3 ms·

The whole writeup seems like missing the forest for the trees - Google as root access on the Android device where this app runs, so they can certainly see every

by ddalex 3y ago

The whole writeup seems like missing the forest for the trees - Google as root access on the Android device where this app runs, so they can certainly see everything if they want ....

mschuster91 3y ago
Google pushing malicious updates would leave forensic traces, not to mention it'd be difficult to establish a legal framework allowing a government to force Google to do so. In contrast, subpoena'ing data from the cloud is routine for police in countries all over the world.
- PradeetPatel 3y ago
  This may sound like a naive question, but what stops countries with flexible ethical standards from abusing this power? For example, in the past I've worked with an AI company with presence in China, where the data of their Chinese clientele must be stored on a separate data centre operated by a local enterprise. Despite the provider being ISO compliant and holds internationally recognised certs, is there realistically a chance that those data could be accessed without the permission or consent of the users?
  - v4dok 3y ago
    Depends on your threat model. Practically, the cloud admin would be able to dump that data in clear during processing even if that data is encrypted at rest and in transit.
- ddalex 3y ago
  So your threat model is a sovereign state able to subpoena cloud data. Under this model, if Google gets a court order to root-break a specific phone (push malicious update), they will be forced to, and that's all the legal framework necessary, so end-to-end encryption doesn't protect you in this case either.
  - xp84 3y ago
    In the US at least, there’s not a lot of precedent for forcing a company to do something like that. (Yet.) Saying hand over your user’s files is demanding information. Compelling them to write and distribute malware is a lot closer to compelling speech. A 1st amendment problem.
  - dtech 3y ago
    That's a lot more detectable, and has a high risk of coming out, see e.g. Pegasus. Cloud access is nearly invisible.
Closi 3y ago
There is a lot of difference between being as secure as practically possible with password data, and allowing anyone with root access to see all your password data.
- ddalex 3y ago
  But it's the same thing - the threat model described is not safeguarded by end to end encryption when the encryption device itself is compromised. "secure as practically possible" depends a lot on what practically means, and that is just a function of cost vs threat level. If you believe that Google will access your private data, you should not be using a Google-developed application and OS in the first place.
007asdflkjsfd 3y ago
you are so correct. people don't even question this anymore. Everyone also might have "google play protect" enabled on their phones which allow google to pack and ship all and every app at regular intervals (no mention anywhere if it include user data) to their servers for threat analysis.

by ddalex 3y ago

The whole writeup seems like missing the forest for the trees - Google as root access on the Android device where this app runs, so they can certainly see everything if they want ....

mschuster91 3y ago

Google pushing malicious updates would leave forensic traces, not to mention it'd be difficult to establish a legal framework allowing a government to force Google to do so. In contrast, subpoena'ing data from the cloud is routine for police in countries all over the world.

PradeetPatel 3y ago
This may sound like a naive question, but what stops countries with flexible ethical standards from abusing this power? For example, in the past I've worked with an AI company with presence in China, where the data of their Chinese clientele must be stored on a separate data centre operated by a local enterprise. Despite the provider being ISO compliant and holds internationally recognised certs, is there realistically a chance that those data could be accessed without the permission or consent of the users?
- v4dok 3y ago
  Depends on your threat model. Practically, the cloud admin would be able to dump that data in clear during processing even if that data is encrypted at rest and in transit.
ddalex 3y ago
So your threat model is a sovereign state able to subpoena cloud data. Under this model, if Google gets a court order to root-break a specific phone (push malicious update), they will be forced to, and that's all the legal framework necessary, so end-to-end encryption doesn't protect you in this case either.
- xp84 3y ago
  In the US at least, there’s not a lot of precedent for forcing a company to do something like that. (Yet.) Saying hand over your user’s files is demanding information. Compelling them to write and distribute malware is a lot closer to compelling speech. A 1st amendment problem.
- dtech 3y ago
  That's a lot more detectable, and has a high risk of coming out, see e.g. Pegasus. Cloud access is nearly invisible.

Closi 3y ago

There is a lot of difference between being as secure as practically possible with password data, and allowing anyone with root access to see all your password data.

ddalex 3y ago
But it's the same thing - the threat model described is not safeguarded by end to end encryption when the encryption device itself is compromised. "secure as practically possible" depends a lot on what practically means, and that is just a function of cost vs threat level. If you believe that Google will access your private data, you should not be using a Google-developed application and OS in the first place.

007asdflkjsfd 3y ago

you are so correct. people don't even question this anymore. Everyone also might have "google play protect" enabled on their phones which allow google to pack and ship all and every app at regular intervals (no mention anywhere if it include user data) to their servers for threat analysis.