Hacker News Reader

Comment by orbifold | Hacker News Reader

It's sad how the introduction of a new class of devices "smartphones" brought along with it a surveillance software platform in the form of Android. Where it is clear that the only incentive for google to develop it is exfiltration of as much personal data as they can. In contrast in the case of Apple you have a customer relationship with the company that sold you the device and they have an incentive to keep you as a customer without having a need to extract as much advertisement revenue as they can.

View on HN

As time passes I'm more and more wary of my Android phone (even though I have only a very limited usage compared to most "connected" people as far as I can tell). I just don't trust Google at all anymore. I think my next smartphone might well be the first Apple product I purchase in my life. Not that iPhones are without problems but as far as security and privacy are concerned they're pretty clearly the lesser evil these days.

It's not so much that I think that Apple is more virtuous than Google, that'd be naive. It's more that their business model seems to align better with actually respecting their user's privacy instead of siphoning as much data as they can even if that means using ridiculous defaults, nagging and dark UI patterns.

I've always had Androids, and my wife has always had iPhones. Recently I setup a Pi-Hole on my home network and I was floored by the number of network requests to various tracking services my android was making in comparison to my wife's iPhone. My wife has the facebook app and is always playing those junk free freemium games - but my relatively clean android was averaging at least double the amount of DNS lookups and blocked tracking domains. Apps that I hardly ever used, that I hadn't even opened since my last phone reboot - were almost constantly phoning in to some tracking service or another. It was an eye opening experience. I just recently switched to iPhone for my first time and have found replacements for most of the android apps I had become accustomed to. I want to be clear that switching devices isn't some magical button to disable all tracking, but I have seen a significant reduction in both the number of tracking domains on my network and the frequency that they are called. Now the blocked requests are much more in line with times that I have various apps open and not all the time whether I'm using it or not. I also feel better about the type of data apps have access to vs. the almost free-for-all of Android. Anyways, that my anecdotal experience with the two types of phones.

I'd love to read a full account of your experience... I feel like if more people had any clue this was happening they'd think a little more about what they are allowing on their personal network.

I would kill for a Linux phone, but until that happens I would settle for a phone that comes with root access (or at least allows technically capable users to get it) and let's me control my own data and device from the bare metal up. Because even if Apple has less incentive to exfiltrate data, I don't want to have to trust any company to do the right thing or to keep doing it.

You might be interested in this project.

https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/

Have you bought one? What are your experiences with PureOS as a phone OS, considering the underlying hardware? One issue with Firefox OS was the non-fit between phone hardware and OS hardware requirements...

They aren't out yet, but it will have similar hardware requirements. Phone manufacturers don't value a free driver availability when building their phones, making it difficult for alternative operating systems to support.

I had the first Jolla one for a bit.

It wasn't too bad, though the swipey interface made it a little to easily to accidentally call people when drunk.

don't get drunk ;-)

“Don’t get drunk” is the new “you're holding it wrong” ;)

You don't have to kill... but some compromises you'll have to do. Librem and (partly) Sailfish/Jolla give you much more control but they are by far not as polished/broad as iPhones or Androids. Here a link, maybe the Sailfish 3 version will get a bit more traction?

https://together.jolla.com/question/191235/official-event-sa...

Can I buy a Sailfish phone ready to go that works on Verizon yet? The biggest thing about this niche OSes is you always have to flash them on a limited set of compatible hardware yourself, and they generally only work on GSM carriers.

I'm not sure, but from a https://together.jolla.com/questions/ search I suppose it doesn't work on Verizon. Maybe ask on together?

It's easy to get root on some Android devices. I think all Google phones purchased directly from Google make it a standard option; some others do as well, and still others have easy exploits.

You still void your warranty though

While I think it's unreasonable that obviously hardware aspects aren't covered by some manufacturers after rooting, is there a straightforward better alternative? I'm honestly wondering, because I wouldn't expect a company to provide support for a device with software they didn't authorize and aren't familiar with. If you want a device that you own, then you need to be responsible for the full cost of ownership, though again that should ideally only extend to software and aspects of hardware controlled by software.

Personally, I don't have a need to root or install alternative ROMs until well after the warranty expires on my devices, so I don't mind the current situation as much as some.

For the record, rooting doesn't void your warranty. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18297361

It doesn't void your warranty, although the manufacturers have done a very good job spreading that lie. It is illegal in the US to void a hardware warranty because the user altered the software. If they can prove that your alteration led directly to damage, then they can refuse to cover that specific damage, but that's all.

Source: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yp3nax/jailbreaki...

The main problem is that custom privacy-focused Android versions have to be made compatible for every device and devices come and go all the time.

At some point, hardware progress will be so minimal and devices so easy to manufacture that small companies can offer their own high-end phones and can build for them some years without really being much behind the competition.

When that happens, custom ROMs can really lift off and I don't think we're so far away. One or two more generations of smaller chips and better batteries. We're already at the point where the only innovation is adding more cameras.

I don't think hardware manufacturers will accept that scenario. They must constantly pump out new devices, no matter how incremental the improvement.

In contrast in the case of Apple you have a customer relationship with the company that sold you the device and they have an incentive to keep you as a customer without having a need to extract as much advertisement revenue as they can.

Do you acknowledge this comes at a huge cost? Apple has a fraction of the marketshare as Android in countries like India. Apple's iPhone prices out billions of people. Android-based phones don't. If Android-based phones adopted Apple's business model, billions of people would not have smartphones.

But I can’t help but wonder why there isn’t an alternative. Maybe a phone that is a bit more expensive then an equivalent android. It doesn’t need to have the hardware quality of iPhones or high end android phones but also has good, secure and privacy focused software developed by some company that doesn’t make most of their revenue from advertising.

But I suppose there isn’t a market for that. A majority of users would pick the phone that is only 289 instead of 319 Even if that means selling their data. And the few users that do care are willing to pay the premium for an iPhone. Considering that manufacturing a phone is expensive unless they can mass produce it in quantities such as Samsung and apple, there won’t be a company to make such a phone soon because it would be just as expensive as an iPhone with a lot less features.

And of course the Most important feature of any smartphone are apps and any new platform wouldn’t have any apps. Developer won’t develop for them unless there are enough users and there won’t be enough users unless there are apps. You could probably use googles play services and emulate android but as far as I know there isn’t a way to get around google’s push notifications without compromising the users privacy (which would defeat the purpose). Besides that would be expensive to make and gooogle might not license it at all because there is little in it for them.

You’re right that 99% of people will just pick the cheaper phone over the privacy-focused one if all else is equal.

Look how many people willingly give their phone number to grocery stores in return for a slight discount.

>Look how many people willingly give their phone number to grocery stores in return for a slight discount.

If you're paying with a credit card, giving them your phone number in addition to your CC# doesn't make any difference at all. It doesn't even have to be your phone number, pretty much any 10 digit number will do.

billions of people would not have smartphones.

But what’s the downside?

It seems like a privileged position to argue that there's no downside to people having smartphones. Many people are unable to regularly access decent laptops or desktops. Internet access is essential.

The Internet lets you communicate with friends and family, access a massive trove of knowledge quickly (freeing up education), discuss current events, and all manner of other things.

Even personally as a well to do American, have saved many, many thousands of dollars by acquiring learning resources online.

Hello FOMO. I grew up in a world where I had to pay by the minute to access the internet or use a phone. I did not have access to a computer 24/7.

Not having/using/carrying a smartphone is a conscious decision one can make with positive and negative aspects. Bruce Schneier points that out in his book Data and Goliath.

Not having a smartphone is much easier to do when you have regular access to a decent laptop or desktop. Many people in developing countries do not.

There is nothing "FOMO" about Internet access, it is extremely important. The world changed a lot from where we were 30 years ago.

The advantages of having a computer you can bring with you (be that a laptop, tablet, or phone) are enormous.

This is why I consider implying that billions of people having smartphones is a bad thing to be an extremely privileged position to take.

Internet access is important, but not a panacea without any disadvantages. Furthermore, a smartphone assumes a device with GSM and data while an other device with on-demand WLAN (such as a cheap tablet) might suffice.

TL;DR if you mean computers and internet access instead of smartphones, use the correct terminology.

Cellular networks are sometimes the only option for people in the developing world. I meant smartphones. Obviously, as I said, if you have a capable computer of any kind without Internet access, that is usually enough.

Internet access is essential.

Now that is the voice of privilege! Clean drinking water is essential. A smartphone is merely a luxury and one that is not without consequences - just as cigarettes are a luxury.

Internet access is not nearly a luxury in the same way cigarettes are.

Yes, it won't literally kill you not to have Internet, but that's a disingenuous argument. I did not say "essential to remain alive", I said "essential".

You are simply not at a level playing field if you do not have Internet access in 2018.

Family emergency while you're not at home? Resources to learn about the world, educate yourself? Increased job opportunities? Housing listings? Mobile financial services?

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/business/dealbook/melinda...

Internet access is most commonly going to be through smartphones in the developing world. Internet access is essential.

Saying it's a luxury in the same way cigarettes are is ludicrous.

Nothing is without consequences. Take water. People die daily from having too much water in their system.

Very little of the cost of an iPhone is to make up for lost advertising revenue.

If you spread all the revenue of Facebook & Google over every android device it still wouldn’t come close to the difference in price.

Apple could make much cheaper devices, but they’d just end up cannibalising the sales of their high end phones.

Personally, I find the introduction of devices with software and distribution lockdown to be much more concerning. As a customer, my relationship with Apple has always been a middle finger from them. The saddest thing is watching everyone cheer them on. Many would much rather be surveiled by Google than be treated as hostile by Apple, and that choice is ok.

It's rather absurd that it's pretty much only Apple that will sell you a product rather than seeing you as a data cow to be milked daily.

I'd like some competition that's actually with Apple (that is others who respect privacy, not Google, Microsoft et al) as I am increasingly disappointed in Apple hardware.

I hear what you are saying and agree in the sense that a lot of this is being misused by people who want to take advantage of what they know about you/us in whatever shape or form they can get the data to get away with.

Chinas use of data is definitely not the way to go.

However, I would also caution against the push for almost complete privacy as that IMO leaves out a number of potential advantages from systems having enormous amounts of data about us.

The primary advantage of technology is that it is able to automate and remove a number of things we would otherwise have to do manually, semi-manually etc.

To the extent that we do more and more in the digital space, our digital identity becomes much more important and that creates a new problem that can't be solved through privacy IMO but have to be solved by allowing digital identities to learn how to trust each other (which means exchange data/information).

I don't think there are many ways around that unless you want to get off the grid completely (which is certainly one way to do things).

This is where I think the decentralized part becomes really valuable. How can we own our own data but exchange it with others and build trust over time just like we would in the real world.

Cause in order to take advantage of the technology you will need to feed it with the primary thing that keeps it alive, data.

Name an advantage to google knowing what colour underwear you bought last Thursday at 3pm from an eBay seller called “thrusty jack”?

Siri/iOS/macOS/etc are proof that “smart” services can be done on-device and/or without identifying information and still be useful.

Google does it all server side because it’s the cash cow their entire business is built on, not because it’s the only way to do it.

Hmm that wasn't actually what I said. So not sure how to respond to that.

You literally said:

> I would also caution against the push for almost complete privacy as that IMO leaves out a number of potential advantages from systems having enormous amounts of data about us.

So I created an example. Forget my example if you wish, I still have the same question. What benefit is there specifically, from companies "having enormous amounts of data about us"?

But I also said:

"This is where I think the decentralized part becomes really valuable. How can we own our own data but exchange it with others and build trust over time just like we would in the real world."

So not sure why you are asking about about something that is only part of what I wrote when I elaborate further down.

> How can we own our own data but exchange it with others and build trust over time just like we would in the real world.

Well that's pretty simple. Don't use services that are paid for with your privacy.

> So not sure why you are asking about about something that is only part of what I wrote when I elaborate further down.

You claimed it's beneficial, I'm asking how.

And I am telling you I wrote some more so you have to read it in it's whole not just that part.

If they are getting the data from Gmail, then it is useful for the heuristics in understanding what is and what is not spam.

AFAIK, ebay don't use GA although most of the web do. GA is I'm sure largely to help with their advertising business. That is useful because it gives website owners (who choose to use it) analytics.

> If they are getting the data from Gmail, then it is useful for the heuristics in understanding what is and what is not spam.

Do you have evidence that they use their trove of personal data about you to improve spam filtering? No other email provider on the planet has the same amount of data, and they manage to filter out spam.

> AFAIK, ebay don't use GA although most of the web do.

eBay was an example, but my point was more about, if you used Google Pay on a shopping site.

> That is useful because it gives website owners (who choose to use it) analytics.

That isn't beneficial to the person whose data they hold, it's detrimental, and fucking creepy.

It may be the incentive, it may have been the incentive. But it's not the only possible incentive.

Before they were public Google did a lot of stuff that was seemingly just "because we can". Give geeks a metric-shit-ton of money and that'sb what you get.

This line sounds like the "businesses aren't allowed to do things that don't maximise profits" myth.

They're trying to repeat that in the automotive industry, as well as IoT. It's why most automakers have been resistant to adopting Waymo software.

and knowing that google will track and use their customers' data apple went ahead and made google it's default search engine for a couple of billion $ a year. from bing, who was their previous search provider. but not duckduckgo, the only privacy centric search provider.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com