7 ms·

Here's a the same story via the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/14/australian-regulator-investigates-google-data-harvesting-from-andro

Here's a the same story via the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/14/australian-regulator-investigates-google-data-harvesting-from-android-phones https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/14/australia... A quote contained within both stories: > The software company Oracle revealed Google could be harvesting a gigabyte of data from Android devices each month Given that my data plan is 1.5 GB/month, I would notice if a gigabyte magically disappeared every month (it doesn't). Hopefully the ACCC has enough skepticism and technical knowledge to see through Oracle's FUD. OTOH what's in it for Oracle here? Purely trying to damage Google's brand? I suppose the media have run with it and it's working.

lysp 8y ago
I'd assume that not all that information would require real-time feeding of data back to Google. So quite a lot I'd assume would be buffered and sent back while you're on a wifi connection.
- askvictor 8y ago
  The article states: > The experts, from computer and software corporation Oracle, claim Google is draining roughly one gigabyte of mobile data monthly from Android phone users’ accounts as it snoops in the background, collecting information to help advertisers. Then goes on to give a cost breakdown of how much this hypothetical data download is costing Australian's via their mobile data connections.
  - chris_wot 8y ago
    It's Oracle. You must ask yourself, what's in it for them? And is it actually true?
    - 8note 8y ago
      It's Google. you must ask yourself, what aren't they collecting?
      - xbmcuser 8y ago
        It's Google they are very good at data analysis them needing to use 1gb of data to know about you are doing on your phone is an idiotic assumption. They could probably do it 5 mb only. My bet is they are counting Google photo uploads to get the 1 gb figure.
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        Maybe you should ask yourself "how much data is 1gb times the number of android users?" and "how big is Google's datacenter?" (hint: the first number is bigger by a factor of 5)
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      If Charles Manson said that the sun rises from the East...wouldn't it be true, regardless of the source? What Oracle said can easily be checked by a lot of independent companies.
- voltagex_ 8y ago
  On many, many Australian ADSL connections you'd notice anything sending that amount per month purely because how slow the connection would become.
  - gaius 8y ago
    When you look at a page that has 5k of text you want to read and 5Mb of JS, that’s what this is
viraptor 8y ago
Unknown English text compresses ~1:6 if I remember correctly. Known can be compressed better. There's also ways to send incremental updates where you say "previous 0.999GB hasn't changed". I'm not saying that's what they do, but you can have many scenarios when you get 1gb of information without transferring 1gb of data.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  But that's not what the article is claiming. They are saying Google is using 1GB worth of data, though with very little evidence to backup their claim.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    What are you basing your claim they have "very little evidence" on? Do you have access to the full contents of what they presented to the ACCC? Presumably this brief news article doesn't contain all of the information on the matter.
    - ehsankia 8y ago
      Right, I should've been clearer. There's no evidence provided to us public readers. To be throwing such a bold claim out there though is often intentionally reckless. They are either baiting views or trying to chip at Google's image. Until we get the specifics, there is nothing here to discuss really.
      - askvictor 8y ago
        Given that it's Oracle 'providing' the story, and News Ltd originally reporting it (both who have beef with Google), they are definitely trying to chip at Google's image.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    It could mean data transfer, but it also could mean other things. They write: > could be harvesting a gigabyte of data from devices each month Which is unlikely to be true in the literal sense of pure bytes transferred simply because: a) people would notice that very soon, b) people consume gigabytes but don't produce nearly as much - all of my monthly activity would likely fit in a few MB, c) processing that much is a pain - at the scale of millions of users they'd optimise that.
anonytrary 8y ago
I used to be paranoid about companies using my microphone and camera to spy on me until I realized the data costs associated with the spying would be so great, that I'd notice. That single argument has ended my paranoia on the matter. I hope others can be at ease. That said, I still put tape on my laptop and refuse all tracking and ad requests.
- askvictor 8y ago
  That's assuming they're listening/watching all the time. Google Assistant (and all the other assistants) wake up on a certain magic word; who's to say that other apps/companies aren't doing the same? Well, probably your battery life might be terrible and your phone running unusually hot, but Assistant and co get away with minimal battery usage...
  - fladrif 8y ago
    Quite often while talking about a restaurant, opening google maps will have it highlighted. I think this shows that not only does google not require a magic word to start recording, it actively processes the input it gets. I'm highly considering switching to lineage os.
    - mseebach 8y ago
      Try making a controlled experiment. Humans are notoriously good at seeing patterns that aren't there.
      - goldenkey 8y ago
        The patterns are there. But often the connection is meaningful, not causal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
        mseebach 8y ago
        The pattern in this case is the connection between surreptitious listening and the suggestion.
dibstern 8y ago
The article could easily make the false presumption that wi-fi isn’t used to transmit the data. You seem awfully keen to dismiss this.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dang 8y ago
Since the submitted story (https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/smartphones/accc-investigating-oracle-research-showing-google-users-android-phone-plan-data-to-spy/news-story/3ca0cdaa3cc6992d134355bd0b7fcf40 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/smartphones/acc...) has an autoplay video, we might as well switch to the other one. (I'm assuming they're roughly equally informative.) Thanks!
- askvictor 8y ago
  Actually I thought the originally submitted article had a more informative title: "ACCC investigating Oracle research showing Google users Android phone plan data to spy." The article content is approximately equivalent; though of low value in both cases
  - dang 8y ago
    You're right, that's not so bad. IIRC I was referring to that use of 'spy'. But will edit the accusation of clickbait out of my comment.
mda 8y ago
No surprises here. Guardian(Rupert Murdoch) + Oracle = Smear Google
- askl56 8y ago
  Rupert Murdoch does not own the Guardian. That is laughable. It's owned by The Scott Trust Limited, which was formerly a charitable trust and is dedicated to keeping the Guardian's editorial independence.
  - askvictor 8y ago
    The original posted news story was by a Murdoch-owned newspaper; has since been changed to the Guardian (possibly while OP was writing this equation?). So the equation kind of holds, just drop the Guardian but.
    - dx034 8y ago
      Of course Oracle published this to damage Google, that's obvious. But that doesn't mean the claims are untrue. It's likely that there's something to it, even if the amount of data is incorrect.
- netrus 8y ago
  You are confusing the Guardian with something else. The Guardian is left-leaning, independent, and not associated with Rupert Murdoch.
- teamonkey 8y ago
  Murdoch's company owns The Sun and The Times (London) among others, not The Guardian.
joering2 8y ago
Geee i guess because you stated under oath your device doesnt drain 1gb of data then we can all quietly go to sleep now. If i were still at Google, and given this project, it would be obvious to tap into mobile brands feed and only use mobile data plans of those who wouldnt notice that 79% of their data disappear. Google knows precisely what plan you have and what data use and still have for the month period through reading your IMEI and many other tricks.
letsgetphysITal 8y ago
I read "they" in the phrase "... but they are also reportedly paying their telco providers to send the data." to mean Google were paying, so it wouldn't appear in the metered usage for which the end user is billed. This makes sense, as it seems the data apparently can be transferred when "... they do not have a Sim card or apps installed." What would bother me, though, is if they were purposefully not exposing that data transfer in the data metering on the device. That seems shady.
- drdaeman 8y ago
  Paying to every mobile carrier in every country out there to keep silent and hide traffic from customers? That's way beyond unrealistic.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
xg15 8y ago
> Given that my data plan is 1.5 GB/month, I would notice if a gigabyte magically disappeared every month Is that so? We're already used to updates, videos and even simple websites needing an enormous amount of data. I could easily imagine a gigabyte vanishing that you'd attribute to other things. Also note that this is probably an average value, not an absolute.
hardasspunk2 8y ago
But they could fetch metadata from our phone and generate data on their side. Like photos we saved from internet, or search history, google drive backups, watched videos, liked photos, location maps. Even though you have 1.5gb/month plan, you are creating enough meta data that google can use for profiling. They legit even store how you download a picture, via sharing, saving or dragging on desktop.

lysp 8y ago

I'd assume that not all that information would require real-time feeding of data back to Google. So quite a lot I'd assume would be buffered and sent back while you're on a wifi connection.

askvictor 8y ago
The article states: > The experts, from computer and software corporation Oracle, claim Google is draining roughly one gigabyte of mobile data monthly from Android phone users’ accounts as it snoops in the background, collecting information to help advertisers. Then goes on to give a cost breakdown of how much this hypothetical data download is costing Australian's via their mobile data connections.
- chris_wot 8y ago
  It's Oracle. You must ask yourself, what's in it for them? And is it actually true?
  - 8note 8y ago
    It's Google. you must ask yourself, what aren't they collecting?
    - xbmcuser 8y ago
      It's Google they are very good at data analysis them needing to use 1gb of data to know about you are doing on your phone is an idiotic assumption. They could probably do it 5 mb only. My bet is they are counting Google photo uploads to get the 1 gb figure.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Maybe you should ask yourself "how much data is 1gb times the number of android users?" and "how big is Google's datacenter?" (hint: the first number is bigger by a factor of 5)
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    If Charles Manson said that the sun rises from the East...wouldn't it be true, regardless of the source? What Oracle said can easily be checked by a lot of independent companies.
voltagex_ 8y ago
On many, many Australian ADSL connections you'd notice anything sending that amount per month purely because how slow the connection would become.
- gaius 8y ago
  When you look at a page that has 5k of text you want to read and 5Mb of JS, that’s what this is

viraptor 8y ago

Unknown English text compresses ~1:6 if I remember correctly. Known can be compressed better. There's also ways to send incremental updates where you say "previous 0.999GB hasn't changed". I'm not saying that's what they do, but you can have many scenarios when you get 1gb of information without transferring 1gb of data.

ehsankia 8y ago
But that's not what the article is claiming. They are saying Google is using 1GB worth of data, though with very little evidence to backup their claim.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  What are you basing your claim they have "very little evidence" on? Do you have access to the full contents of what they presented to the ACCC? Presumably this brief news article doesn't contain all of the information on the matter.
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    Right, I should've been clearer. There's no evidence provided to us public readers. To be throwing such a bold claim out there though is often intentionally reckless. They are either baiting views or trying to chip at Google's image. Until we get the specifics, there is nothing here to discuss really.
    - askvictor 8y ago
      Given that it's Oracle 'providing' the story, and News Ltd originally reporting it (both who have beef with Google), they are definitely trying to chip at Google's image.
- viraptor 8y ago
  It could mean data transfer, but it also could mean other things. They write: > could be harvesting a gigabyte of data from devices each month Which is unlikely to be true in the literal sense of pure bytes transferred simply because: a) people would notice that very soon, b) people consume gigabytes but don't produce nearly as much - all of my monthly activity would likely fit in a few MB, c) processing that much is a pain - at the scale of millions of users they'd optimise that.

anonytrary 8y ago

I used to be paranoid about companies using my microphone and camera to spy on me until I realized the data costs associated with the spying would be so great, that I'd notice. That single argument has ended my paranoia on the matter. I hope others can be at ease. That said, I still put tape on my laptop and refuse all tracking and ad requests.

askvictor 8y ago
That's assuming they're listening/watching all the time. Google Assistant (and all the other assistants) wake up on a certain magic word; who's to say that other apps/companies aren't doing the same? Well, probably your battery life might be terrible and your phone running unusually hot, but Assistant and co get away with minimal battery usage...
- fladrif 8y ago
  Quite often while talking about a restaurant, opening google maps will have it highlighted. I think this shows that not only does google not require a magic word to start recording, it actively processes the input it gets. I'm highly considering switching to lineage os.
  - mseebach 8y ago
    Try making a controlled experiment. Humans are notoriously good at seeing patterns that aren't there.
    - goldenkey 8y ago
      The patterns are there. But often the connection is meaningful, not causal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity
      - mseebach 8y ago
        The pattern in this case is the connection between surreptitious listening and the suggestion.

dibstern 8y ago

The article could easily make the false presumption that wi-fi isn’t used to transmit the data. You seem awfully keen to dismiss this.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dang 8y ago

Since the submitted story (https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/smartphones/accc-investigating-oracle-research-showing-google-users-android-phone-plan-data-to-spy/news-story/3ca0cdaa3cc6992d134355bd0b7fcf40 https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/smartphones/acc...) has an autoplay video, we might as well switch to the other one. (I'm assuming they're roughly equally informative.) Thanks!

askvictor 8y ago
Actually I thought the originally submitted article had a more informative title: "ACCC investigating Oracle research showing Google users Android phone plan data to spy." The article content is approximately equivalent; though of low value in both cases
- dang 8y ago
  You're right, that's not so bad. IIRC I was referring to that use of 'spy'. But will edit the accusation of clickbait out of my comment.

mda 8y ago

No surprises here. Guardian(Rupert Murdoch) + Oracle = Smear Google

askl56 8y ago
Rupert Murdoch does not own the Guardian. That is laughable. It's owned by The Scott Trust Limited, which was formerly a charitable trust and is dedicated to keeping the Guardian's editorial independence.
- askvictor 8y ago
  The original posted news story was by a Murdoch-owned newspaper; has since been changed to the Guardian (possibly while OP was writing this equation?). So the equation kind of holds, just drop the Guardian but.
  - dx034 8y ago
    Of course Oracle published this to damage Google, that's obvious. But that doesn't mean the claims are untrue. It's likely that there's something to it, even if the amount of data is incorrect.
netrus 8y ago
You are confusing the Guardian with something else. The Guardian is left-leaning, independent, and not associated with Rupert Murdoch.
teamonkey 8y ago
Murdoch's company owns The Sun and The Times (London) among others, not The Guardian.

joering2 8y ago

Geee i guess because you stated under oath your device doesnt drain 1gb of data then we can all quietly go to sleep now. If i were still at Google, and given this project, it would be obvious to tap into mobile brands feed and only use mobile data plans of those who wouldnt notice that 79% of their data disappear. Google knows precisely what plan you have and what data use and still have for the month period through reading your IMEI and many other tricks.

letsgetphysITal 8y ago

I read "they" in the phrase "... but they are also reportedly paying their telco providers to send the data." to mean Google were paying, so it wouldn't appear in the metered usage for which the end user is billed. This makes sense, as it seems the data apparently can be transferred when "... they do not have a Sim card or apps installed." What would bother me, though, is if they were purposefully not exposing that data transfer in the data metering on the device. That seems shady.

drdaeman 8y ago
Paying to every mobile carrier in every country out there to keep silent and hide traffic from customers? That's way beyond unrealistic.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

xg15 8y ago

> Given that my data plan is 1.5 GB/month, I would notice if a gigabyte magically disappeared every month Is that so? We're already used to updates, videos and even simple websites needing an enormous amount of data. I could easily imagine a gigabyte vanishing that you'd attribute to other things. Also note that this is probably an average value, not an absolute.

hardasspunk2 8y ago

But they could fetch metadata from our phone and generate data on their side. Like photos we saved from internet, or search history, google drive backups, watched videos, liked photos, location maps. Even though you have 1.5gb/month plan, you are creating enough meta data that google can use for profiling. They legit even store how you download a picture, via sharing, saving or dragging on desktop.