7 ms·

Great stuff. However, while I'm happy that they're limiting third-party access to this data, given Google's business model, I still wouldn't trust them with it.

DennisAleynikov 8y ago
You're right Google no longer has the trust it used to enjoy. So many apps have been uploading entire call logs and it's really absurd this was so easiy accessible to all apps.
- creatornator 8y ago
  Android may have always been available at no cost, but it was never free. Always assume if you are given a service gratis, that _you_ are the product being sold. This doesn't just apply to Android, but to gmail, Drive, Docs, etc.
  - DennisAleynikov 8y ago
    A product only useful at the Billion User data points level. I am 100% fine participating in what's essentially the training data for all future AI products coming out of Google. It feels like a happy family of devices all working together for a more scientific future.
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      >It feels like a happy family of devices all working together for a more scientific future. With this philosophy, I’d suggest you’d avoid paying attention to the trajectory of Chinese society, perhaps even more so now that Google plans to get in bed with the CCP’s censorship and dissident quashing regime...
      - Latteland 8y ago
        I believe they claim they aren't really doing that. It could be the great negative attention forced them to say that wasn't their actual plan.
        knuththetruth 8y ago
        They said the same thing about their participation in the drone program, until an internal revolt forced them to reveal their true hand (they were actually doing it and hoping to do more of it), and subsequent internal backlash put a stop to it altogether. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military-tech-workers https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military... I too hope that Googlers block what their execs are planning to do in China, but we're not there yet, and it should give one pause that their leadership are onboard with doing this in the first place.
        Anon1096 8y ago
        Google didn't try to hide that they were working with the Pentagon to better identify targets. Their participation was well known and in the open.
        knuththetruth 8y ago
        No it wasn't. They specifically tried to misrepresent what the project was, minimize the scope of their involvement with it, as well as Google's plans to expand it further. From the article I linked, which is an interview with a Googler who helped lead the resistance- Interviewee: ... They also tried to downplay the scope and involvement of the project. But that rhetoric dissolved when we found out that leadership had been lying. Interviewer: What were they lying about? Interviewee: From the beginning, they told us that Project Maven was a small contract purely for non-offensive purposes. They said that we weren’t building anything custom. They said that this was a one-off project only worth $9 million, and that it wasn’t part of any further collaboration with the Pentagon. Those all turned out to be lies. On April 12, DefenseOne published an article that landed like a bombshell in the company. Drawing on conversations with Pentagon officials, it revealed that Project Maven was actually a pilot project for future collaborations between Google and the military. In particular, Project Maven was part of Google’s push to win the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract. JEDI is the military’s next-generation cloud that will network American forces all over the world and integrate them with AI. It’s basically Skynet. And all the big cloud providers want to win the contract because it’s worth $10 billion. When we found out that Project Maven was an audition for JEDI, people started becoming extremely concerned. And as the media attention to the story increased, we learned a lot more. For instance, Diane Greene had told us that the Project Maven contract was only for $9 million, but internally they expected it to increase to $250 million per year. And they weren’t just giving the Pentagon access to open-source software — they were going to build a massive surveillance system that gave military analysts real-time information on people, vehicles, and buildings in a Google Earth–style interface. Exposing all of those lies damaged leadership on this issue just as much as anything else that we did. That loss of trust really hurt them.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      In history, people allowing one entity to accumulate a lot of power on the basis that they will remain benevolent have almost always be wrong. Don't assume people at the top have an agenda that are compatible with yours. The fact we are enjoying a lot of peace and freedom right now should now be a signal for us to relax : democracy is a system that needs maintenance, not some legacy you can claim ad vitam. It's our duty as a citizen to always doubt the intentions of those in power. Just like it's a flight intendent duty to check that the planes doors safety are engaged again and again. It's not a moral issue. It's just a technical requirement.
      - some_account 8y ago
        There is no democracy, just the appearance of one. As an adult, I think it's everyone's responsibility to start and understand this sooner or later.
        sametmax 8y ago
        Well yes, I do believe we are in an oligarchy and not a democracy. But it's a different point, and would strike a debate that would not help with the main argument of my comment. So I just use the word "democracy" where most people expect it, otherwise, it gets complicated.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    I think that's a good general assumption. But in the case of Android, I think of it (and Chrome) more as a defensive move. Google's business depends on having access to users. A free browser and a free mobile OS are a loss leader so that nobody can cut off their major revenue streams. Not that we shouldn't keep an eye on them, of course. The great bulk of their revenue comes from advertising, which is all about selling users to advertisers. But I don't think Android makes the picture any worse.
    - hueving 8y ago
      Google location services makes the picture much worse though, which the majority of Android users (in the US at least) have enabled.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Yes, it feels really spooky getting notifications to review the supermarket, coffee shop or anything else close to our surroundings. The spookiness is even greater for those of us that know what it means to live under repressive regimes.
        phobosdeimos 8y ago
        Google maps stalking is indeed bad and I hate it but you can easily disable it by not running Maps in the background. Honestly Android allows me to tune out of the internet business model a lot easier than iOS. Just dive into permissions and install a system wide adblocker. You can even bypass the app store.
        grawprog 8y ago
        I always have location off but my old coworker used to leave hers on. One day after work we were waiting for the bus she took a picture of some grafitti near the bus stop. A minute later she got a notification from google asking if they could, I can't remember if it was, tag the picture or add the picture on google maps or both for the gas station next to the bus stop. It was fairly creepy, i'd never seen one of those before. She started turning her location off after that.
  - adrianmalacoda 8y ago
    Free (Libre) Software is very often gratis as well, and generally breaks the "if you're not the customer..." rule. In the case of Android, there are community-maintained forks that do not include any of the Google stuff.
    - creatornator 8y ago
      It might be true that libre software can break that rule. AOSP isn't libre, and the libre forks are so hobbled by limited access to Apps and the Play Store that there IS a cost to using them: the cost of losing very useful features that are only available in AOSP.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    guess the same must be true for Linux, gIMP, emacs, vim, gcc, clang, LibreOffice.
    - creatornator 8y ago
      There is a cost to using FOSS, though it's much less sinister than that of using Android or Google Apps. You are giving up convenience in exchange for software that respects you. In terms of the user becoming the product, I suppose that would be harder to argue. Maybe one could say the users become co-opted to promoting the cause/agenda of FOSS.
  - wastedhours 8y ago
    That being said - for the end user Android isn't free. It's a part of a device sale that they're paying for.
    - creatornator 8y ago
      There's a difference between the product made by a manufacturer, and the OS distributed by Google (their "service"). If we are talking about Google's incentives, than we have to look at their relationship with Android as a product. They are giving away Android to manufacturers for free. It's _Google_ that has the incentive to sell the users' data. That we purchase devices preloaded with Android doesn't pass that sale off to Google (like it would to Microsoft with a Windows computer), so it doesn't take away their incentive. So for the purposes of determining at what social cost you use Android, it might as well be gratis.
      - mdwrigh2 8y ago
        Note that 'their "service"' includes the Play Store, which is a not insignificant revenue generator for Google.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    I think Dropbox, with its free tier, is a counter-example. The storage offered is advertisement itself.
- littleweep 8y ago
  It's the only reason stopping me from getting an Android phone. I think Apple is better on privacy.
  - knocte 8y ago
    Haha, but in Apple case, you can't even see the code, dude.
    - threeseed 8y ago
      You can't even see the code for most Android OEM phones either.
      - knocte 8y ago
        I'm choosing the lesser of two evils here, glad you downvoted me.
    - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
      You realize the entirety of Google Play Services is closed source, right?
      - knocte 8y ago
        Woops... well, but at least Android core is not, which is better than "everything close" (Apple).
        leo_santagada 8y ago
        How would that be better? If there is any code that they don't want to see, they would just not show you. Android and ios are both completely opaque operating systems... stop pretending they are not.
    - realusername 8y ago
      You would be surprised how little of your Android phone is actually open-source code.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Could you cite some popular apps that do this? This is news to me.
  - Klover 8y ago
    Facebook is a popular app.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      Wow, it uploads your call logs? I had no idea. I thought it was only ("only"...) contacts.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - the_dege 8y ago
        https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-logs-text-call-histories-for-some-android-users-1522072657 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-logs-text-call-histori...
      - vesak 8y ago
        And if you have Whatsapp installed on the same phone, it possibly gets all the data that you have given Whatsapp. Ditto for Instagram. Don't trust Facebook or anything they own.
dnomad 8y ago
Ironically, there's probably no organization on the planet that you should trust more with your personal information than Google. No organization takes privacy and security more seriously and spends more money and time getting it right. (Yes, that includes well-funded intelligence agencies like the NSA and your closest friends and family.) The idea that Google is going to turn around and start selling your information to third parties is just dumb.
- maccard 8y ago
  > The idea that Google is going to turn around and start selling your information to third parties is just dumb. Google's business _is_ selling my information to third parties. Don't Apple have a better track record, and a more privacy oriented business model here?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Google's business _is_ selling my information to third parties. No, Google's business is using your information as a tool to build products it sells to third parties. Actually selling your information, as such, would undermine that business. Google business is no more about selling your information to other people than a ferryman’s business is selling his boat. Your privacy against non-Google actors is Google's moat. They have every interest in protecting it.
    - maccard 8y ago
      > No, Google's business is using your information as a tool to build products it sells to third parties. Really? If we're going to be that pedantic, then it's probably more like " Google's business is using your information to build products it sells to third parties." They're not using my information as a tool, they're using my information (location, interests, browsing habits, searches) to sell a product (advertising). At that stage, they _are_ selling my data.
- confounded 8y ago
  > Ironically, there's probably no organization on the planet that you should trust more with your personal information than Google Thank you for the suggestion. We likely have different ideals about what a healthy version of the future looks like. > ...selling your information to third parties... Not what I said. Google’s business model is to extract and store as much information about consumers as possible, enrich and correlate it, and then financially exploit it. Currently the best way they’ve found to do that is targeted advertising. By doing so, they make this extremely revealing data available to every government in every jurisdiction in which they operate, which is pretty much all of them. They work to normalize this surveillance as inevitable and unstoppable. Additionally, while it would currently run counter to their business model to sell raw data, there’s nothing to legally stop them, if that business model should change. Just like Facebook, Google are now very close to market saturation. To keep growth up, they’ll need to increase revenue per user. How will they do that? We don’t know. But there’s a relatively high chance that I’ll like it even less than what they’re doing now. > ... dumb :)

DennisAleynikov 8y ago

You're right Google no longer has the trust it used to enjoy. So many apps have been uploading entire call logs and it's really absurd this was so easiy accessible to all apps.

creatornator 8y ago
Android may have always been available at no cost, but it was never free. Always assume if you are given a service gratis, that _you_ are the product being sold. This doesn't just apply to Android, but to gmail, Drive, Docs, etc.
- DennisAleynikov 8y ago
  A product only useful at the Billion User data points level. I am 100% fine participating in what's essentially the training data for all future AI products coming out of Google. It feels like a happy family of devices all working together for a more scientific future.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    >It feels like a happy family of devices all working together for a more scientific future. With this philosophy, I’d suggest you’d avoid paying attention to the trajectory of Chinese society, perhaps even more so now that Google plans to get in bed with the CCP’s censorship and dissident quashing regime...
    - Latteland 8y ago
      I believe they claim they aren't really doing that. It could be the great negative attention forced them to say that wasn't their actual plan.
      - knuththetruth 8y ago
        They said the same thing about their participation in the drone program, until an internal revolt forced them to reveal their true hand (they were actually doing it and hoping to do more of it), and subsequent internal backlash put a stop to it altogether. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military-tech-workers https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military... I too hope that Googlers block what their execs are planning to do in China, but we're not there yet, and it should give one pause that their leadership are onboard with doing this in the first place.
        Anon1096 8y ago
        Google didn't try to hide that they were working with the Pentagon to better identify targets. Their participation was well known and in the open.
        knuththetruth 8y ago
        No it wasn't. They specifically tried to misrepresent what the project was, minimize the scope of their involvement with it, as well as Google's plans to expand it further. From the article I linked, which is an interview with a Googler who helped lead the resistance- Interviewee: ... They also tried to downplay the scope and involvement of the project. But that rhetoric dissolved when we found out that leadership had been lying. Interviewer: What were they lying about? Interviewee: From the beginning, they told us that Project Maven was a small contract purely for non-offensive purposes. They said that we weren’t building anything custom. They said that this was a one-off project only worth $9 million, and that it wasn’t part of any further collaboration with the Pentagon. Those all turned out to be lies. On April 12, DefenseOne published an article that landed like a bombshell in the company. Drawing on conversations with Pentagon officials, it revealed that Project Maven was actually a pilot project for future collaborations between Google and the military. In particular, Project Maven was part of Google’s push to win the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract. JEDI is the military’s next-generation cloud that will network American forces all over the world and integrate them with AI. It’s basically Skynet. And all the big cloud providers want to win the contract because it’s worth $10 billion. When we found out that Project Maven was an audition for JEDI, people started becoming extremely concerned. And as the media attention to the story increased, we learned a lot more. For instance, Diane Greene had told us that the Project Maven contract was only for $9 million, but internally they expected it to increase to $250 million per year. And they weren’t just giving the Pentagon access to open-source software — they were going to build a massive surveillance system that gave military analysts real-time information on people, vehicles, and buildings in a Google Earth–style interface. Exposing all of those lies damaged leadership on this issue just as much as anything else that we did. That loss of trust really hurt them.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    In history, people allowing one entity to accumulate a lot of power on the basis that they will remain benevolent have almost always be wrong. Don't assume people at the top have an agenda that are compatible with yours. The fact we are enjoying a lot of peace and freedom right now should now be a signal for us to relax : democracy is a system that needs maintenance, not some legacy you can claim ad vitam. It's our duty as a citizen to always doubt the intentions of those in power. Just like it's a flight intendent duty to check that the planes doors safety are engaged again and again. It's not a moral issue. It's just a technical requirement.
    - some_account 8y ago
      There is no democracy, just the appearance of one. As an adult, I think it's everyone's responsibility to start and understand this sooner or later.
      - sametmax 8y ago
        Well yes, I do believe we are in an oligarchy and not a democracy. But it's a different point, and would strike a debate that would not help with the main argument of my comment. So I just use the word "democracy" where most people expect it, otherwise, it gets complicated.
- wpietri 8y ago
  I think that's a good general assumption. But in the case of Android, I think of it (and Chrome) more as a defensive move. Google's business depends on having access to users. A free browser and a free mobile OS are a loss leader so that nobody can cut off their major revenue streams. Not that we shouldn't keep an eye on them, of course. The great bulk of their revenue comes from advertising, which is all about selling users to advertisers. But I don't think Android makes the picture any worse.
  - hueving 8y ago
    Google location services makes the picture much worse though, which the majority of Android users (in the US at least) have enabled.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Yes, it feels really spooky getting notifications to review the supermarket, coffee shop or anything else close to our surroundings. The spookiness is even greater for those of us that know what it means to live under repressive regimes.
      - phobosdeimos 8y ago
        Google maps stalking is indeed bad and I hate it but you can easily disable it by not running Maps in the background. Honestly Android allows me to tune out of the internet business model a lot easier than iOS. Just dive into permissions and install a system wide adblocker. You can even bypass the app store.
      - grawprog 8y ago
        I always have location off but my old coworker used to leave hers on. One day after work we were waiting for the bus she took a picture of some grafitti near the bus stop. A minute later she got a notification from google asking if they could, I can't remember if it was, tag the picture or add the picture on google maps or both for the gas station next to the bus stop. It was fairly creepy, i'd never seen one of those before. She started turning her location off after that.
- adrianmalacoda 8y ago
  Free (Libre) Software is very often gratis as well, and generally breaks the "if you're not the customer..." rule. In the case of Android, there are community-maintained forks that do not include any of the Google stuff.
  - creatornator 8y ago
    It might be true that libre software can break that rule. AOSP isn't libre, and the libre forks are so hobbled by limited access to Apps and the Play Store that there IS a cost to using them: the cost of losing very useful features that are only available in AOSP.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  guess the same must be true for Linux, gIMP, emacs, vim, gcc, clang, LibreOffice.
  - creatornator 8y ago
    There is a cost to using FOSS, though it's much less sinister than that of using Android or Google Apps. You are giving up convenience in exchange for software that respects you. In terms of the user becoming the product, I suppose that would be harder to argue. Maybe one could say the users become co-opted to promoting the cause/agenda of FOSS.
- wastedhours 8y ago
  That being said - for the end user Android isn't free. It's a part of a device sale that they're paying for.
  - creatornator 8y ago
    There's a difference between the product made by a manufacturer, and the OS distributed by Google (their "service"). If we are talking about Google's incentives, than we have to look at their relationship with Android as a product. They are giving away Android to manufacturers for free. It's _Google_ that has the incentive to sell the users' data. That we purchase devices preloaded with Android doesn't pass that sale off to Google (like it would to Microsoft with a Windows computer), so it doesn't take away their incentive. So for the purposes of determining at what social cost you use Android, it might as well be gratis.
    - mdwrigh2 8y ago
      Note that 'their "service"' includes the Play Store, which is a not insignificant revenue generator for Google.
- baud147258 8y ago
  I think Dropbox, with its free tier, is a counter-example. The storage offered is advertisement itself.
littleweep 8y ago
It's the only reason stopping me from getting an Android phone. I think Apple is better on privacy.
- knocte 8y ago
  Haha, but in Apple case, you can't even see the code, dude.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    You can't even see the code for most Android OEM phones either.
    - knocte 8y ago
      I'm choosing the lesser of two evils here, glad you downvoted me.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
    You realize the entirety of Google Play Services is closed source, right?
    - knocte 8y ago
      Woops... well, but at least Android core is not, which is better than "everything close" (Apple).
      - leo_santagada 8y ago
        How would that be better? If there is any code that they don't want to see, they would just not show you. Android and ios are both completely opaque operating systems... stop pretending they are not.
  - realusername 8y ago
    You would be surprised how little of your Android phone is actually open-source code.
mehrdadn 8y ago
Could you cite some popular apps that do this? This is news to me.
- Klover 8y ago
  Facebook is a popular app.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Wow, it uploads your call logs? I had no idea. I thought it was only ("only"...) contacts.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - the_dege 8y ago
      https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-logs-text-call-histories-for-some-android-users-1522072657 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-logs-text-call-histori...
    - vesak 8y ago
      And if you have Whatsapp installed on the same phone, it possibly gets all the data that you have given Whatsapp. Ditto for Instagram. Don't trust Facebook or anything they own.

dnomad 8y ago

Ironically, there's probably no organization on the planet that you should trust more with your personal information than Google. No organization takes privacy and security more seriously and spends more money and time getting it right. (Yes, that includes well-funded intelligence agencies like the NSA and your closest friends and family.) The idea that Google is going to turn around and start selling your information to third parties is just dumb.

maccard 8y ago
> The idea that Google is going to turn around and start selling your information to third parties is just dumb. Google's business _is_ selling my information to third parties. Don't Apple have a better track record, and a more privacy oriented business model here?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Google's business _is_ selling my information to third parties. No, Google's business is using your information as a tool to build products it sells to third parties. Actually selling your information, as such, would undermine that business. Google business is no more about selling your information to other people than a ferryman’s business is selling his boat. Your privacy against non-Google actors is Google's moat. They have every interest in protecting it.
  - maccard 8y ago
    > No, Google's business is using your information as a tool to build products it sells to third parties. Really? If we're going to be that pedantic, then it's probably more like " Google's business is using your information to build products it sells to third parties." They're not using my information as a tool, they're using my information (location, interests, browsing habits, searches) to sell a product (advertising). At that stage, they _are_ selling my data.
confounded 8y ago
> Ironically, there's probably no organization on the planet that you should trust more with your personal information than Google Thank you for the suggestion. We likely have different ideals about what a healthy version of the future looks like. > ...selling your information to third parties... Not what I said. Google’s business model is to extract and store as much information about consumers as possible, enrich and correlate it, and then financially exploit it. Currently the best way they’ve found to do that is targeted advertising. By doing so, they make this extremely revealing data available to every government in every jurisdiction in which they operate, which is pretty much all of them. They work to normalize this surveillance as inevitable and unstoppable. Additionally, while it would currently run counter to their business model to sell raw data, there’s nothing to legally stop them, if that business model should change. Just like Facebook, Google are now very close to market saturation. To keep growth up, they’ll need to increase revenue per user. How will they do that? We don’t know. But there’s a relatively high chance that I’ll like it even less than what they’re doing now. > ... dumb :)