3 ms·

Android itself does not "[spy] on basically everything you do", that role is given to the Google-specific services and applications you can - but do not have to

Android itself does not "[spy] on basically everything you do", that role is given to the Google-specific services and applications you can - but do not have to - run on the thing. Neither is Android "vendor lock-in in a way we've never seen before", the source to the basic OS is available after all. The exception to this is formed by the device drivers which generally come in the form of "blobs" which are tailored to a specific build of the OS. This makes it unnecessarily difficult to make use of source builds, a situation which might be rectified by "project Treble" [1] but the jury is still out on this. With the source to Android available and decoupled from the device-specific code it should be easier to create alternative Android distributions. This should also make it possible to upgrade Android on devices which have been abandoned by the vendor and those which never got any updates to begin with. This is not just theory by the way, I'm using a number of Google-free Android devices myself. They run just fine without those Google bits, they don't spy more than any other device. This does not mean it does not spy at all but that problem is present in all mobile devices from all manufacturers and under all operating systems: the radio interface layer is a black box closed source blob in all commercially available devices that I've come across. [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/05/here-comes-treble-modular-base-for.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/05/here-comes...

BoorishBears 9y ago
The Android that competes with the iPhone and Windows Phone devices in the market at large is the Android that either has Google Play Services, or occasionally has a much worse (privacy-wise) Chinese alternative suite. The Android you get without Google Play Services are more like Firefox OS, or Ubuntu Phone, or chrooting into Debian and calling that your "OS", interesting things for developers, but not really what the average end user would consider a serious phone option that's even on their radar.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  Those who are interested in the nitty-gritty of keeping a semblance of privacy generally will not baulk at taking some hurdles to get there, nor do they expect their devices to work exactly like those within the walled gardens. Now if there where a way to combine these two worlds - that of the 'it just works but it knows more about me than I do myself' and the 'it does exactly what I tell it do do, no more and no less' - it would be feasible to offer such a device to a larger section of the general public. A stripped-down Android distribution - sans Google-specific bits, with some replacements where needed - which does over the air updates just like devices on the other side of the wall would be a good start.
  - BoorishBears 9y ago
    iOS lets you keep a semblance of privacy without hurdles. The walled garden even contributes to it's security. I think more people who have a passing interest in privacy would rather take a walled garden on some of the best hardware out there with a rather enjoyable, if not powerful, OS.
    - Yetanfou 9y ago
      iOS only allows this if you consider your data to be private as long as it doesn't leave Apple (i.e. the garden). This does not mean your data can not be used for profiling purposes, it just means the profiling would be done wholly within the confines of Apple, Inc. If you trust Apple to not use this data for anything but your personal good you can feel safe and secure. If on the other hand you consider Apple to be an (extreme) example of a profit-driven company you'd do well to reconsider whether you want your personal data within their reach. While it is hard - and getting harder - to evade profiling it is still preferable to minimise the amount of personally identifiable data collected by commercial or governmental organisations. Using an Android device without Google-specific code can help here.
      - BoorishBears 9y ago
        For the majority of users I'd recommend trusting Apple. If you're in a class of user where Apple can't be trusted I don't recommend a smartphone. They can earn profit by being the privacy oriented alternative to Google's OS. I think the conversation has shifted from my main point. When the average user hears "Android" or says it, it's "Android + GPS". The GP said Android but seeing as the most common Android devices competing with the other two OSes they mentioned come with GPS I find it disingenuous to try and imply that it's not "Android proper" if it has GPS. If anything Android without GPS isn't "Android proper" in this context because of the amount of functionality it provides that people include when they compare those OSes

BoorishBears 9y ago

The Android that competes with the iPhone and Windows Phone devices in the market at large is the Android that either has Google Play Services, or occasionally has a much worse (privacy-wise) Chinese alternative suite. The Android you get without Google Play Services are more like Firefox OS, or Ubuntu Phone, or chrooting into Debian and calling that your "OS", interesting things for developers, but not really what the average end user would consider a serious phone option that's even on their radar.

Yetanfou 9y ago
Those who are interested in the nitty-gritty of keeping a semblance of privacy generally will not baulk at taking some hurdles to get there, nor do they expect their devices to work exactly like those within the walled gardens. Now if there where a way to combine these two worlds - that of the 'it just works but it knows more about me than I do myself' and the 'it does exactly what I tell it do do, no more and no less' - it would be feasible to offer such a device to a larger section of the general public. A stripped-down Android distribution - sans Google-specific bits, with some replacements where needed - which does over the air updates just like devices on the other side of the wall would be a good start.
- BoorishBears 9y ago
  iOS lets you keep a semblance of privacy without hurdles. The walled garden even contributes to it's security. I think more people who have a passing interest in privacy would rather take a walled garden on some of the best hardware out there with a rather enjoyable, if not powerful, OS.
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    iOS only allows this if you consider your data to be private as long as it doesn't leave Apple (i.e. the garden). This does not mean your data can not be used for profiling purposes, it just means the profiling would be done wholly within the confines of Apple, Inc. If you trust Apple to not use this data for anything but your personal good you can feel safe and secure. If on the other hand you consider Apple to be an (extreme) example of a profit-driven company you'd do well to reconsider whether you want your personal data within their reach. While it is hard - and getting harder - to evade profiling it is still preferable to minimise the amount of personally identifiable data collected by commercial or governmental organisations. Using an Android device without Google-specific code can help here.
    - BoorishBears 9y ago
      For the majority of users I'd recommend trusting Apple. If you're in a class of user where Apple can't be trusted I don't recommend a smartphone. They can earn profit by being the privacy oriented alternative to Google's OS. I think the conversation has shifted from my main point. When the average user hears "Android" or says it, it's "Android + GPS". The GP said Android but seeing as the most common Android devices competing with the other two OSes they mentioned come with GPS I find it disingenuous to try and imply that it's not "Android proper" if it has GPS. If anything Android without GPS isn't "Android proper" in this context because of the amount of functionality it provides that people include when they compare those OSes