Google Sued After Mobile Allowances Eaten Up By Hidden Data Transfers (theregister.com) 54
A Slashdot reader shared this report from the Register:
Google on Thursday was sued for allegedly stealing Android users' cellular data allowances though unapproved, undisclosed transmissions to the web giant's servers...
The complaint contends that Google is using Android users' limited cellular data allowances without permission to transmit information about those individuals that's unrelated to their use of Google services... What concerns the plaintiffs is data sent to Google's servers that isn't the result of deliberate interaction with a mobile device — we're talking passive or background data transfers via cell network, here. "Google designed and implemented its Android operating system and apps to extract and transmit large volumes of information between Plaintiffs' cellular devices and Google using Plaintiffs' cellular data allowances," the complaint claims...
Android users have to accept four agreements to participate in the Google ecosystem: Terms of Service; the Privacy Policy; the Managed Google Play Agreement; and the Google Play Terms of Service. None of these, the court filing contends, disclose that Google spends users' cellular data allowances for these background transfers. To support the allegations, the plaintiff's counsel tested a new Samsung Galaxy S7 phone running Android, with a signed-in Google Account and default setting, and found that when left idle, without a Wi-Fi connection, the phone "sent and received 8.88 MB/day of data, with 94 per cent of those communications occurring between Google and the device." The device, stationary, with all apps closed, transferred data to Google about 16 times an hour, or about 389 times in 24 hours. Assuming even half of that data is outgoing, Google would receive about 4.4MB per day or 130MB per month in this manner per device subject to the same test conditions...
An iPhone with Apple's Safari browser open in the background transmits only about a tenth of that amount to Apple, according to the complaint... Vanderbilt University Professor Douglas C. Schmidt performed a similar study in 2018 — except that the Chrome browser was open — and found that Android devices made 900 passive transfers in 24 hours...
The complaint charges that Google conducts these undisclosed data transfers for further its advertising business, sending "tokens" that identify users for targeted advertising and preload ads that generate revenue even if they're never displayed.
The complaint contends that Google is using Android users' limited cellular data allowances without permission to transmit information about those individuals that's unrelated to their use of Google services... What concerns the plaintiffs is data sent to Google's servers that isn't the result of deliberate interaction with a mobile device — we're talking passive or background data transfers via cell network, here. "Google designed and implemented its Android operating system and apps to extract and transmit large volumes of information between Plaintiffs' cellular devices and Google using Plaintiffs' cellular data allowances," the complaint claims...
Android users have to accept four agreements to participate in the Google ecosystem: Terms of Service; the Privacy Policy; the Managed Google Play Agreement; and the Google Play Terms of Service. None of these, the court filing contends, disclose that Google spends users' cellular data allowances for these background transfers. To support the allegations, the plaintiff's counsel tested a new Samsung Galaxy S7 phone running Android, with a signed-in Google Account and default setting, and found that when left idle, without a Wi-Fi connection, the phone "sent and received 8.88 MB/day of data, with 94 per cent of those communications occurring between Google and the device." The device, stationary, with all apps closed, transferred data to Google about 16 times an hour, or about 389 times in 24 hours. Assuming even half of that data is outgoing, Google would receive about 4.4MB per day or 130MB per month in this manner per device subject to the same test conditions...
An iPhone with Apple's Safari browser open in the background transmits only about a tenth of that amount to Apple, according to the complaint... Vanderbilt University Professor Douglas C. Schmidt performed a similar study in 2018 — except that the Chrome browser was open — and found that Android devices made 900 passive transfers in 24 hours...
The complaint charges that Google conducts these undisclosed data transfers for further its advertising business, sending "tokens" that identify users for targeted advertising and preload ads that generate revenue even if they're never displayed.
The core issue is (Score:5, Insightful)
Android users have to accept four agreements to participate in the Google ecosystem: Terms of Service; the Privacy Policy; the Managed Google Play Agreement; and the Google Play Terms of Service.
Thing is, if Google wasn't a de-facto monopoly, users could tell them to shove their terms of service where the sun doesn't shine and run a competitor's OS on their cellphone, that doesn't burn through their data cap.
The problem is, there is no competition. The closest thing is iOS, and even if it's debatable whether or not it ships off the same amount of private date to Apple servers, it's not real competition because Apple products are unaffordable for a lot of people.
As for other mobile OSes such as Sailfish, they're anecdotal at best.
In conclusion: Google needs to be broken up. Not fined for misusing data allowances, just plain Shermann Act'ed upon, so that consumers have a chance to choose not to use Google products or services one day.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm no fan of Google, but you can easily install a non-Google version of Android on the majority of the popular Android phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The core issue is (Score:5, Informative)
Who says rooting Android devices is not allowed? My Nexus 5, Nexus 6P, and Pixel 3a have all allowed me to unlock the bootloader and put whatever I want on the things. Google even provided instructions for how to do it. My carrier (T-Mobile) doesn't seem to care, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your phone will be certified to work in your local area and any unauthorized changes to the core software ends the certification of the device. In most places there are hefty per day fines for using an uncertified device in a licensed frequency band. The telco who has licensed the band also has say of what software can use their band.
Re:The core issue is (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't "the core software" mean the so-called baseband firmware? Nobody makes unauthorized changes to that.
Re: (Score:1)
s/majority/very small subset of/
Re: (Score:3)
And google has no problem allowing phone makers to conspire with the wireless infrastructure providers to prevent you from doing so. If your phone has an OS that's new enough to be safe from DirtyCow it's probably not unlockable.
Even if you go out of your way to research the correct phone, or just shell out major cash for a factory unlockable, many of the community developed roms don't include VoLTE which is becoming increasingly necessary to use the phone as a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Motorola will prevent you from accessing the bootloader if anyone wants them to. Try to get unlock codes for the MotoX4 or Z2.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not debatable at all (Score:5, Informative)
even if it's debatable whether or not it ships off the same amount of private date to Apple servers
Sorry, but it's not debatable whatsoever.
Even this article that measured amount of traffic, said it was 1/20 of what Google was shipping - and on IOS you could probably turn off even that.
There are countless people who have carefully examined traffic coming from iPhones and it simply is not collecting identifiable data from you, that you did not specifically allow.
This is exactly why for non-technical users, the only solution that makes any sense these days is an iOS device. Otherwise you have too many forces preying on every other system. there is no way someone not on top of things technically can keep the average Android phone secure.
That's not a debate. That is a fact.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a technical user, I've been using computers since the C64 days, but even I use an iPhone because the last thing I want to do these days is mess around with the tools I need to work. I'd rather take a bike ride, watch a movie or play video games during my free time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's totally debatable. It's totally plausible that Google is sending less private data than Apple on mobile phones, but that Apple is just being much more efficient about it. Even compressed, a convenient JSON or XML file will likely use far more bytes than a carefully designed binary format with only the exact desired information. And if the information is buffered and sent in bursts, it will reduce network overhead in the transfers, further reducing bandwidth consumption.
The truth is, though, this
Re: (Score:1)
It's totally plausible that Google is sending less private data than Apple on mobile phones,
How is that plausible? There are not even any alternate dimensions in which that is plausible.
Simple fact: Google makes money on user data, Apple does not.
That tells you all you need to know about what is plausible.
Every bit of info sent to Apple is a cost to Apple.
Every bit of info sent to Google makes them money.
Is it any wonder, Google is sending in far more of your data when it holds real value to them?
Re: (Score:3)
TFA doesn't say what settings it used. It says "default settings" but those depend on what you agree to. When you boot first time it asks if you want to use location data, if you want to sync and backup your settings, if you want to sign in to your Google account and poll Gmail periodically for new messages.
So did they opt in our not? And if they did then what they they expect to happen?
There is a simple way to opt in and still not use data too. Just enable data saver mode, then sync etc only happens on WiF
Re: (Score:1)
Google needs to be broken up.
No, just put their copyrights (including all that collected data) and patents under compulsory licensing, or better, in the public domain. Then can be real competition
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They only collect it for profit. Making then share it depreciates its value in going through the effort
Whatever, opening up their APIs, etc to public access, and more importantly, regulating the service providers (where there are real anti-trust issues) as common carriers, will make it easier to compete
Re:The core issue is (Score:4, Interesting)
Shockingly good FP, though your Subject lacks focus. I'll start with a joke and build on your solution. I think I have a general approach to the problem. Sherman needs massive updating.
The joke is the google's new and secret motto: "All your attentions is belong to us." I actually think that should be a genre of joke with different companies having various foci of monopolism. Google -> attention. Facebook -> engagement. Amazon -> shopping. Apple -> sexy toys. JPMorgan -> money. Microsoft -> computer. Various other foci floating around with more or less success, but I like to work IBM into the joke as the company that no longer knows what "focus" means.
However I don't think the old antitrust laws can be fixed now. Too thoroughly gamed by bribed politicians. I think we need to rethink the solution approach. The tax system should be changed so that the path to higher retained earnings leads to smaller companies (and hopefully to smaller government, too). I would like to see a progressive profits tax linked to market share. A monopolist like the google (or a monopsonist like Amazon) would pay much higher taxes on the profits from dominating any market too much. The path to higher retained earnings would be to divide the company into pieces that compete with each other.
With smaller companies we would have more choices, and they would be REAL choices that actually increase our freedom. The increased competition would also lead to more innovation and faster overall progress. Yes, that also means more failures in the competition, but smaller companies can fail without threatening the entire system. "Too big to fail" is bad and too often forces government to act as the insurer of the last resort (leading to bigger and more intrusive government). Smaller is better, but right now the tax system favors BIG, especially TOO BIG.
Microsoft ("All your computer are belong to us") is a simple example, but similar approaches can be applied to other overly dominant companies. In the relatively simple case of Microsoft, imagine cutting Microsoft into three daughter companies, A, B, and C. Each would start with a copy of the source code and 1/3 of the resources, including the people. Then they compete with Windows and MS Office as their base standards. They can change and improve the standards, but only by exchanging information in public, but we would be able to choose which approach we like. Maybe MS-A will focus more on security, MS-B will focus on speed, and MS-C will focus on protecting private information (and get my money if I actually had the choice). (I think that after some transition period the daughters would have to drop the Microsoft label.)
Don't think of it as a penalty for success. Rather it's an incentive program to reproduce the good ideas in more companies. Enough for now, but I bid you ASADAuPR, atAJG. And another tip of the hat to Rosco P. Coltrane for the FP.
Re: The core issue is (Score:2)
Even outside regional monopolies, they can just go with local gerrymandering / redlining as politics already has.
Competition models only work with a prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Your rudeness is strong, but not so much your reasoning. Since the taxation remains in place, the next winner will move back up to the high tax bracket. Time to reproduce again.
Do I need to clarify that lag time is a crucial parameter? Or maybe I could recommend a basic accounting course?
What else are you having trouble understanding? Or can I regard this attempt at dialog as closed?
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh, if only those words you typed actually meant something.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, if Google wasn't a de-facto monopoly, users could tell them to shove their terms of service where the sun doesn't shine and run a competitor's OS . . . Google needs to be broken up. Not fined for misusing data allowances, just plain Shermann Act'ed.
Android is an open source monopoly. Any phone manufacturer or carrier could tell Google to stick it where the sun don't shine--if they are willing to distribute Android without the Google Play store and the related apps. I think the Kindle Fire does this (not a phone, I know).
Also, average users could demand that their non-monopoly manufacturers and carriers make FOSS drivers or at least reasonably accessible BLOBS available to users. I don't think that is happening much, if at all.
A narrower remedy would
Get You A Ubuntu Phone (Score:1)
There are several phone based OS'es out there and many phones that you can root so it isn't a monopoly, just lazy people who won't educate themselves because , who knows. People are proud to not know something. It is very strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how many allow you to do it in a way that offers no real chance of bricking the device because there is no recovery procedure that doesn't involve even more highly protected information and expensive hardware debuggers?
Sure, it's NBD if you're JUST replacing the OS, but you have to rip the bootloader out too to get one that allows you to install the OS.
And since replacing the OS isn't officially allowed, if it breaks you get to keep both pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.androidcentral.com... [androidcentral.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what ends up making such a major sticking point isn't it? Everyone is designing software systems that mostly don't work without "cloud" integration, game devs add increasingly unnecessary art objects ballooning the size of their products as an excuse to sell loot, and internet providers either refuse to build out the infrastructure to keep up, or gouge the shit out of you on caps as a way to increase funds.
It's sad that in most of the US everyone just gets pinched in the middle of evil conglomerate
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile in Canada...
$45/mo - 2GB of data.
$45/mo - 4GB of Data (this is a promo of 1GB base + 3GB bonus)
$45/mo - 4GB Data (promo 2GB base + 2GB bonus)
$35/mo - 4GB Data (promo 1GB base + 3GB bonus)
My carrier had the audacity to call me to offer to sell me even more data for more money last week. I told them to pound sand.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in Asia?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious about this also. The closest I could find was $8.50 for 40GB a month.
Google Services ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's your list of Google app alternatives, if you don't mind sharing?
My current favourite is https://maps.me/ [maps.me] which is based on OpenStreetMap, IIRC. There were gaps in their coverage when I first started using the app but it has improved greatly over the last three years or so. The only time I've had problems recently was finding a particular house number in a tiny village in Bavaria. The routes are sometimes also a bit eccentric and with the app being developed by a bunch of Russians, it sometimes makes you do stuff only Russian drivers would think of as normal, but in term
Great, a new way to limit Google slurping data (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish there was a REAL way to limit Google slurping data, or to limit three-letter-agency slurping everything.
Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're just as angry as Google [theregister.com] when it comes to the NSA.
Re:Great, a new way to limit Google slurping data (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there are real ways to limit google slurping data. In fact, you can stop it completely.
The first is to support third party rom projects and if you use them, to not install the "gapps" package. This requires you to also choose which phone you purchase very carefully as you will need one that is supported and can be completely reinstalled. This seems to be a smaller pool every year. Another thing, you will lose access to the google play store, but in general I've found it to be filled with mostly low quality apps that aren't worth bothering to install. I haven't been bothered by not having google play realistically. I installed firefox for a web browser and it is being constantly updated and if some site wants to insist on breaking their mobile site and pushing you to their app (I'm looking at you imgur), then they just don't get my time.
The second is to ditch the smartphone altogether. Get a flip phone or some other feature phone. Because at the end of the day, you need to ask yourself what you are doing with the phone in general and if you really need that functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are real ways to limit google slurping data. In fact, you can stop it completely.
The first is to support third party rom projects and if you use them, to not install the "gapps" package. This requires you to also choose which phone you purchase very carefully as you will need one that is supported and can be completely reinstalled. This seems to be a smaller pool every year. Another thing, you will lose access to the google play store, but in general I've found it to be filled with mostly low quality apps that aren't worth bothering to install. I haven't been bothered by not having google play realistically. I installed firefox for a web browser and it is being constantly updated and if some site wants to insist on breaking their mobile site and pushing you to their app (I'm looking at you imgur), then they just don't get my time.
The second is to ditch the smartphone altogether. Get a flip phone or some other feature phone. Because at the end of the day, you need to ask yourself what you are doing with the phone in general and if you really need that functionality.
You do realize that the vast majority of the people out there do not have the knowledge to do this and then troubleshoot when something goes wrong, right? I used to go this route and it is so much effort every time that you want to pull a security update that you're better off spending that time and money on an iPhone./P.
Online banking without Google Play Store (Score:3)
Another thing, you will lose access to the google play store, but in general I've found it to be filled with mostly low quality apps that aren't worth bothering to install.
Without Google Play Store and without iOS App Store, how do you download the application with which to scan paper checks for deposit to an online bank? I occasionally receive paper checks from two sources: payroll checks from an employer not yet big enough to qualify for payroll direct deposit and personal checks from a family member whose credit union's website offers no way to transfer money to my bank, only to other members of the same credit union. F-Droid has only free software (in the freedom sense),
Re: Great, a new way to limit Google slurping data (Score:3)
Don't use any google services. That means no crime browser, Gmail, no YouTube (not a big loss), Google Maps, etc.
If you're in thrall to google after all this time you have only yourself to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
>That means no crime browser,
So much for watching Law & Order reruns on my phone . . . . :)
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
This has a nice side effect to limit Google slurping data
What you're saying is it'll make Google update it's ToS. There's no requirement for a phone or any electronics device to use no bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
they last longer, run better, and have actual resale value as a used phone in a year or two, instead of getting about tree fiddy like a used android.
Anti-Trust nonsense (Score:2)
There is no world where breaking up Google fosters competition. There is zero reason today why there can't be different operating systems on phones and there have been. And there still are. The answer is those operating systems either are so weak in comparison that no one wants them or they are bundled with expensive hardware. Without Google there would be no Covid-19 schooling going on, there would be no access to good $100 smart phones for the non-wealthy. There are problems with Google today but the idea
Re: Anti-Trust nonsense (Score:3)
Turning Android back into an independent company would probably work.