The article seems to go directly from “this piece of software talks to all the sensors and isn’t well sandboxed” to “Google has directed this software to profile and surveil users” without actually providing evidence to support that leap. Is Google Play Services sampling your location so that it can send it in to Google HQ as part of a secret location tracking operation that runs without user consent or knowledge, or so that it can detect if the device has been stolen by the cops and use its proprietary ML model to activate anti-theft mode to protect the user’s privacy?
If we can actually show mismanagement of user data by Google Play Services, we need to shout it to the hills, because those sorts of scandals are important arguments for increased privacy protections. But we need to actually find that mismanagement occurring, not just assume it must be because Google wrote the code and it isn’t open source.
I disagree that we need to find mismanagement first.
Never mind that Google is 100% opaque from outside and is not subject to inspections by its users.
Even if Google had an open door policy inviting and empowering any and all citizen auditors, I would still disagree that Google gets the benefit of doubt by default, and only after something blows up can we begin asserting our interests.
I think we can assert our interests any time, for any reason, and for no reason at all, with arbitrary aggressiveness, limited only by our own practical considerations.
Instead of waiting for things to go wrong, we can protect our interests before there is even a chance of things going wrong.
Can.
Will we? Each person has to consider their situation pragmatically, but if they considered everything and decided to assert themselves, we would be idiots to insist Google gets the first dibs, they have the initiative, and so how dare we want to limit Google in any way without first PROVING harm. Horse. Shit.
I take the same view toward any monopolies in general. We should not bother proving harm. We should break all monopolies as a matter of principle, even if they are “harmless.”
And Google shound be given as close to zero information as possible. As a matter of principle.
The problem is that without evidence of mishandling, what can we achieve? How can we force Google to be more transparent? The only way I see is via the courts, and they require proof.
Why would you ever give the benefit of the doubt to the largest ad company to ever exist whose entire existence and history depends on tracking user data. They literally just had too settle a lawsuit for tracking users when they said they wouldn’t in incognito mode.
There are plenty of little hints in Android that they want to enable tracking (eg. Bluetooth and exact location permissions being linked despite there being no real need to). Y’all need Graphene yesterday. And we all need a new total alternative since Apple is quickly chomping at the bit for ad income.
Because he or she works for Google’s image and status management interests.
Does not matter consiously or unconsciously. Does not matter paid or free. Dependent or independent. Good faith or bad. Bot or human. None of it matters.
What matters is the result of their action/speech, and the priorities. And it is loud and clear what those are.
“Google must be trusted and given all the information first. Then, if you can find mismanagement, try to prosecute your grievance AFTER an injury has occured and was proven.”
^^^ We need to flip the script here.
Protect your iterests first. Google’s interests mean nothing to you.
If Google can serve my interests they get paid. They don’t get freebies or deference or first dibs or ownership of the phone, or part ownership, or benefit of doubt, fucking NOTHING. They get just what they need to render a service. That’s it.
If Google does not like that they are to serve, and instead Google’s managers have aristocratic ambitions, we need to talk.
When you open the maps indoor you get immedieate location. This is not from GPS but from Wifi and cell tower data. This is only possible because your phone constatly transmits your location and network data. You can also call it surveilance because its 24/7 logging and processing of your location data.
does not happen to me, probably because i keep mobile data off and in the developer settings there is a keep mobile data always option that is enabled by default, for “fast network switching”, I disable it and beyond that I disable google playservices and all google related or adjacent apps that cant be uninstalled from my oem rom
Part of the problem with this stuff is that the corporations using it are very hush-hush about what exactly they use it for. The privacy policy just lists what they may collect (everything) and what they may use it for (anything).
Is Google Play Services sampling your location so that it can send it in to Google HQ as part of a secret location tracking operation that runs without user consent or knowledge
Yes they track your phone’s location and movement constantly, but it’s not a secret.
For an example of the evidence you seek… Google SensorVault location data was how they identified and convicted the January 6 terrorists. You might argue that complying with warrants isn’t misuse of the data, but I’d argue that both the data itself, and the level of precision and detail, shouldn’t be captured and logged in the first place. And I’m fairly sure that most google customers have no idea how pervasive and extensive the tracking is.
Is Google Play Services sampling your location so that it can send it in to Google HQ as part of a secret location tracking operation that runs without user consent or knowledge, or so that it can detect if the device has been stolen by the cops and use its proprietary ML model to activate anti-theft mode to protect the user’s privacy?
They’re the same picture.
If we can actually show mismanagement of user data by Google Play Services, we need to shout it to the hills
The article seems to go directly from “this piece of software talks to all the sensors and isn’t well sandboxed” to “Google has directed this software to profile and surveil users” without actually providing evidence to support that leap. Is Google Play Services sampling your location so that it can send it in to Google HQ as part of a secret location tracking operation that runs without user consent or knowledge, or so that it can detect if the device has been stolen by the cops and use its proprietary ML model to activate anti-theft mode to protect the user’s privacy?
If we can actually show mismanagement of user data by Google Play Services, we need to shout it to the hills, because those sorts of scandals are important arguments for increased privacy protections. But we need to actually find that mismanagement occurring, not just assume it must be because Google wrote the code and it isn’t open source.
I disagree that we need to find mismanagement first.
Never mind that Google is 100% opaque from outside and is not subject to inspections by its users.
Even if Google had an open door policy inviting and empowering any and all citizen auditors, I would still disagree that Google gets the benefit of doubt by default, and only after something blows up can we begin asserting our interests.
I think we can assert our interests any time, for any reason, and for no reason at all, with arbitrary aggressiveness, limited only by our own practical considerations.
Instead of waiting for things to go wrong, we can protect our interests before there is even a chance of things going wrong.
Can.
Will we? Each person has to consider their situation pragmatically, but if they considered everything and decided to assert themselves, we would be idiots to insist Google gets the first dibs, they have the initiative, and so how dare we want to limit Google in any way without first PROVING harm. Horse. Shit.
I take the same view toward any monopolies in general. We should not bother proving harm. We should break all monopolies as a matter of principle, even if they are “harmless.”
And Google shound be given as close to zero information as possible. As a matter of principle.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The problem is that without evidence of mishandling, what can we achieve? How can we force Google to be more transparent? The only way I see is via the courts, and they require proof.
Why would you ever give the benefit of the doubt to the largest ad company to ever exist whose entire existence and history depends on tracking user data. They literally just had too settle a lawsuit for tracking users when they said they wouldn’t in incognito mode.
There are plenty of little hints in Android that they want to enable tracking (eg. Bluetooth and exact location permissions being linked despite there being no real need to). Y’all need Graphene yesterday. And we all need a new total alternative since Apple is quickly chomping at the bit for ad income.
This right here.
Don’t be intentionally naive.
Because he or she works for Google’s image and status management interests.
Does not matter consiously or unconsciously. Does not matter paid or free. Dependent or independent. Good faith or bad. Bot or human. None of it matters.
What matters is the result of their action/speech, and the priorities. And it is loud and clear what those are.
“Google must be trusted and given all the information first. Then, if you can find mismanagement, try to prosecute your grievance AFTER an injury has occured and was proven.”
^^^ We need to flip the script here.
Protect your iterests first. Google’s interests mean nothing to you.
If Google can serve my interests they get paid. They don’t get freebies or deference or first dibs or ownership of the phone, or part ownership, or benefit of doubt, fucking NOTHING. They get just what they need to render a service. That’s it.
If Google does not like that they are to serve, and instead Google’s managers have aristocratic ambitions, we need to talk.
When you open the maps indoor you get immedieate location. This is not from GPS but from Wifi and cell tower data. This is only possible because your phone constatly transmits your location and network data. You can also call it surveilance because its 24/7 logging and processing of your location data.
does not happen to me, probably because i keep mobile data off and in the developer settings there is a keep mobile data always option that is enabled by default, for “fast network switching”, I disable it and beyond that I disable google playservices and all google related or adjacent apps that cant be uninstalled from my oem rom
Part of the problem with this stuff is that the corporations using it are very hush-hush about what exactly they use it for. The privacy policy just lists what they may collect (everything) and what they may use it for (anything).
And the very few valid reasons for data collection are drowned in this. You consent to either all or nothing. Some consent that is.
I was more wanting to point out that it is reasonable that the article wouldn’t go into extreme depth
Yes they track your phone’s location and movement constantly, but it’s not a secret.
For an example of the evidence you seek… Google SensorVault location data was how they identified and convicted the January 6 terrorists. You might argue that complying with warrants isn’t misuse of the data, but I’d argue that both the data itself, and the level of precision and detail, shouldn’t be captured and logged in the first place. And I’m fairly sure that most google customers have no idea how pervasive and extensive the tracking is.
They’re the same picture.
We can, and many have been for many years.