Database Info

Is google stealing things off my phone?

Last night browsing the market, after having my phone reset for constant rebooting, I downloaded an app called "adult videos." I woke this morning to find the app wiped from my phone and from the market. Now, the problem lies not in the fact that this app is missing from my life, but in the question is google sneaking around in the middle of the night tampering with people's phones? I read that article about google remotely removing apps from phones strictly on a necessity based need. It kind of makes me wonder how selective they will be when determining what is necessary.

Google has the ability to do this and have flexed their muscles with that feature too recently,cant post links but google: "google remove android application". It uses google talk to send these removal requests. In normal conditions google will only delete apps that were malicious. (spyware/damaging/ddos/fraud/etc)
Most smartphone/ebook platforms have remote kill switches now. The more worrying part is that they also have the ability to install apps onto remote phones.

Google does this with android too? This is one of the reasons I dont like apple. This sounds like rediculous invasion of privacy. How does this work exactly?
Read the link.. disturbing both the install assett and the remove asset options. Plus the fact that Android maintains a constant data connection. Is there anyway to kill this constant connection? do you get charged for it? and can you disable the install and remove assett options?

It's Google, they live and survive off your information!
They went round WiFi snooping when they did Streetview, so God knows what they do with your mobile phone...

hungry81 said:
Google does this with android too? This is one of the reasons I dont like apple. This sounds like rediculous invasion of privacy. How does this work exactly?
Read the link.. disturbing both the install assett and the remove asset options. Plus the fact that Android maintains a constant data connection. Is there anyway to kill this constant connection? do you get charged for it? and can you disable the install and remove assett options?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This connection is maintained by using google talk. So as long as you are online on google talk you have a hotline to the kill switch. After these security concerns I bet some chefs are working on ROM with the kill switch disabled. But nearly all smartphones have kill switches nowadays, companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft don't want to be seen as unable to get rid of a malicious app which would impact on their reputation.
Edit: Thinking about it, if you have extreme worries about this, install some kind of firewall (like iptables (requires rooting)) and block mtalk.google.com.

The best part about these google phones is the ability to make them your own. I am currently waiting for cyanogen's mod 6 which I am pretty sure won't constantly chat with google, but I think that the fact should be recognized of who the major players are in the cell phone game. Remember that 'incident' google had with china, and how the NSA and google became friends after that. Hmm... The largest data analyzer teaming up with the largest data collector, google also reports higher sales every quarter now as well, that is alot of direct connections with alot of people. I'm not sayin' anything...I'm just sayin'.

El_Zilcho said:
Edit: Thinking about it, if you have extreme worries about this, install some kind of firewall (like iptables (requires rooting)) and block mtalk.google.com.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ummm..... no.

r3s-rt said:
Ummm..... no.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm why not? Its a Linux system below the dalvik vm. There are people who got iptables running on their system and when done correctly iptables. Be aware when I talk about this, I am talking tin foil hat style here.
What if someone modifies AOSP code to just remove the INSTALL_ASSET and REMOVE_ASSET portions of the code?

Google, don't go Apple way!
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/android-also-gives-google-remote-app-installation-power-062510
Old news, but they've made me "a little bit" angry Is there any way to remove all that crapware?

hmmmmm well figuring they just got in trouble for stealing multiple GB of data from private routers I'd say its a sure bet. Also I recently took a federal job and low and behold they already had my gmail account on file even though I have never given it out and only use it for family and friends, but the feds sure had it.

Good News for Developers, Bad News for Pirates!!

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/28/new-licensing-service-replacing-existing-copy-protection-metho/
Looks like pretty soon the days of people copy and pasting apk's all over the place are coming to an end.
I hope this doesn't make theming harder.. We'll see.
From reading that article,
Seems like airplane mode or a firewall would crush all the hopes and dreams of google and app devs.
It seems that every time we open an app it needs to verify that it's been paid for by contacting a "licensing" server and retrieving a response.
I feel like that could slow down launch times, and being unable to use an app when offline would be like UBISOFT hell all over again.
I really hope google puts a lot of thought into this..

I wonder if this if already being done? Every time I try to play that golf game on my EVO on an airplane while the radios are off I get a FC when it starts. As soon as I an on the ground and turn the radios on the game works fine.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

what if you are in an area with no signal or on a plane or something? you cant open any apps???

This is already in place in a number of apps, one is IP Cam Viewer.
I paid the money for it. I transferred all my files to my wife's Evo 4G, and thought "hell I'll see if it works..." Well it didn't. When I try to open the app, it tells me that I have to purchase it from the marketplace.
I'm all for buying apps when they're good, and I understand single user licensing. Guess I was just hoping I wouldn't have to spend double the money for all the apps I use.

simplyphp said:
This is already in place in a number of apps, one is IP Cam Viewer.
I paid the money for it. I transferred all my files to my wife's Evo 4G, and thought "hell I'll see if it works..." Well it didn't. When I try to open the app, it tells me that I have to purchase it from the marketplace.
I'm all for buying apps when they're good, and I understand single user licensing. Guess I was just hoping I wouldn't have to spend double the money for all the apps I use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've heard of couples sharing the same email as apps get replicated on the two phone

I can confirm that they don't get replicated..
I have two evo's right now under the same email and they're definitely not replicating crap.

cahiatt said:
I wonder if this if already being done? Every time I try to play that golf game on my EVO on an airplane while the radios are off I get a FC when it starts. As soon as I an on the ground and turn the radios on the game works fine.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that's a problem I understand about paying for apps but not working when I'm in a place with no signal. I see a law suit brewing up. I paid for the app I should be able to use the app whenever I want to. Class action law suit coming real soon.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Crap....
"A limitation of copy protection is that applications using it can be installed only on compatible devices that provide a secure internal storage environment. For example, a copy-protected application cannot be downloaded from Market to a device that provides root access"
...Seriously???
EDIT - the above quote was misrepresented in the place I copied from...research shows it to be misleading. the actual bit of Google's text is posted over on page to of this thread. disregard my indignation in this post...

This is discouraging, because a lot of people like to try the full before they buy it expecting more than what full has to offer, only to be disappointed later.

willwgp said:
This is discouraging, because a lot of people like to try the full before they buy it expecting more than what full has to offer, only to be disappointed later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do get a 24 hour refund option when you buy from the market so I'm not worried about trying before you buy. I do worry about not being able to play something when I'm in the bathroom at work because I don't get a signal there.

well how many ppl do actually piracy apps??? oh my bad forgot that this is Android, for a second i though it was apple!!

Just to clarify a couple of things:
There are 2 ways to use the Licensing - one is Strict - you CAN NOT USE THE APP WITHOUT ACCESS TO MARKETPLACE. Personally, screw that.
Option 2, however, is a non-strict policy. Server managed, where the license is 'cached' to storage. You also can programmatically set how long your app can be used without any license check.
That'd be the way i go

josue85 said:
You do get a 24 hour refund option when you buy from the market so I'm not worried about trying before you buy. I do worry about not being able to play something when I'm in the bathroom at work because I don't get a signal there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That'll be up to the developer. I like this approach, as I'd be happy to do say... a 5-7 day turn around on the license check. After 7 days with no data signal, seriously, where the hell are you? LOL
Besides, if you've used a paid app for 7 days, and by that time can't decide if you need it or not - wow.
And of course, as soon as you got signal again, the license check would go through and you can use the app again, no problem.
I'm sure there will be UbiSoft and EA style implementations though - way too damn draconian for my tastes. I don't care to know every single second that someone's using my app. I would just like to know that they haven't 'copied that floppy' as it were LOL
I have no doubts this will be defeated in time, though. All it would really take is mimicking the server license response, which can be extracted from the locally cached license of an actual paid product.
People that pirate software are going to do it, regardless. Don't make the honest people pay the price of draconian DRM.
The best approach I can make as a developer, is give my customers the features they want, in a stable, good performing package, and discourage 'casual' piracy. Beyond that, it's out of the developer's control, and honestly, any more than that usually just pisses off the customer and annoys the pirates for about a day and a half.

Ok...had to read the SDK paperwork as I really wanted to know this...my previous post was incorrect and here is the update...
From Google:
Android Market Licensing is a flexible, secure mechanism for controlling access to your applications. It effectively replaces the copy-protection mechanism offered on Android Market and gives you wider distribution potential for your applications.
A limitation of the legacy copy-protection mechanism on Android Market is that applications using it can be installed only on compatible devices that provide a secure internal storage environment. For example, an application using the copy-protection mechanism cannot be downloaded from Market to a device that provides root access, and the application cannot be installed to a device's SD card.
With Android Market licensing, you can move to a license-based model in which access is not bound to the characteristics of the host device, but to your publisher account on Android Market and the licensing policy that you define. Your application can be installed and controlled on any compatible device on any storage, including SD card.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also...there are options for the Devs to allow for apps to be used a chosen number of times before they need to check in for licenses. Strict has to check in every time....other option allows dev to choose based on times used or time since last check in.
SO...all in all I am much less worried about this now.

topdnbass said:
I can confirm that they don't get replicated..
I have two evo's right now under the same email and they're definitely not replicating crap.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With licensing the dev can choose whether an app can be accessed from different phones. It is an option...
(greeked...multiple times)

Question: Does that mean we won't be able to open, modify, and resign apks? Like...to change the appearance (make a widget clear, etc).

More like bad news for paying consumers. That's who always pays for everything. Those of us who actually buy the products.
I plan on speaking with my wallet. I wont buy any app that requires I have an internet connection.

A limitation of the legacy copy-protection mechanism on Android Market is that applications using it can be installed only on compatible devices that provide a secure internal storage environment. For example, an application using the copy-protection mechanism cannot be downloaded from Market to a device that provides root access, and the application cannot be installed to a device's SD card.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait so according to google us rooted folk couldn't download copy-protected apps before now?
Urrr, i think im missing something

This is actually a nice implementation for both the software developer and the user. Most will implement this where it only has to check-in every week or two. So the odds of getting caught in a spot where there is no connection is low.
At the end of the day, it is a pretty straightforward way to handle copy protection that really shouldn't inconvenience anyone.
Also it will bring more developers to the platform if they know they don't have to worry as much about piracy.

Piracy will still run rampant. People will find ways to circumvent this, that's just how it is. At least it will curb some piracy since copying and pasting an apk file wasn't much of a deterrent.

Taintdroid...android's duff security model

Worrying article on how apps are using personal information.
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/30/suspicious_android_apps/
I'm sick that they had to go too such lengths to find out. We need a better net architecture to enable a proper firewall to work.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

Also, app naming FAIL!

Well, since they only tested 30 apps and won't release the names of the ones they tested, only saying that they are "the most popular", personally I don't buy it.
And the information these apps are sending out is primarily geolocation. Well, no ****. If an app wants your location and you don't think it should have it, it's either using it for ads or you should decline to install the app and just send an email to the dev asking him why he needs that information.

tjhart85 said:
Well, since they only tested 30 apps and won't release the names of the ones they tested, only saying that they are "the most popular", personally I don't buy it.
And the information these apps are sending out is primarily geolocation. Well, no ****. If an app wants your location and you don't think it should have it, it's either using it for ads or you should decline to install the app and just send an email to the dev asking him why he needs that information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed... geolocation is pretty obviously straight forward. I don't know about the 'transmissing every 30 seconds' thing though.
Any thoughts ont he transmitting sim card and IMEI info?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnLujX1Dw4Y
Also discussed here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=795702
With explanation where to get it from http://www.appanalysis.org/

A very well-written reply by "Steven Knox" on The Register, demonstrating how this 'research' is simply a pile of intentionally-misleading statistical rubbish:
By selecting only from applications that access both personal data and the internet, they're overstating the significance of their study by about 3x. Furthermore, their summaries blur this distinction unnecessarily.
Specifically, their FAQ says "We studied just over 8% of the top 50 popular free applications in each category that had access to privacy sensitive information in order to get a sense of the behaviors of these applications." Since there were 22 categories at the time they did the study, that would imply (22*50=1,100 * 8% =) 88 applications. However, they actually only tested 30, because of the 1,100 top 50 applications only (from the PDF) "roughly a third of the applications (358 of the 1,100 applications) require Internet permissions along with permissions to access
either location, camera, or audio data." -- meaning that the other 742 apps don't have the necessary permissions to play badly. The clause "..that had access to privacy sensitive information in order to get a sense of the behaviors of these applications." from the FAQ is grammatically ambiguous in this case (it may refer to "applications" or "category"), and not specific enough to indicate that over 2/3 of the applications are (relatively) safe by dint of not having the necessary permissions.
They also didn't include in their study apps from 10 of the 22 categories, but they don't explain whether that was due to a) there not being any or enough applications in those categories that required internet and personal data permissions, b) a conscious choice to focus on the other 12 categories, or c) the results of random selection (with an explanation of why they did not use a stratified sample).
Once you factor back in the applications they ignored, the numbers don't look quite so bad. Assuming their sample was representative, 2/3 of the 358, or about 239 applications of the top 1,100 of the time use personal data suspiciously. That's about 21.7% or just over 1 in 5 -- still significant, but a far cry from 2 out of 3. In fact, the worst case maximum is actually 358 of 1,100 or just under 1 in 3 (32.45%) because they are as mentioned above the only ones that actually acquire the permissions necessary to do anything "suspicious".
I understand why both the researchers and the reporter used the 2/3 figure -- you all believe you have to sell the point as hard as possible*. But the real story is that it's likely that at least 1 in 5 Android Apps use private data "suspiciously" -- and that number is still high enough to cause concern and to justify the further use of tools like TaintDroid. It's a pity you didn't trust the facts enough to avoid the unnecessary sensationalism.
*I am assuming, here, that Mr. Goodin did actually read and digest the paper as I did, rather than simply picking out the figures from the study, the FAQ, or a press release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

good spot. But one in ten woolf be too many. The point is we should have more fine grained control and transparency off what apps do over the net, and we can't, by design.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

We need to develop a shim that reports modified IMEI/SIM data for different apps. IMO, very few apps need that information. We may not be able to keep all those apps from sending our private information, but we can make that information useless if it appears that we all are using the same IMEI/SIM...

patp said:
...The point is we should have more fine grained control and transparency off what apps do over the net...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed....

if you are rooted. With Root Explorer go to /data/system/ and open accounts.db you might be surprised what you find in it... Some people it will be fine for but mine it shows my exchange email and password in plain text and a few others show up as plain text has well...Its not geo they are worried about (for the most part) and...this file has been known about for awhile
Don't worry though unless your downloaded android specific virus holding apps you wont have any problem. And if your getting all your apps legally through the market then its no big deal =) and if your pirating them...well I don't feel bad for you...

echoside said:
if you are rooted. With Root Explorer go to /data/system/ and open accounts.db you might be surprised what you find in it... Some people it will be fine for but mine it shows my exchange email and password in plain text and a few others show up as plain text has well...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Opened it, my accounts are there, but no passwords....

rori~ said:
Opened it, my accounts are there, but no passwords....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my gmail is somesort of encrypted but doesnt look that great.
Exchange shows up
facebook doesnt show anything at all aha
Thats why I said some might not have anything. Awhile back when I first heard about it one of my friends had two or three right there in plain English I didn't have a phone at the time to check...
Its been reported before but kind of just brushed over no biggy. To go real conspiracy theorist....I think apple is submitting all these articles...

ButtonBoy said:
We need to develop a shim that reports modified IMEI/SIM data for different apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great idea

The source code/instructions for TaintDroid are now out:
http://appanalysis.org/download.html

Anybody found a (recent) kernel with built-in TaintDroid-support?

ChompSMS flagged as malware by several AV's

Hi ppl in the xda hood
I just write to let you know that ChompSMS has now been flagged as malware, both on 2 phone here locally with Avast as scanner, and subsequently by upload to Virustotal, and flagged by some of the major names too.
This concerns both the 5.30 and the update from tonight to v5.31
As Im new, I cannot post urls, but you can dump the apk from both versions, upload for a scan, and have a look at the report yourself from virustotal dot com
XDA must decide if its worth it alarming the community, but better safe than sorry, right?
I guess it could be a false positive, and I do know things should not be rushed about accusations of malware developing, but seeing that several of the major scanners is flagging it both before and after the update, certainly raises my concerns.
I hope those of you who knows your way around decompiling and analyzing code will look into this, so that we can get more eyes on it than "just" the AV companies reports.
Sincerely, Omnius
After a bit of micro-investigating I have so far found these domains in the code, so if you do HAVE to use ChompSMS, (I do) you can ad them to your HOST file, just for the sake of it.
I dont know when or why they will be used but as they are in the code, there is a potential connection lurking in it. Decide for yourself, untill further ppl have a close look than mine.
Im not a dev of any sort, but I do know how to poke around to learn. Therfore please do not just take my words for granted until more competent ppl here have their say.
I do know that a few of these is for "normal" android app ads, and analytics and so on, but these are my finding so far, so filter our what you like it to connect to yourself. If you dont mind ads connections in-app, serve your wish, so to speak.
millennialmedia.com
gateway.textfreek.com
report.bitesms.com
nexage.com
inapp.chompsms.com
adserver.com
greystripe.com
smsgateway.chompsms.com
m.advc.us
cvt.mydas.mobi
rest.starttalking.com
mobileads.google.com

I used to love chompsms... now i guess I'm using GoSMS...
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App

All of them appear to be valid to the program. Half are ad for ads, the other half are for functionality in ChompSMS.

I would be careful on using go SMS as well.
Antivirus apps will pick up any app that by passes any normal OS use. This always has been and always will be the case.
Anything with ads will always be flagged as it connects to an unknown server.

zelendel said:
I would be careful on using go SMS as well.
Antivirus apps will pick up any app that by passes any normal OS use. This always has been and always will be the case.
Anything with ads will always be flagged as it connects to an unknown server.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
chomp was never flagged before the 5.30 update a few days ago...
really bothers me, i love chomp. i donated to remove the ads. i'm hoping they fixed it with 5.31 and the virus scanners are just still reporting it as a false positive. until it's sorted out though, i uninstalled...

Update : avg doesn't detect anything wrong with the newest version, 5.31.

Lemme tell you...
I noticed the new permissions requested in 5.30 (special access to browser history/bookmarks), and kinda shrugged it off. Dumb move on my part. Immediately upon launching 5.30, I get a notification from ADWLauncher that it cannot fit a new shortcut on my desktop (because the main page was full). So I'm naturally all like WTF... so I flip through my desktop pages to notice that ChompSMS had made itself a shortcut to searchmobileonline.com.
I also heard that it replaces your default browser home page and search method with the same. I use xScope exclusively, so I haven't been able to check that yet.
Delicious, Inc. has really crossed the line with this latest stunt. What were they thinking!? ChompSMS was the best Android messaging app IMHO. Why jeopardize such a great reputation? If it's money they were after, I'd imagine they could've raked in a nice bundle of cash for selling the product to another company.

Does anyone have a copy of this apk that I could take a look at?

kyokeun1234 said:
I used to love chompsms... now i guess I'm using GoSMS...
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GoSMS is a security risk
Sent from Narnia

xHausx said:
Does anyone have a copy of this apk that I could take a look at?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know this is a old thread but better than starting a new one.
I would like to ask if there is any news on this. I love chomp SMS, imo the best messanger for my taste. I have bought the pro version, to stay away from ads and unnecessary internet data. I have chomp on a brand new phone, no sim card, no messages, just activated chomp and my firewall instantly found chomp active on internet. I watched this for some time and really chomp was trying to do something even I did nothing with it.
important note: there is no data mining in any of their terms. Or at least I did not find anything.
So I contacted chomp about the behavior and they said that "they never seen this before" and suggested reinstall. I did, didn't help.
On the second try, they told me that it is connecting because of ads, but I had the pro version (and they knew it). So no luck.
After the third attempt, they said that chomp is sending once a day info that it is installed so they know how many installs they have.
This sucks a lot. Security concerns appears instantly.
I think it would be worthy to literally sniff a bit around this, since so many people is using chomp.

WHATSAPP auto download audio

Voice messages are always automatically downloaded for the best communication experience...
Really..??
Mmmm there is a stench of security breach..

ever asked yourself how they finance their continous updates? do you really think they just release a new version every 2 days just because they like you? think about it..

SecUpwN said:
think about it..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you think about that?

tryin said:
Voice messages are always automatically downloaded for the best communication experience...
Really..??
Mmmm there is a stench of security breach..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? First of all, you can turn off the option of auto-downloading various file types in the app settings. Secondly, EVERYTHING you use Whatsapp for is passing through their servers (I'm assuming it's encrypted, because a while ago it was cleartext). If you're that paranoid about having your information read, don't use it. As a matter of fact, don't use a cell phone or the internet, because someone somewhere is skimming your data, whether it's a person or a computer doing it.
They also don't send out updates every 2 days. I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Their updates come months apart. They get their "funding" from user subscriptions...It's 99 cents for a year and $3 for 3 years. Multiply that by however many users they have (more than that of any other service) and you have a LOT of revenue. They've been doing this for years. Their app spans Android, iOS, Windows Phone, BB OS, Bada, Symbian, etc.

Whatsapp is already backdoored by 3 letter agencies and victim to dozens of security problems http://www.firsthacknews.com/2013/04/whatsapp-plagued-yet-again/
Don't use proprietary software use GuardianProject Gibberbot with a Tor .onion jabber/xmpp server to avoid SSL/TLS MITM attacks or open the app in Eclipse and pin certs to it for your jabber server.

Product F(RED) said:
What are you talking about? First of all, you can turn off the option of auto-downloading various file types in the app settings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Take a look at the screenshoot..
Secondly,
Product F(RED) said:
If you're that paranoid about having your information read, don't use it. As a matter of fact, don't use a cell phone or the internet, because someone somewhere is skimming your data, whether it's a person or a computer doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you really saying that your advice is to stop using the internet or any other stuff if I care a bit about security or privacy (aka I'm paranoid, right!), seroiusly?

tryin said:
Take a look at the screenshoot..
Secondly,
you really saying that your advice is to stop using the internet or any other stuff if I care a bit about security or privacy (aka I'm paranoid, right!), seroiusly?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Basically, yes. If something this negligible is bothering you, then you have bigger problems to worry about. Also the screenshot is saying that the audio is downloaded to your device automatically, not by someone else (even if it is). Anything that goes into or comes out of Whatsapp has been through their servers.
Solution? Don't use Whatsapp.

Product F(RED) said:
Anything that goes into or comes out of Whatsapp has been through their servers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And then? I don't understand the link...

I don't understand your link; you're saying that somehow the fact that voice messages are automatically downloaded to your phone are a breach of security... What about text messages then? Don't they work the same way?

I said that download automatically any type of file, (not text that in this context seems to be not executable) STINK of security breach...

Product F(RED) said:
What are you talking about? First of all, you can turn off the option of auto-downloading various file types in the app settings. Secondly, EVERYTHING you use Whatsapp for is passing through their servers (I'm assuming it's encrypted, because a while ago it was cleartext). If you're that paranoid about having your information read, don't use it. As a matter of fact, don't use a cell phone or the internet, because someone somewhere is skimming your data, whether it's a person or a computer doing it.
They also don't send out updates every 2 days. I have no idea what you guys are talking about. Their updates come months apart. They get their "funding" from user subscriptions...It's 99 cents for a year and $3 for 3 years. Multiply that by however many users they have (more than that of any other service) and you have a LOT of revenue. They've been doing this for years. Their app spans Android, iOS, Windows Phone, BB OS, Bada, Symbian, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha, no it's not secure neither good encrypted. Anyway, it's almost free and easy to use. Aslong as you dont share very private stuff you shouldnt care about privacy..

You should always care about privacy. This whole "if you're not doing anything illegal, you shouldn't care" mentality is how we got here to begin with.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Samsung Galaxy SIII, via Tapatalk.

meskes said:
You should always care about privacy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree!

With this apps,our privacy is very respected just scantly