It is not possible for Google to operate without the opportunity to collect the information required to pinpoint individuals.
I don't disagree -- but the point here is that Google not only didn't reveal this data collection, they strongly implied that stuff like this would be disabled when you turned location tracking off. In other words, Google lied.
Just for a trivial example, Google could record the IP address along with the exact destination every time someone uses Google Maps for navigation (since that information must be sent to the server to compute the route).
Yes, but again -- this data collection is something that Google tells you about upfront. That's very different than doing it behind your back.
If you really believe that then you must believe there is no hope for anything on Android at all.
Yes, I think this is true to an extent. The moment that there is a reasonable alternative to Android, I'll be all over it.
However, it is possible to use Android in a way that doesn't require so much trust in Google. For instance, I use third party, open source ROMs, and I don't install any Google services (no Play store, no Maps, etc.). I use a firewall to do my best to ensure that no data leaves my device without my knowledge -- be it to Google or anybody else.
Also note that my attitude about Google has changed quite a bit over the past few years. I used to have a fair bit of trust in Google and Android, and part of the amount of anger I have toward Google now is that I feel that my trust has been betrayed.
Now, Google has joined the likes of Comcast, Microsoft, etc. -- a company that I can't trust but also can't completely avoid, much as I wish I could.
Like I said, Google needs to make a clear statement. The rest is just speculation.
Google needs to do more than "make a clear statement". Google's statements are without meaning. They need to actually demonstrate their goodwill by ceasing this activity.
This seems to be a giant leap between collecting cell tower data and knowing where individuals are that is totally dependent on their implementation.
Not a leap at all, let alone a giant one. Google is collecting the information required to pinpoint individuals. Whether or not they are actually doing so is something that we cannot know, as you point out. All we have is Google's word for this sort of thing.
And if the past few years have taught us anything about Google, it's that their word cannot be trusted. So, rather than being a leap, the reasonable assumption is that they are, indeed pinpointing people. Otherwise, why would they be collecting the data?
This. I wouldn't use my phone (or any computer) without a firewall. The important point is that the firewall blocks all traffic, both incoming and outgoing, by default.
Making phone calls is not the primary purpose for my cell phone at all. I probably make/receive about a dozen calls a month, but I use my phone heavily every day.
could not some of these apps realistically just offer apps outside the Play store?
Yes. There are numerous apps that do exactly this.
My personal opinion is that, given that app stores are designed to cater to people who want to treat their phones as an "appliance" rather than a computer, it makes sense to lock them down tightly enough so that my grandma won't get into trouble if she stays with the app store.
The rest of us, who use our phones as computers, can get our apps outside of that walled garden.
I really can't see any other way to make the phones secure enough for the clueless and still powerful enough for the clueful.
I disagree. I think lying is inherently unethical. There are situations where it is the least unethical of available options, but that doesn't change the underlying principle.
If lying elicits disclosure of useful information, then it can be better ethically
You haven't supported this assertion. You've made the argument that lying can be useful in a "free" marketplace. That is not related to whether or not it's ethical.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not possible for Google to operate without the opportunity to collect the information required to pinpoint individuals.
I don't disagree -- but the point here is that Google not only didn't reveal this data collection, they strongly implied that stuff like this would be disabled when you turned location tracking off. In other words, Google lied.
Just for a trivial example, Google could record the IP address along with the exact destination every time someone uses Google Maps for navigation (since that information must be sent to the server to compute the route).
Yes, but again -- this data collection is something that Google tells you about upfront. That's very different than doing it behind your back.
If you really believe that then you must believe there is no hope for anything on Android at all.
Yes, I think this is true to an extent. The moment that there is a reasonable alternative to Android, I'll be all over it.
However, it is possible to use Android in a way that doesn't require so much trust in Google. For instance, I use third party, open source ROMs, and I don't install any Google services (no Play store, no Maps, etc.). I use a firewall to do my best to ensure that no data leaves my device without my knowledge -- be it to Google or anybody else.
Also note that my attitude about Google has changed quite a bit over the past few years. I used to have a fair bit of trust in Google and Android, and part of the amount of anger I have toward Google now is that I feel that my trust has been betrayed.
Now, Google has joined the likes of Comcast, Microsoft, etc. -- a company that I can't trust but also can't completely avoid, much as I wish I could.
It's very clear that this data is being collected. That's what needs to stop.
Like I said, Google needs to make a clear statement. The rest is just speculation.
Google needs to do more than "make a clear statement". Google's statements are without meaning. They need to actually demonstrate their goodwill by ceasing this activity.
This seems to be a giant leap between collecting cell tower data and knowing where individuals are that is totally dependent on their implementation.
Not a leap at all, let alone a giant one. Google is collecting the information required to pinpoint individuals. Whether or not they are actually doing so is something that we cannot know, as you point out. All we have is Google's word for this sort of thing.
And if the past few years have taught us anything about Google, it's that their word cannot be trusted. So, rather than being a leap, the reasonable assumption is that they are, indeed pinpointing people. Otherwise, why would they be collecting the data?
Or replace your OS with one that doesn't contain Google software.
This. I wouldn't use my phone (or any computer) without a firewall. The important point is that the firewall blocks all traffic, both incoming and outgoing, by default.
It's a good thing.
No, it's not. It's an evil thing. That some minor conveniences can be derived from it doesn't change that.
Rather than just abandoning "don't be evil", Google has gone the opposite way and are following the maxim "let's be evil".
water is wet.
No, you are not. You are paying for the programming by being subjected to ads. That's very different from soliciting them.
The FCC makes another move on its quest to empower major corporations at the expense of the American people.
This. Google's search results have been consistently declining in quality for years now. I don't think that trend will be changing anytime soon.
It is? From where I sit, it looks like the opposite of that.
AMP is awful.
Making phone calls is not the primary purpose for my cell phone at all. I probably make/receive about a dozen calls a month, but I use my phone heavily every day.
What version of Android a phone is running is pretty far down on my list of things that are important to me in a phone.
could not some of these apps realistically just offer apps outside the Play store?
Yes. There are numerous apps that do exactly this.
My personal opinion is that, given that app stores are designed to cater to people who want to treat their phones as an "appliance" rather than a computer, it makes sense to lock them down tightly enough so that my grandma won't get into trouble if she stays with the app store.
The rest of us, who use our phones as computers, can get our apps outside of that walled garden.
I really can't see any other way to make the phones secure enough for the clueless and still powerful enough for the clueful.
To assume your competitors aren't going to/aren't allowed to research you seems naive at best.
True -- but I never said or assumed that.
Lying is not, in and of itself, unethical.
I disagree. I think lying is inherently unethical. There are situations where it is the least unethical of available options, but that doesn't change the underlying principle.
There is a huge difference between "doing wrong" in a moral sense and a legal sense.
True. I'm speaking about ethics, not legalities.
I'd hesitate to judge them, as I suspect both sides are doing it.
Not me. How common the practice is has nothing to do with how ethical it is. I feel fine judging all sides for this.
If lying elicits disclosure of useful information, then it can be better ethically
You haven't supported this assertion. You've made the argument that lying can be useful in a "free" marketplace. That is not related to whether or not it's ethical.
Is this unethical?
Sure it is. If you find yourself lying to people, then you're being unethical.
Have they actually done anything wrong?
You mean like lying and saying that you're a company looking for space when you aren't?
Eh, they're no uglier than the Pixel 2.
Also in today's non-news:
Most software runs on an operating system, but 90% of the software engineers who write applications aren't OS experts.
A dongle is not a sufficient replacement, for a whole bunch of reasons.