I have Xprivacy and Cyanogenmod's privacy guard, and also use the Amazon Underground store and apps. I can tell you that with location, contacts, and most other permissions blocked the apps work just fine. So whatever the author did to get this result, it isn't from blocking permissions.
It also seems strange that someone who cares so much about his privacy doesn't have xposed with Xprivacy, because then he could have spoofed the data instead of having to block it all together.
Hey, OP here. Thanks for the mention of Xprivacy - I wasn't aware of it. :)
Like everyone else, I'm always learning. Just sharing this post for others who weren't aware of Amazon's business model here (which does seem somewhat hidden).
Yes, if you believe the original developers, who maintain that they've got the security aspect covered (since user-approval is required prior to granting a module the permissions it requires). I haven't seen any professional do a formal security review of XposedMod yet, but any sec-bug in XposedMod is sure to bring about a huge head-ache for everyone concerned about privacy/surveillance/etc.
Using Xprivacy probably means you're giving up a significant portion of your security for increased privacy. When you are rooted and your bootloader is unlocked you're more exposed to hacking and malware. Also, last I heard the most popular root application by far (SuperSU) was silently acquired by a Chinese company.
I'm not saying you shouldn't use Xprivacy or other root-enabled apps, though, as some are very useful and it may be the only way to get Google to build in some of those features eventually, but just be aware of the trade-off you're making.
I thought "rooted" in the Android sense just meant that you had sudo installed.
Why would malware be helped by having sudo installed? A privilege escalation attack has no use for it, unless you think there are security holes in sudo. Has there been or do you have reason to believe there are?
I heard these statements before and I'm never sure what to make of it. For a casual user, the possibility to click yes to a sudo dialog is a code path to disaster, but as these things need to be flashed specifically (which is a big hurdle in itself) I'm not sure how big problem it is in practice.
I also stay indoors so that public security cameras can't see me :) I don't have a bank account or Amazon account :) I live curled up in my basement shaking with terror at the prospect of my privacy being violated :)
okay, this is the same attitude I am met with when I say this statement.
There seems to be a either full optimistic response or a pessimistic response. I am not saying abandon smartphones all ye who want privacy, I am saying that for those who aren't addicted to smartphones and want privacy they use non smart phones.
In a world where a private company owns public security cameras, yeah you should stay indoors because they track you every hour of every day, they built a machine to spy on you and they'll devour you.
Doing something is subject to realizing if the +ve aspects outweigh the -ve aspects, in a world where Google owns android/chrome/search/gmail/nest/adsense {insert million products here}
In this digital world these companies know more about us from analytic than we ourselves know, but that doesn't mean being pessimistic to anyone who suggests a particular use case for maintaining privacy.
We might as well ditch technology altogether and travel in bullock carts instead of airplanes, then. If tech has a problem, then solve it rather than throwing that tech away.
Why? Does your public transport track your trips? do they sell your data to Uber/lyft so lyft/uber bombards you with save x% on your next trip?
>travel in bullock carts instead of airplanes
Why? are all airline companies owned by one entity which also owns a host of other companies which can abuse your data from one service for their advantage?
>If tech has a problem, then solve it rather than throwing that tech away
No, what I said was people who want real privacy and who aren't addicted to smartphones use a non smart phone
this doesn't mean we fear the end of world like George Orwell.
Amazon Underground pays the app developer for the duration of usage of the app, and so needs to track how long you are using the app for. Perhaps it needs data tracking enabled to identify the duration of usage?
Did you read the screenshot? That's exactly what Amazon says it needs data tracking for.
(For those who haven't read the article: The author only discovered this because they have CyanogenMod and a permissions blocker installed and in use. Most people wouldn't be told they were being tracked.)
It's actually just a setting in the Amazon Underground app to disable tracking of apps. The "actually free" apps require the setting enabled. He disabled it and it's telling him that. The CyanogenMod/Privacy Guard/Location stuff is all unrelated.
I can't see where the article's scary headline is justified. It appears that all that happened is, he used this service without knowing it was based on tracking app usage, and was surprised when he found out.
Agreed, but it is pretty surprising, and most people will have no idea this is what's going on. I couldn't find it mentioned on the Amazon Underground homepage:
I'm not talking about shady apps you downloaded off some dodgy pirated Android app store, or apps where you agree to this sort of tracking so you get free apps (e.g. Amazon Underground, which the author is using).
I mean - official apps such as Twitter, Snapchat, or say Microsoft or Google applications.
Can anybody quantify what they are scared of, if an app tracks how often you use it, or collects anonymised metrics?
Will I be "scared" if a guest at my house is live-streaming his stay to the Internet without my knowledge or approval? Hell, no. I'll be pissed.
Now, that's exactly naive, careless and fundamentally ignorant comment that the erosion of privacy is all about. You seem to genuienly think that tracking is not just acceptable, but a norm in some situatioons.
Not just several years ago if an OS or an app phoned home it was a scandal. It was commonly accepted that your gadget was yours, and anything running on it was a guest that had to follow some decency and basic etiquette norms. Theh, the push started - can we report this, just once? Can we report that, weekly? We'll call it a "telemetry", it's less scary that way. Perhaps you are getting tired of pushing OK, shall we do it automatically? OK, so we'll now just default to automatic. and make it hard to disable. Heck, we'll just build it in, because nobody now seems to be giving a fuck anyway.
But here's the best part - we now even have users who are campaigning on our behalf to not give a fuck. That's just grand.
I believe everyone is entitled to their view on privacy, whether that's "expose all data" or "remain completely anonymous", but there's an interesting collision presented here.
> if a guest at my house is live-streaming his stay to the Internet without my knowledge or approval
Would you consider live-streaming to be audio-visual streaming or literally any data that could remotely indicate the guest is in your presence / property?
And, as a follow up, in case it's the latter: do you require guests to put phones into Airplane mode or similar?
Yes, but you avoided my question - what exactly is the fear here?
As in, is there a particular type of data, or information about your app usage that you don't want developers having access to?
I worked at a trading company before, and one of the reasons we pushed out telemetry was due to user's feature requests - users would request features, and we wanted to see if they were actually using them, so that we could prioritise developer time accordingly.
That is a concrete example of how this data is useful.
I am curious about any concrete examples from the other side.
Why does it have to be fear, rather than preference?
Maybe there's no data you're afraid of leaking, but you would prefer never to leak that data. It's a consumer choice - the problem here is lack of transparency/information to the consumer.
The cultural standard is what we accept to be appropriate - do we want to accept a cultural standard of everything you use is tracked and logged by default?
If that's your preference, then you are free to not use those webapps, or mobile apps - why would yo use Gmail, or Instagram, or Twitter, or Facebook, if you were worried about your data being held by a third party?
We shouldn't automatically assume people are stupid, or that they are being "duped".
There are numerous advantages to using a cloud-hosted service - if you tried to replicate Gmail or Dropbox, to the same level of reliability, performance and sharing features - the engineering effort alone would probably stump many of us.
Once again - is there a concrete fear here from application developers knowing how we use their applications? And is it one that we think people are somehow unaware of?
You asked for fear three times in a row. People tried to make you understand that 'fear' isn't the problem. I'm not sure how to state it more clearly: "It's not fear"
You presented a very weird case to begin with by implying that the reason people wouldn't want to be tracked is 'fear'. Why?
Maybe you're really just saying "Okay, ignoring all the other reasons why you might not like tracking: Are there any inherent flaws in tracking/something we can do to make this more trustworthy", but right now I feel as if you're presenting a weird "Either you consent to us tracking you or you fear something (specific)" choice.
Well, if it's not fear, is there another reason you don't want application or webapp developers tracking your usage of their services?
I mean, isn't the whole point of these services that you store your data remotely on their services?
Why would you voluntarily choose to use something like Gmail, Instagram, Twitter, Dropbox etc, if you were concerned about the company in question or didn't trust them?
There are companies I won't use, precisely because of concerns like this (e.g. Sony, Lenovo) - but if somebody chooses to use a service, it's probably because the benefits of that service outweigh the "costs" to them.
In the case of Amazon Underground, which is the subject of the OP, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say, oh gee, I want free paid apps, but I don't want to allow Amazon to track my usage....which is sort of how the app developers get re-compensated.
Assuming you have voluntarily chosen to use a webapp or mobile app what are the key objections around those developers collecting telemetry data from you?
That is pretty cool =) - I've just had a skim of your IndieGoGo page (good luck with that), and it certainly looks interesting.
I suspect you're catering to a certain market (i.e. those willing to fork out either 450 EUR and put up with some rough edges, or willing to setup the VM themselves), but I applaud your effort. Good on you mate.
This sounds awful similar to the "Nothing to hide argument". People have a right to privacy and shouldn't have to provide a reason why they deserve it. Tracking should always be opt-in.
This isn't so much about nothing to hide - but more about doing a costs/benefits analysis.
I mean - most people here use webapps - whether it's HackerNews - or more mainstream ones like Reddit, Instagram etc.
We assume that the webapp developers know when we use their services - after all, it's hosted on their servers.
If you were super paranoid, you could run your own "cloud" services - your own email service, your own document sharing service, your own image sharing service etc. However, for most people the cost/benefits analysis simply isn't worth it.
Apps like Twitter, Instagram, Google Docs, GMail etc are popular precisely because people figure the utility outweights any "fears" they might have over those scary developers tracking their usage.
In a comment above, I provided a concrete example of where telemetry data is useful:
"I worked at a trading company before, and one of the reasons we pushed out telemetry was due to user's feature requests - users would request features, and we wanted to see if they were actually using them, so that we could prioritise developer time accordingly."
Or the same reason most people don't use encrypted email (currently).
I mean, come on - you're storing your data on their servers - there's got to be some trust there.
Your repeated use of the word "fear" throughout this thread after numerous commenters have explained why "fear" has nothing to do with it seems manipulative and disingenuous.
There are other motivations in life beside fear -- aspiration, ambition, preference, etc.
Constantly trying to turn the conversation back to "fear" suggests you are the one who is afraid. And the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim (as you imply) that there is nothing to fear. So what scares you so much about a world in which privacy is a virtue to be embraced?
Err, what am I "afraid" of? That application developers won't collect usage data about me? =)
I have asked numerous times for the use cases that people are worried/fearful/concerned of - this was an honest enquiry. However, nobody seems to be able to answer it.
Let me tackle the things you mentioned - aspiration, ambition, preference etc.
Yes, it is certainly true that some users would have the aspirations to create their own web-based email (a la Gmail), or file-storage service (a la Dropbox), or their own photo-sharing service (a la Instagram), or their own social network.
However, I should point out two things.
Firstly, the stark popularity of those services would seem to suggest that for most people, they have done the cost/benefits analysis, and figured out it doesn't make sense. The effort involve simply doesn't make sense for them.
The whole point of webapps and most mobile apps is that they store data remotely on some service - I would posit this would be a far greater concern (if you didn't trust the app developers) than whether they knew how often you opened their app, or which features I used.
Secondly - let's be honest, most of us couldn't create our own GMail, Dropbox, or Instagram even if we did have "aspirations, ambitions, preferences" to do so. We simply don't have the technical know-how, time and/or experience to do anything remotely approaching their usability, performance, reliability or collaboration features - or their scale.
There is an enormous amount of engineering effort that goes into any of these services - and most people are willing to buy into the whole web-based application thing, in order to take advantage of that.
I am open to being convinced otherwise - but I have yet to see a reason why the majority of people would buy into web-apps/mobile apps, and have fundamentally miscalculated the cost/benefits.
When you say "Firstly, the stark popularity of those services would seem to suggest that for most people, they have done the cost/benefits analysis, and figured out it doesn't make sense. The effort involve simply doesn't make sense for them." do you understand that for many people, decisions are not carefully considered after collecting and reviewing all the pros and cons before arriving at a scientifically rigorous conclusion? It is far more likely that users just choose what their friends or work colleagues use, based on word of mouth recommendations. The 'network effect' is what this is called.
There isn't much 'miscalculation' happening in these scenarios, there may be little to no calculation at all.
Sure, it might not be as explicit as "here is a spreadsheet, with quantitative values assigned to each pro/con".
However, there is certainly intuition and a decision making process involved - it may just not be the same way you or I might have done it.
At the end of the day - if a person notices negative impacts from using a product, then they will stop using that product.
There are tech companies that have lost trust - and they lose users as a result. Sony of course is a classic example - and they've had to work pretty hard to regain that trust. Another example - Samsung has a poor reputation for software quality and lots of jank - sure, a non-technical person may not be able to verbalise it in those terms, but they may simply describe the iPhone as "smoother". This was reflected in their numbers - they were bleeding money for a while, and still are.
It's like people complaining about the walled garden that is Apple - I loathe Apple, and the walled garden approach, but I can't argue that it's not popular. For many people, they can deal with all the cons, because of the product/services that Apple provides.
I might not choose to use an iOS device - and I will actively steer my family away from it (just converted my father to a Nexus 5X), but I'm not going to automatically assume that people who use iOS devices are ignorant - they may just have different costs/benefits analyses to me. Until you can provide a reason that actually affects them (which is why I have asked for numerous times what the actual concrete issues are), they will continue to use those products, in order to garner the benefits.
If you choose to use a webapp - e.g. Dropbox, Gmail, Instagram, Flickr - you are already trusting those services to store your data.
There is an implicit trust there.
I would have thought them already having all your emails, files, documents etc. is a far greater trust than whether they know how often you open up their app....
The topic of this discussion is around Amazon Underground collecting telemetry data on app usage. This is clearly stated in their TOS, and they explain that it's for re-compensating app authors.
Can you explain how this is a breach of privacy, as opposed to simply being the deal you strike, when they give you paid apps free?
How about we try to figure out what things you could possible use this info for.
Maybe these are BS or strawmen, I'm just making them up to see if they stick. Please feel free to tell me they don't hold up to scrutiny.
If I was the RIAA I might want to know if you use VLC more than someone else. Then I can target your known IP addresses to see if can catch you downloading something you shouldn't
If I wanted to hack you email and I could find out which email client you're using I could target known exploits at you.
If I saw you used a Tor browser the DEA or NSA or FBI might be more interested in you. If your usage correlated with events in the real world I might want to investigate of there's a connection
If I saw you using Tinder and I know you're married I might try to out you or if you're using Ashley Madison I could try to blackmail you.
If I saw you were using some financial app a lot I might assume you've got more money than someone who's not, on average. You're better to rob or better to sell to or better to hit up for donations.
If I see you're using the RedFin app I can start serving ads for housing loans.
If I see you're using the linkedin app app your employer might be interested to see if that means you're considering leaving.
I don't know which of those are more of a problem on the phone than on the web in general. Seems to me if I access those services from a website I can try to be anonymous. Use different email addys, maybe use a VPN. But my phone is almost guaranteed to be tied directly to me.
Just thinking out loud. Feel free to tell me I'm missing something.
I appreciate you taking the time to enumerate those examples.
Several of them are certainly plausible. However, after reading through them, the majority seem to be from the perspective of an external attacker.
That is - the issue here isn't if say, Dropbox knows how you use their app, or Twitter knows how you use their own app - but rather if an external party broke in, and used that data maliciously.
I agree that is an issue - but then it becomes more of an InfoSec issue, than one of a company collecting data from its own apps.
Then it boils down to - do you trust that company/services security staff, to keep the data they collect secure?
I think for most people - if you weigh up the chance of a wide-scale break-in at say, Twitter, or Instagram versus their own data-security hygiene, chances are, it's much easier to hack a user, as opposed to break into a large-scale webapp and steal all of their data.
Not impossible - but when was the last time you heard of somebody breaking into say, Github or Instagram, and stealing data?
Even something like 2FA isn't that easy to implement securely - and when a company like Google or Github does it for you, I think that's a net-win for security.
> That is - the issue here isn't if say, Dropbox knows how you use their app, or Twitter knows how you use their own app - but rather if an external party broke in, and used that data maliciously.
One huge issue is that, over a period of time, these companies will tend to share increasingly more data with unnamed "partners". And if you've already given them data, and they decide they're allowed to share that data at a later point in time, there's very little you can do about it aside from getting all your data off their services ASAP (if they'll allow you to) and switching, which is expensive in terms of time and productivity when it's even possible.
There's another thread on this post that explains how your entire credit card purchase history is shared with third parties - and that's probably one of most people's most sensitive pieces of data, and there's very few people who realise that it's even happening. The alternative to using banks which do this is, essentially, stashing cash under your mattress, or bitcoin.
The alternative to using GMail, Github or Facebook is, luckily, a bit easier - setting similar services up yourself and maintaining them. Though best of luck if you're not a techie type, or don't have a couple of hours a night to figure out why GMail has suddenly started marking all your email as spam for the fifth time. We don't yet have reasonable infrastructure for small, locally-run services for consumers - try and find cheap email hosting owned by someone where you can actually go knock on their office door and have a chat. One of my long-term projects is to have hackspaces and similar organisations take over this role.
Yes, sharing with "partners" is certainly an issue - but I would posit that falls into once again, do you trust those companies.
There are companies I flat out to do not trust - Sony, Lenovo etc. They will need to work hard to re-gain that trust.
There are companies I have my misgivings about - e.g. LinkedIn (they are quite spammy), and I am very careful with what I share with them.
Then there are those companies that I use day-to-day, that I do trust - they provide a useful service, they haven't breached their trust, they have a good security track-record, and for me, the cost/benefits mean it's simply not worth the additional mental bandwidth of scrutinising everything single packet that leaves their app.
Examples - Github - I trust Github. Or say the HN forums etc. =).
I believe another poster here mentioned their IndieGoGo project - https://cloudfleet.io/#/ - basically 450 EUR for an appliance that provides email, calendar and file-sync - or the code is open-source.
With regards to the bank, I don't have a good answer for that - I live in Australia though, so the story may be a bit different there. I have had people (who indicated they were associated with my credit card company) try to sell me things - but I think that was just another division of my bank, as opposed to partners.
Finally - I agree with you, setting up your own Gmail-equivalent is certainly not trivial. The spam issue you mentioned is certainly one thing - for most people, they just want email that is reliably delivered - and also for incoming spam to be correctly marked as spam. Both of those are significant engineering efforts, in two vastly divergent fields (e.g. keeping up with all the standards like DKIM, SPIF etc. among other operational/administrative things, and machine-learning and large-scale data analysis). I would posit most people here are hardly experts in one, let along both (among all the other things they'd need to be experts in). That, and most people wouldn't have a large enough corpus to train the spam filter on anyhow.
Or say Github - yes, you could certainly setup your own Git repository - but say you hosted a project the PRC didn't like, and they wanted to DoS it - do you really think you could stand up to them, like Github has? There is once again, significant engineering effort involved here, infrastructure, backend, operational etc. in order to mitigate these things:
Most people simply don't have the know-how or time to execute those well (I wouldn't even try) - yes, if there was an open-source project that had the same backing as Github, the same number of engineers constantly working on it, and the same number of SREs/ops people making sure it ran well (or we had our own personal army of SRE/ops people...haha), I'm sure many of us would use it - but there isn't, and I suspect there won't be. Large scale turn-key web-apps aren't really where open-source shines.
Because the moment you willingly let an application collect your data, you're no longer the user of the application, you're now a product of the company that owns the application.
Also what @pipermerriam said:
>People have a right to privacy and shouldn't have to provide a reason why they deserve it. Tracking should always be opt-in.
This isn't always true. A lot of companies collect data on their users that they use internally and don't sell to third party sources. Pretty much any large app, even paid apps collects usage data etc in order to better understand their user base and optimize their app.
Yes, but many peopel use webapps - whether they be Gmail, Reddit, Instagram, Twitter and mobile apps.
I mean, the damn webapp/apps already have your data.
There's an implicit trust there.
Why do you think webapps are doing so much better than heavy desktop apps? Because people figure the benefits outweigh the risks. Just off the top of my head:
* Reliable distributed backups of your data, without having to do it yourself
* Ability to share easily with anybody on the web
* No costs for running your own servers
* Less technical knowledge required - e.g. have you tried setting up your own email server? And actually sending email reliably?
I don't think we should assume, in our ivory towers, that people are somehow "stupid" - is there a concrete fear here? If so, is it something we think they are unaware of?
I think a lot of it isn't fear, it's simply the "none of your [the company's] damn business" mentality. Yes your metrics probably help you make a slightly better product (at least measuring by the metrics...) -- but I don't care. Make it better another way, this other thing is none of your damn business, your business is what I'm using you for. I'm skeptical you really need this data, at least from me. (And for many things I've experienced a noticeable decline in the goodness of the thing as it evolves despite all the data and metrics and modelling that I'm sure has been accumulated.)
It'd be nice if you [the business] would remember that if I'm using you, you're good enough as-is, and while you may be able to infer some of my pain points that I'm not even aware of, you could just ask me, but realize the act of asking is going to be seen against you because I assume by default my feedback will go ignored or at best be put on some team's P3 backlog/bucket list to never actually get done. I just have no trust in feedback being considered important and acted upon unless I'm in contact with someone with a name and the power to do anything.
So we can play cat-and-mouse (I use noscript and ublock on my gentoo box, I find that mostly sufficient), I can feed you bad data, or hey maybe I just accept the state of the world and use chrome beta on my unrooted Samsung phone and buy from amazon and install and use other crap apps because while it's none of your business what my GPS coordinates are pretty much unless you're map related, your main business is still awfully convenient, and this pocket computer is awfully convenient even if it can and should be so much more than the default software ecosystem lets it be. Also because I default to giving you a benefit of the doubt, if not really trusting you, on most things until you betray that placed by me or others (Sony, Lenovo have done so in my book). And at last yeah there's not much that scares me personally about you having most of the data you could have that's not your business. Some examples that might concern others, though, just on unnecessary GPS data: perhaps you have a rogue employee who has made this anonymized data less so for personal reasons (like knowing when I'm away from home to rob me), or perhaps you show me an ad for a business I've walked/driven by but never entered and while such an ad may locally be a net gain for all parties involved it's nevertheless seen as one more brick in the concerning ongoing perverse transformation of the world into a temple for Mammon.
[Ed: note this rant is mostly about other data like GPS, but usage any more sophisticated than things like installed, uninstalled, used for x time, no longer used, can pretty quickly get into the territory of "you, game company, have no business knowing I'm playing your game at 2am on a weeknight [in my house?] and thus can arrange an ad for sleeping pills." I love the concept of Underground, knew about the usage tracking on day one, and have several apps.]
I an certainly see why some people might be protective of how they use an application.
However, speaking from experience, relying on user feedback alone to drive development is doomed to failure.
People lie about what features they use, or will use - perhaps not maliciously, but they do.
Also, it simply doesn't scale - apart from sampling bias (think about the sort of people who would provide feedback), if you have millions of users (and many of these webapps/mobile apps do), you need to use things like automated bug reports, and telemetry data to get your stats.
There are sites that I do not frequent, simply because the ads are annoying, or I don't agree with that service's TOS - I simply don't use those services.
The examples you cited (Lenovo and Sony) are certainly ones I wouldn't use (although to be honest, I probably wouldn't have used them even before either - I'm still upset at Sony for the whole MiniDisc fiasco, and their sad obsession with proprietary vendor/lock-in standards).
If you don't want to use those services - then don't.
But the author complaining about Amazon Underground, when the whole point of it is that it collects app usage data (to compensate application developers) seems a big disingenuous.
If there is some wider issue around telemetry data and privacy implications, I'm certainly keen to hear it.
Feedback alone is probably not a good idea, but I'd say background metrics alone isn't either. Though I think we're in agreement. (I don't care if your components' average EPTs dropped 60% since last release if your app is still crap... You made it better but not in a way I care about, and tell me again why you need access to my list of contacts?)
Production telemetry is a godsend for developers to debug their crappy apps (I'd wish there were no buggy, crappy apps in the first place, but...) but I think there's an acceptable way and a questionable way of getting it. The acceptable way is simply requiring user action. Many programs let you email or just 'report' logs and other info if you or the program think there's a problem you want someone to look into. Some make it easy to see what the data actually consists of which can help you tell if they put effort trying to know as little as necessary, avoiding things not their business. There's also an expectation that the data will be used once for helping you and that's all. The questionable way of getting the data is to just hoover up whatever behind the scenes.
The interesting cases (which apply to other data too) are in between. On one hand it's acceptable for LinkedIn to ask for your email password so they can get a list of people you might know and want to connect with, but you have little assurance they don't (or won't in the future) questionably hoover up all your email contents for vague reason x, no reason yet/just in case, or inadvertently for really unfortunate reason y when they get compromised, and that's enough for at least a creepy feeling if not fear in some cases.
There is a desktop client for Play store called Racoon. When I used my phone for several years without a Google account, from time to time I would need some app (for taxes, bankning, public transport, whatever) that was distributed via the Play Store exclusively, but I had no problem downloading that APK using Racoon and installing it separately. You don't get notified of updates, and updating is a manual process, but for for a single user that wants to avoid the Google services it's workable.
> You don't get notified of updates, and updating is a manual process
That's a lot of extra work, but it's also a huge security problem. Is it really worth the extra privacy? After all, you can't really hide yourself from Google because they index the entire web and public databases and your friends' emails...
That's the question. I think it depends on why you didn't want to install the Google Services in the first place. I mostly didn't want the remote wipe and remote code execution privileges the Google Services come with. It wasn't primarily a question of privacy as such.
I doubt the security problems are huge. Most userland apps run as a dedicated user. Security problems with the Google Services are potentially much more serious.
> I doubt the security problems are huge. Most userland apps run as a dedicated user.
There are tons of security holes that aren't prevented by running under separate users. I remember examples where sensitive data was being stored in the clear, where other apps could get to it.
So the Amazon Underground tracking requires location tracking as well? If it was just usage tracking I don't see an issue with it seeing as Amazon Underground is meant to be optional and you get free apps in return.
Not disagreeing but is there a link that describes what's tracked and will always users see this? They definitely mention usage tracking in the developer documentation. Maybe I'm missing it but I can't see a mention of usage tracking for their main Underground links, just that apps are free:
So what is "data tracking"/"usage tracking" and how is it turned off/blocked on the authors device? As far as I know Cyanogenmod only blocks some APIs like location, contacts
I too am unclear on whether or not the location tracking was related to the usage tracking. Usage tracking is basically the entire point of Amazon Underground.
This happened to one of my mates:
1. Ordered some stuff from Amazon using Tor
2. Amazon tracked the change in IP
3. Amazon automatically cancelled the orders and sent a password reset email saying his account may have been compromised
Sounds like bad OPSec. If he used his normal account via Tor he identified himself towards Amazon. Amazon checking against a list of Tor exit nodes and warning customers is a good thing. I say that as a Tor lover.
Amazon aren't being particularly underhand here; a tiny bit of googling will explain how Underground relies on app usage tracking (not location tracking).
I agree that "Joe Average" may not question the free lunch, and that's a problem, but it's exactly the same problem as existing free apps like Gmail, Facebook, etc.
If you're a technical person with an interest in privacy issues, you need to pay a bit more attention.
I love that Apple is run by a man whose pretty vanilla personal life would get him harassed by the security apparatus of lots of countries -- it really gives me faith that Apple make a good faith best-effort to protect user privacy in their walled gardens.
It also seems strange that someone who cares so much about his privacy doesn't have xposed with Xprivacy, because then he could have spoofed the data instead of having to block it all together.