Google Photos Uploading Your Pics, Even If You Don't Want It To 217
New submitter Adekyn writes that, according to David A. Arnott of The Business Journals, the Google Photos app will sync your photos — even after you have deleted the application from your device.
From the article: All I had to do to turn my phone into a stealth Google Photos uploader was to turn on the backup sync, then uninstall the app. Whereas one might reasonably believe uninstalling the app from the phone would stop photos from uploading automatically to Google Photos, the device still does it even in the app’s absence. Since making this discovery, I have re-created the issue multiple times in multiple settings on my Galaxy S5.
I reached out to Google, and after reaching someone on the phone and describing the issue, was told to wait for a comment. Several hours later, I received a terse email that said, “The backup was as intended.” If I want to stop it from happening, I was told I'd have to change settings in Google Play Services.
A video of the process accompanies the article.
Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that in your little analogy, uninstalling the app should correspond to taking the TV away. As a customer, that was my intent when I removed the app. Anything else is sneaky and borderline (?) malicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in your little analogy, uninstalling the app should correspond to taking the TV away. [...]
Huh? Where did 140Mandak262Jamuna say "I stepped on the TV""?
No wonder you see bogeymen when you uninstall and app that initiated a backup. Obviously Google needs to update the documentation so that it's clearer to "users" that they need to disable the automatic backup before uninstalling the app that initiates the process and allows you to select what gets backed up. Calling it "stealth" is either ignorant, or click-bait (oh nose it was the internet pixies).
After prompting you the first time, every time y
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The solution is to turn off the uploading in the preferences. The app is just a front end to display pictures from Google Play. Android is what is uploading the pictures.
Re: Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's non obvious that the app is not doing the back-up.
I understand what's going on, having read the summary, but I would not have guessed that deleting the app that asked me about back-up, and where I make my settings for the back-up, does not delete the back-up functionality
I don't think it's malicious, but I am surprised that Google is sticking to it being the right way for it work.
Re: Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:5, Informative)
The app isn't doing the backup. The app is gone. The app had a convenient way to access the basic Google Sync settings, but itself is not Google Sync.
Deleting the app that you used to change a system-level setting used by other apps should NOT change the setting.
But reasonable disclosure is important (Score:5, Insightful)
Deleting the app that you used to change a system-level setting used by other apps should NOT change the setting.
That's a reasonable policy, as long as it is absolutely clear in the app that:
1. it was a system-level setting you were changing,
2. the system would continue to honour that setting independent of the app, and
3. you could subsequently turn the system setting off again by doing X independent of the app.
However, if that wasn't clear, and this setting involves uploading data to Google silently and automatically, then the current behaviour is shady as hell. A device that is recording and/or uploading anything without its user's knowledge, or worse when its user explicitly thinks they have turned that behaviour off, is always a usability and privacy issue, and it is always the software developers' responsibility to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
>
However, if that wasn't clear, and this setting involves uploading data to Google silently and automatically, then the current behaviour is shady as hell. A device that is recording and/or uploading anything without its user's knowledge, or worse when its user explicitly thinks they have turned that behaviour off, is always a usability and privacy issue, and it is always the software developers' responsibility to fix it.
I don't know about Google Photo, but when I just recently got my first smart phone, it prompted me during the setup if I want to backup my phone's data using Google Sync. At least during this configuration of the sync functionality, it was made clear that pretty much all of my data would be getting sent to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
This one is on Google's UI team. When you select backup settings in the Photos app, it dumps you into the system-level backup and sync setting. In previous version of Android, this had the familiar dark grey to black UI theme as with all Android system settings. The settings in an app generally mirrored the app's theme, and were white or light-grey, and distinct from the sy
Re: (Score:2)
However, if that wasn't clear
And if it was clear than the user's eyes would glaze over while using the app. Most users don't have the attention span turn on their phone the first time without simply blindly hitting next 5 times without reading the screen let alone understand the concept of an app talking about system-level settings.
If all this information were presented then we'd be in no different place.
Re: (Score:2)
If your claims are correct then there is no good way to implement this feature with informed consent for the privacy implications, and maybe in that case it shouldn't have been implemented at all.
You don't get to write software that does dubious things and then just pass the buck to the user because your system was so complicated they couldn't understand it and you buried the details behind sufficient small print that they wouldn't be aware of them.
Re: (Score:2)
If your claims are correct then there is no good way to implement this feature with informed consent for the privacy implications, and maybe in that case it shouldn't have been implemented at all.
Well that is fundamentally the problem faced by all computers, all platforms, and all programs. We're getting to the point now where the features users are requesting involve syncing data to remote repositories. I hardly call that a "dubious" feature at all. But it puts you in the following scenario:
a) Don't provide the feature, and each individual app maker will implement it in their own way, users complain of fragmentation.
b) Provide the feature with no warning or options, a minority of users complain of
Re: (Score:2)
Very important point.
For a good explanation of why this is, Joel Spolsky's article back in 2000: "Designing for People Who Have Better Things To Do With Their Lives" [joelonsoftware.com] summarised it down to "users don't read anything", and broke it down into three simple points:
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a real problem. But I think you're being generous in your characterisations here.
For one thing, some users are interested in features that sync data to remote repositories, but not everyone is. Moreover, when positively informed about privacy and security issues and then asked similar questions, a lot fewer people support some of these behaviours than the cloud services would like to admit. For example, I doubt you'd find many people who thought it was OK to upload all of their photos automaticall
Re: (Score:2)
The typical user (slashdot excluded) couldn't give two shits about their privacy. People flock endlessly to services that provide them with some convenience, heck a couple of celebrities recently had their nudes leaked after being exposed on their iCloud accounts yet people still use the service, just like people still share openly their calendars (stupid IMO). People on the whole do not even remotely grasp how much their privacy is worth. We do, and that is not a false characterisation. Now excuse me while
Re: (Score:2)
Calling Google shady now is BS. This is and has been established behavior for Google since Gingerbread.
I don't personally use Google devices (or much else that Google does) so I can't comment on that. I certainly wasn't commenting on it before. I was commenting on one specific behaviour, and I don't see why the amount of time it's been going on for is material to whether or not it is shady right now.
You think apple or Microsoft are any better? No they are worse. Apple has been doing it secretly for alot longer. So has Microsoft.
An iOS or Windows Phone automatically uploads all photographs taken with it when the user specifically believes they have disabled that function?
But it will continue to happen because we all sold our privacy for the sake of convenience.
Speak for yourself. No-one is forcing you to carry a smartphone eve
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for making the rest of your argument totally invalid. Established and known issues aren't shady.
The fact that I chose not to use Google devices, because I don't trust them not to pull exactly this kind of stunt, doesn't invalid anything. The facts are what they are.
And the discussion here is all about how some people who do use those devices were surprised by behaviour they believed they had disabled by uninstalling the app. So to those people the behaviour obviously was hidden and deceptive instead of established and known.
As for your question about apple and M$. Yes, One-drive and IOS do upload without knowledge. The fact IOS did this as default was discovered during the fappening. M$ has been doing this since 2000.
So you can describe a verifiable series of user actions, on each of those plat
Re: (Score:3)
Deleting the app that you used to change a system-level setting used by other apps should NOT change the setting.
The problem then is allowing an app to change a system setting. You have no separation of concerns here. and in such a situation the user can't reasonably be expected to intuitively learn how the system works.
I said earlier, don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. And here the incompetence is in the system design.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what's going on, having read the summary[...]
The summary is an inaccurate representation of the referenced articles misunderstanding of how backups work. (at least you read the summary)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that having sync and privacy settings all in one place makes sense?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more similar to having a bank account, destroying a credit card and having the credit card company still have access to your bank account.
No wait, that's not right at all either.
Can someone make an analogy, but with cars?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure!
So you have a car. You noticed the oil-warning light is on all the time. You go under the hood and remove the oil-sensor, now you wonder why your engine is screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not multiple engines. That's the stupidest analogy I've ever heard.
It's more like this:
You have a car. Your speedometer says you're doing 60 in a 50 zone, so in order to prevent yourself from getting a speeding ticket, you remove the speedometer from the car. Then, you're both surprised it still moves, and surprised that you get a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 50 zone, when your speedometer obviously didn't say you were doing that, so you couldn't possibly have been speeding.
Your speedometer isn't making the car move, and Google Photos isn't doing the backup. Google Photos is an app that runs only when you run it. If you set Google Sync to backup your photos, don't be surprised when it backs up your photos.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"We know better than you do"
That would be the case if they made it work a certain way and didn't give you the option to change it. This, on the other hand, is a default setting you can change. Until you tell Google what you want your device to do, it will carry on the default action. Seems sane to me.
Do you commonly install software and then fail to configure it to behave the way you want? that sure seems like your failing, much moreso than the developers of said software.
Re: Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Urgh. Google, knock it off with the "We know better than you do" bullshit. At least make me aware of what Android is actually doing with my stuff.
Factory reset your phone, then actually READ through the screens you clicked next to.
Backup and syncing photos and contacts with your google account is about the 4th screen in which you were PROMPTED about when you setup your phone. Don't act all surprised when a feature of the OS it informed you of actually works.
Seriously, this is the kind of thing that is making me want my next smartphone to run something else. I just don't know what yet.
Why? You'll only complain about something else when you blindly click accept to every window during the setup process on that device too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like removing the back seat and wondering why the car still drives.
Re: (Score:3)
Enough with the stupid analogies and defending Google. When you uninstall an app, all app-specific components should be deleted, including any background running programs, not just the user facing GUI program.
The photo uploader was not deleted
But that's the thing - the photo uploader is not app specific. It performs a different service.
This is like uninstalling the music player and then complain that the DLNA server is still running.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like uninstalling the music player and then complain that the DLNA server is still running.
If the music player turned on the DLNA server, that would be a valid complaint. Any changes that an app makes to the system should be unmade when that app is uninstalled, especially if those changes are very specific to that app. (There may be multiple apps that require a service and so there may need to be a system in place to insure that apps don't interfere with each other, but just leaving services running after apps are uninstalled is sloppy.)
If you installed a music player that enabled a DNLA server t
Re: (Score:3)
If the music player turned on the DLNA server, that would be a valid complaint.
What if the music player opened the settings for the DLNA server to make it easier for the user to turn it on, but the user was the one who actually turned it on? That's a bit closer to what happened here; the setting this guy is complaining about is a system setting and Photos opens the system settings pane containing that setting to allow the user to toggle it. The pane (along with the setting) existed before Photos was installed, exists while Photos is installed, and will continue to exist if Photos in u
Re: (Score:2)
Put in plain English, if I uninstall an app that has controls that govern syncing my photos, I expect my photos to stop syncing.
Indeed! However, the app, in this case, does not have controls that govern syncing photos; instead, it opens the system configuration pane that already existed before the app was installed (and still exists when the app is removed) to assist the user in locating the settings.
Re: Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:5, Informative)
It's there, unless I'm being dense:
Settings -> Accounts -> Google -> (click on your account name) -> Google+ Photos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite that straightforward... the app sets the setting, it does not redirect you to the Accounts setup. I can see where the confusion arises, but at the same time if you have a Google account setup on the phone then I'm not sure why you'd be so infuriated at the phone sending information to Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on lollipop and I just tried it. When you first run the app it lets you toggle the setting from the app - it does not shortcut you to the same menu that you encounter when you take the Settings path that I described earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic if I had an app for my credit card company. If I deleted the app, my balance should be gone, and my account closed.[...]
Stop there. That's not logic. A broken analogy. But not logic.
Try this - read the referenced article. Then consider the logic of complaining because the remote backup of your local data - still exists, even though you removed the app that created the backup.
Go ahead. Read the referenced article. Here I'll save you doing the clicking thing:-
There they were, hundreds of photos I’d taken of my wife, my daughter, and me, grouped together by Google’s facial-recognition technology in the company
Re: (Score:2)
But the program isn't doing something. You said that yourself. Some other program, which hasn't been uninstalled, is doing something. Of course it's going to continue to do that thing after you uninstall some other program on the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop the press. The TV is on even after ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy just shows that you don't understand the problem. A TV switched on is very obvious. And it's not a privacy issue.
The problem described by the OP is not obvious, and is a privacy problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it would seem like a relatively easy fix for the background uploader service to check
Something sorta like:
//ask user if they still want to backup...
if (photosApp.isInstalled()) {
performBackupSync();
} else {
promptUser();
}
Re: (Score:3)
Your analogy just shows that you don't understand the problem. A TV switched on is very obvious. And it's not a privacy issue.
The problem described by the OP is not obvious, and is a privacy problem.
You turn on backup sync and are surprised when it backs up your files? Seems rather obvious to me
Re: (Score:3)
It's not at all obvious that a process that you turn on in an app continues to happen when the app is uninstalled. The most obvious mental model is that the app is the thing that performs the process.
Now it may be that you have some technical knowledge of how it actually works in Android. The implementation details. But this is a phone. Such knowledge of implementation decisions shouldn't be expected or required.
Re: (Score:2)
They may have turned it on in the app but it's just toggling a global setting that can be accessed from multiple locations/apps. The app itself isn't performing any backup, it's just an ease of access setting within the app for the backup function. At best it might need a better description within the app.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the dev's fault that the user is stupid.
Not knowing what a "service" or a "daemon" or a "TSR" is on a computer doesn't mean people are stupid, let alone on a phone.
People shouldn't have to know how a computer works to operate it, any more than they should need to know how an internal combustion engine works to drive a car.
If a phone requires a user to know what a "service" is, and that service is something other than what they pay from from the phone network, then it's an incompetent design.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your mom understand how the car and the phone works? Does everyone's mom? Why should those moms that don't understand not be allowed to use a car and a phone?
Your argument makes no sense. It's just the arrogance of a computer geek that has no empathy for people who's knowledge is of different topics.
And it's an excuse for sub-standard software (such as Windows and PHP, since you mention them).
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the confusion - the user was given a shortcut to a system function (sort of... it's actually an "accounts" function). The user did not know this was a system function. This is because apps are are allowed to mess with the accounts settings directly - a no-no for most other system functions. Android should probably find a way to make this explicit - the most straightforward (though less user-friendly way) might be to do what they do with the other system functions: the app can send you there, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'm a software developer and I see where the usability problem is. The problem is that the program didn't make it clear that the backup was a system option and not a local option.
How do you know this? This sound like an "I'm an idiot and do things I don't understand! Why didn't you protect me from myself?!" kind of question. If the user had been even moderately intelligent about this stuff, then they should have known why it did what it did, and added that into the summary. They didn't, and made it quite clear that they think this is Google trying to steal their photos, rather than themselves making a mistake with their settings.
It could have been a 40 point font warning that required the entire thing to be read before dismissing, and a lot of users would still not remember seeing it. I hardly think that because the user didn't realize what was going on, that it makes this a usability problem.
Re: (Score:2)
A voice controlled smart TV switched on with no picture because the satellite/cable box is off is both non-obvious, and a privacy issue.
Is this the fault of the manufacturer of the TV, because they didn't put up a huge "NO SIGNAL, BUT YOUR TV IS STILL ON, IDIOT!!!1!!!1" banner on the display when there's no signal detected?
Or is it the idiot user's fault because they didn't turn off the fscking TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually his analogy is almost spot on. A cable box switched on is not at all obvious if the TV is off. And your cable company is monitoring which channels you're watching.
Re: (Score:2)
It is like breaking the remote and finding out that Comcast is still billing you for cable service.
Re: (Score:3)
Totally...
Myopic developer knows the ins and outs of their system and assumes that everybody else must also magically know as much as they do. It's like when you walk into a store that you've never been into, ask the borderline retarded clerk where to find an item, and watch the cretinous condescending look they give you as they think about how they know where that item is and that you must be an idiot for not knowing.
It's very very much like that situation. The inability to comprehend a perspective outside
Google's desire to sell all things (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google's desire to sell all things (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence.
Re:Google's desire to sell all things (Score:5, Insightful)
In this day and age, don't attribute to incompetence that which can be sufficiently explained by malice.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not malice or incompetence but a desire make as much money as possible by keeping their actions hidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> malice
> noun
> the desire to harm someone; ill will.
No, not malice. The word you were looking for is "greed".
Re:Google's desire to sell all things (Score:5, Interesting)
We're talking Google here - they certainly are incompetent at a range of things, but when it comes to "accidentally" gathering information, they're very competent indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
sorry, but google, OF ALL COMPANIES, is not allowed to use the incompetance-card. they go around telling everyone that they have the smartest and brightest engineers. in the world. they constantly tell us this, directly and indirectly.
and so, that much hubris denies you the 'we didn't know!' card.
you knew. you FUCKING KNEW. don't give me that shit, google.
or, come clean and admit you are just another sweatshop employing drones in human skin who are just doing what they are told and have no ability to
Re:Google's desire to sell all things (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe backup sync is a different program. No that can't be it at all. ZOMG THE CORPORATIONS ARE OUT TO GET OUR DATAZ!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
A quip easily spoken by someone with no real compelling or valuable data...
Re: (Score:3)
Well thats just a bunch of horse hockey. If you uninstall an app, it's service related functions should stop.
Backing up your photos isn't a service related function of the photos app, so no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there an analogous Windows situation? You uninstall some program but a related service remains active?
Re: (Score:3)
Is there an analogous Windows situation? You uninstall some program but a related service remains active?
Absolutely. Pretty much anything that uses IIS, for example. Uninstall the app, and ISS continues running.
Or you could (at least in the old versions - I don't know what it's like these days) install Outlook without the standard Office apps, and it would give you an option to install Excel/Word/Powerpoint viewers. Uninstall Outlook, and the documents will still open in the viewer.
To me, it seems rather clear that functionality only turned on with the user's consent should not be turned off again without a
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Such! Quiet!, We want to be outraged on all things. We can be unreasonably outraged from all things, with bringing in logic and reason to the argument. What are you some sore of Unamerican, elitist academic or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. This is a user interface problem. The whole thing is designed such that someone who runs Google Photos would reasonably believe that Google Photos is doing the uploading and that if you get rid of Google Photos, it will not upload.
User interface problems inherently lead to users not knowing how to do things. Replying "it doesn't work that way, and the user should have known that" is just trying to deny the concept of user int
Re: (Score:2)
Google Photos is a different application than backup sync. More at 11.
Yep, and the "summary" is not accurate (big surprise). Most of the dumb analogies people have posted are information free because they didn't read the referenced article. The original "author" installed the Backup tool. It backed up his photos. He removed the backup tool and deleted the local photos. Then was horrified to discover that the backed up photos still existed. His conclusion - use Flickr.
tl;dr? The original story was written by an idiot, then sexed up as a summary by a bigger idiot. Which created
Re: (Score:2)
Hi. I'm the idiot you're talking about. See above conversation and note that you're making a slight, yet important, misrepresentation here.
No misrepresentation.
"hundreds of photos I’d taken of my wife, my daughter, and me, grouped together by Google’s facial-recognition technology in the company’s Photos app, all snapped over the course of a little more than a month. The problem was, I’d deleted all of those pictures". That is what backups do. Conflating "I thought I turned off backups" with "I'm shocked that local copies I deleted still exist in the backups" is idiotic. Especially coming from someone whose profession
Re: (Score:2)
"What part of 'turn on the backup sync, then uninstall the app' left you 'feeling' that you'd emphatically turned off backup?" Maybe the part where I turned on backup sync SEEMINGLY entirely within Google Photos, and then uninstalled the app, which, from a reasonable person's perspective, would make it seem the backup wouldn't apply because Google Photos SEEMINGLY controls that function. It's pretty clear in the video why that's a problem, but if you don't think it is, then that's fine, too. Good for you.
Video yourself fitting a tap handle. Turn the tap on. Put the plug in the sink. Remove the tap handle - then video yourself mopping the floor.
Call it the SEEMINGLY EMPHATIC stealth tap. The CAPS might get more viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A manual? you rarely even get off-line help files in desktop software.
Can you even get a readme.txt included with a smartphone app, find it and read it? How do you press the F1 key?
These smartphone things are sold as simplified computers where you just press a virtual button and don't need to learn or maintain them, too.
There's not even the basic usability you had with a Windows 3.1 PC with keyb and moues (or trackball)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to a user interface problem is not "the misleading user interface's behavior is described in the manual".
By your reasoning, there's no such thing as a user interface problem at all, as long as the behavior is described in a manual somewhere.
Google on your phone, unstoppable data flow out (Score:5, Informative)
I have a Galaxy S5, and have encountered the same types of problems with the baked-into-the-OS Google services. I have rooted the phone, installed app-ops (useless Google window dressing), and then xposed framework and xprivacy. The level of intrusion and data capture is simply stunning.
The first thing that usually blows people mind is when they visit Google GPS location history page at https://maps.google.com/locati... [google.com] - even though they weren't aware of it, every move they've made for months has been tracked down to the minute by Google. You can "turn location history off" on that web page, but the GPS is so baked into the OS that this cute web page checkbox is almost guaranteed not stop the continuous GPS gathering. In fact, after blocking location access by GPS, you get a stern warning "enable location services for gps", and the "do not ask again" is greyed out if you do not allow it, you will get nagged regularly.
Your phone is essentially rooted. If it can ring remotely, be located via GPS and be disabled by "find a phone" features, it is not you that has root on the OS. It is the company that can employ that at any time.
The Google intrusion is multifaceted once you start digging in, dozens of different components of the OS that make contact with external servers without documentation. Spending massive time disabling their access to your personal data one by one will usually result in a borked phone. One of those back doors is going to get your data even if you think you turned everything off.
Then we have the Samsung apps that are in full intrusion mode. The health app? Wants your contacts and location. The keyboard software? Wants your contacts and location.
It is of course impossible to use these devices without your entire contact list, phone and text engagement, password list, etc, being scarfed up and sent to the cloud. Any single OS library that has network access can act as a gateway to other components that look like they are otherwise behaving when they access your clipboard, screen, etc.
The biggest problem is not that every aspect of your life is tied together by a corporation, who has recordings of your voice, keystrokes of everything you've typed, pictures of you that are run through facial recognition, etc. It's that this is all going over the wire to a corporation that is too big for one government to reign in. A corporation that has had their internal communications tapped by the NSA. A corporation that "plays ball" with law enforcement by giving them their own handy web portal to data. And of course is all behind one password that can be hacked and cracked on by the entire world of hackers from lawless nation states. Soon coming to a Windows 10 computer near you.
Re: (Score:3)
Soon coming to a Windows 10 computer near you.
That would require a Windows 10 computer to be anywhere near me. On the evidence so far, that seems unlikely.
But seriously, every time another one of these stories comes out, it does remind me why I like feature phones, and why Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia has me nervous.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like with you, the witch is guilty whether she floats or drowns. At this point, you can't plead ignorance anymore: you know exactly what Google is doing. If you don't like it, don't buy their phones. And governments are perfectly capable of reigning in Goog
Re: (Score:2)
It is a fact that if the NSA wants to put a magic box in your datacenter, you must accept their magic box into your datacenter and tell noone of its existence, under threat of treason (because terrorism).
Google's good use
Just for fun, I'll point out (Score:2)
that this level of data collection enables Google Now to serve me very well with updates that I appreciate (traffic and delays along routes that I regularly travel at about this time, events near places I'm likely to be, and so on).
I understand that some prefer that their data not be shared with Google or others. But let's not swing too far the other direction and assume that nobody finds cloud services to be valuable. I, for one, like them very much and am happy to provide Google with as much data about me
Re: (Score:2)
Me, too. I am consistently amazed at the quality and accuracy of Google Maps' traffic layer, which relies entirely upon location reporting. This data also feeds into both of Google's navigation systems (Waze and Maps).
I also use and appreciate Google's Location History, which I do use to track myself and generate accurate and accountable bills for my clients. This apparently works fine, because nobody has ever questioned any of my bills.
Now, that said: If I were up to no good, I'm also smart enough to l
But that is the way that it has always been— (Score:2)
close your blinds/curtains for privacy. This is not new, and it is not rocket science.
You would apparently prefer that all windows be banned?
Re: (Score:2)
You agreed to the tracking before your phone even let you use it as a phone. You had the option to disagree. You chose differently than you might have preferred, but you still chose what you chose.
Didn't read the contract you agreed to? Cry me a fucking river. (I see that you've already begun doing that.)
Further, you don't even know what "root" means: It is nothing more than an abstraction of UID 0, and of course there are things running as UID 0. It's fucking Unix. PID 1 (aka init) is executed by th
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Galaxy S5, and have encountered the same types of problems with the baked-into-the-OS Google services. I have rooted the phone, installed app-ops (useless Google window dressing), and then xposed framework and xprivacy. The level of intrusion and data capture is simply stunning.
Google play services is spyware on a grand scale.
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing that usually blows people mind is when they visit Google GPS location history page at https://maps.google.com/locati... [google.com] - even though they weren't aware of it, every move they've made for months has been tracked down to the minute by Google.
Except that on the 4th page of the setup when you first turn on it explains location services to you and offers you the ability to turn it off. So the only people who get their mind blown are those who don't actually read any of the screen when they first turn their phone off.
You can "turn location history off" on that web page, but the GPS is so baked into the OS that this cute web page checkbox is almost guaranteed not stop the continuous GPS gathering.
So turn it off on the device. The checkbox is not available only on the first start of the device. It's an option in the settings.
In fact, after blocking location access by GPS, you get a stern warning "enable location services for gps", and the "do not ask again" is greyed out if you do not allow it, you will get nagged regularly.
Funny that. Phone with features that require location services to work prompts users when the features aren't enabled. In other news my phone asks me to switch flightmode off when I turn wifi on. Unacceptable I say, how dare it!
Your phone is essentially rooted. If it can ring remotely, be located via GPS and be disabled by "find a phone" features, it is not you that has root on the OS. It is the company that can employ that at any time.
So you linked your phone via a fundamental feature of the OS to an account held by a third party for the purpose of integrating with the phone, and then you're surprised when some of the features work?
The Google intrusion is multifaceted once you start digging in, dozens of different components of the OS that make contact with external servers without documentation. Spending massive time disabling their access to your personal data one by one will usually result in a borked phone. One of those back doors is going to get your data even if you think you turned everything off.
Remind me again why you even bothered syncing your phone with a Google account if you want to turn all the benefits off?
Then we have the Samsung apps that are in full intrusion mode. The health app? Wants your contacts and location. The keyboard software? Wants your contacts and location.
It is of course impossible to use these devices without your entire contact list, phone and text engagement, password list, etc, being scarfed up and sent to the cloud. Any single OS library that has network access can act as a gateway to other components that look like they are otherwise behaving when they access your clipboard, screen, etc.
Funny enough not all of us want to manually setup locales and then add the spelling of every single of our friend's names into the autocorrect dictionary. I'm glad this shit disappeared with location awareness. By the way it's a Samsung device. If they wanted to covertly suck the data away they could do it in far less obvious ways than permissions in apps.
The biggest problem is not that every aspect of your life is tied together by a corporation, who has recordings of your voice, keystrokes of everything you've typed,
Stop man, you're going full retard.
pictures of you that are run through facial recognition, etc. It's that this is all going over the wire to a corporation that is too big for one government to reign in. A corporation that has had their internal communications tapped by the NSA. A corporation that "plays ball" with law enforcement by giving them their own handy web portal to data. And of course is all behind one password that can be hacked and cracked on by the entire world of hackers from lawless nation states. Soon coming to a Windows 10 computer near you.
Too late.
The only real answer for you is to go off the grid. Destroy your phone and burn all your belongings. It's not like you actually use any of your smartphone features anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Autocomplete knowing the names in my phone book sounds like a lot less correcting typos every time I include a name -- thanks Samsung!
Re: (Score:2)
How? Is there a guide somewhere to what things actually have to be removed?
Re: (Score:2)
The Google Apps bundles for Cyanogenmod [cyanogenmod.org] can be used as a means to find most of the components of the apps. It's not perfect, but it's a start. There are still components of stock CM that contact Google, so it goes much deeper.
As Intended (Score:2)
Depends on whether you consider cloud backups a thing, or indeed public-facing cloud backups as Google Photos appears to be.
Or, public-facing cloud backups tagged by slowly improving AI on the cusp of deciding whether you are man or ape? http://www.bbc.com/news/techno... [bbc.com]
I can see it is embarrassing to Google that its AI is deciding black people are gorillas. Tells you something about who's coding the low levels of this AI as it gathers itself together. It's growing from the bones of things like Google Photo
Funny, I have the opposite problem... (Score:2)
Free beer (Score:2)
Author didn't read or understand ToS's (Score:2)
Which for Google is a stretch as there are sub ToS's, But with Samsung it's very clear they record and own everything you do. If the author wishes to take this up with Samsung, the Provence in South Korea is clearly given for such undertakings.
I have a Galaxy S5 and am aware of this and still use it, yet I've never used the smart features of my Samsung monitor (but not a problem as it's just a monitor).
Samsung SmartTV Customers Warned Personal Conversations May Be Recorded
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
"S
Google can't sync our lives with reality. (Score:2)
...and neither can we, unless we rewrite the EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Intended by the Marketing and Data Analysis Department, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you ever sleep?
Oh right, you got an app for that. Carry on, then.
Re:Trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Darn, and my remaining mod points are gone.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't mattter what Google began as or what Google was a decade ago.
Any corporate entity with the amount of power that Google has will draw on-board people of a certain mindset. Companies that touch base with the admen become creepy. Read Pohl & Kornbluth's "The Space Merchants [wikipedia.org]" which was written in 1952.
Re: (Score:2)
Off the top of my head:
Microsoft
Home Depot (cause you know they'll be hacked)
Sony
RIAA
MPAA
Dell
HP
Yahoo
Mozilla (I think they'd sell my data to anyone now)
Facebook (as someone already mentioned)