Slashdot Mirror


Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Rests On Battery Drain Claims

Jason Koebler writes: According to plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Google, personal information about you and your browsing, email, and app-using habits that is regularly sent between apps on you Android phone is harming your battery life. As odd as it sounds, this minor yet demonstrable harm is what will allow their lawsuit to go forward. A federal judge ruled that the claim "requires a heavily and inherently fact-bound inquiry." That means there's a good chance we're about to get a look into the ins and outs of Google's advertising backbone: what information is shared with whom, and when.

118 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. ads by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ads are also draining my battery...

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:ads by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful
      MUCH more importantly, though, ads are draining your BANDWIDTH. It's important, because it's also a simple demonstrable harm. If you pay $30 per month for your internet bandwidth, and the ads use up half of it (conservative estimate), then ads are harming you at the rate of $15 per month. Because Google purposely don't allow you to block the ads in android (*), that is a clear, monetary, demonstrable, harm.

      (*) Google should be forced to put a big red button on their settings that will block all ads coming into the android device, and all in-app advertising traffic, if the user presses it. It should be force to do so or else be held as an accomplice on bandwidth theft. (**)

      (**) Yes, I know, I'm dreaming. But I'd support a class action suit that would aim to accomplish this.

    2. Re:ads by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Google should not be in business to make money. They should just give you free stuff.

    3. Re:ads by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      The situation is even worse when you remember that the overwhelming majority of the advertisements try to install crappyware on your computer, or offer dubious products.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    4. Re:ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well, no. That "disable all advertising" could also disable all of google's apps, if google wishes not to give away stuff for free, for example. The device is usable, just none of the google apps, like gmail, etc. would work. And yes, that pretty much cripples the device, but at least the option would be there...and perhaps there would be alternative apps (even for purchase kind) that would lack that data feedback that current phones/apps have.

      How come I can turn on and use my computer without having any adware running on it, and I can't do that with a phone?

    5. Re:ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF? Does *everybody* make idiotic false-dichotomy arguments?

    6. Re:ads by zidium · · Score: 1

      No, just "morans" [sic] ;-)

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    7. Re:ads by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I have a 500 mb plan with unlimited voice and text for $40 with tmobile.

      My first month I hit that cap halfway through but now that I see how quick that comes, I just leave mobile data off. I have wifi pretty much everywhere I go. I save the mobile data for directions or an occasional search.

    8. Re:ads by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      So...you're voluntarily paying for something you don't actually need and don't use it on purpose?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:ads by Albanach · · Score: 1

      Ever had your battery die COMPLETELY and then when you charge it, the phone suddenly says "20% full"? That's the buffer The NSA or whomever programmed your phone to shut off and play dead at 20% battery life so that 1) you let down any defenses, and 2) they have *plenty* of spare battery left to covertly monitor your conversations, location, etc. Pretty genius, if you ask me.

      Don't suppose you also sell tinfoil hats that could protect me from the NSA's mind-reading rays?

    10. Re:ads by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ads aren't harming you, you trade bandwidth and eyeball time to receive free stuff, and unlike cable tv most apps are either ad supported or paid, precious few require you to pay in both ways.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:ads by afidel · · Score: 1

      Better to just turn off background mobile data, that way only apps you're actually interacting with will be able to access the mobile data network and you won't have to toggle something every time you want to actually use your plan.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    12. Re:ads by tepples · · Score: 1

      "Voluntary" only in the sense that one would have to buy and carry two handsets otherwise. U.S. cellular carriers tend to refuse to sell plans with no data at all to users of devices whose IMEI matches that of a smartphone.

    13. Re:ads by GerbilKor · · Score: 1

      That would be a fair solution, but the benefit would be mostly spiritual. Even if Google wanted to include such a feature I suspect it would be utilized so little that it would be hard to justify maintaining it. I like to use the paid ad-free version of any apps I use a lot. But once you hit that "disable all ads" button, plan on a spending an afternoon buying the upgrade versions of your main apps. Then even more time searching for alternatives for the ones that don't have an ad-free version at all. Then learning to use the new apps you had to switch to. After that expect an unending process of upgrading apps and (probably more annoyingly) dealing with all the apps that are just broken by blocking adds. A more practical option could be, as much as I hate to say it, a subscription service for your Google Play account. Pay an arbitrary monthly amount to disable adds in ALL apps purchased from your account. Apps you use get a cut of the subscription you pay.

    14. Re:ads by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I bought in Europe, and I experienced no problems in doing so. Why would they refuse it?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:ads by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Most applications from Google can be specifically configured to not run over mobile. Just don't watch videos or download countless imaginees and you'll be fine. The first month is ALWAYS the heaviest month you'll use mobile data on any given phone, at least from my experience (because you want to try everything, and still working out how best to integrate the phone into your life, etc..).

      --
      Bye!
    16. Re:ads by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Because they hadn't thought of advertising when computers were invented.

      By the time phones came around- ads were in the revenue model for web apps.

      By parallel, you can't use many web sites without turning on the advertising.

      At least for now, there are no ads when I'm using my phone simply as a phone.

      I don't see this lawsuit having any last effects. Most users will install an app after being informed the app needs "Advertising" and "User data transmission" permissions.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    17. Re:ads by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Why would they refuse it?

      Greedy. Corporate. Assholes.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:ads by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. I had forgotten about that setting.

    19. Re:ads by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Don't suppose you also sell tinfoil hats that could protect me from the NSA's mind-reading rays?

      The problem is, the current version of the rays can penetrate tin-foil.

      What you need is a layer of pudding between your head and the tinfoil, chocolate works best. You'll need to shave your head first to be ensured of it working.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:ads by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It looks like JackieBrown is paying for a capability that is mostly unused but occasionally wanted. That's considerably different.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:ads by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No. Avoid those hats! There is an MIT study that shows that it actually amplifies certain frequencies of potential mind-control radiation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:ads by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes. Like TV is "free" with ads that take lots of space. Thankfully, the TV content makers don't make TVs and stereos, so we still get "mute" buttons. With Android, the ad maker is essentially the device maker (via the O/S), so they did leave out the common "mute" button, as well as any easy way for it to be emulated.

    23. Re:ads by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Were I to buy twinkies at Walmart, Walmart would be harming me by selling me twinkies.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    24. Re:ads by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, you should run a control test too. Disconnect the battery out and then walk around for twenty minutes. See if it gets hot. Of course there *IS* capacitive storage, but I doubt that they implemented that for mass market phones.

      The interesting question is "What does it mean if it gets hot just from sitting in your pocket while you walk around?" (Also, are there hot spots, or is it more of a general heat.) My guess would be that in that case you have hot pants, but that wouldn't explain spots of heat rather than a more general heat.

      Sorry, I can't conduct that experiment. My phone is so old that it doesn't even HAVE a GPS. I think it's even still analog transmission, though the last time I replaced it it may have gone to digital.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    25. Re:ads by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't have a data plan but my data connections don't seem to be blocked, they're merely metered and unreasonably expensive to use with zero fixed costs if I don't use them at all. So much for the difference. :)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    26. Re:ads by PriceChild · · Score: 1

      Can you not buy "sim-only" plans in the US?

    27. Re: ads by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      Don't install free apps from the play store maybe? Most apps have a free, ad-supported version and a paid, ad-free version... if you chose to use the free, ad-supported version, you do not have a moral right to deny the developers their income by blocking adverts

  2. Frist Post by fisted · · Score: 2

    Your Ad Here!

    1. Re:Frist Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Recently fired Google engineer looking for work - preferably in non online Ad services.

  3. Privacy is dead by qbast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So in other words your privacy is worthless as judge decided that loss of privacy is not 'demonstrable harm'.

    1. Re:Privacy is dead by AudioEfex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry but anyone who is idiot enough to have an Android phone and DOESN'T know that of course since you sign into your Goggle account with it the same damn data sharing is going to happen just like wherever you use their services on any device is, well, an idiot. The question is, though, what harm comes from that - and that's up to each user to decide when they choose to use it or not. Since users sign up for and consent to the service - I see why it takes an actual technicality like this to make it actionable (even if it does highlight the often absurdity of our legal system).

      Basically, I know it's all cool to get all up in arms about this stuff and the principle, etc., but the truth is - if you are going to use a single commercial device to access your entire data "life", and if you use Google services in particular, you know what you are getting at this point. It's those ads that pay for Goggle to give so many of it's services away for free. It may be wrong, it may be right, it really doesn't matter because it's the very definition of "it is what it is". It's the price you pay for using a "smart" phone because you won't find one that doesn't have privacy implications. As a user you decide - is the convenience/cache of owning one worth it? If the answer is no, go get yourself a "feature" phone burner and replace it once a month, or however often your paranoia leads you to do so - and don't access any data services on it.

      My guess is, 99% of the folks who are going to make comments about this and bemoan privacy have smartphones - they are not necessary, they are a convenience/luxury - one that I use, but if I really was so concerned I wouldn't have one, or use Goggle's services - much less an OS designed by them - or iOS and their Cloud shit, etc. It's a trade off of modern life, if you want the cool toys, you can't play anonymous secret super agent spy. (Which leads to the "what are you doing that makes you think anyone gives a fuck" question, but that is a separate issue entirely.)

    2. Re:Privacy is dead by penix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Better yet, from TFS...

      That means there's a good chance we're about to get a look into the ins and outs of Google's advertising backbone: what information is shared with whom, and when.

      Google: Judge, we are filing this motion to seal any and all documents for trade secret and proprietary information reasons. To release them would do irreparable harm to our business.

      Judge: Granted

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    3. Re:Privacy is dead by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Inasmuch as the plaintiffs had the opportunity to discontinue the use of Google's products when the policy changed, that's correct. If Pizza Hut changes its name to Poop On Bread Hut and starts selling poop on bread, and you still shop there, that's on you.

      However the judge agrees with the plaintiffs that they bought Android device which tied them into the changed privacy policy, and that Google was aware of the impending change at the time it was marketing devices. This would be like, I don't know, prepaying for a year of Pizza Hut and then they decide to become Poop on Bread Hut and you're stuck with their craploaves. If they knew at the time you prepaid that they would be making this change, then they have misled you.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Privacy is dead by qbast · · Score: 2

      ... which has nothing to do at all with 'it is harming battery life' argument

    5. Re:Privacy is dead by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      If Pizza Hut changes its name to Poop On Bread Hut and starts selling poop on bread, and you still shop there, that's on you.

      Eewwww,

      I hate Poop on Bread.... Hut.

      Pizza is dead, too.

    6. Re:Privacy is dead by qbast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry but anyone who is idiot enough to have an Android phone and DOESN'T know that of course since you sign into your Goggle account with it the same damn data sharing is going to happen just like wherever you use their services on any device is, well, an idiot.

      So you were walking around in the evening and got mugged? Why do you even try to complain, it is your fault.

      The question is, though, what harm comes from that - and that's up to each user to decide when they choose to use it or not. Since users sign up for and consent to the service - I see why it takes an actual technicality like this to make it actionable (even if it does highlight the often absurdity of our legal system).

      Ah yes, "I consent that company does whatever they damn please to me" click-through "agreements". It is now even possible to 'agree' to binding arbitration (and waive your right to class action lawsuit), which shows how much the whole idea is broken.

      Basically, I know it's all cool to get all up in arms about this stuff and the principle, etc., but the truth is - if you are going to use a single commercial device to access your entire data "life", and if you use Google services in particular, you know what you are getting at this point. It's those ads that pay for Goggle to give so many of it's services away for free. It may be wrong, it may be right, it really doesn't matter because it's the very definition of "it is what it is".

      Yes. I know what *is*, I don't like it and I want to change it. This lawsuit is one attempt to make this change.

      It's the price you pay for using a "smart" phone because you won't find one that doesn't have privacy implications. As a user you decide - is the convenience/cache of owning one worth it? If the answer is no, go get yourself a "feature" phone burner and replace it once a month, or however often your paranoia leads you to do so - and don't access any data services on it.

      No, the price I paid was in dollars. I don't see any reason to include my privacy, my dog or any random thing that phone manufacturer or Google would want of me.

      My guess is, 99% of the folks who are going to make comments about this and bemoan privacy have smartphones - they are not necessary, they are a convenience/luxury - one that I use, but if I really was so concerned I wouldn't have one, or use Goggle's services - much less an OS designed by them - or iOS and their Cloud shit, etc.

      The same exact reasoning to justify TSA. "Plane is a convenience, go by train if you don't like it'. TSA now invading train stations? Well, train is a convenience too, go by car. Plate-reading cameras everywhere recording everywhere you go? Oh just stay in home until you learn to love big brother. Most of 'implications' are not technical requirements - they are there mostly because people like you just bend over and take it in the ass without even daring to complain.

      It's a trade off of modern life, if you want the cool toys, you can't play anonymous secret super agent spy. (Which leads to the "what are you doing that makes you think anyone gives a fuck" question, but that is a separate issue entirely.)

      Obvious answer is that I don't know if in 5 years I will be doing something important enough. In this case I would rather not have my whole life reported in great detail, ready to mine for possible blackmail opportunities or smear campaign.

    7. Re:Privacy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Privacy has no value defined in statute. Courts aren't about opinion.

      Oh really?

      It is the opinion of the court that the person standing in front of me is a celebrity with a full concert schedule. Therefore I cannot possibly levy equal time against this person for their crimes they committed, as I will John Smith who will stand in front of me an hour from now. Please put this person in jail until they need to leave to get ready to hit the stage.

      It sure as fuck isn't laws, rules, or rights that are being used here. If we followed those, the result would be drastically different.

    8. Re:Privacy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Basically, I know it's all cool to get all up in arms about this stuff and the principle, etc.

      It's not cool. It's simply my fucking duty towards society. And yours too, btw.

    9. Re:Privacy is dead by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Your privacy is indeed worthless if you aren't doing anything to protect it yourself - if you are expecting everyone else to protect your privacy for you when you don't take even basic steps to protect it yourself then I have no sympathy.

      At some point you need to take some responsibility for your own privacy.

    10. Re:Privacy is dead by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that a given a clear choice, a majority here would choose a free ad supported, information sharing app over a paid, no-info sharing app. If you have a crap load of free apps on your phone, you are taking advantage of the value of that information you are providing.

      Not knowing exactly what information about me sits in the Google repository, and what portion of it can be traced directly back to me is the troubling part. I don't care if all that info is turned into 'generic' or 'anonymous' info and used for market development.

    11. Re:Privacy is dead by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      This thread is about whether privacy infringement constitutes harm in this context, though.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:Privacy is dead by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Loss of privacy isn't "demonstratable harm" because you agreed to said "loss of privacy." For future reference, if you lie face down and let some guy have his way with you, that isn't rape either. It doesn't mean consent laws are "worthless". It just means you don't get to give consent and then have the protections provided by them.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:Privacy is dead by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same exact reasoning to justify TSA

      They're incomparable. TSA is mandated by governments, you have no choice in the matter. Using a particular brand of smartphone is not. You are free to use a smartphone that doesn't use Google services and indeed are free to buy a Nexus 5 and then say "no" to the billion and one "trade data for feature?" prompts that appear when switched on the first time. No government goon is going to step in and insist that you send all your data to Google.

      In fact, if you would prefer a smartphone that has a different data/features tradeoff then - conveniently! - Google provides a rather good open source operating system for free that you can use to build one. If others feel the same way you do you can even sell them without paying Google a dime.

    14. Re:Privacy is dead by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "So you were walking around in the evening and got mugged? Why do you even try to complain, it is your fault."

      No, you were walking around in the evening and someone asked politely: "Hey, if you'd like I'll trade you these services for your personl information", and you said yes. You could have said no, but you didn't. You said yes. Just grow the fsck up and stop crying that you shouldn't have to be responsible for the consequences of your decisions.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    15. Re:Privacy is dead by tepples · · Score: 1

      In theory you can get around the patents and carrier restrictions by paying a low, low fee of a few hundred billion dollars to hostile-takeover the major patent holders and a carrier.

    16. Re:Privacy is dead by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I don't have a smart phone... when it comes to choosing a new cell phone I want good battery life and the ability to make and receive calls. My current phone takes very little time to charge and will last up to 72 hours depending how much it's used. {not usually 72 hours because I rarely go that long with out a phone call}

      I was recently shopping for a car and the salesman was telling me about how you can connect your smart phone with bluetooth and all the amazing features. Finally he notices that I was just not interested and asks me what I would like in a vehicle. What was I looking for? transportation, decent fuel economy, warranty, gap, a care plan, enough room for the family.

      Trimmings are nice, but when they start to take away from the intended purpose, it's a problem.

    17. Re:Privacy is dead by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      It's those ads that pay for Goggle to give so many of it's services away for free. It may be wrong, it may be right, it really doesn't matter because it's the very definition of "it is what it is". It's the price you pay for using a "smart" phone because you won't find one that doesn't have privacy implications.

      Supporting a service with advertisements is quite a bit different than supporting a service by stalking your users.

      Privacy is an essential pillar of the social contract. The right to be left alone and not continuously stalked are basic human rights
      people are just not going to give up because some marketing company thinks it would be swell if they did.

      "Snowden" proved lots of people (A lot more than I could ever imagine frankly) give a shit.

      It's a trade off of modern life, if you want the cool toys, you can't play anonymous secret super agent spy. (Which leads to the "what are you doing that makes you think anyone gives a fuck" question, but that is a separate issue entirely.)

      With technical knowledge and time you can have a smart phone with some confidence it will not be spying and doing shit behind your back (Excluding baseband processor of course). Android is after all just Linux. iptables and tcpdump run just fine on it and enough people care enough to spend their time on infrastructure like the Cyanogen build system to make it work. All that is needed are viable alternatives... which have never been cheaper or easier to produce.

      There is a story and an opportunity for weaning users away from the current crop of locked down vendor controlled mobile operating systems.

      Vendors Intentionally hold back useful and needed features to make carriers and app vendors happy. Features that can be leveraged to effect change. Useful "cloud" data synchronization and backup services can be replaced with a federated service which user can either select a provider or run their own rather than one thing owned and operated by a single organization. The death by a thousand cuts (of everything wanting to constantly call home with your data) that drains batteries and devours data plans without providing much if anything in return does not have to exist anymore than "Goto Meeting" is necessary to access computers from remote.

      The error is in overstating the value of Google and understating the value of a network of peers.

    18. Re:Privacy is dead by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Patents aren't the only problem. Cell phones are held to exacting standards that must be certified (at least in the USA), a expensive and time-consuming necessity. Take a hackable phone (I believe Nexus phones are) and design your new OS to run on that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Privacy is dead by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Depends.

        I switched from MSWind to Linux back before Linux had a decent word processor, because I wouldn't agree the the MS EULA. Currently my cell phone doesn't have ANY apps, and it wouldn't support them were I willing to try to install them.
      OTOH, I have som apps installed in my browser, e.g. NoScript.

      But, I *do* have a Google sign-on that I occasionally use. And I rarely block it. I don't have g-mail, because I don't like giving up that much control. This doesn't fool me into thinking my email is private, but it does fool me into believing that it won't just disappear on me. (I know, however, that an email program can do that to you, and the idiot providers of the email programs don't really care about any email that's over a month or two old.) What I need is something that can export emails from the browser into a commonly used format. I CAN edit them as text, but THAT's really obnoxious.

      So there are some things I will accept for some levels of intrusiveness. But not all.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. privacy is in chaos by markygie · · Score: 1

    I don't care about the battery, I care more on the personal info that google crawls.

    1. Re:privacy is in chaos by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I don't care about the battery, I care more on the personal info that google crawls.

      Well, I care about the battery. If I'm going to trade my privacy for cool stuff, it had better dang well be cool!

  5. Odd by countach · · Score: 2

    It seems odd in so far as this precedent would seem to set up every application you ever buy for court audit to make sure it is absolutely as efficient as it possibly can be. If not, it could be using your electricity or draining your battery.

  6. Not just battery drain by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The lawsuit also rides on the fact that these people bought Android phones at a time when Google already knew (but was not telling anyone) that it would be changing its privacy policy. By being forced to replace their devices - which automatically had the new policy applied to them - the customers have been demonstrably harmed. In fact this appears in the paperwork before the battery drain issue.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Not just battery drain by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The lawsuit also rides on the fact that these people bought Android phones at a time when Google already knew (but was not telling anyone) that it would be changing its privacy policy. By being forced to replace their devices - which automatically had the new policy applied to them - the customers have been demonstrably harmed. In fact this appears in the paperwork before the battery drain issue.

      Right, so Google will issue them a refund plus $5 for wasted electricity over the life of the phone and everyone will go on with their lives?

  7. "reasonable" is a term often used in law by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the more important words used in law is "reasonable". The phrases "reasonable man" and "reasonable care" are used particularly often. I'd bet the concept applies in about half of all civil suits. If a court rules that a product should be reasonably efficient (and reasonably durable, reasonably effective, etc) that it no way means that it has to be perfectly optimized.

    Consider if a product, perhaps a car, tended to fall apart after just a few months of use. You'd expect lawsuits, and the plaintiffs would have a valid claim because a car should be reasonably durable. That doesn't mean all cars need to be built like a Sherman tank. This is well established law, applied in many contexts. In fact, the only area I can think of where we've gotten away from a reasonableness standard is medical malpractice. By statute, that's supposed to be a similar standard, but juries have moved toward expecting medical professionals to be perfect, not just act reasonably.

    1. Re:"reasonable" is a term often used in law by ADRA · · Score: 2

      I've got a Nexus 5 and the amount of data wasted on systems updates is pretty small, and that's with syncing my entire google catelog of services. How can someone sue for a service that can be TURNED OFF, hence saving your entire reason for sueing.

      The shitty thing about this suit is that Google actually makes very good use of elecricity and has spent years getting it to the point where battery usage for regular background activities like described are well performing. Its an insult to all good nerds to be insulted by a bunch of ignorant people looking for their handount.

      --
      Bye!
  8. Slashnerds know the price. I wonder about average by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Technology nerds, especially those who frequent sites like Slashdot where discussions of privacy are frequent and nary a day passes without mention of Snowden, know the trade-off of Google services*. I wonder how well non-technical people understand it. Google Now kind if shoves it in your face, making it very clear that Google knows when you're at work, when you're at home, what TV shows you like, etc. I wonder what percent of average people who don't use Google Now really understand what the cost of Google services is. It would be interesting to see a survey.

    * I make no value judgement about the privacy cost. Some customers are okay with the privacy cost of using these excellent free services, other people choose not to. Personally, I choose to make that trade only with Google. One company has my profile, and in exchange I get many services.

  9. Re:Slashnerds know the price. I wonder about avera by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally, I choose to make that trade only with Google. One company has my profile, and in exchange I get many services.

    You can't really be that naive are you? When Google has your data, Google's business partners have it too (part or parcel), the law can have it through subpoenas, the NSA... just about everybody.

    Besides, I suspect Google uses the data in ways I don't want it to be used. So even if it was the sole guardian of it, I don't want to give it to them. Not willingly anyway, and as little as possible when I don't have the choice - and people have less and less choice as days go by in the matter.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  10. I like my yahoo phone too by cheekyboy · · Score: 2

    Its great, has no apps, just ads, and a crap messanger toy.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  11. Judge should accept privacy violation as damage by mysidia · · Score: 2

    This would be like suing a hacker who formatted your company web server and the judge refusing to accept the argument that the damage was harm to reputation and loss of business, and instead only accepting the claim of increased electric bill and wear/tear on the hard drives.

  12. Similar argument for desktops by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    Windows users: set a system-wide proxy and watch the traffic to Microsoft on a regular basis. Windows update, CRL, other mysterious links, and of course their associated DNS queries. How much bandwidth does that suck up?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Similar argument for desktops by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Windows users: set a system-wide proxy and watch the traffic to Microsoft on a regular basis. Windows update, CRL, other mysterious links, and of course their associated DNS queries. How much bandwidth does that suck up?

      Window Update? How dare Microsoft regularly and automatically patch known security flaws in their OS and other software.

      *shakes fist in Redmond's general direction*

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Similar argument for desktops by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      I'm bandwidth-constrained. I'd prefer Windows didn't suck up bytes when I didn't ask it to. Is that so hard?

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    3. Re:Similar argument for desktops by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      I'm bandwidth-constrained. I'd prefer Windows didn't suck up bytes when I didn't ask it to. Is that so hard?

      It's pretty easy to turn it off.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    4. Re:Similar argument for desktops by afidel · · Score: 1

      Especially in Windows 8 where you just assign the connection as a metered connection and most of the background stuff gets turned off without diving any further into the system. (Yes I know tech sites like to bag on Win8, and in many cases deservedly so, but there are genuine innovations that are useful contained in it)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Similar argument for desktops by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      Really? You can have IE NOT check CRLs every time you open a window?

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  13. What? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    So sending information over a network well using a battery to power the system will drain the battery, how can this be a law suit? Wouldn't this be the same as saying, "My phone turns on and works but the battery drains so I'm suing you!" I would make the group of the law suit demonstrate a battery that doesn't that doesn't drain and can still allow network communication, when they can do that they can proceed, other wise just stop.

    1. Re:What? by tepples · · Score: 1

      As I understand the logic, it's "If your apps didn't attempt to communicate over the network without my asking each time, my battery wouldn't be drained and my carrier wouldn't charge me overages."

    2. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      If I monitor my entire app driven data transfer, the ones that happen without me knowing, I might sit around the 100MB level, low enough for me not to care or really for anyone else to care. App tell you if they are going to require network access when you download them, if you skip the screen which tells you that then don't complain.

    3. Re:What? by tepples · · Score: 1

      App tell you if they are going to require network access when you download them

      Google Play Store's permission screen doesn't tell you how much data an app can transfer in any given time.

    4. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      No but it does tell you that the app will transfer data. If you're that worried about the amount of data transferred then use the application for a minute or two and reference the data usage screen.

    5. Re:What? by tepples · · Score: 1

      No but it does tell you that the app will transfer data.

      It's hard to find apps whose manifest doesn't request the INTERNET permission. Is there some sort of control within Google Play Store that would let the user filter apps by permissions?

      If you're that worried about the amount of data transferred then use the application for a minute or two

      Which would require first buying the app, after which point my ISP already has my money for the bandwidth used for downloading it, and Google already has my money for buying it.

    6. Re:What? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Then don't buy a smart phone or don't use the play store, problem solved to an issue that didn't exist.

    7. Re:What? by stoploss · · Score: 1

      It's hard to find apps whose manifest doesn't request the INTERNET permission. Is there some sort of control within Google Play Store that would let the user filter apps by permissions?

      I presume you understand that your desired mode of operation is far outside the typical user's goal of having things Just Work(tm). Concordantly, you are likely going to have to accept non-maintstream solutions.

      That said, I share your goals.

      I rooted my phone and installed DroidWall to configure the built-in Android iptables firewall in whitelist mode. I whitelist the apps I wish to have internet access (either over WiFi, cellular network, or both); all other apps are blocked from accessing the network at all. For the apps that I do allow to access the network, I use XPrivacy to block access to my device identification/serial number, access to my internal storage, access to my clipboard, control access to location services on a per-app basis, etc.

      Between DroidWall and XPrivacy, I no longer care what permissions are listed in the Play store. I control what permissions the apps are allowed to have, regardless of what their store manifest indicates. It's easier for me that way, but I have no illusions that a typical smartphone user would want to have to learn and control this type of configuration.

      I hope you find a solution to your liking.

  14. Adver-teasing is fun. by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Funny

    I haven't a mobile phone of any kind for almost a decade but google and facebook know (from my bank) that I have spent some serious dollars on dentistry recently, their computers are thoroughly convinced I should buy a $350 set of plastic clip on teeth. I don't need false teeth but I post something random about the plastic teeth to web sites about once a week, like I'm doing here. I've been doing this for about six weeks, almost every page I visit is now plastered with the same ad (I clicked on it once just to tease them).

    There's some people selling porcelain teeth that started following me last week, I'm currently experimenting with different phrases to see if I can ignite a bidding war between the two vendors. Would love to know how much they have spent on me so far....

    Your post is spot on, it's exceedingly difficult to opt out of the civilization you found yourself born into. Ridicule is the best defense against extremists, so my advice is try to have some fun with the absurdities of "targeted advertising", and the crusaders who are battling it..

    Disclaimer: For many years I have had the slashdot "disable advertising" option available, I don't use it because I actually want slashdot to make a few pennies from my eyeballs. It's also humourous seeing ads for religious scams posted to a bunch of atheist nerds ranting against religion. If we keep burning gods money like that maybe (s)he won't be able to buy as many congressmen in the future.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  15. Interesting by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how Google intends to provide the information. Ostensibly, any RF communication is going to be expensive in terms of power consumption but certainly if you turn off the radios you could get a power profile that represents the state of an Andorid device without all of the activity going on to Google's servers. It's tenuous but while this only affects Google I'm wondering if Apple and MSFT are watching this because you know damn well they're doing it with IOS and Windows Phone to some extent.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  16. Take responsibility for your decisions by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "How come I can turn on and use my computer without having any adware running on it, and I can't do that with a phone?"

    Because you made a choice for which you refuse to take responsibility. If you want Android, but don't want Google Apps, you simply get a phone that is configured as such. Stop whining that you bought a product and it is doing what it is designed to do. If you don't like Apple's Walled Garden, don't buy Apple. If you don't like Google apps, buy a phone that doesn't bundle them and then don't install them. You are making a choice, and then crying like a little girl that you made the wrong choice (for you and a small handful of others, that is) and want Googe to eat the cost of your ignorance.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by tepples · · Score: 2

      If you want Android, but don't want Google Apps, you simply get a phone that is configured as such.

      Which such phone, other than the Fire Phone by Amazon, is sold in the United States?

      Stop whining that you bought a product and it is doing what it is designed to do.

      We're whining that all products sold near us are designed to do something that we find undesirable.

    2. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by phorm · · Score: 1

      Or just turn off all location services. On every phone I've got, it's usually a question during the initial installation process.

    3. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      If you were careful, you MIGHT be able to get away from everything using cyanogenmod and opting to NOT install ANY google services but then you'd have a mostly useless overpowered dumb phone...

      Maybe you could get one of these Firefox phones.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by ADRA · · Score: 1

      "We're whining that all products sold near us are designed to do something that we find undesirable."

      Whining about a lack of choice is perfectly reasonable, and in the perfect world, a large enough population of people should be able to solve the issue with market forces and unrestricted market entry.

      Dumb phones still exist, so the choice is yours for not settling for them, or the many other competing phone platforms in the market. We as a society have chosen walled gardens and interconnected services, many because they wanted it that way, many because the heavy marketing convinced us to do it despite reservations. Don't blame people for buying what they wanted.

      --
      Bye!
    5. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Any Nexus branded device running Cyanogenmod. Or any non-Nexus device that CM supports (there are literally dozens)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I haven't noticed adware on my iPhone, although there may be some in the App Store I could acquire if I wanted. There may be other smart phones with different OSes that don't support adware.

      Unfortunately, smartphones are more restricted than general-purpose computers, so it's much harder to customize them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I have been using Android since the first device ... the T-Mobile G1 ... came out. In fact I pre-ordered it before it was released. It has never been a problem for me either, and I use plenty of apps. This whole thing is much ado about nothing, really. Yes some apps have an ad in them, but I never really even notice them. I pay attention to the UI and don't click on the ads. Thus my reason for not having any sympathy for the winers, who are likely M$ schills or just plain idiots.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re: Take responsibility for your decisions by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      Xiaomi and Lenovo and Nokia off the top of my head or you can simply stop being a lazy ass whiner and get a phone supported by CyanogenMod, flash CyanogenMod and never deal with Google services again

    9. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by wolja · · Score: 1

      I have been using Android since the first device ... the T-Mobile G1 ... came out. In fact I pre-ordered it before it was released. It has never been a problem for me either, and I use plenty of apps. This whole thing is much ado about nothing, really. Yes some apps have an ad in them, but I never really even notice them. I pay attention to the UI and don't click on the ads. Thus my reason for not having any sympathy for the winers, who are likely M$ schills or just plain idiots.

      Ah when you have no idea blame it all on M$. Lolz.

      Someone above hit the nail on the head when they commented on the price of bandwidth that Ads take. Not only ads. If I keep an app I pay to get rid of the Ads naively thinking that was the end of the intrusiveness of Ads popping up. However when resetting a stats on a game I had paid to remove ads from I was a tad annoyed to find that the app was sending data about the phone on a weekly basis. A bit of digging around found most were doing it. Tie that in with the recent flurry of permissions that allow games to read contact details etc and the Privacy issue is quite large.

      Apple should be bought in on the suite as the bandwidth use is much greater. My daughter being an Ebil Fruit empire captive is starting to have trouble as the Apps are chewing up the 1.5 Gb of data she gets a month. Of course the phone companies then gleefully charge 10c a Mb for data over the cap. Until she switched to IOS 7 it hadn't been an issue.

      The assumptions that manufacturers and app providers have the right to take data when they feel fit without obvious permission is becoming an issue.

      --
      Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
    10. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Someone above hit the nail on the head when they commented on the price of bandwidth that Ads take."

      It is 2014. You buy unlimited bandwidth, and the cost of it is zero. If you try to be cheap, then you should have purchased a regular cell phone, not one that uses data. Period.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    11. Re:Take responsibility for your decisions by wolja · · Score: 1

      "Someone above hit the nail on the head when they commented on the price of bandwidth that Ads take."

      It is 2014. You buy unlimited bandwidth, and the cost of it is zero. If you try to be cheap, then you should have purchased a regular cell phone, not one that uses data. Period.

      I may have forgotten to mention that being in Australia the concept of unlimited bandwidth is a fairy tale that reportedly Yanks get.

      I have one of the better plans in Australia at 4GB. Most are around 1 or 2 GB at most and come with usurious prices if you exceed the limit, ie 15c a Mb .

      I think I'll go right on complaining about services that use data when I don't want them to.

      --
      Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
  17. The data is valuable to Google, they don't hand ou by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > When Google has your data, Google's business partners have it too (part or parcel),

    All evidence I've seen, and common sense, indicates that the data is very valuable to Google and they don't want anyone else to have it. They'll sell ads to other companies, which Google displays based on the data, but they don't sell the data. That would be giving the other company the goose that lays the golden eggs. Google prefers to sell the eggs, over and over again. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please cite it.

    Of course the NSA illegally acquires data from most all email providers, ISPs, etc. Even the services that are explicitly based in privacy get NSLs, so to avoid that I could avoid using the internet at all. I'm going to use the internet, so the NSA will be able to snoop until that problem is handled using the three boxes - soap box, ballot box, and if absolutely necessary ammo box.

  18. Parallel argument ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Defendants are griping about the battery in hopes of addressing privacy issues.

    Google will focus on the battery. Google has lots of opportunities to improve battery life ranging from educating the customer on how to do that for themselves, to providing a beefier battery that offsets the increase abuse by ad data.

    Or, Google may offer one free app (with attendant tattle tale stream) as compensation.

    In any case, Google will focus on the battery and will avoid proprietary business practices as irrelevant.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  19. With cellular carriers billing by the bit by tepples · · Score: 2

    But with cellular carriers billing by the bit, users in Google's home country "pay in both ways", namely bandwidth overages and eyeball time.

  20. Dozens to choose from. Google gives ASOP away by raymorris · · Score: 1

    WIkipedia has a list of a dozen open-source phones with operating systems such as OpenMoko and Firefox OS, which includes parts of Android:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    Nokia makes Android phones without the Google apps, and Google gives away the base operating system that allows them to do so.
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/...

    Cyanogenmod lets you run Android with no Google apps, some Google apps, or all Google apps - whatever you want.
    http://www.cyanogenmod.org/

    Ubuntu Touch may appeal to you:
    http://www.ubuntu.com/phone

  21. $350 for Valplast? I want to see that ad. by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I wish I got that ad you keep getting. It sounds like it might be worth a look. If by "plastic" you mean Valplast, that's a very good value.

  22. Private data not on the phone by phorm · · Score: 1

    Also, how much of said "private data" is actually harvested the phone itself, other than perhaps location data?
    Gmail: That goes to Goog's servers before your phone
    Talk: Same thing
    Contacts: Can be kept on just the phone without sync (for that matter, sync can be toggled on/off for most things)
    Browsing history: Do they get anything if you use firefox instead of chrome, and/or don't sync bookmarks?
    Maps/Latitude: Location stuff can be turned off

    Most of the ways they can get information *from* the phone seem inherent in the functionality being used: i.e. use of gmail, maps, etc

    It would be interesting to learn what data is being "sync'ed" beyond that needed to get the functionality out of the given apps.

  23. Don't Want a Data Plan? Too Bad. by tepples · · Score: 1

    Because cellular carriers in the U.S. have determined that the majority of cellular customers in the U.S. are willing to take such abuse rather than moving to Europe. See the Slashdot story "AT&T: Don't Want a Data Plan for That Smartphone? Too Bad."

  24. Re:The data is valuable to Google, they don't hand by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Of course the NSA illegally acquires data from most all email providers, ISPs, etc. Even the services that are explicitly based in privacy get NSLs, so to avoid that I could avoid using the internet at all. I'm going to use the internet, so the NSA will be able to snoop until that problem is handled using the three boxes - soap box, ballot box, and if absolutely necessary ammo box.

    There are four boxes: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  25. Metered Internet by tepples · · Score: 1

    Say the complaint were amended to claim excessive data transfer over the Internet, based on the major cellular ISPs' overage rate. Cellular, satellite, and DSL in Iowa are all metered.

  26. Yes, course, jury box too. Thanks. by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the reminder. I've only seen that 150,000 times in someone's signature here.

  27. overstate things much? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    MUCH more importantly, though, ads are draining your BANDWIDTH. It's important, because it's also a simple demonstrable harm. If you pay $30 per month for your internet bandwidth, and the ads use up half of it (conservative estimate)

    In which universe do you live where ads on a webpage total up to half of the bandwidth to deliver said webpage?

    Because Google purposely don't allow you to block the ads in android (*)

    They don't make it easy but they don't make it all that difficult either. Buy a Nexus, Developer Edition, or one of the multitude of carrier branded phones that are rootable. Install one of the multitude of ad blocking apps that are available, AdFree being my personal favorite. Problem solved.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  28. They got Al Capone for Tax Evasion by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Goes to show you don't necessarily have to get someone for what you want to get them for to have the same outcome.

  29. Re:learn2English by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Learn2english? I guess you need to learn2read. You can start with your own post, where you will see the whining. Then read what I wrote, where you'll see the simple fix.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  30. Re:Slashnerds know the price. I wonder about avera by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Well, OK, Google and the government. But Google won't "share" with it's partners any more than it must, because that's Google's business. What they do is say "You want to have your ad put up to this particular demographic? Great. We can do it. Cash up front." The don't sell the information, they sell access. That's a repeat business. If they sell the contact information, that's a one-time sale.

    P.S.: This is just my opinion, and I have no particular inside information. But it's what makes sense to me.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  31. Early lack of Google Checkout by tepples · · Score: 1

    The difference between iOS and Android in this respect was that during the Android 1.x days, manufacturers and carriers sold Android phones in countries where Google hadn't yet opened Google Checkout. This meant that in order to get an app into Android Market in any of those countries, the developer had to make the app available without charge. The common way to do that involved selling advertising space. This set price expectations on Android lower than they are on iOS, where Apple has made sure to open the iTunes Store in a country before selling iPod, iPhone, or iPad products there.

  32. Re:learn2English by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you don't like Google apps, buy a phone that doesn't bundle them

    with a phone, when you buy it from a carrier, they put on all these extra apps that you don't need

    You can start with your own post, where you will see the whining. Then read what I wrote, where you'll see the simple fix.

    In some North American markets, especially those served by CDMA2000 carriers, it's either buy your phone from the carrier or get 0 bars. These carriers tend not to sell any devices that allow viewing web pages and loading user-made apps without Apple's walled garden or Google's alleged spyware. Is your "simple fix" doing without?

  33. CDMA2000 is the problem by tepples · · Score: 1

    SIM-only plans work where T-Mobile has good coverage. But in the states, not all carriers use GSM. If you happen to be located in an area where only a CDMA2000 carrier like Verizon has a good signal, a SIM-only plan won't work because CDMA2000 carriers in the USA have tended not to use CSIMs.

  34. Re: learn2English by tepples · · Score: 1

    CDMA2000 is the cellular technology stack used by Verizon and Sprint, which traditionally (as implemented in the United States) does not use a removable CSIM card.

  35. Re:learn2English by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    In some North American markets there is no cell service at all! Can you belive it! I am outraged! Outraged I tell you. Don't the cell phone companies know that it is their responsibility to make sure that every US Citizen has the right to a cell phone service of their choice!

    In case you didn't pick up on it, that was scarcasm. Where you live is also a choice. People who live in the middle of nowhere gain the advantages of that decision, and live with the disadvantages. What, prey tell, makes you think that a very small subset of the US population have the right to live in the middle of nowhere while still gaining the advantages of living in a populated area?

    Also, I am betting you can't actually name an area where your claim holds true and there is cellphone service. If you can, go ahead and offer one up.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  36. Re: learn2English by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    It's like google, but for cellphones.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  37. Showroom; hardware warranty by tepples · · Score: 1

    Xiaomi and Lenovo and Nokia off the top of my head

    Where can I hold one of those phones in a showroom in northeast Indiana before I buy it, to gauge the look of its screen, the feel of its input, and its build quality? I don't think a lot of online sellers will like it if I buy a dozen phones, try them all, and then return the eleven that I decide not to keep.

    flash CyanogenMod

    If the headphone jack goes out a week later, I don't want the manufacturer to be able to use my installation of CyanogenMod against me.

    1. Re:Showroom; hardware warranty by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      Where can I hold one of those phones in a showroom in northeast Indiana before I buy it

      Eh? You just changed the requirements...you asked which Android phones sans Google services could be bought in the USA and I told you which phones were available (as an example, here's Xiaomi Mi3). Now you want a retail store, how about you do your own research?

      You want to force businesses to cater to a niche, extremely minuscule market, why exactly should they do that? I am a liberal and even I find that wrong.

      Also, you do realize that Android is just a Linux distribution and just like you can't call a fork of Debian, Debian, a fork of Android can't be called Android. Google releases AOSP which can be (and has been) forked (by Amazon and Nokia to name a few) and the only restriction imposed by Google is that the fork can not be called Android, how exactly is it Google's fault that phone manufacturers (besides Chinesee manufacturers) do not want to fork Android and release their own version stripped of Google services? Me and most of my mates have Cyanogenmod installed on our phones and all of us installed Google services because we want the convenience they bring with them. Heck, even most Chinese manufacturers release an international version with Google services. Could it possibly be because a majority of the customers of the manufacturers do not want to do without the convenience brought to them by Google services? So again, why exactly should these manufacturers be forced into releasing products that almost no one would want?

      If the headphone jack goes out a week later, I don't want the manufacturer to be able to use my installation of CyanogenMod against me.

      So your problem are the manufacturers? I agree, changing the OS on a computer (a smartphone is just that, a computer in a non-traditional format) should not void its warranty. Why exactly are you whining about Google again?

    2. Re:Showroom; hardware warranty by tepples · · Score: 1

      Now you want a retail store, how about you do your own research?

      How should I do research on the size relative to my hand, weight, screen look and feel, etc. without a store in which to do research?

      So your problem are the manufacturers?

      Correct, in part.

      I agree, changing the OS on a computer (a smartphone is just that, a computer in a non-traditional format) should not void its warranty. Why exactly are you whining about Google again?

      I'm whining about the possibility that Google might be coercing manufacturers into adding this warranty condition.

    3. Re:Showroom; hardware warranty by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      I'm whining about the possibility that Google might be coercing manufacturers into adding this warranty condition.

      That's not what you were whining about just a couple posts ago...and the reason the manufacturers void the warranty if the OS or bootloader is modified is to protect themselves from having to deal with bricked devices in a failed attempt to flash a custom ROM. Honestly? The number of times I've seen people moaning at XDA-devs for bricking their device is unbelievable after they've tried to flash a ROM meant for a different device onto their own device, eg on a certain ROM for Samsung Galaxy S4 GT-i9505, the one with a Snapdragon 600 processor and 4G-LTE connectivity (the name of the device the ROM was meant for was clearly stated, sadly I can't remember which ROM it was), this person was trying to warn everyone that the ROM had bricked his phone and the developer was a dick because he would not help him out, he was insisting that he had followed the instructions to the letter when trying to install the ROM on a Samsung Galaxy S4 GT-i9500, the one with an Exynos processor without 4G-LTE. If the warranty hadn't been voided, this person would have definitely tried to return the device to Samsung and Samsung don't want him to return the device to them when the device was bricked through no fault on their part. What gives you the idea that Google have anything to do with the manufacturers voiding warranty if the OS is modified? Seems like you're clutching at straws just to somehow find a reason to keep whining at Google.

    4. Re:Showroom; hardware warranty by stoploss · · Score: 1

      I'm whining about the possibility that Google might be coercing manufacturers into adding this warranty condition.

      I think that's paranoia, given that the Nexus line of devices has an unlockable bootloader and Google provides factory images. More plainly, on devices made by Google, Google allows you to trivially load a different ROM and then subsequently flash the device back to pristine factory condition if you so desire.

      Of course, YMMV with other manufacturers. For example, Samsung is evil and has e-fuses that permanently void the warranty if you unlock the bootloader. However, this is public knowledge and you can easily determine if any given manufacturer is an evil bastard.

      Also, CyanogenMod and other ROMs are kind of old and busted. The new hotness is using the vanilla ROM that came with your phone, rooted, and with the XPosed framework installed.

      XPosed allows all the customization of a ROM without the heavyweight ROM installation process. Also, you get to pick and choose which mods you want, while with a ROM it's all or nothing. Furthermore, with XPosed you can still use OTA updates.

      As for XPosed modules, XPrivacy is even better than PDroid for privacy/Android permissions override, and GravityBox gives me all the UI tweaks I want. Hell, I wrote my own XPosed module to allow a delay between screen off and security keyguard activation, replacing the keyguard with a simple slide to unlock in that interim interval.

      Naturally, I don't care what you do... it's your decision.

  38. Places with only Verizon by tepples · · Score: 1

    Where you live is also a choice.

    Not for everybody. For one thing, not until leaving high school, due to minors' inability to form contracts. For another, the people who grow the food that you eat tend to have fewer choices. Should farmers just up and stop growing food? Besides, it might cost tens of thousands of dollars to move, especially if your house is paid off. If moving were so easy, then replies to other comments expressing a similar notion might have been more sympathetic than they were: 1 2 3 4 5 And even if you do move, your new carrier might get bought by one with unacceptable policies.

    I am betting you can't actually name an area where your claim holds true and there is cellphone service. If you can, go ahead and offer one up.

    You can find several such areas among Google's results for "only verizon" signal or "only verizon" area or "only verizon" "where i live" or "only verizon works".

    1. Re:Places with only Verizon by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      What the hell does that have to do with anything? You seem to think you cannot use verizon with a non-google or apple phone. Just get one that doesn't have google apps and use it. Problem solved.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Places with only Verizon by tepples · · Score: 1

      Only phones sold by Verizon work on Verizon. If Verizon doesn't sell AOSP phones, too bad.

    3. Re:Places with only Verizon by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Yes. And if you don't have cell phone service, too bad. Again, if you live in an area in the middle of nowhere, too bad. If you don't want to pay to pay to have your phone rooted and have a non google ROM put on, too bad. What was your point again, exactly?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun