[HN Gopher] Android launches yet another way to spy on users wit...
___________________________________________________________________
Android launches yet another way to spy on users with "Privacy
Sandbox" beta
Author : jacooper
Score : 177 points
Date : 2023-02-15 10:56 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| JohnFen wrote:
| I have a bunch of issues with the "Privacy Sandbox", but my #1
| issue is that it's called "Privacy Sandbox". That term implies
| that a sandbox is being used to preserve your privacy, when it
| is, in fact, a system designed for the opposite of that.
| Maxburn wrote:
| You really have to sit back and admire the marketing team that
| came up with this spin.
| hellojesus wrote:
| They just copied Congress.
| madduci wrote:
| After all the crap that Google put in Android, I still don't
| understand why some other alternative ecosystems like Ubuntu
| Phone or GrapheneOS or Mankato (PinePhone) aren't attractive
| for users and developers.
|
| What's holding everyone back? I understand that without users
| there won't be apps, but also without apps there won't be
| users, since they offer just the basics.
|
| Imagine if TikTok or WhatsApp have had an app for those others
| OSes
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| It _is_ the Apps, and you perfectly summarized how it 's a
| feedback loop. It wasn't the only reason why Windows phone
| failed, but it was one of them, even though Microsoft threw
| money at companies to at least have the most important apps
| available from pretty much day one. The app store still was
| pathetic and a lot of basic quality of life apps missing. And
| they kept going for what, 6 years before they announced
| they'll scrap it, and kept support going for another 4 years.
| Now imagine something new comes up, no matter how awesome the
| system is, no matter how well executed every move of the
| company behind it is: how much is a smartphone worth that
| doesn't have WhatsApp, Facebook, Google Maps, YouTube,
| TikTok, Instagram, you name it. And no, the browser versions
| don't count.
|
| Heck, you can just use lineage os without the Google services
| to get a taste of this. And that's a system where you still
| can get _all the Apps_ with a tiny bit of effort, as long as
| they don 't depend on the Google services. It sucks for the
| most part.
|
| But really, since you asked, _just try it_. Get some used
| phone that 's supported by lineage OS and challenge yourself
| to use it exclusively for a month. Or maybe for fun/hard
| mode, get a Lumia 950 and try that for a month.
| zeagle wrote:
| They only thing holding me back from calyxos is the lack of
| Android Auto. I know that it has its own privacy issues but
| man is it convenient with a compatible head unit.
|
| Its possible to add Android auto stubs to it to give
| privileged access, compile your own build, sign it, flash it,
| and install the apks yourself as a DIY middle ground. I did
| it for a pixel 6 and was happy with it but bootlooped the
| phone applying my first compiled OTA update so this scared me
| off trying it again and I went back to stock. I understand
| why the team is against it but unfortunate.
|
| Maybe another take on your question is why did windows phone
| and bbm fail?
| okamiueru wrote:
| There are plenty of projects. They aren't main stream because
| people are more than willing to sell their privacy for
| convenience.
|
| One such example is CalyxOS. Using it right now. It comes
| with both F-Droid and Aurora Store. The latter let's you
| download anonymously from the playstore.
| zeagle wrote:
| I guess 'Data Tarpit' didn't make the short list.
| PYTHONDJANGO wrote:
| This is an industry standard brain wash technique that is used
| in many products.
|
| Just yesterday I actually had time to read that new Apple
| "Privacy" Statement that pops up on a Mac for some reason since
| a few weeks and they put a blunt lie on top about how "private"
| their service is and just a few lines later they tell you that
| they grab actually all your private data.
|
| Every EU website now pops up a "privacy statement" where they
| actually tell you that they DO NOT respect your privacy.
|
| I am sure there is a technical term for that, I would simply
| describe it as "producing cognitive dissonance in the most
| obvious way and make it look fine".
|
| It took already an enormous effort to get all these companies
| to actually have to report about their abuse of your private
| data, in EU even make users agree.
|
| However, it did not change anything - most companies _still
| break your privacy_ even with more fun doing it, as you agreed.
|
| A terrible and wasteful development of modern primitive
| capitalism.
| PYTHONDJANGO wrote:
| BTW George Orwell of course predicted it very well.
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| At this point, I don't think there's anything left for Google to
| spy on. It's like asking how wet the water is.
| McDyver wrote:
| So, is this the return of FLoC[0]?
|
| They didn't get buy-in from other browsers, so they are doing it
| at OS level.
|
| Nice /s
|
| 0:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_Learning_of_Cohort...
| jacooper wrote:
| Its even worse, its not replacing current tracking!
|
| > On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to
| all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being
| pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on
| Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce
| tracking on Android.
| quanticle wrote:
| A lot of the discussion in this thread has been about how
| Privacy Sandbox has been deceptively marketed to users, and I
| agree that Google's marketing has been deceptive. However,
| what I _really_ want to know is, what 's in it for app
| developers? Privacy Sandbox is opt-in, but what advantages do
| app developers gain by opting in? Will they be ranked more
| highly in Play Store search results? Why should an app
| developer totally rewrite their analytics code to use Privacy
| Sandbox when existing methods of tracking already work, and
| will continue to do so?
|
| Who does Privacy Sandbox benefit? It doesn't benefit users,
| because it's not mandatory for apps to respect it. It doesn't
| benefit developers, because it's non-zero work to migrate,
| and zero benefit (because existing tracking and analytics
| systems will continue to work). It's doesn't benefit Google,
| as a whole, because it's one more API that they have to
| continue to support.
|
| What was the point of all this?
| JohnFen wrote:
| The point is to try to get people to consent to giving up
| privacy. That benefits everyone who is trying to make money
| by gathering data about users -- which happens to be
| Google's primary business approach.
| Lucyj001 wrote:
| [dead]
| nargas wrote:
| What can you expect from an ad company ? Not tracking you would
| mean hurting their own business.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| The really crazy part --- it doesn't have to be this way.
|
| Google could easily switch to context sensitive ads but they
| don't because advertisers pay extra for "personalized".
|
| Personally, I doubt anyone can really justify the added
| expense. The entire process is opaque to make any comparison
| difficult if not impossible. Just because I bought pet supplies
| last week, does it really make sense for pets supply ads to
| follow me all over the internet --- even on unrelated web
| sites?
| saiya-jin wrote:
| It isn't so simple, because what makes google (and facebook
| in its own ecosystem) so valuable are all the data they
| gathered about you. If you make ads context-sensitive, google
| is not bringing anything better on the table than any startup
| in that domain could bring, maybe some minor cost
| optimization due to scale.
|
| But they can sell customized ads stating that they will be
| very well targeted regardless of current content. Which seems
| to be what advertisers want much more, and reason why
| facebook never opened up their apis to google+ IIRC, your
| social graph and its use is basically the only worthy thing
| on whole facebook.
|
| It of course brings all this tracking evil, why google
| stopped being morally OK company etc. But the money are
| there.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >because advertisers pay extra for "personalized".
|
| >Personally, I doubt anyone can really justify the added
| expense.
|
| The CPM of an ad is based off on auction. There is no extra
| fee for personal ads. The ad spot is just worth more and
| advertisers are willing to bid more money for access to the
| ad spot. If people can't justify the expenses the price of
| the ad spot will fall until people can.
| Lucyj001 wrote:
| [dead]
| userbinator wrote:
| They've clearly learned from politicians in naming things so that
| the unaware and easily convinced will think it's a good thing
| from the name alone.
| baynoob wrote:
| You mean from "Apple".
| [deleted]
| duringmath wrote:
| I don't know why the Ars Google guy is so hostile toward the
| company but good grief!
|
| Every other outlet "google releasing their version of Apple's
| ATT"
|
| Ars Technica guy "Google will watch you while you sleep"
| xnx wrote:
| I would normally agree that the headline is
| sensationalist/clickbait, but this author seems to know his
| stuff and present things accurately. He also wrote the best
| article I know of on the history of Google chat apps:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-...
| throwaway2056 wrote:
| Sure the criticism about Privacy Sandbox is valid.
|
| News journalists should dog food Firefox (to encourage end
| users) and then avoid Chrome. (i.e) they make sure the webpages
| work great with Firefox. Usually everything works better with
| Chrome. The reason for the give would be sorry... Our
| livelihood depends on tracking/ads etc. Oh BTW, I (as a
| journalist ) am all for privacy but my corporate overlord
| (CondeNast incase of Ars) forces us to do this/that.
|
| It is the same thing w.r.t. Firefox.
| seanhunter wrote:
| Firstly, journalists are not for the most part going to be
| the people designing the webpages. They will submit copy to
| some kind of CMS. So if a site isn't working well on
| Firefox/mobile/whatever it's generally not going to be the
| journo who is to blame it will be their designers probably.
| The exception to this would be small one-person type outfits
| but those are mostly on substack these days rather than
| running their own site.
|
| Secondly Ars Technica works completely fine for me on
| Firefox. I say that as someone who exclusively uses firefox
| and only ever breaks out chrome to debug compatibility issues
| and I can't recall ever having a problem with Ars Technica.
| Are you saying it doesn't work for you?
| cma wrote:
| I've never had problems on the Ars site using Firefox.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Are you legitimately arguing in favour of corporate-sponsored
| fake news?
| jacooper wrote:
| Because it doesn't actually improve privacy?
| nerdjon wrote:
| As others have stated, it's not a version of Apple's ATT. Not
| even close.
|
| Personally my biggest issue with this is its naming. I think it
| is a borderline deceiving name given what it is actually doing.
|
| But they chose a good marketing term so other outlets would say
| exactly what you think Ars should be saying, but they are not
| falling for it and actually reporting what it is doing.
|
| That name will trick users into thinking that Google is
| actually taking privacy seriously (they are not).
| Spivak wrote:
| Can it do the thing that ATT does where I can globally or on a
| per app basis say do not track and have it honored under threat
| of getting the banhammer from the Play Store?
|
| Because I really don't care about advertisers having a new cool
| way to track me, I care that I can force them off by policy and
| the sandbox seems to not have that feature.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| No.
|
| > On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to
| all the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being
| pitched as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on
| Android is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce
| tracking on Android.
| quanticle wrote:
| I agree that Ars Technica has an anti-Google stance, but in
| this case, it seems to be accurate, so I'm not sure what the
| problem is. The "privacy sandbox" on Android is opt-in... on
| the part of app _developers_ , not users. If app developers
| want to track users with cookies and device IDs, they can still
| do that. It's not anything like what iOS does, where tracking
| is disabled unless the _user_ opts in.
|
| So yes, while the Ars Technica headline may be a bit
| hyperbolic, I think it's far closer to the truth than a
| headline which claims that Privacy Sandbox is comparable to
| ATT.
| izacus wrote:
| Yeah, ArsTechnica really has an anti-Google hardon, it's kinda
| a pattern where they always choose the worst possible hit piece
| title when it goes anything in relation to that company. When
| others do similar things they tend to be much more neutral.
|
| But such is the way of modern digital media - do you think
| "Google creates a new Privacy Sandbox feature for Android"
| would bring the same type of clicks, comments and advertiser
| revenue than one titled "Google will spy on your in your sleep"
| ? :D
| nhchris wrote:
| "Google creates a new Privacy Sandbox feature for Android"
| deceptively implies it improves privacy, when it does just
| the opposite.
|
| Journalists should pick apart lies, not parrot them.
| causi wrote:
| Anti-Google is what gets the pageviews. Ars has been sliding
| toward clickbait for a long time now.
| DHPersonal wrote:
| But Privacy Sandbox seems legitimately bad. How is pointing
| that out clickbait? It's okay to criticize a technology
| company, even -- or perhaps especially -- if it is the
| manufacturer of a device one uses.
| izacus wrote:
| You're missing the forest for the trees - it's the
| pattern we're commenting on. ArsTechnica (with Ron Amadeo
| as Android author) has a consistent history of hit pieces
| in this area that's easy to see - even when it comes to
| hardware reviews theirs standout as especially negative
| in comparison to everyone else.
|
| Is Privacy Sandbox really a lie and bad? Who knows,
| ArsTechnica will be biased against it either way so you
| need a better source.
|
| (Unless of course you deeply hate Google, then they'll be
| writing to soothe your soul and confirm your bias. Go
| ahead then.)
| causi wrote:
| Ron has such a weird mix of being the only guy willing to
| state the obvious and being completely unhinged. Like
| he's willing to state that curved screens and camera
| notches and no headphone jack are stupid, but he also
| consistently says whatever Pixel is newest is the best
| android phone ever despite usually not being more than 72
| hours away from Ars Technica posting a story about
| whatever batshit insane hardware fault the Pixel is
| currently suffering from.
| skrowl wrote:
| lol imagine being a "journalist" in the current year and writing
| "Rather than match iOS's tracking limits, Google built an
| additional tracking system." as if you think iOS tracking does
| anything close to what it says it's going to do ( ex
| https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-privacy-4th-lawsu...
| ).
|
| This is a hit peace written by an iZealot who doesn't even
| address Apple's system shortcomings.
| tyfon wrote:
| There is an off switch.
|
| That's all I need to know personally.
| CharlesW wrote:
| This is why the naming is so nefarious. Users aren't going to
| turn off what they believe is a privacy feature.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| [dead]
| bno1 wrote:
| I don't really get the point of the article. You can opt out of
| the privacy sandbox and block interests you don't want apps to
| see. The biggest change seems to be that chrome cand feed data
| into this system through an Android API, but doesn't this already
| happen through telemetry, analytics scripts and fingerprinting?
| You can also just not use chrome.
| shakna wrote:
| You can only opt out, once you know that it exists. To know
| that it exists, you first need to come across something such as
| the article.
| quanticle wrote:
| The point of the article is that Google is pitching Privacy
| Sandbox as the Android counterpart to Apple's App Tracking
| Transparency, when, in reality, it's anything but. App Tracking
| Transparency disables tracking unless the _user_ opts in.
| Privacy Sandbox only disables tracking if the _developer_ opts
| in. You can see this by reviewing the developer documentation
| [1] for Privacy Sandbox. It 's totally optional on the part of
| the developer. Pitching Privacy Sandbox as an alternative to
| ATT deceptive marketing.
|
| [1]: https://developer.android.com/design-for-safety/privacy-
| sand...
| jacooper wrote:
| The point of the article to deciphers google's false marketing
| that this is a privacy improvement when it clearly isn't.
| charcircuit wrote:
| The whole point is this will replace more intrusive tracking. It
| is trying to make it viable for businesses to switch to something
| that protects people's privacy more without killing off companies
| that depend on effective advertising. Apple took a poor approch
| in not having viable replacement before their changes and this
| resulted in many companies being negatively effected and many
| companies going out of business. When you make a big change to
| your ecosystem you need to consider all of the stakeholders else
| you can cause a subset of people to experience a lot of pain.
|
| The author falsely claims Chrome is killing off ad blockers too
| with manifest v3 since manifest v3 protects the privacy and
| security of users better. This guy isn't consistent about being
| pro privacy. He simply hates Google. Manifest v3 doesn't even
| kill off ad blockers, nor does the Chrome team intend to as they
| have been improving the APIs to enable them to function. The
| strongest argument is that chrome extension store will reject
| manifest v3 extensions that want overly broad permission to
| access the content of any site you visit.
| PYTHONDJANGO wrote:
| Google could protect privacy very easy by letting me filter app
| in the app store by capabilities. I can not just see apps that
| do not X or Y. Whole app store is still a great malware
| distribution project - horrible. Managers responsible for that
| mess should go to jail for twenty years.
| cageface wrote:
| Ron Amadeo is so relentlessly critical of Google I've stopped
| reading his articles. Overall I find coverage on Ars to be pretty
| good but he really seems to have an axe to grind.
| GrinningFool wrote:
| Where do you see this? This claim was also made earlier in the
| comments on this article. But looking at Amadeo's history - at
| least at the headline level - I don't see it:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/author/ronamadeo/
| habosa wrote:
| Yeah I'm surprised they've let him go so far. He's not
| generally wrong but the level of bias and snark in the articles
| is fairly unprofessional for a site like Ars.
| jacooper wrote:
| What? What is false in this article? Its better then believing
| google lies, it doesn't even replace current tracking!
|
| > party tracking cookies in Chrome once the system rolls out.
| On Android, the Privacy Sandbox tracking is in addition to all
| the usual individual tracking methods; it's not being pitched
| as an alternative to anything. The Privacy Sandbox on Android
| is toothless, and Google has no plans to reduce tracking on
| Android.
| euix wrote:
| I have been using LineageOS on old Pixels/LG phones for over a
| year and half now. So far no real problems and it is hella lot
| faster then the stock Android they came with. I find my needs
| really just sit between a dumb phone and all the gadgets and
| software of the latest smartphones - if it can call, run a chat
| messenger, snap an occasional photo that's really about it.
| jacooper wrote:
| For a pixel I would highly recommend GrapheneOS
| jszymborski wrote:
| Nonsense like this makes me happy to be on GrapheneOS.
| danjoredd wrote:
| I recently switched to that myself. Tired of Google not
| respecting our private lives and wanting to know every single
| action we take. Wish it worked on more phones than just the
| Pixel line so more people could use it
| jszymborski wrote:
| Yah the device restriction is a bummer.
| jfghi wrote:
| Further, I'm amazed at the level of irrelevancy of their ads.
| I can't think of a single purchase I've made or will make
| that corresponds to an ad I've seen on YouTube.
| lostsoil wrote:
| > I can't think of a single purchase I've made or will make
| that corresponds to an ad I've seen on YouTube. I can tell
| you a secret about ads: they aren't supposed to work on
| your conscious brain. The aim to ensure that on your next
| grocery run you choose "prime water" over "gaterode"
| because you heard about this new brand which was
| recommended by your favourite youtuber or choose "budwiser"
| over other no-name brand beer because you saw a cool
| superbowl ad.
| mynameisash wrote:
| I just tried GrapheneOS yesterday. Installation on my new phone
| was a breeze, but once I was in, there was... Nothing. The
| "Apps" app, which I assumed was an alternative to the Google
| Play store, had literally nothing except a link to install
| Google Play services.
|
| So I installed that and the Play store, which, due to
| GrapheneOS's sandboxing, was probably better than the stock
| Android. But it didn't even work well. Plenty of apps I tried
| to install wouldn't. After about 3hrs of playing with it, I
| said "fuck it," and flashed the stock Android back onto the
| phone.
|
| I really want to switch, but that was far too much work.
| jacooper wrote:
| One tip, use Aurora store instead of Google play, after that
| everything will work fine.
|
| GrapheneOS developers aren't really the most considerate of
| beginners.
| jszymborski wrote:
| This is a good tip. Another thing is to make sure to have
| the Google Play Services proxy installed if you plan on
| using most Play apps.
|
| You can even keep separate profiles for apps that do and
| don't need play services.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Sometimes you have to go into the installed app's settings
| and tell it to use standard android memory addresses. This
| recently fixed the Wells Fargo app for me which was hanging
| upon start.
|
| I keep Google play services in a separate profile on
| grapheneos so that use it as minimally as possible.
| mbananasynergy wrote:
| What didn't work? Any specific apps? Because that's
| definitely not the experience of people using GrapheneOS.
|
| Either way, you don't _have_ to use Sandboxed Google Play or
| Play Store on GrapheneOS. You can install whatever third-
| party store you want.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Bottom line --- Google is privacy invasion by default.
|
| I use e/OS with Brave browser --- privacy by default. Both based
| on Google source but cleansed and stripped of tracking.
|
| Personalized ads are mainly an annoyance and a really dumb idea
| in my opinion. Context sensitive ads are much easier to
| implement, more privacy respecting and the only ones that are
| moderately useful and acceptable.
| chasil wrote:
| I have Brave as a secondary browser.
|
| I run Lineage, where I have not loaded any version of Gapps.
|
| My goto browser is Bromite (https://www.bromite.org), which I
| have configured default incognito and otherwise high security.
|
| I have loaded Magisk, then the modules for MicroG:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/MicroG/comments/shmpng/confirmed_sa...
|
| Wouldn't it be great if all Android users could wake up to this
| tomorrow? It would be an interesting day.
|
| I should try e/OS sometime. The guy who maintained Mandrake
| Linux is in charge.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _I run Lineage_
|
| Even without GApps, Lineage still includes links to Google.
| e/OS had a list of some of these at one time. They remove
| these links and include MicroG in the default install.
|
| Others may disagree but in my opinion, it is a pretty good
| compromise between security, privacy and usability.
| chasil wrote:
| I think the links are very few, the main one being captive
| portal detection for wifi logins.
|
| In exchange for this, Lineage delivers the monthly security
| patches first, mostly guaranteed to be in place by the 15th
| of every month (load the first nightly published after that
| date, and it will be bundled).
| pleb_nz wrote:
| Anything mentioning privacy in it's name now screams the
| opposite. It's not a tainted term.
| shmapf wrote:
| I've been staunchly on the Android side of the Android / iOS
| question, but this carry-on with refusing to block tracking like
| Apple has done is really making me consider switching.
| codemac wrote:
| > refusing to block tracking
|
| You realize that Apple is still doing the tracking, just not
| allowing third parties?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| It would increase the privacy of Google products if they
| blocked third-party tracking on their devices. It would be
| more private still if Google didn't do their own tracking but
| that is still a separate point.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Tracking logged on users in first party apps is something
| everyone can do. Not just Apple.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| With hardware remote attestation there will no longer be any
| point in even owning an android phone anyway. Android is
| obviously inferior to iOS in every way but the whole point was
| you could have control over the machine and do whatever you
| wanted. Now apps will be able to verify that you "tampered"
| with the phone and will refuse to run, and since it's hardware
| cryptography it cannot be faked without massive effort. Might
| as well get an iPhone which at least isn't a shitty Google
| product.
|
| Termux is the _one_ android exclusive software I can 't live
| without and they managed to fuck even that up by killing
| processes indiscriminately in order to save battery or
| whatever. If there's no solution by the time my phone dies, my
| next one will be an iPhone.
| thedriver wrote:
| >With hardware remote attestation there will no longer be any
| point in even owning an android phone anyway. Android is
| obviously inferior to iOS in every way but the whole point
| was you could have control over the machine and do whatever
| you wanted. Now apps will be able to verify that you
| "tampered" with the phone and will refuse to run, and since
| it's hardware cryptography it cannot be faked without massive
| effort. Might as well get an iPhone which at least isn't a
| shitty Google product.
|
| Wait a minute, will something like this really come to
| Android phones? I guess that installing a custom rom will
| become impossible at the same time?
|
| If this happens, then there truly isn't going to be much
| point in using an Android phone over an iPhone
| boring_twenties wrote:
| It won't become impossible to install a custom rom, it will
| simply become impossible to use many if not most popular
| apps.
|
| Android already provides a mechanism for apps to refuse to
| run on modified devices, it's called SafetyNet and is
| widely used for example by banking apps. Currently, it's
| usually possible to trick it, but with hardware attestation
| it will become practically impossible.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Yes, some banking apps do this.
|
| The simple solution --- install the bank's web site as an
| app.
|
| Go to the site, click the browser menu button (3 dots on
| Android or up arrow on iOS) and select "Add to Home
| Screen". You now have a link icon on your phone that
| looks and acts just like any other app.
|
| Some banks (Chase for example) offer a "Progress Web App"
| which removes the browser interface elements so the
| causal observer can't even tell it's not a native app.
|
| https://www.howtogeek.com/342121/what-are-progressive-
| web-ap...
| boring_twenties wrote:
| I am able to use Chase's app on my LineageOS + Magisk
| rooted device. The annoying part is that they seem to
| disable fingerprint login, so now I have to copy/paste
| the password every time.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Google SafetyNet can be used to attest that the device has
| not been modified or "tampered" with. Basically Google
| cryptographically proves it owns your phone and has control
| over what you do with it. You can fake the software
| attestation right now with stuff like Magisk but once it
| moves to hardware attestation it's over. You'll be able to
| install custom systems but what's the point if they can't
| run the apps you want or need?
|
| Why wouldn't an app require this? Banks want it because
| "fraud", streaming services want it because "piracy"... You
| can come up with pretty much any reason for any
| "rightsholders" to want control over our computers. If
| WhatsApp starts requiring this, it's either accept Google
| control or my phone turns into a paperweight.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _Wait a minute, will something like this really come to
| Android phones?_
|
| Google has been doing this for quite some time to prevent
| unlocked devices from accessing the Play Store. The
| solution is to avoid Google Play --- along with all other
| Googly things.
| kube-system wrote:
| Waiting for Google to protect your privacy is like waiting on a
| billboard company to improve the natural beauty of the roadside
| landscape.
| 0xfaded wrote:
| I already have a second hand iphone for iMessage. Having a
| "sanctioned" device for baking apps and a device I control
| for everything else seems like the best hope for compromise
| these days.
| skrowl wrote:
| Apple isn't actually doing anything for privacy, they just say
| they are. Testing proves otherwise time and time again
| https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-privacy-4th-lawsu...
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| No need to pay double or triple for hardware. There are lots of
| privacy focused alternatives that are Android based.
| Personally, I like e/OS:
|
| https://e.foundation/
|
| You can buy a ready to use phone on their web site or you can
| install the OS on a compatible phone of your own. I have
| installed this on about 10 phones (all Motorola) for friends
| and family. Here is an example of one that I just put together
| as a Christmas present.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-T-Mobile-Unlocked-XT2113-2-S...
|
| As a de-Googled phone, the Google Play store doesn't work but
| that's no big loss because I can get any software I need from
| F-Droid and Aurora Store.
|
| https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.aurora.store/
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > the Google Play store doesn't work but that's no big loss
|
| It's the loss of an entire ecosystem worth of apps.
|
| If you want an inexpensive phone that will get five or six
| years of first party support with security updates after
| that, go with an iPhone SE.
|
| The original $399 version got six years of OS updates and
| just got another security update last month. That's $67 per
| year that got both an OS update and security update.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _It 's the loss of an entire ecosystem worth of apps._
|
| No, it's not. With very few exceptions, the Aurora store
| pulls apps from Google Play. About the only thing I have
| seen missing from Aurora store is a few super strict
| banking apps but you can usually just use their web site.
| danjoredd wrote:
| >It's the loss of an entire ecosystem worth of apps.
|
| He literally just said that he used the Aurora store as an
| alternative. If you don't know what that is, it is
| basically an anonymous version of the Play Store. Highly
| recommended
| toastal wrote:
| Can any of these privacy-oriented forks support a device from
| within the last two years with a headphone jack?
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Take a look at my Amazon link above. This is a 5G "daily
| driver" from 2021 with a headphone jack, 6/128 GB and a big
| 5000mAH battery.
|
| It's everything that the average Joe really needs for only
| $99 refurbed. As I said above, I just installed e/OS on one
| as a Christmas present. It runs very smooth and fluid,
| better than stock because the background Google spyware
| crap is gone.
| nix23 wrote:
| I have the fairphone 4 with divestOS:
|
| https://shop.fairphone.com/
|
| https://divestos.org/pages/devices#device-fp4
|
| Super happy with it, but yeah no headphone jack, but i have
| it with the usb-c convertor.
| [deleted]
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| where did this come from all of a sudden? I thought I knew
| all the Android alternatives. why does this super polished
| website for this out of nowhere suddenly maintained
| technology give me strong [intelligence agency of your
| choice] vibes?
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| This has been out there for years --- since 2018.
|
| And check your vibe meter, it is acting up. The main person
| behind this was the creator of Mandrake Linux.
|
| https://itsfoss.com/e-os-review/
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| you're right ... I must have confused something. will
| check it out
| worksonmine wrote:
| I'm considering one of the Linux phones, don't use many apps
| anyway. I know that's a hard sell for most but it's becoming a
| real option even for normal users.
| jacooper wrote:
| I would recommend a Pixel with GrapheneOS or calyx.
|
| You get the usability of Android with (optional)sandboxes
| google services/microg.
|
| Almost all apps work and its really usable.
| fsflover wrote:
| I can run Android apps with Waydroid on my Librem 5, and I
| also get the benefits of a full desktop OS on my phone.
| bacchusracine wrote:
| >on my Librem 5
|
| Sounds interesting. Goes and looks it up.
|
| >>From: $1,999.00
|
| You _must_ be joking...
| ufmace wrote:
| Well if you _really_ want a phone that 's secure and
| private, prove it by paying for it. Mass production and
| the ability to sell your data to advertisers means the
| stuff that does that will _always_ be cheaper.
| tholdem wrote:
| How does the Librem 5 support verified boot? What about
| user data encryption? Those are the first, most basic
| security features I am expecting from a smartphone. How
| about app sandboxes and strict MAC policies?
| nani8ot wrote:
| They contribute upstream and make many improvements to
| the Linux stack in general. But I agree, it's not
| something many people are willing to pay.
| fsflover wrote:
| >>From: $1,999.00
|
| This is the cost of Librem 5 USA (made in USA) [0], not
| Librem 5 (made in China) [1]. Also, I preordered it for
| $600 a long time ago, and sometimes you can buy from
| resellers for a similar price [2].
|
| [0] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa
|
| [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5
|
| [2] https://forums.puri.sm/t/librem-5-for-sale-
| eu-630-eur/19445
| bacchusracine wrote:
| >>This is the cost of Librem 5 USA (made in USA) [0], not
| Librem 5 (made in China)
|
| I suppose that helps a _little_. I seem to have
| incorrectly assumed that the USA model was intended for
| use in the USA, not simply assembled there. Still crazy
| expensive. For that price I 'd expect it to come with a
| keyboard and mouse and replace my Thinkpad altogether.
| fsflover wrote:
| You indeed can connect Librem 5 to any keyboard, mouse,
| and screen and use it as a desktop.
| bacchusracine wrote:
| >You indeed can connect Librem 5 to any keyboard, mouse,
| and screen and use it as a desktop.
|
| You have my attention.
|
| ....
|
| [goes and looks it up]
|
| Niiiiice. Reads more...
|
| https://puri.sm/posts/what-is-mobile-pureos/
|
| The only problem I'm seeing is this is all Gnome and I'm
| a big Mate desktop guy. I wouldn't really have a desktop
| replacement unless I could get the traditional desktop
| back. Still this situation is a much better one than I
| originally feared. I'll be watching this closely. Thanks
| for educating me.
| SahAssar wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you can start mate on it when you are
| plugged into keyboard/display/mouse. You just wouldn't
| have a smooth switch between phone and desktop.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The problem is really the apps. Most play store apps are
| absolutely riddled with tracking libraries, even if you get
| them from Aurora store.
|
| You can block some of their access but it's hard from
| airtight.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-15 23:02 UTC)