3 ms·

It feels arrogant by Google to take the liberty to even add the possibility to changes customer's settings remotely without them having a say in it. It's like t

It feels arrogant by Google to take the liberty to even add the possibility to changes customer's settings remotely without them having a say in it. It's like the forgot who's phones they are. My guess is that they're so used to A/B testing on their web sites that they think the same is OK on peoples personal devices just because Google makes the software that runs on them too.

shittyadmin 8y ago
Yeah, how was this rolled out? I assume a play services update? I mean - I expected it to be possible just because they're the ones who signed both play services and the settings apps - but for them to actually use that capability seems completely insane. I'm almost wondering if we could do some sort of crowd auditing of play services changes, automatically grab changes pushed via play store, pass through appropriate decompilers and disassemblers and highlight modified sections, similar to what tools like bindiff do... I know, I know, install MicroG/switch to an iPhone/burn your phone with fire, but many people run these devices and would be interested in any impacts like this being had on user security and privacy I'm sure.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  This is something the world does need. What data does my phone automatically send, what commands does it listen to from the outside?! I have no idea. Google is fucking creepy and it probably shouldn't be legal for them to bully me into using Play Services.
clubm8 8y ago
>It feels arrogant by Google to take the liberty to even add the possibility to changes customer's settings remotely without them having a say in it. I think the issue is a lack of informed consent. Some of the commenters seem to think this isn't a "big deal", since the changes were relatively minor and made to benefit the user. Let's draw from the real world: even if you have zero STDs, and use a condom, it is a serious crime to have sex with someone while they're asleep - because they couldn't give consent. It deeply troubles me that I keep seeing this mentality that there must be "harm" for something like this to be a problem. I saw similar logic used in the article on Google using "anonymized" credit card data - that people's feelings about the matter are invalid, since there's no harm if the data is anonymized. Frankly, the word that comes to mind when I read these articles is not arrogance - it's entitlement. Google feels entitled to do as it pleases, because it feeds it knows better than you.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  I don't think comparing a software update to rape is buying you any points here.
  - chrisdsaldivar 8y ago
    I've seen some analogies on here that were reaching but this one really threw me.

shittyadmin 8y ago

Yeah, how was this rolled out? I assume a play services update? I mean - I expected it to be possible just because they're the ones who signed both play services and the settings apps - but for them to actually use that capability seems completely insane. I'm almost wondering if we could do some sort of crowd auditing of play services changes, automatically grab changes pushed via play store, pass through appropriate decompilers and disassemblers and highlight modified sections, similar to what tools like bindiff do... I know, I know, install MicroG/switch to an iPhone/burn your phone with fire, but many people run these devices and would be interested in any impacts like this being had on user security and privacy I'm sure.

solarkraft 8y ago
This is something the world does need. What data does my phone automatically send, what commands does it listen to from the outside?! I have no idea. Google is fucking creepy and it probably shouldn't be legal for them to bully me into using Play Services.

clubm8 8y ago

>It feels arrogant by Google to take the liberty to even add the possibility to changes customer's settings remotely without them having a say in it. I think the issue is a lack of informed consent. Some of the commenters seem to think this isn't a "big deal", since the changes were relatively minor and made to benefit the user. Let's draw from the real world: even if you have zero STDs, and use a condom, it is a serious crime to have sex with someone while they're asleep - because they couldn't give consent. It deeply troubles me that I keep seeing this mentality that there must be "harm" for something like this to be a problem. I saw similar logic used in the article on Google using "anonymized" credit card data - that people's feelings about the matter are invalid, since there's no harm if the data is anonymized. Frankly, the word that comes to mind when I read these articles is not arrogance - it's entitlement. Google feels entitled to do as it pleases, because it feeds it knows better than you.

ggggtez 8y ago
I don't think comparing a software update to rape is buying you any points here.
- chrisdsaldivar 8y ago
  I've seen some analogies on here that were reaching but this one really threw me.