over 10 times the functionality of the Google Play
>>> Store search engine, I'll never again post to Usenet. It's that good.
>>
>> You can have a /greater/ degree of privacy by following your
>> instructions noted in the previous thread in relation to a Google
>> account and the DSID cookie.
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> We've worked together in the past, where privacy, like cleanliness, is
> something that is never fully achieved but which should be strived for.
> 
>> But "privacy" isn't a term to be assumed where Android is concerned.
> 
> If, by saying that, you're comparing to iOS, then that bothers me, as there
> are many ways to achieve privacy on Android which are impossible on iOS.
> 
> But if you mean that privacy isn't a term to be assumed when using any
> computer, or worse, any phone... then I can't disagree with that statement.

That's what I intended. I know nothing about iOS except that it's an 
"unknown unknown" (or maybe that should be a "known unknown" as we know 
we know nothing of what goes on under the hood!).

> Privacy is like cleanliness.
> There are degrees of privacy.

Indeed. The problem with Android is that there are aspects of privacy we 
can, and /should/ be responsible for, but we can't know it all. When we 
do know about it - such as the DSID cookie - we can do something about it.
> 
> But giving up isn't the correct option.
> 
>> There's an interesting article at
>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2025/03/13/googles-android-decision-bad-news-for-all-samsung-pixel-users/>
>> "Google has an awkward Android problem that a recent report highlighted.
>> The AI space race between Google and Samsung and between Android and
>> iPhone has exposed long-standing issues that the companies need to
>> address, issues buried within Android's core."
>>
>> Note in particular "...issues buried within Android's core".
> 
> Well, the DSID cookie is definitely buried within Android's core.
> But it's disabled simply by hitting that "skip" button.
> 
> So being "deeply buried" does not mean it's difficult to neuter.

But /only/ if you know about it. What Google puts in that core is not 
fully known. Even the GrapheneOS Devs can't know everything. For 
example, see "Google's SafetyCore: Your Phone's New AI Bouncer (with a 
Side of Truth)" at 
<https://blog.michaelbtech.com/2025/02/18/googles-safetycore-your-phones-new.html>

The writer accepts that the Google addition is a good one in terms of 
safety. But notes:

"The GrapheneOS team are experts in this field, and they clearly state 
that SafetyCore doesn’t share your data. So, you can rest assured that 
your privacy is protected.

The GrapheneOS team does wish Google would make the whole thing open 
source, which would increase transparency and trust."

So what's *not* open source? What's hidden in there (and why)?

>> "None of this changes the nature of the bad news for Google or Samsung
>> users given Android's tracking, or the need for transparency and clarity
>> as to what is being done on-device, how and by whom. It would be good to
>> see a thorough review of the hidden tracking taking place without
>> consent or opt out �X that means silent Android tracking and digital
>> fingerprinting. It would be good to see default opt outs introduced
>> across the board."
> 
> While Apple's on-device SSID tracking is actually far worse than Google's
> off-device SSID tracking, I can't disagree that "hidden tracking" is evil.
> 
>> Hmm."...hidden tracking taking place without consent or opt out �X that
>> means silent Android tracking and digital fingerprinting". And I
>> wonder how deep down those default op outs will be hidden if they are
>> forced to introduce them. :-(
> 
> While we'll never know what we can't know, much of that silent tracking is
> self inflicted. If someone is dumb enough not to hit the "skip" button, for
> example, then I can rightly claim that they deserve no privacy if they
> won't even lift a finger (almost literally, although to hit the button you
> have to lift and then drop the finger) to opt out of Google's silent
> tracking.
> 
> It's not too strong of a statement for me to say nobody has the right to
> claim they can't have privacy if they don't hit that skip button.
> 
> They're just whining.  Which isn't helpful. Because they're dead wrong.
> 
>> (*** NB - scrolling down the article webpage results in a message:
>> "Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the
>> browser console for more information)". The browser page is then lost. I
>> got round this by turning off my Wi-Fi immediately the page had loaded.
>> The whole page could then be read by scrolling down)
> 
> Let me look at that Forbes article... using the Epic Privacy Browser...
> Works for me.
> 
> My problem with the media is that they don't know how iOS & Android work.
> They only know the propaganda spewed by Google & Apple (and others).
> 
> Rarely does the media talk about a device, for example, which doesn't have
> the Apple or Google mothership account set up on it - which my devices are.
> 
> It makes sense that they talk about devices where people do EXACTLY what
> the Apple/Google marketing teams tell them to do - as most people do that.
> 
> But having NOT hit the "skip" button, they have no right to claim that
> privacy is not possible - since they've never really thought about it.
> 
> For example, the Forbes article says (verbatim) this, which is wrong.
>    "a study published by Trinity College, Dublin has exposed Google's
>     decision to track Android phones through cookies, identifiers and
>     other data that Google silently stores on Android handsets,
>     through the default apps that are pre-installed. This happens
>     despite there being no consent sought for storing any of this
>     data and no opt out."
> 
> Given that's dead wrong, how can you believe anything in that article?

I don't know that it's dead wrong. Once you've hit that Google Account 
button, are you asked for consent? Or is it just assumed or perhaps 
hidden in thousands of words in "Privacy Statements" or "Terms and 
Conditions"? Are you sure that Google doesn't store other data silently 
on Android phones? See above GrapheneOS comment about "open source"...

But, yes, you have to be careful of such articles. Journalism has a 
responsibility for accuracy which unfortunately can be lacking. :-(

> Having hit that "skip" button for, oh, I don't know, at least five or six
> years running, my firm opinion is that anyone who complains that they can't
> have privacy is no different than a slave complaining they can't have
> freedom.
> 
> The first step in breaking free, is to hit that "skip" button.
> That alone, gives you more privacy than you could possibly imagine.

Well, yes, but "*more* privacy" isn't "privacy".

-- 
Jeff

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

#687602

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:04:52 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote :


>> But if you mean that privacy isn't a term to be assumed when using any
>> computer, or worse, any phone... then I can't disagree with that statement.
> 
> That's what I intended. I know nothing about iOS except that it's an 
> "unknown unknown" (or maybe that should be a "known unknown" as we know 
> we know nothing of what goes on under the hood!).

I've had iOS and Android devices since forever, where iOS is "safer" out of
the box in terms of privacy but iOS is a toy compared to Android.

For example, the Tor browser isn't allowed on iOS, but it's on every other
platform, including the Mac. Another example is GPS spoofing isn't allowed
on iOS. Another example is system-wide firewalls aren't allowed on iOS.

Probably 1 out of a million people know that above, none of whom are
editors of the major magazines since they only spout the propaganda.

But probably the biggest flaw in privacy with iOS is you can't download and
install apps without logging into the Apple servers and - only one out of
ten million people are aware that your *unique* tracking ID is *inserted*
by Apple into every downloaded IPA. Which is really very bad for privacy.

But only one out of millions knows this privacy stuff. Now you do too! :)

>> Privacy is like cleanliness.
>> There are degrees of privacy.
> 
> Indeed. The problem with Android is that there are aspects of privacy we 
> can, and /should/ be responsible for, but we can't know it all. When we 
> do know about it - such as the DSID cookie - we can do something about it.

Well, most people (again, 999,999 out of a million) assume you can't have
privacy which is like assuming you can't have clean teeth - so you don't
brush. 

Hitting that "skip" button on Android is the single most effect step to
privacy from Google. How many people know this? Probably just you & me. :(

The good news is the phone becomes 10X more functional when you do it. :)

>> Given that's dead wrong, how can you believe anything in that article?
> 
> I don't know that it's dead wrong. Once you've hit that Google Account 
> button, are you asked for consent? Or is it just assumed or perhaps 
> hidden in thousands of words in "Privacy Statements" or "Terms and 
> Conditions"? Are you sure that Google doesn't store other data silently 
> on Android phones? See above GrapheneOS comment about "open source"

Well... OK. The "consent" part is up to the lawyers to figure out. 

If there truly is no consent whatsoever, I'm sure some class-action lawyer
is on it by now, right? So we don't have to worry about that for now. :)

> But, yes, you have to be careful of such articles. Journalism has a 
> responsibility for accuracy which unfortunately can be lacking. :-(

I've never read an article about privacy on the Internet that understood
even the most basic things, whether it's Apple or Android or Windows.

They all spout propaganda.
Even AI spouts propaganda!
 Day 1: <https://i.postimg.cc/2SyDDk91/apple-battery-propaganda.jpg>
 Day 2: <https://i.postimg.cc/9QYqvBSm/one-day-later.jpg>

The good news is that AI will change its mind when it's fed the facts. 
 <https://i.postimg.cc/6ppvxZNC/working-together.jpg>

Most people can't change their mind because they get all their "science"
from marketing propaganda (e.g., ask anyone which has better support).
 <https://i.postimg.cc/d0m2BKZZ/ai01.jpg> Who has the worst hotfix support?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/6qSn3Wgg/ai02.jpg> Not propaganda, but in writing?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/4N7p0chg/ai03.jpg> What's Apple's written promise?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/MKC1JGyj/ai04.jpg> Who has the longest support?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/d0BCCmg8/ai05.jpg> So is Apple's support the worst?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/PxV83fXJ/ai06.jpg> Whose is longest & shortest?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/FsHhFbVM/ai07.jpg> Have you read my factual cites?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/rm5wW8D7/ai08.jpg> Which OS is most exploited?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/GmZRjWnR/ai09.jpg> Why are iPhones most exploited?
 <https://i.postimg.cc/PxMkTNpf/ai10.jpg> Summarize iOS vs Android support.

>> The first step in breaking free, is to hit that "skip" button.
>> That alone, gives you more privacy than you could possibly imagine.
> 
> Well, yes, but "*more* privacy" isn't "privacy".

Agreed.
It's kind of like brushing your teeth. They're never gonna be sterile.

But it's better to do something to have some privacy than doing nothing at
all and therefore having none. But we can't complain we can't, if we won't.

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

#687616

On 17 Mar 2025, Marion <marion@facts.com> posted some
news:vra277$2neh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com: 

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:04:52 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote :
> 
> 
>>> But if you mean that privacy isn't a term to be assumed when using
>>> any computer, or worse, any phone... then I can't disagree with that
>>> statement. 
>> 
>> That's what I intended. I know nothing about iOS except that it's an 
>> "unknown unknown" (or maybe that should be a "known unknown" as we
>> know we know nothing of what goes on under the hood!).
> 
> I've had iOS and Android devices since forever, where iOS is "safer"
> out of the box in terms of privacy but iOS is a toy compared to
> Android. 
> 
> For example, the Tor browser isn't allowed on iOS, but it's on every
> other platform, including the Mac. Another example is GPS spoofing
> isn't allowed on iOS. Another example is system-wide firewalls aren't
> allowed on iOS. 

Unknown to many iPhone users the Wi-Fi exploit still exists.  I will 
shamelessly admit to taking advantage of iPhone users in airports for 
years.

> Probably 1 out of a million people know that above, none of whom are
> editors of the major magazines since they only spout the propaganda.
> 
> But probably the biggest flaw in privacy with iOS is you can't
> download and install apps without logging into the Apple servers and -
> only one out of ten million people are aware that your *unique*
> tracking ID is *inserted* by Apple into every downloaded IPA. Which is
> really very bad for privacy. 

That's terrible and none of their business. 

> But only one out of millions knows this privacy stuff. Now you do too!
> :) 
> 
>>> Privacy is like cleanliness.
>>> There are degrees of privacy.
>> 
>> Indeed. The problem with Android is that there are aspects of privacy
>> we can, and /should/ be responsible for, but we can't know it all.
>> When we do know about it - such as the DSID cookie - we can do
>> something about it. 
> 
> Well, most people (again, 999,999 out of a million) assume you can't
> have privacy which is like assuming you can't have clean teeth - so
> you don't brush. 
> 
> Hitting that "skip" button on Android is the single most effect step
> to privacy from Google. How many people know this? Probably just you &
> me. :( 

Agree, but do the OS updates.  

> The good news is the phone becomes 10X more functional when you do it.
> :) 
> 
>>> Given that's dead wrong, how can you believe anything in that
>>> article? 
>> 
>> I don't know that it's dead wrong. Once you've hit that Google
>> Account button, are you asked for consent? Or is it just assumed or
>> perhaps hidden in thousands of words in "Privacy Statements" or
>> "Terms and Conditions"? Are you sure that Google doesn't store other
>> data silently on Android phones? See above GrapheneOS comment about
>> "open source" 
> 
> Well... OK. The "consent" part is up to the lawyers to figure out. 
> 
> If there truly is no consent whatsoever, I'm sure some class-action
> lawyer is on it by now, right? So we don't have to worry about that
> for now. :) 
> 
>> But, yes, you have to be careful of such articles. Journalism has a 
>> responsibility for accuracy which unfortunately can be lacking. :-(
> 
> I've never read an article about privacy on the Internet that
> understood even the most basic things, whether it's Apple or Android
> or Windows. 

There's marketing and then there's exploitive marketing.
 
> They all spout propaganda.
> Even AI spouts propaganda!
>  Day 1: <https://i.postimg.cc/2SyDDk91/apple-battery-propaganda.jpg>
>  Day 2: <https://i.postimg.cc/9QYqvBSm/one-day-later.jpg>
> 
> The good news is that AI will change its mind when it's fed the facts.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/6ppvxZNC/working-together.jpg>
> 
> Most people can't change their mind because they get all their
> "science" from marketing propaganda (e.g., ask anyone which has better
> support). <https://i.postimg.cc/d0m2BKZZ/ai01.jpg> Who has the worst
> hotfix support? <https://i.postimg.cc/6qSn3Wgg/ai02.jpg> Not
> propaganda, but in writing? <https://i.postimg.cc/4N7p0chg/ai03.jpg>
> What's Apple's written promise? 
> <https://i.postimg.cc/MKC1JGyj/ai04.jpg> Who has the longest support? 
> <https://i.postimg.cc/d0BCCmg8/ai05.jpg> So is Apple's support the
> worst? <https://i.postimg.cc/PxV83fXJ/ai06.jpg> Whose is longest &
> shortest? <https://i.postimg.cc/FsHhFbVM/ai07.jpg> Have you read my
> factual cites? <https://i.postimg.cc/rm5wW8D7/ai08.jpg> Which OS is
> most exploited? <https://i.postimg.cc/GmZRjWnR/ai09.jpg> Why are
> iPhones most exploited? <https://i.postimg.cc/PxMkTNpf/ai10.jpg>
> Summarize iOS vs Android support. 
> 
>>> The first step in breaking free, is to hit that "skip" button.
>>> That alone, gives you more privacy than you could possibly imagine.
>> 
>> Well, yes, but "*more* privacy" isn't "privacy".
> 
> Agreed.
> It's kind of like brushing your teeth. They're never gonna be sterile.
> 
> But it's better to do something to have some privacy than doing
> nothing at all and therefore having none. But we can't complain we
> can't, if we won't. 

Remember to turn that location off if you're up to no good.

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

#687604

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:59:48 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :


> Care to summarize? All that is a huge read.

No problem... since I'm a kind-hearted helpful (knowledgeable) guy... 

Researchers found that the DSID cookie (among other things) is "activated"
when a user boots an Android phone that has a Google Account set up on it.

The simplest way to describe what "activation" means, is it tracks your
browser actions, even when you're not browsing a Google related web site.

The article said you didn't "consent" to that tracking (which is the point
that Jeff Layman is making and where I'll let the lawyers fight that out).

What only one out of millions of people seem to know, and which was NOT
covered in the article, is that the simplest way to negate that tracking is
to not set up a Google Account on the phone.

You can have Google Accounts (I have plenty).
Just not set up as an explicit "Account" in the Android operating system.

Because an "Account" tells Google you want to automatically log into it.
Without asking for consent. (full circle completed)
-- 
If I missed something important, I'm sure someone will notice.

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

#687682

marion@facts.com (Marion) wrote:
> that the simplest way to negate that tracking is
> to not set up a Google Account on the phone.

That's why I never set up a Google Account. All apps I get from somewhere else - Github, apkmirror... But this limits the use. I'd need a (freeware) app, which is only available in the "playstore". Nowhere else it can be found, so I have to go without 
some interesting functions. IMHO the company is stupid to push people into such a dependence without a real reason. They could block users, whose app isn't up-to-date and offer the apk for download. But no - the users have to share their data with Google 
to proceed. :-(

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

#687547

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 16 Mar 2025 13:47:34 -0000 (UTC),
Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:22:25 +0100 (CET), anon wrote:
>
>> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/
>
>I'm pretty sure they all do this (Apple, Google, someotherguy).
>
>I never expect ANY privacy on my phone, so never use is for things that 
>require privacy. I assume that Google knows every keystroke I make. Then, 
>on my only other device using Google (one browser on my desktop), I am 
>careful what I do in that browser.
>
>This is one reason I've never trusted encrypted comm apps at all. Since my 
>phone can see what I type and read, so can Google. They can see it when 
>it's not encrypted yet, or already decrypted.

Definitely google can.  That's how it's able to make suggestions on how
to finish what you were typing.  If it didn't know what you'd written,
the suggestions woudln't make sense. 

Did you hear about the woman who was planning to murder her husband. She
talked about it with her boyfriend on a cordless phone, and the next
door neighbors heard her on their baby monitor.  They called the police
before she did it.  She's in jail now. 

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

#687584

micky,

> Definitely google can.  That's how it's able to make suggestions
> on how to finish what you were typing.

Don't FUD* yourself.   Editors have been able to do that for decades, just 
by looking up a word in a list of words.  Or a list of phrases if you want. 
Same thing.

* FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

Yes, its *possible* that google snoops on everything you type, but there is 
no need for it.  While its good to stay alert, don't give yourself paranoia.

Find yourself a (few) good tech site(s), and use them to keep up with the 
latest of what security experts discover.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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

#687606

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:33:27 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote :


> On 2025-03-17 17:05, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:01:16 +0100, "Carlos
>> E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2025-03-16 16:10, micky wrote:
>>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 16 Mar 2025 13:47:34 -0000 (UTC),
>>>> Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:22:25 +0100 (CET), anon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure they all do this (Apple, Google, someotherguy).
>>>>>
>>>>> I never expect ANY privacy on my phone, so never use is for things that
>>>>> require privacy. I assume that Google knows every keystroke I make. Then,
>>>>> on my only other device using Google (one browser on my desktop), I am
>>>>> careful what I do in that browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one reason I've never trusted encrypted comm apps at all. Since my
>>>>> phone can see what I type and read, so can Google. They can see it when
>>>>> it's not encrypted yet, or already decrypted.
>>>>
>>>> Definitely google can.  That's how it's able to make suggestions on how
>>>> to finish what you were typing.  If it didn't know what you'd written,
>>>> the suggestions woudln't make sense.
>>>
>>> It depends on your keyboard choice, and it is clearly stated when you
>>> select it.
>> 
>> Maybe in Spain it's clearly stated, or maybe if you actually select it
>> and don't just use the default that comes installed, or maybe both.   At
>> any rate, I don't think I ever saw it stated that what I type could be
>> read by someone else.   Or even an implication that another keyboard
>> would not allow this.
> 
> The normal keyboard is silent. But some of the variants you can enable 
> have a text that say that google reads what you type. For instance, the 
> dictation "keyboard". And they warn you about it in the context of 
> typing passwords.

Carlos is correct. 

We've covered offline intelligent keyboards in the past.

Both the audio (speech to text) and the corrections can be done offline.
I don't remember all the details myself - but it's all in the archives.
 <https://tinyurl.com/nova-comp-mobile-android>

Settings > General Management > Keyboard list and default
 Samsung Keyboard
 Google Voice Typing
 OpenBoard <=== this is a good one
 Keepass2Android
 Automate
 Hackers Keyboard <=== a good one
 Button Mapper
 Helium Keyboard <=== a good one too
 Key Mapper Basic Input Method
 OpenBoard valencia <=== another good one

Very few (probably one out of a million) people know you do NOT need 
Gboard to get speech to text microphone on the keyboard!

You can use Openboard instead.
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.dslul.openboard.inputmethod.latin>
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.softwarevalencia.openboard.inputmethod.latin>

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

#687639

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:38:14 -0400, micky wrote :


> So, since afaik I use the normal keyboard,  the question is whether the
> google suggestions of how to finish the text in the search box come only
> from what is in my computer, or from elsewhere too.   

If you want privacy, you have to replace Google apps with 1:1 equivalents.
 <https://www.androidauthority.com/heliboard-gboard-alternative-3505462/>
 <https://www.ghacks.net/2021/06/01/openboard-is-a-privacy-friendly-keyboard-for-android/>
 <https://developer.zebra.com/blog/using-openboard-keyboard-replacement-google-gboard> 
 <https://www.linuxlinks.com/openboard-keyboard-aosp/>

> The breadth of suggestions tells me they couldn't all be found in my
> little computer.   I don't remember any examples right now, but as soon
> as I do a google seach again, I'm sure I'll see some.  And not just
> google, Bing too!

The OpenBoard keyboard does not send your typing data to remote servers.
Gboard, by nature of its integration with Google services, collects data.

It's easy to tell. Turn off your Wi-Fi & cellular data. Try both out.

Openboard is designed to function offline, where Gboard requires internet
access for many of its features.

I looked up the URL for people to benefit from my actions, & just noticed
OpenBoard is discontinued, even as it works just fine on my Samsung. 
 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBoard_(keyboard)>
 <https://github.com/openboard-team/openboard>
 <https://github.com/openboard-team/openboard/releases/tag/v1.4.5>
 <https://github.com/openboard-team/openboard/releases/download/v1.4.5/app-release.apk>

Some open-source privacy-aware replacements? Dunno. Searching I find these:

 *HeliBoard*
 <https://github.com/Helium314/HeliBoard>
 <https://github.com/Helium314/HeliBoard/releases/download/v2.3/HeliBoard_2.3-release.apk>

 *AnySoftKeyboard*
 <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.menny.android.anysoftkeyboard>

 *FlorisBoard*
 <https://github.com/florisboard/florisboard>

Years ago I had tested all the free keyboards, and settled on OpenBoard.
Maybe it's time to change?

Dunno, but anyone using Gboard should have no expectation of privacy.

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

#687563

On 3/16/25 09:22, anon wrote:
> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/


Why bother with technical arguments when legislation can fix the 
scumbags once and for all. But if the politicians are corrupt and will 
not do so then the IT giants own us anyway.

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

#687617

anon, 2025-03-16 14:22:

> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/
> 

Quote:

"Google started installing SafetyCore on user devices in November 2024,
and there's no way of opting out or managing the installation. One day,
it's just there."

This is not correct. You can uninstall this package in the app list.
Also see here:

<https://www.ghacks.net/2025/02/28/android-system-safetycore-what-it-does-and-why-you-may-want-to-remove-it/>

-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

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

#687622

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:09:02 +0100, Arno Welzel wrote :


> "Google started installing SafetyCore on user devices in November 2024,
> and there's no way of opting out or managing the installation. One day,
> it's just there."
> 
> This is not correct. You can uninstall this package in the app list.
> Also see here:
> 
> <https://www.ghacks.net/2025/02/28/android-system-safetycore-what-it-does-and-why-you-may-want-to-remove-it/>

I looked with Muntashirakon App Manager & it's not on my Android 13 Galaxy.
 <com.google.android.safetycore>
And we all know that Muntashirakon App Manager doesn't lie so it's gone.

That's the correct name for the package according to Google's docs:
<https://developers.google.com/android/binary_transparency/google1p/overview>

However, Muntashirakon reports the following on my system:
 <com.google.android.safetycenter.resources> Google Safety Center
 <com.samsung.safetyinformation> Safety Information

And these, which are likely unrelated:
 <com.safetyapp.b.safe.emergencyapp> SOS Alert
 <com.sec.android.app.safetyassurance> Emergency sharing

The "Google Safety Center" above is uninstalled from the user partition.
But I don't see anywhere mentioned the Google SafetyCore package.

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

#687623

On 2025-03-16 09:22, anon wrote:
> https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/google_android/
> 

This is part of why I am suggesting that if getting rid of their cell 
phone is not an option, using a de-Googled phone makes the most sense. I 
would go to the old-school dumb phone myself.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web