[HN Gopher] Don't send your Google phone in for warranty repair/...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Don't send your Google phone in for warranty repair/replacement
        
       Author : powera
       Score  : 128 points
       Date   : 2021-12-04 19:35 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (twitter.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
        
       | turbinerneiter wrote:
       | They tell you to factory reset the phone before you send it in.
        
         | adewinter wrote:
         | She explains this very clearly:
         | https://mobile.twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467242719273631...
        
         | e40 wrote:
         | She replied to someone saying this that the device wouldn't
         | turn on. If that's true, how did they use her phone to break
         | into her gmail?
        
           | CryptoBanker wrote:
           | She sent the phone in to be fixed. Obviously they fixed the
           | phone?
        
             | NavinF wrote:
             | Right but after a reboot, all the data is encrypted until
             | you enter your password
        
       | hulitu wrote:
       | Well, this should be common knowlwdge: don' t keep personal data
       | on devices.
        
         | nr2x wrote:
         | I too remember using a rotary telephone.
        
         | infotogivenm wrote:
         | loll yea we'll all get right on that
        
         | gao8a wrote:
         | You don't use email on your phone?
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | jfrunyon wrote:
       | Hmm. I wonder how this person got notifications even though their
       | phone was offline to avoid being wiped. I also wonder why this
       | person got notifications. Most services don't send you
       | notifications just because you used a device which is already
       | logged in.
       | 
       | Complete and total duplicate of
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404954 and again with
       | absolutely no evidence even though there are apparently tons of
       | evidence left by this person doing this with absolutely no
       | cuation (security notifications left in trash etc).
        
       | otterley wrote:
       | Although I have no love for Google, claims like this that lack
       | proof or evidence ought to be viewed with great skepticism.
        
         | systemvoltage wrote:
         | It's important to question the validity of it at the same time
         | taking it seriously.
         | 
         | I found odd that the victim is talking about class action
         | lawsuit and accussing a man of "mansplaining" her (it could
         | just have been a woman saying it). This is just toxic twitter
         | behavior that takes innocuous comments from people and putting
         | it in the bin of sexism, racism, or something that is
         | accusatory in nature to gain a false sense of moral superiority
         | over others.
        
           | otterley wrote:
           | I did notice some victim-blaming, which isn't right. But I do
           | think that if you're going to accuse someone of serious
           | malfeasance that might be a criminal act, a little more than
           | a naked accusatory Tweet thread is needed.
        
             | [deleted]
        
           | giltron wrote:
           | The exact comment was "Or maybe reset your phone before
           | giving it to others (for any purpose)?"
           | 
           | If my phone was account was hacked and someone said this to
           | me directly, I would take it as a personal shot.
           | 
           | Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged
           | incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
        
             | systemvoltage wrote:
             | > "Or maybe reset your phone before giving it to others
             | (for any purpose)?"
             | 
             | Yeah that's not a nice thing to say as well. But I don't
             | sense any sexist aspect in there. Personal shots can be
             | ignored instead of adding more fuel to the fire.
             | 
             | > Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged
             | incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
             | 
             | I don't think I was, just pointing out a couple of odd
             | aspects of people going off on Twitter without proof. I did
             | say we should take this seriously but also expect hard
             | proof to back up their claims.
        
               | giltron wrote:
               | I believe tweets like this gets put on Twitter for
               | several reasons:
               | 
               | 1) Victim receives unsatisfactory response from Google
               | (or no meaningful response from Google which I have
               | personally experienced). They seek public attention to
               | get Google to acknowledge the issue.
               | 
               | ie. The victim followed the official steps for remotely
               | wiping the phone (as it would not turn on) but appears
               | that didn't work. https://mobile.twitter.com/avantgame/st
               | atus/1467242719273631...
               | 
               | 2) They are seeking public attention/support. They may be
               | looking for others with similar experiences that might
               | help.
               | 
               | Helpful responses include steps they can take to protect
               | themselves right now.
               | 
               | 3) Smear Google - We can wait and see but I do not see an
               | indication of this at this time.
        
         | lvs wrote:
         | If you follow the types of anecdotes posted on reddit of the
         | trials and tribulations of Fi users seeking customer support
         | for device replacement, empty phone shipments, etc., this
         | report comes as absolutely no surprise. They are contracting
         | out all these customer-facing services to the lowest bidder, in
         | typical Google style.
        
           | LorenPechtel wrote:
           | But when you contract it out to the lowest bidder you get
           | less careful background checking and less monitoring for
           | abuse.
        
           | otterley wrote:
           | Sure, but that's not malfeasance or criminal trespass; that's
           | just bad service.
        
             | giltron wrote:
             | The parent never said "criminal" charges against Google.
             | 
             | Thats not just bad service. If the third party is an
             | official agent of Google, then Google can be liable
             | (monetary penalties). Now, proving that in practice is a
             | question for the civil courts.
             | 
             | Now, if I was looking for a new Android device and I saw
             | all these reports, I would definitely think twice before
             | purchasing a Google Pixel.
        
         | jeroenhd wrote:
         | I see no reason to doubt her story. When someone says
         | "something bad happened to me" then "I don't think it did,
         | prove it" is quite rude in my opinion.
         | 
         | On the other hand, I also see no direct connection to Google.
         | The victim also said in the comment chain:
         | 
         | > also to be clear I have been on Google support and Pixel
         | support dozens of time all week BEFORE the hack happened,
         | asking them to investigate why my phone marked delivered by
         | FedEx 'disappeared' at the warehouse. At any time someone could
         | have offered me any security advice?!
         | 
         | This could just as easily be a delivery driver or warehouse
         | worker stealing the phone and putting fake info on the website.
         | I don't think Google's workers would be dumb enough to do this
         | to their customers' phones, my suspicion is that it went wrong
         | somewhere in the supply chain.
         | 
         | Either way, Google is responsible for their warranty and return
         | policy. If the delivery driver stole her phone or if someone
         | broke into the delivery warehouse, that's on Google picking bad
         | logistics partners. If the repair company Google partners with
         | is doing this, the problem is with Google. If someone over at
         | Google itself is doing this than that's an even bigger problem.
         | 
         | Either way, I hope the victim can get the help she needs and
         | that Google finds the problem and prevents it from happening to
         | anyone else. Not that I have high hopes for Google's support
         | team taking this seriously...
        
           | otterley wrote:
           | To be clear, I'm not accusing the poster of being a liar. But
           | remember that companies are made of people, and it's not fair
           | to accuse them of doing something nefarious, or perhaps even
           | criminal, without at least a modicum of evidence. Social
           | media is a powerful tool for generating both influence and
           | motivation; we are not well-served by stirring up angry mobs
           | over naked accusations, especially over something that might
           | even be a misunderstanding.
        
       | Terry_Roll wrote:
       | I dont have a phone because I have enough trouble keeping my life
       | private from the govt, let alone anyone else in society. Its bad
       | enough science stole my privacy!
       | 
       | I find phones amusing because of all the trouble and strife they
       | bring.
       | 
       | There are pro's and cons for phones, I get it, but should I be
       | that accessible to anyone who can dial the right number
       | combination or use a war dialler?
        
         | wffurr wrote:
         | This comment fits in just as well with a phone from the 1870s
         | as a phone from the 2020s. I can just imagine someone saying
         | this about the neighbors' party line.
        
       | systemvoltage wrote:
       | Buried in the thread if it was Google Inc.:
       | 
       | > yes it was the official Pixel warehouse, arranged directly by
       | Google support.
        
         | lvs wrote:
         | Unless someone wants to leak internal information, there is no
         | such thing in either case, as far as we know. These services
         | are almost certainly contracted to third parties.
        
           | dkersten wrote:
           | So? If google arranged that on their behalf, its google's
           | responsibility. Doesn't matter who they subcontract or
           | delegate to.
        
           | Gigachad wrote:
           | That's still offical google as far as I'm concerned. It's
           | under the control of google. The customer went through
           | google.
           | 
           | I would think different if they took it to some mall phone
           | repair stall.
        
       | awinter-py wrote:
       | this is the second one of these that hit HN this week? other was
       | a post deleted from reddit. seems like possible explanations here
       | are:
       | 
       | - standard 'loveint' at support depts (many companies with
       | personal data have stories about abusing system access to look at
       | personal info of SO / randos)
       | 
       | - illicit group operating within or adjacent to goog doing some
       | kind of espionage or ransom model
       | 
       | - google-haters inventing or amplifying a pattern of behavior?
       | (but with what motivation)
       | 
       | - not obvious if the phones are passwordless, or if insiders are
       | using a 'universal unlock' feature to decrypt pixel devices -- if
       | the latter, is that a bigger story than the stalking?
       | 
       | if this is only happening to passwordless phones, still an abuse
       | of trust, but I'm okay with 'don't send passwordless phone to
       | support' as a consumer best practice.
        
         | pizza234 wrote:
         | Some relevant information
         | (https://twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467236223550779392):
         | 
         | > someone else reported the same thing happened to them on
         | Reddit recently, using the same RMA for a similar phone at the
         | same Texas facility.
         | 
         | Taking the story as true, it'd seem to be case 1.
         | 
         | Taking the story as not true (case 3.), she's in a professional
         | position where publicity wouldn't hurt.
         | 
         | Her report looks questonable (not necessarily false):
         | 
         | > They deleted Google security notifications in my backup email
         | accounts.
         | 
         | If the accounts were backup, and she's a security-conscious
         | person as she claims in the same post, how did they do that?
         | They were backup, so they couldn't use the main account to
         | reset them. I can think of the accounts being opened in
         | different browsers, but it doesn't seem a very plausible
         | scenario.
        
           | estaseuropano wrote:
           | Jane is famous already with two NYT bestsellers. Why should
           | she make up lies for attention?
           | 
           | Really weird to immediately shoot/ad hominem the messenger
        
           | tyingq wrote:
           | "backup" could mean the main account...where the phone data
           | is "backed up".
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | theturtletalks wrote:
         | She said her phone would not turn on or she would've reset the
         | phone before sending it in.
        
       | emuneee wrote:
       | As a Pixel user who has sent their device in for repair, how does
       | the repair tech get past the device authentication and into the
       | device? (I'm assuming the user had a device password/passcode
       | set). If possible, this seems like a glaring security issue for
       | Pixel users.
        
         | trevyn wrote:
         | Has Google at any time ever asked a user for the password to do
         | a repair? I remember a physical Apple Store (real, Apple Inc.,
         | in California) asking me for my password for a laptop hardware
         | repair. They were OK with my declining to do so.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | pstrateman wrote:
         | They don't have a password.
        
           | drozycki wrote:
           | Her phone was protected with a passcode. Please do not spread
           | misinformation
           | https://twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467222753799393281
        
       | spaghetti-guy wrote:
       | According to the Google support site, all Pixels are encrypted by
       | default. So, this shouldn't even be possible...unless perhaps
       | there was no lock code on the device?
        
         | pxeboot wrote:
         | If a tech tries a random 4 digit passphrase on every device
         | they work on, they are bound to get it right occasionally.
        
           | lazide wrote:
           | If something common/unimaginative like 4444 or 1111, I bet it
           | would be something like 1 in 10.
        
           | lvs wrote:
           | Pattern unlock. Incredibly insecure.
        
             | null_deref wrote:
             | Why?
        
               | gruez wrote:
               | probably because there are a few "popular" patterns that
               | many people use.
        
         | cryptodan wrote:
         | Google has the keys to the kingdom.
        
           | nicce wrote:
           | Maybe, but they don't give them for average repairman.
        
       | gpm wrote:
       | More useful takeaway is to have a secure password on your phone.
       | Repair techs aren't able to do anything that a pickpocket
       | couldn't...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-12-04 23:01 UTC)