Google Says the Built-in Microphone it Never Told Nest Users About Was 'Never Supposed To Be a Secret' (businessinsider.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Says the Built-in Microphone it Never Told Nest Users About Was 'Never Supposed To Be a Secret' (businessinsider.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @04:56AM from the surprise dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: In early February, Google announced that its home security and alarm system Nest Secure would be getting an update. Users, the company said, could now enable its virtual-assistant technology, Google Assistant. The problem: Nest users didn't know a microphone existed on their security device to begin with. The existence of a microphone on the Nest Guard, which is the alarm, keypad, and motion-sensor component in the Nest Secure offering, was never disclosed in any of the product material for the device. On Tuesday, a Google spokesperson told Business Insider the company had made an "error." "The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs," the spokesperson said. "That was an error on our part."

62 of 103 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I thought it was kind of revealed... by SuperKendall · 2019-02-20 04:58 · Score: 2

In one of the responses from Nest I read, it seemed you could disable the microphone via the app - so maybe you could have known that way before?
They should have let users know for sure, I was just wondering if that control was there the whole time and few if any noticed.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by jellomizer · 2019-02-20 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  In a world of cheap hardware components, often devices have components that are not used, so they are not advertised. They may be a software update away from being used, but the software may just not use it, until later updates.
  I have a System76 Laptop. There is an integrated fingerprint reader on it, however System76 never advertised it. Because it was a Linux Laptop and Linux doesn't support that type of fingerprint reader, however after installing windows on it as well, it did find and I can use the fingerprint reader.
  System76 while moving to making their own devices, had been rebranding other makers laptops, that supported Linux. Now I am not pissed because the Fingerprint reader didn't work, because they never advertised that feature. But it was there and it actually works (in windows)
  I expect the Nest probably had a speaker built in, and it wasn't used until later.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  Companies rightly get flack for advertising features that don't actually work at launch and only get activated later with a software update. Sometimes they even get sued over it, e.g. Tesla with autopilot features.
  On the other hand if they don't state up front that the hardware has something like a microphone, even if it doesn't do anything yet, the conspiracy theories start flying.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by SuperKendall · 2019-02-20 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  For most un-revealed features I don't think it would be a big deal, but some people are careful not to buy devices that have microphones so I could see it being more of an issue that it turned out there was one...
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
4. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by fluffernutter · 2019-02-20 05:26 · Score: 3
  
  So I don't have to know a hacker is one firmware away from activating the microphone in my device? Don't assume I am the only one altering the firmware.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
5. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by hawguy · 2019-02-20 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  In one of the responses from Nest I read, it seemed you could disable the microphone via the app - so maybe you could have known that way before?
  They should have let users know for sure, I was just wondering if that control was there the whole time and few if any noticed.
  A software-disabled microphone is not the same as having no microphone at all, which is what many people thought they had.
6. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you don't trust their security why are you buying an internet connected device from them in the first place?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by Immerman · 2019-02-20 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Unmentioned hardware that would only be useful to the user is one thing. Unmentioned surveillance-capable hardware is something else entirely. At best you get conspiracy theories circulating - and quite possibly you get actual covert surveillance - either by the manufacturer themselves (we all trust Google not to spy on us, right?...Right?), or by hackers of various stripes.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
8. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by fluffernutter · 2019-02-20 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Trusting their security to keep the temperature of my home steady and trusting their security to not record everything my family is saying are two totally different things.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
9. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  For a criminal the temperature settings would probably be of more interest, to determine when you are out. Clearly if you can afford a Nest smart thermostat you have stuff worth stealing.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
10. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by lgw · 2019-02-20 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Google is spying on you" is hardly a conspiracy theory - it's the fundamental truth of the modern age. Whether they're recording this microphone is dubious, but you can hardy be shocked when it turns out the thing you bought from Google is harvesting your personal data, however it does it.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
11. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by Your.Master · 2019-02-20 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  At some level you did trust them in that you didn't thoroughly examine the device for hidden microphones. From this, I infer the real difference is you're generally willing to trust that hardware is sold exactly as advertised, no more and no less, but not software.
12. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by ShanghaiBill · 2019-02-20 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly if you can afford a Nest smart thermostat you have stuff worth stealing.
  Not necessarily. One reason that burglaries have become less common is that most homes don't have much worth stealing anymore. Nobody has furs or silverware. People keep less cash. Guns are more likely to be securely locked up. Jewelry is less common, and harder to resell. Used electronic devices have very little resale value. Motion sensors and cameras raise the risk of getting caught.
13. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by green1 · 2019-02-20 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  The problem isn't in advertising hardware that doesn't work yet. The problem is in promising features or timelines and then failing to meet them. Tesla didn't get in trouble for putting hardware on it's cars that wasn't used yet. It got in trouble for selling a feature as imminent when it wasn't, and for advertising capabilities that were never delivered. There's a big difference.
  
  There's nothing wrong with listing in the specs: "microphone (disabled at present, reserved for future firmware features)"
  
  There IS something wrong with listing "Full control of all features through voice commands coming in the next few weeks through a firmware update" and then over a year later releasing a feature that uses the microphone to control one minor feature with a very specific keywords.
  
  The problem doesn't arise from having future features that haven't launched yet. The problem arises from over promising and under delivering.
14. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by thomn8r · 2019-02-20 08:46 · Score: 2
  
  There is an integrated fingerprint reader on it, however System76 never advertised it.
  I think it's a bit disingenuous to try and equate a hidden microphone with a very obvious fingerprint reader.
15. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by Solandri · 2019-02-20 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  trusting their security to not record everything my family is saying
  Little-known fact. Any speaker can be used as a rudimentary microphone, any microphone as a rudimentary speaker. The two devices are actually the same. One moves air in response to electrical impulses, one creates electrical impulses in response to air movement.
  
  So if you're really concerned about your family's privacy, the key is not to give anything with a microphone or speaker Internet access.
16. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by farble1670 · 2019-02-20 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  So I don't have to know a hacker is one firmware away from activating the microphone in my device? Don't assume I am the only one altering the firmware.
  If you think hackers can flash their own firmware on the devices on your network, you should really be freaking out. A microphone on your thermostat is the least of your worries. They could be flashing your router, your security cams, your phone. Be afraid.
17. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by fluffernutter · 2019-02-20 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  If they are in the router business they will make it reasonably secure.. Whereas Google is known to be more focused on collecting data than security.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
18. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by pnutjam · 2019-02-21 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Because it was a Linux Laptop and Linux doesn't support that type of fingerprint reader, however after installing windows on it...
  Your a monster, do you also get your jollies feeding ham to pigs and tuna to fish? What an abomination.
  ;)
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
19. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by fluffernutter · 2019-02-21 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  I wish you were around when the guy broke my passenger window because I forgot to hide my $80 GPS.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
20. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by aybiss · 2019-02-21 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not two different things at all. It's a computer. That's like saying I trust Windows to protect me from a hacker from looking at my desktop but I don't trust it to protect me from a hacker intercepting my banking password.
  
  --
  It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
21. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by farble1670 · 2019-02-21 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Whereas Google is known to be more focused on collecting data than security.
  I guess you'd need to qualify that.
  https://source.android.com/sec...
  Read about Verified Boot and Trusted Execution. With regards to preventing malicious code from being flashed Android is very secure (as is iOS). That's what we're talking about here. If you want to turn this into a "Google steals my personal data" argument, I'm not biting.
22. Re:I thought it was kind of revealed... by fluffernutter · 2019-02-21 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  If my computer doesn't have four wheels and an engine, I'm not going to worry about it driving out the front door.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Was it in use prior to disclosure? by aicrules · 2019-02-20 05:00 · Score: 1

As long as it wasn't able to be used by google or anyone else prior to this update that made it a virtual assistant, then this isn't all that big a deal. It seems like a bigger deal mostly because privacy hyper-awareness. Now..is there also a camera hiding in there somewhere? That I'd be far more concerned with.
1. Re:Was it in use prior to disclosure? by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-20 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  The only issue I could see is if you would not have bought it had you known about the microphone, but even then if they refused to give you a refund you would have to argue in court that disabling it in software was not adequate.
  Hopefully Google will refund if asked, but unfortunately I don't think there is much of a legal leg to stand on here.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Was it in use prior to disclosure? by alvinrod · 2019-02-20 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  There is some issue over whether or not you can trust that it's actually disabled. If you wanted to be certain, you'd need to disable it in hardware and require that such action not invalidate the warranty.
3. Re:Was it in use prior to disclosure? by Anubis+IV · 2019-02-20 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As long as it wasn't able to be used by google or anyone else prior to this update that made it a virtual assistant, then this isn't all that big a deal.
  Pragmatically and without surrounding context? Perhaps. But given the frequency and scope of privacy violations happening on a regular basis, I don't think it's "hyper-awareness" that's leading people to express concern over this revelation. I think it's simply one more link in a long and constantly growing chain of "coincidences", "accidents", and worse (e.g. negligence, intentional violation), each of which undermines our privacy and each of which have served to undermine the public's trust in the companies engaging in these practices.
  If a friend every now and then started poking you so softly that you barely even noticed, you might dismiss it as an odd quirk, assuming you even noticed it. If, over the course of several years, this behavior escalated to the point that they're constantly flailing their arms, you won't be able to ignore it, particularly so if they deliver an occasional fist to your face. At some point most reasonable people would reconsider whether this "friendship" was worth the effort, but some people are more patient and tolerant than others, so they stick with that "friend". If one day this "friend" comes by your house for what has seemingly become a daily flailing session, only to head into your bedroom closet and come back out with a shovel, a tarp, and a box full of bleach, you'd have cause for concern. If they respond to your, "WHAT THE HELL?! WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?!", with an, "Oh, sorry, didn't I tell you that I shipped it here and snuck it into your closet a few years ago because I figured everyone loves this stuff? No? Oops!", you'd have good cause to question the motives and intent of this "friend" and whether they're actually looking out for your best interests.
  For some, this mic may feel like the first fist to the face from someone they think their friend. For others, an undisclosed microphone being planted in their home is nothing short of a declaration of hostile intent. Either way, I haven't yet found a normal person who responded to the news with, "That's neat!"
4. Re:Was it in use prior to disclosure? by green1 · 2019-02-20 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Depends if the update is optional.
  
  There's no problem with a company offering you additional features and functionality after purchase, however there is a problem if they force a change to the item that makes it less suitable for your use case.
  
  Unfortunately the normal way this works is that security updates, bug fixes, and new features are all rolled together, so you don't have the option to pick and choose which you get. Assuming you have the option to opt out of updates at all (not always the case), this gives some people the very difficult choice of running a device with known security vulnerabilities, or having a device in their home that they're no longer comfortable being around.
  
  As this is slashdot, let's do a car analogy (not sure why, but they seem mandatory around here):
  Your car has an active recall for a safety defect that could lead to death in certain circumstances. You take your car to the dealer to get it fixed, and when you come to pick it up after the work you notice a new camera and microphone peering at you from the middle of the steering wheel. You learn that the car company is has added an "assistant" feature along with your recall, but you suspect they're really going to be monitoring everything that happens in the car from now on. It's hard to say that it's "no big deal" because after all, you agreed to the update. You had the choice of driving a known unsafe vehicle, or having them spy on you. You never would have bought the car if you'd known about the camera and microphone, but now what choice do you have?
The Error by NicknameUnavailable · 2019-02-20 05:06 · Score: 1

Was getting caught, it was malice that it wasn't included (just like it was malice that there were shills galore saying they didn't have cameras [in spite of accepting hand gestures] or microphones when the devices came out.)
1. Re:The Error by PPH · 2019-02-20 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
We cannot rely on the net giants... by joestar · 2019-02-20 05:08 · Score: 1

My point of view is that the track record and business model of Google make them definitely out of the privacy game in term of credibility.
We need independent and Open Source solutions on the mobile (such as https://e.foundation/ and for personal assistant, just like Linux has a been the light in the 90s in a world dominated by proprietary Unix systems and Microsoft.
If we don't make this happen, freedom and democracy will turn into private totalitarism soon.
It's not too late..
1. Re:We cannot rely on the net giants... by postbigbang · 2019-02-20 05:21 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry. Like all Google products, the microphone was going to be discontinued in the Nest. If you'd like, take a soldering iron to the leads to disconnect it now, or wait for the Google + message that will signal the discontinuance.
  In the meantime, I suggest running a small fan directly on the Nest to smooth its data, and mask your conversations.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Maybe Google thought their users were smart? by foxalopex · 2019-02-20 05:09 · Score: 1

I just had a hilarious thought, maybe google assumed that customers would realize there is a microphone in their product when you can talk to it? Unless they suddenly good at lip reading.
1. Re:Maybe Google thought their users were smart? by Alain+Williams · 2019-02-20 05:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Unless they suddenly good at lip reading.
  I assure you, Dave, that Google would never do that.
2. Re:Maybe Google thought their users were smart? by WillAffleckUW · 2019-02-20 05:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Unless they suddenly good at lip reading.
  I assure you, Dave, that Google would never do that.
  This conversation can serve no further purpose.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
3. Re:Maybe Google thought their users were smart? by cascadingstylesheet · 2019-02-20 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  I just had a hilarious thought, maybe google assumed that customers would realize there is a microphone in their product when you can talk to it? Unless they suddenly good at lip reading.
  You ... couldn't talk to it when they sold it to you.
  That's the whole point. It wasn't sold as having that capability.
4. Re:Maybe Google thought their users were smart? by Killall+-9+Bash · 2019-02-20 06:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Just wait till people realize there's a camera in the nest thermostats. Or maybe everyone thinks it's magic that the thermostat turns the heat / air on miraculously right when you stop in front of it, and reach out your hand to touch it. Nope, shouldn't have doubted the holy NEST. It knows what to do before I tell it. Definitely not a camera inside watching for when I'm about to press a button.
  
  Think im making it up? Try it. Stop in front of your nest thermostat,and reach towards it. See what happens.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
5. Re:Maybe Google thought their users were smart? by bill_mcgonigle · 2019-02-20 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  your nest thermostat
  The last thing I need is to worry about outages on my thermostat. Jesus, the 4-cycle programmable gizmo I picked up at Home Depot in 1994 for $17.50 works fine - I feed it for AA batteries every two years and we don't argue.
  I guess when I have more houses than a Socialist politician I'll start to fret about such things.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Not less than weird by aglider · 2019-02-20 05:14 · Score: 1

If it was me, a common man, who makes a project a forgets to mention a detail, then it would be a mistake.
For a company like Google, to wire a microphone to the innards of its security device, it is definitely not.
Please, Mr Google, admit you did that on purpose and got caught with the hands in the candy jar.
Please, publish a paper to physically remove or disable that part.
Then, my personally humble opinion, this thing of these devices connected to the internet is getting scarier and scarier.

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re: Not less than weird by astrofurter · 2019-02-20 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you just love the smell of cybernetic totalitarianism in the morning?
2. Re: Not less than weird by aglider · 2019-02-20 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you just love the smell of cybernetic totalitarianism in the morning?
  Only if blended with Napalm.
  
  --
  Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Why did you trust Google? by Kohath · 2019-02-20 05:15 · Score: 1

Nest devices were instantly crossed off my list as soon as Google bought Nest. Why would you install any sort of Google monitoring device in your home with Google's track record for collecting and storing data regardless of the ethics or propriety of doing so?
Chickens invite wolves to guard henhouse, are surprised at the results.
1. Re:Why did you trust Google? by ArhcAngel · 2019-02-20 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  I got a hub just so I could ask "Hey Google, At what point did Alphabet become a criminal organization?". It still isn't as witty with comebacks as Alexa.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
"First, be Evil" by WillAffleckUW · 2019-02-20 05:39 · Score: 2

Glad to see Google is living up to their corporate motto

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:"First, be Evil" by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2019-02-20 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  To quote Dr. McCoy: "I've found that Evil usually triumphs - unless Good is very, very careful".
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
"Don't Be Evil".... by ntsucks · 2019-02-20 05:44 · Score: 2

Unless you can make money doing it.

--
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
Countdown to a class action suit starting by Larry+Lightbulb · 2019-02-20 05:59 · Score: 1

Knowing there's a microphone in an Internet connected device and still buying it is something that people make a conscious decision to do - but if you don't know there's a microphone then the company just saying it was an error isn't enough.
Re:If only someone had a screwdriver by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Do you always dismantle everything you buy?
When will people learn? Will they ever? by Rick+Schumann · 2019-02-20 06:05 · Score: 1

Come on, humans, stop bringing always-on/always-connected surveillance devices into your homes. Isn't it bad enough most of you carry a mobile wireless surveillance platform with you all day every day, you have to have them in every room of your house, too? Please, humans, you're embarassing yourselves.
Re:Google knows you masturbate by wooferhound · 2019-02-20 06:14 · Score: 3, Funny

>> Google knows you masturbate
Yeah , When are they going to tell us about the Camera ?

--
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
You mean you have never.... by Pitawg · 2019-02-20 06:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

You mean you have never searched behind your cable box IR filtered face using a digital camera? You know, to see the board mounted camera modules facing you TV consumers, that report which family members were watching the garbage on the screen? Like an IR snapshot every time the IR remote button is pressed, to log the one that did not like what was on, and what they changed it to? Why would they not be tracking how much income they are getting for the ads they see noone is watching, to determine the ratio of the swindle's profit from the ad buyers?
This built-in mike thing is only audio. Well, the sonar images of the room, and people within, are useful. Also the intel of whether or not competing voice assistants are being used, that can aid plans as well.
A Tale of Two Privacy Policies by Rick+Zeman · 2019-02-20 06:48 · Score: 1

Something tells me that using Google Home inside of a Nest device would allow Google's "Anything Goes" (lack of) privacy policy to supersede Nest's much more restrictive one.
I won't be enabling this Trojan Horse, thank you. I'll do things the old-fashioned way and push the damn button myself.
Re:Google knows you masturbate by Fwipp · 2019-02-20 07:07 · Score: 1

Everyone knows you masturbate. I mean come on, just look at you.
Re:If only someone had a screwdriver by green1 · 2019-02-20 08:10 · Score: 1

These days? it might be prudent....
Re:Ask for a refund by green1 · 2019-02-20 08:13 · Score: 1

Might work in Europe where they have the concept of consumer protection, but I doubt you'd get far trying that in North America.
Translation by greylion3 · 2019-02-20 09:21 · Score: 1

Damage control.

--
Privacy begins with ..
Let's Suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-20 09:45 · Score: 1

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Google is being 100% truthful here. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! They just forgot to mention the microphone in their marketing.
OK, then. People are bringing this device into their homes. It's supposed to be a thermostat, even if a smart one. Can you understand how people might be a little alarmed to discover, that the thermostat might have been listening to them? Without permission, without notification, without any by-your-leave?
I think people understand that Google Home devices have microphones, that it's a 2-way communications device. But a thermostat?? Yeah, it's a "Nest Secure", but Nest built it's brand upon being a better thermostat.
Face-palm!
Ad company by AHuxley · 2019-02-20 10:18 · Score: 1

is going to voice print.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Google knows you masturbate by PPH · 2019-02-20 10:37 · Score: 1

Google has been talking to ceiling cat?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Google knows you masturbate by Scarletdown · 2019-02-20 11:35 · Score: 1

There are 10 types of people in the world; those who masturbate, and those who lie about it. I have no idea who the other 8 are.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Google knows you masturbate by reboot246 · 2019-02-20 14:56 · Score: 1

The other eight are the ones who don't know binary?
You can switch your mobile phone away from Google by KevinFanch · 2019-02-20 23:32 · Score: 1

With all these scandals are you still using Google? The best way to protect your privacy is not to share any personal data at first with companies like Google. I am using /e/ (e.foundation) on my Galaxy S9 instead of Google Android. It is Android based mobile OS designed with privacy in mind. Does not send any private data like contacts, emails or location to Google. Instead of Google apps it uses open source android apps. So far it works great. You can check it at https://e.foundation/