Database Info

Confessions of a Google junkie (or, Privacy? What privacy?)

the original link.....http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/confessions-of-a-google-junkie-or-privacy-what-privacy/3553
Summary: A lot has been made of Google’s new privacy policy and terms of use. I say bring it on.
There are very few aspects of my life that don’t somehow involve Google. My phone runs on Android, my favorite tablet just got an OTA update to Ice Cream Sandwich (!!!), I use Chrome across all of my computers, I develop AdWords campaigns, I use Analytics to develop metrics for the day job and dive into SEO, I handle many of the CBS Interactive Google webcasts, I use Google Docs almost exclusively for productivity, and my wife doesn’t know where I am half the time until she checks my Google Calendar (which, in fact, aggregate two other Google Calendars).
I’m increasingly turning to Google+ as my source of relevant information and opinions, a function previously reserved for Twitter, and I’ve even dispensed with bookmarks, instead using Google Sites to organize important pages and resources.
I live, eat, breathe, work, and play Google and there aren’t many people more aware of Google’s business model and the amount of data it collects than I. So is it just sheer stupidity and naiveté that has me utterly embracing the Google ecosystem and relatively unconcerned about newly announced privacy policies that have caused so much consternation this week? Before you jump down to the talkbacks to tell me how stupid I really am, read on for another couple paragraphs.
As Larry Dignan pointed out in his post about the new policies last night,
Google noted that it already has all that data, but it’s now integrating that information across products. It’s a change in how Google will use the data not what it collects. In other words, Google already knows more about you than your wife.
From my perspective, though, I can live with Google knowing a lot about me. It knows, for example, that I’ve recently developed an obsession with the electric guitar and have been researching inexpensive models that I might just be able to justify as a birthday present to myself. It doesn’t judge, it just shows me the best deals in display ads on the three models of guitar and 2 models of amps I’ve been reading about the most. My wife isn’t aware of this obsession and her take on it would be judgmental (God love her!): “When will you have time to play guitar? And we’re supposed to be saving money! And what’s wrong with your acoustic guitar?”
Taking this a step further, as Google’s new privacy policies and terms of use do, I should expect to start seeing guitar-related apps in my suggestions in the Google Market and the Chrome Marketplace. Guitarists on Google+ should start appearing in suggested people to add to my circles and Google Reader should offer to download Guitar Player Magazine feeds for me. And, more likely than not, I’ll start seeing more guitar-related ads as well.
Google’s goal, of course, is to sell advertising. That’s about 97% of their revenue. By pulling people like me into their increasingly unified ecosystem, they can demonstrate very high click-through rates to potential advertisers and charge a premium to reach highly targeted and yet incredibly vast audiences.

They need to give me something in return
For me to buy into this, they need to give me something in return. Something to make all things Google really sticky. Like a wide array of free tools from Google Docs to Google Music to Google Voice. And cheap tools that I buy for my business like Google Apps and AdWords. Their new policies are designed to be more transparent, but also to pave the way for these tools to talk to each other better, making them even stickier through a unified experience and more relevant services.
Back to the wife comparison that Larry brought up. My wife knows that every Friday night is pizza night in our house. So does Google, since every Friday around 4:30 I pull out my Android and use Google Voice Search to find the number of whatever pizza joint we decide to patronize that week. Fine. Google, however, can actually do something more useful with that information than my wife can (”Where should I order pizza, sweetheart?” “Wherever, just not that place down the road. Or that other place. And make sure they’re having a deal!”).
Come Friday morning, the ads I see on Gmail or Google search should start being pretty pizza-heavy: Dominos, Papa Johns, and a place or two that has an active Google Offer. As I’m driving home that evening, the GPS on my phone should set off an alert when I drive past a well-reviewed pizza place (assuming I’ve set location-based preferences to alert me to destinations with at least four-star average reviews). And the minute I type a P in my mobile browser, Google Instant should leap into action and display nearby pizza places and a news story about a new place to get pizza in the next town.
We’re not quite there yet, but this is the sort of integration and experience that Google is covering in its new policies and terms of use. I know that my privacy red flags should probably be going off. Google has gigabytes of information about me and is using that information to help its advertisers sell products. That’s bad, right?
Guess what, folks? This is the semantic web
And yet, I don’t think it is. Many of the same techies who cry foul over these new policies have also been pushing for the development of the semantic web to make it easier to find what we actually need in the trillions of web pages floating around the Internet. Guess what, folks? This is the semantic web. When our search engines know what we actually mean, when data on the web automagically becomes information we can use easily and quickly, we’ve arrived.
And the semantic web can’t exist without “the web” (whatever that is) knowing a lot about us. It takes data for a computer to understand our needs and process natural language efficiently. Some of those data will necessarily be fairly personal.
Now, if I start getting spam from pizza places or calls on my Google Voice number from Dominos because Google has sold my contact information and preferences to advertisers, we have a problem and I’ll be waving my privacy flag as high as anyone else. However, when I opt in by opening a Google account and staying logged in as I surf the web, I’m not only consenting to the collection and aggregation of data about me, I’m asking that it be done so that the web and related tools can be more useful to me. This sort of data mining lets me work faster, play easier, and find the best pizza in a 20-mile radius.
For its part, Google needs to remain the trusted broker of these data. No, I don’t like the idea that our government could brand me a terrorist and seize these gigabytes of data under the Patriot Act. The alternative, though, is an ever-growing morass of web sites and tools that I get to dig through manually.
And, by the way, even if I’m not logged in to my Google account as I’m doing it, my ISP knows the sites I’ve visited, too, and could just as easily (if not more so) be compelled to turn over this information to the real Big Brother in all of this.
Far more trust in Google than the Feds
Honestly, I have far more trust in Google than I do in the Feds. Google is motivated by money: they need my trust to keep collecting those data to keep making it easier for me to buy things from Google’s paying advertisers. If that trust is broken by inappropriate sharing of data, then my eyeballs go elsewhere and so do the advertisers who target me via AdWords and AdSense. Our government has no such financial motivation. Money talks.
The fact that the speech recognition on my phone kicks ass because I use Google Voice all the time and it’s learned how I talk might be a little creepy, but it’s far more important that I can do a Google search or send a text while I’m driving without taking my eyes off the road.
Welcome to 2012, folks. The semantic web has arrived. Use it well and let’s keep Google’s new policies in perspective. And Google? Don’t be evil. I have a lot of colleagues who will be pointing, laughing, and saying I told you so if you ever are.

Nice article.
I think the key for Google's continued success is to keep the advertising passive, suggestions when you're searching etc. aren't in your face but they work.
You see a lot of people complaining that they've been searching for something online and then all of the adverts on the websites they visit contain something pertaining to that, and they grumble that it's annoying. Personally, I'd much rather see an advert to something that's relevant to me rather than a cluttered webpage of irrelevant information.
By targeting adverts and increasing their relevance to the individual, they are far more likely to be successful. This means that the revenue per advert is going to improve and websites aren't going to need to cover their website in adverts (at the cost of the user experience) to make it profitable.
Plus given the huge amount of free stuff that google gives you, it's a bit rich for somebody to complain that they're trying to get something back off you.

I too would much rather see things directly targeted towards me then just random ads. And everyone is up in arms about google recording what you do. Well i think of it this way, i'm fine with them getting to know me and my behavior and what i do, as long as they keep providing FREE products for me.

Ahh the good old "If they are going to screw me without consent, I would much rather they knew my name, stroked my hair and whispered sweet nothings into my ear while they did it."
I prefer to treat my online habbits like the strange neighbour a few doors down. Say "hi" in passing, and realise that while they probrobly know more than I would want them to from when I've invited them over for coffee and from peeking in my windows as they walk past, know that I don't actually have to put up with their $#!+ if they become too creepy.
Thats why its important there are alternitives and competition, and that we as consumers don't put our eggs all in one basket and be prepared to protest or move on if they stretch the friendship too far.
I know privacy is impossible in this day and age but that doent mean you have to lie back and take it. "because you know it means well and it does give you nice gifts once in a while"
My suggestion is cut your reliance on any one brand and spread out the load.

hungry81 said:
My suggestion is cut your reliance on any one brand and spread out the load.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like the author am reliant on Google these days. I'd be happy to look at alternatives. Granted they work on the platforms I needs them to, Android 2.X and 3.2, Linux+chrome, windows XP + chrome, and windows 7 + firefox or chrome. The linux requirement cuts out a lot of things, iTunes/iCloud for example.
Have any suggestions who/where i could go for:
Music
Docs
G+
Gmail
Needs a slick webUI, and the searching ability of gmail
Calendar
I need delegation and the ability for my wife to add me to events and share calendars.
Reader
works on all my devices, and syncs between them
I would very much like my phone to know when I leave work. Now i could do this with some sort of timer, but I end up working somewhat flexible hours, and have a leaving time of anywhere within an hour and a half. I would like it to know that since I now have "buy bread, milk, and eggs" on my to-do list (thanks hun!), that it needs to remind me of that on the way home. Even better if it can just direct me to a store with a deal on one or all of those things.
I like that the first hit in Google I get for cookies is the wikipedia page for http cookies and the second is to pythons cookielib module. Where as I bet my grandmother gets, chocolate chip cookies. The ability for Google search to know that I have a particular artist in my collection, and show me the bind's page near the top of the results without me having to add "band" to my search terms.
Anyways, if and when Google starts selling my data to 3rd parties, I'll export my data and move. Google makes it fairly painless to do that.

Mission Impossible: Hardening Android for Security and Privacy

Executive Summary
The future is here, and ahead of schedule. Come join us, the weather's nice.
This blog post describes the installation and configuration of a prototype of a secure, full-featured, Android telecommunications device with full Tor support, individual application firewalling, true cell network baseband isolation, and optional ZRTP encrypted voice and video support (ZRTP does run over UDP which is not yet possible to send over Tor, but we are able to send SIP account login and call setup over Tor independently).
Aside from a handful of binary blobs to manage the device firmware and graphics acceleration, the entire system can be assembled (and recompiled) using only FOSS components. However, as an added bonus, we will describe how to handle the Google Play store as well, to mitigate the two infamous Google Play Backdoors.
Introduction
Android is the most popular mobile platform in the world, with a wide variety of applications, including many applications that aid in communications security, censorship circumvention, and activist organization. Moreover, the core of the Android platform is Open Source, auditable, and modifiable by anyone.
Unfortunately though, mobile devices in general and Android devices in particular have not been designed with privacy in mind. In fact, they've seemingly been designed with nearly the opposite goal: to make it easy for third parties, telecommunications companies, sophisticated state-sized adversaries, and even random hackers to extract all manner of personal information from the user. This includes the full content of personal communications with business partners and loved ones. Worse still, by default, the user is given very little in the way of control or even informed consent about what information is being collected and how.
This post aims to address this, but we must first admit we stand on the shoulders of giants. Organizations like Cyanogen, F-Droid, the Guardian Project, and many others have done a great deal of work to try to improve this situation by restoring control of Android devices to the user, and to ensure the integrity of our personal communications. However, all of these projects have shortcomings and often leave gaps in what they provide and protect. Even in cases where proper security and privacy features exist, they typically require extensive configuration to use safely, securely, and correctly.
This blog post enumerates and documents these gaps, describes workarounds for serious shortcomings, and provides suggestions for future work.
It is also meant to serve as a HOWTO to walk interested, technically capable people through the end-to-end installation and configuration of a prototype of a secure and private Android device, where access to the network is restricted to an approved list of applications, and all traffic is routed through the Tor network.
It is our hope that this work can be replicated and eventually fully automated, given a good UI, and rolled into a single ROM or ROM addon package for ease of use. Ultimately, there is no reason why this system could not become a full fledged off the shelf product, given proper hardware support and good UI for the more technical bits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/mission-impossible-hardening-android-security-and-privacy

Pretty much what Guardian ROM is doing. I look forward to all the new builds
Truth. Transparency. Technology

[Q] Google is moving AOSP default apps to closed-source Google's one on Nexus

Hi everyone,
I always thought that Nexus devices comes with a pure AOSP version with some little closed-source extras, like GApps (Google Mobile Services, Play Store, Gmail, YouTube, Maps...) or hardware drivers. And for a "librist" like me, it seems fine : OS and main userspace parts are opensourced, and Google services are closed-source. All was fine in my beautiful world.
But with some search, I discovered that every time that Google push an AOSP apps on the Play Store, it is actually a closed-clone of the AOSP one.
For example :
AOSP Keyboard is not Google Keyboard (=missing gesture)
Camera is not Google Camera (=missing Photosphere)
Launcher is not "Google Experience Launcher (GEL)" (=missing Google Now Integration, normal, but also transparency)
Music is not Play Music
Search is not Google Now
recently : Email (not Gmail)
etc.
I was not worried about "additionnal closed source services/app of Google in Android" as they are what they are : additionnal.
But the new politic of Google seems to be "we have our Touchwizz/Sense of our own, now".
The main problem is : as far as I can see on the GIT source and with Android Emulator, when Google begins to develop his "alternative closed source apps of an AOSP opensource apps", the AOSP apps seems to be abandonware.
You can compare the look of Google Search (and disable Google Now, to compare properly without Google closed services) and AOSP Search. AOSP Search seems to be from FroYo design... The same with Music player.
What's your point of this situation? Does Google try to make his own front-end interface to AOSP Android like Samsung Touchwiz or HTC Sense?
What devices comes with AOSP by default and not "Android by Google" now, if Nexus is no more the case?
BONUS : Jean-Baptiste Queru, head of AOSP, resigns from Google. I don't know what happens to replace him...
Note : I am French so, if my English is not easily-readable, please forgive me .

*bump*

Here is a point of view of an official Android developers from Google (source : arstechnica[DOT]com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/?comments=1&post=26199423)
There is a good discussion to be had about Microsoft using Android, and a lot of good reasons for them to not do so... which makes it especially unfortunate that instead this was turned into yet another article here of increasingly specious and misleading claims about the "open-sourceness" of Android and Google's hidden plan to Control Android And Then The World.
First, let's make a clear statement. If Android was to be in the same position as Windows is in the PC industry, we'd have a radically more open computing environment, where it is a lot easier for small players to compete against the dominant platform on a more level playing field. I don't think anyone can argue against this. When we were designing and implementing Android at Google, this was actually one of our goals -- to create a more level playing field for everyone -- and that design perspective hasn't significantly changed over the years.
So let’s start with the setup:
Quote:
Google has worked to make Android functionally unforkable, with no practical way to simultaneously fork the platform and take advantage of its related strengths: abundant developers, and abundant applications.
Already we see the clear bias that the article is going to take. There is however another way to state this: Google provides a lot of value on top of Android, with an ecosystem that is difficult to compete with, of cloud-based applications and services that are useful to users and developers. This is at least as true a way to describe as the quoted statement from the article, and I will argue it more accurately states the situation.
The arguments start out soft, but still misleading:
Quote:
The first is the Android Open Source Platform (AOSP) codebase. This provides the basic bones of a smartphone operating system: it includes Android's version of the Linux kernel, the Dalvik virtual machine, and portions of the basic user interface (settings app, notification panel, lock screen).
AOSP is far more than the basic bones of a smartphone operating system. It is a complete smartphone operating system. The examples you provide for what it includes are very misleading -- what about the launcher, contacts app, dialer and phone app, calendar app, camera and gallery and on? The fact is, if you build AOSP today and put it on a phone, you will have a pretty fully functioning platform.
The thing you don’t have is stuff related to cloud services, and this is not an evil secret plan of Google, but a simple fact we have been clear about from the initial design of the platform: Android as an open-source platform simply can’t provide any cloud services, because those don’t run on the device where the platform code runs. This is a key point that seems to be completely missed. If you want to understand what Android is, how it is designed, and how the pieces fit together, you must understand this point.
One of the things that is interesting about platforms today vs. the traditional desktop is that these cloud services are becoming increasingly central to the core platform experience. This presents a special challenge to an open-source platform, which can’t really provide such cloud services as part of the standard platform implementation. In Android our solution to this is to design the platform so that cloud services can plug-in and integrated with it in various ways. These may be stand-alone apps like Google Play Music, they may be plug-in services like the calendar and contacts sync providers, they may be Google proprietary APIs on top of the platform like Google Play services.
Note, however, that in all of these cases the platform has been designed to provide an open, flexible, and rich enough API that these Google services can be delivered using the same standard SDK that other app developers use. This is part of the goal of creating a more level playing field for everyone. (There are some exception where things are very difficult to safely expose to developers, but they are rare -- the Play Store’s privileges for managing your apps is one, and even there we do provide in the platform side-loading APIs so that other app stores can be implemented.)
So, GMS is Google’s proprietary code implemented on top of Android for interacting with Google’s services. There is nothing nefarious about it being proprietary -- it is interacting with Google’s proprietary back-end services, so of course it is proprietary.
Thus this makes perfect sense:
Quote:
The split between AOSP and GMS is not constant, either. Google has slowly been migrating more and more functionality to GMS. For example, in the latest Nexus 5, the core phone user interface—the thing that you use to launch apps and show icons—has been rolled into the GMS Search app.
What has happened here? Google now has their own launcher that integrates with Google’s back-end services. And what is wrong with this? Why is this worse than Facebook or Yahoo doing their own proprietary launcher? It is bizarre to complain about this, especially when Google has open-sourced everything else in their launcher except the parts that are specific to their proprietary services!
And this is the same thing:
Quote:
Similarly, APIs have made the move. AOSP contains a location API, but GMS contains a newer, better one, with additional features. Google encourages developers to use the GMS API, and the AOSP Location API mostly dates back to Android 1.0, and hasn't seen any substantial changes since Android 1.5.
First, it s very misleading to act like the platform’s location manager has been unmaintained since Android 1.5. Important features like passive providers and criteria-based updates were added much later than that; but, even ignoring verifiable facts, the Google Play services location APIs didn’t appear until last year, so what you are actually implying with this is that Google basically didn’t do any significant improvements to location from 2009 to 2013. Probably not true.
The reason for the introduction of Google’s location API, however, is again because of back-end services. Location has become increasingly dependent on cloud services: for a while now network-based location, but increasingly more things. We went for a long time with parts of the platform’s LocationManager basically not implemented because it couldn’t be, with the need for some proprietary thing to be dropped in on top of it to have a fully functioning API. As time went on this became an increasingly bad situation because we don’t want our platform to be defining APIs that it can’t also provide an implementation of, to serve as the basis for everyone to share and a reference for how it should work. So, the decision was made that Google should take responsibility of further evolution of that API since that evolution is increasingly tied to cloud services.
Quote:
Each new release increases the level of integration with Google's own services, and Google is moving more and more new functionality to GMS, leaving AOSP a barebones husk.
This is such an exaggeration that it is really hard to know how to address. AOSP is a barebones husk? Please. AOSP is far richer and more powerful today than it was in 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0. And most importantly, one of the things we have been doing over the years is providing increasingly rich facilities for any cloud services provider to plug in to the platform. For example, in the most recent 4.4 release we have our very extensive new storage framework API, which Google uses to provide their Google Drive services to any application, and allows any other cloud storage provider to do the same thing, operating on equal footing with Google.
Quote:
That's not a small category, either, since features such as in-app purchasing are in GMS.
This gets emphasized as a significant point, but, honestly, how would you propose that in-app purchasing not go through GMS? Some general platform API to allow the app to do an in-app purchase with whoever wants to be a “purchase provider?” I can’t imagine this being a solution that people will be happy with.
Quote:
Technically, however, a company with sufficient development resources could provide its own GMS replacement. The overhead would be not insignificant, especially as—to ensure optimal compatibility—the replacement would have to replicate not just correct functioning, but any bugs or quirks of the GMS implementation.
Of course, the vast vast vast majority of the work here is implementing the back-end services in the cloud, not the proprietary glue code that runs on the device. Failing to address this is deeply missing about what is going on.
Quote:
There are also lots of little awkward aspects of the GMS API; it includes such capabilities as "share with Google+" which few companies have any real counterpart to.
In other words you don’t have your own social network, so you can’t implement Google’s API for sharing to its social network? Okay, then just have the API do nothing? Or heck, share to Facebook?
Quote:
Another example: there is an API for handling turn-based multiplayer gaming. A company could implement this API and have its own server infrastructure for managing the gaming sessions, but obviously these gaming sessions would be completely separate from Google's gaming sessions, fragmenting the player base in a way that game developers are unlikely to be keen on.
Now this could be taken as just a good argument for why Microsoft wouldn’t get as much of a competitive advantage by using AOSP, since they would still be competing with Google’s cloud services. But then it is immediately followed by:
Quote:
As an added bonus, should the ultimate resolution of Google's long-running legal battle with Oracle be that APIs are, in fact, copyrightable, this kind of wholesale reimplementation of GMS would become legally actionable. Google could, if it chose to, shut it down through the courts.
Where in the world did this come from? Google is the one fighting against that. Microsoft actually filed an amicus brief supporting Oracle. Yet you write this almost as if this case would serve part of Google’s evil plan to control Android?
Quote:
The second option—AOSP with a few extra custom extras—has the upside of providing an opportunity for Microsoft to integrate its own services… It would certainly mean omitting any high-profile title using in-app purchasing, so, say, Plants vs. Zombies 2 or the latest iteration of Angry Birds would be out.
It’s strange to focus on in-app purchasing here. The issue is that you don’t have the Google Play store, so you need to get app developers to publish their apps on your own store. In fact providing a compatible in-app purchasing API and otherwise making it easy for them to publish their app without changing it is probably the lesser problem.
Quote:
Google has pushed very significant pieces of functionality into GMS, including messaging and the Chrome browser. The AOSP counterparts are buggy, feature deprived, and by at least some accounts, barely maintained. If a company wants to use AOSP without GMS, it has a lot of work to do if it wants to produce a high quality experience. The open source parts just aren't good enough.
Again the exaggerations. Chrome is available open-source as Chromium (of course without the integration with Google’s back-end services, but why in the world would Microsoft want those?). What parts of AOSP are “buggy” compared to Google’s stuff? In fact a lot of Google’s proprietary apps are built on top of the corresponding AOSP app -- that includes Google’s Launcher, Calendar, Email, and even Gmail now. Messaging has diverged from Hangouts, but Hangouts is deeply integrated into Google services, and there is a similar situation with Music. It would be nice if some of these apps were better maintained, but (a) there are lots of equivalent apps (often based off the AOSP version) that people have written which you could license and use, and (b) implementing these apps is pretty small potatoes compared to all the cloud services Google provides.
Quote:
For Microsoft, the effort required to build a GMS workalike on top of AOSP is going to be comparable to the effort required to build the Windows Phone shell and APIs on top of Windows.
Again, the vast majority of work here is providing the back-end cloud services. Not, as keeps being implied, the proprietary bits that Google has running on Android.
Quote:
Moreover, it still implicitly gives Google control over the platform. Various aspects of how Android is used are determined by the underlying APIs: sharing between applications, for example, is done in a particular Android way. Any platform using Android in this way would have only a limited ability to take the platform in a different direction from the one Google chose.
Okay this is just weird. Yes, the Android platform has a well-defined sharing facility, and if you want to have an Android-compatible platform you will want it to work the same way. Just like, I don’t know, Ubuntu has a C library and you probably don’t want to change that. How in the world is this different from every other open-source platform in the world? How is Google being all controlling here?
Quote:
The fourth option—use AOSP with an entirely new software stack on top—gives freedom and flexibility, but to what end? The kernel isn't the important bit.
Wait, what? The only way I can figure out how to interpret this is to suggest that they use Linux (the kernel) but nothing above it. That can’t be what you mean, right? I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to be saying, except that it again seems to be implying Google is being all nefarious.
Quote:
If Android were an open platform in the way that Firefox OS or Ubuntu for smartphones were an open platform, the forking suggestion would make more sense.
I’ll admit I am not super-familiar with these two, so I have a question: what are the things that they have that are not in AOSP?
And finally we have further blanket statements about how Google’s goal is to make Android increasingly closed, AOSP isn’t real open source, etc, etc. I’ll just leave with the final sentence:
Quote:
Suggestions that Microsoft scrap its own operating system in favor of such a fork simply betray a lack of understanding of the way Google has built the Android platform.
Actually, I don’t think you have an understanding of how Google has built Android. I have been actively involved in designing and implementing Android since early on, and it was very much designed to be an open-source platform. Part of that design was to allow Google (or anyone) to build integrated cloud-based services on top of it, and that aspect of Android design has gotten richer as the years go on. What you are concerned about is not a design problem in Android, but the richness of Google’s cloud-based services.
At least Android creates a much more equal playing field for others to compete with Google’s services than is provided by the proprietary platforms it is competing with. I also think a good argument can be made that Android’s strategy for addressing today’s need to integrate cloud services into the base platform is an entirely appropriate model for a “real” open-source platform to take.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Best back end for Android app?

I appologize if this is a dumb question, but I am new to app development, altough some experienced in php/html.
I want to create an app where user fills in forms. The app development is easy to find info about, but i also want a back end plattform where I read the submitted forms and organize users.
So, my question. Is there a sort of ready wordpress like plattform to customize, or should this be built from scratch? If so, which platform is the best?

One note I should add about Buddy (full disclosure: I work there) is that we maintain independent instances of the platform in different locations around the world. If you need to host your backend in Europe (for response time or data sovereignty reasons, for example), you can choose your app backend to be sandboxed in the EU. Likewise the US and likewise China (with Brazil, Singapore and Australia coming soon).

he best way to develop mobile apps is to use REST services. So now you can choose any thing.
Any language that can used for server side programming can be used.
Now it is up to you choose the language.
If you familiar with JavaScript then you can try nodejs. You can make small app server in it.
But if your server software design is very complex (containing threads and synchronisation) then java can be handy.
But there is no restriction of language.

Firebase should be also a way to go for this.

The best android back end services include, Parse, Kumulos, Kinvey, backendless, QuickBlox.
Concerning the forms where users can fill up information, would something like help out?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...solutions.fasp
On Apple's platform you might need an iPhone developer - it is quite possible to create and publish an iPhone app using your form.
I did take the help of mobile apps development service in toronto to know the process which is described here: http://support.brightcove.com/en/app-cloud/docs/step-step-guide-publishing-apple-app-store-using-mac

Thanks Carol for sharing such a wonderful article.

"Planet Odoo | About | Odoo Migration, Odoo -Quickbook Integration
Odoo-Ebay Integration takes into consideration the competitive level in business and provides a quick fix implementation for every industry to break through.

I have heard good things about Hasura (Not affiliated in anyway). And I think parse - mentioned above - is no longer available.

I'm wondering why nobody mentioned Google CLoud or AWS. They are most mobile friendly for a good price

Hi, if you will decide to build from scratch, there are different options/frameworks. But If you use kotlin you should look to Ktor.

Backend options for an Android app
Here, The list of good backend options for an Android app:
1. Parse.
2. Back4app.
3. Firebase.
4. Kinvey.
5. Appcelerator.

Are PRIVACY concerns overrated?

The single most important, most debated subject of being online - privacy and security.
While security is undisputed, privacy aspect is.
So what exactly is the concern? As normal people in normal professions (which is easily more than 90% of the population), is there a need for worry?
For a long time since I started using smartphones, I had a natural inclination towards remaining anonymous and private online. I would always use incognito browsing for everything I do online, never create an account with a service as much as possible (e.g. I would watch YouTube videos without signing in), etc.
With time, I began realizing that I am actually missing out on so many interesting things that matter to me, and much of the content that would interest me would be made available to me without much effort using machine learning and artificial intelligence, an area where huge investments are being made.
So slowly I started accessing content and using services with my Google account. Over time, everything from Google feed to YouTube videos were showing me content that I am interested in, and sometimes they were so intelligent that I have been amazed with the whole technology that is at works. Surely, you cannot expect a doctor to give you the right prescription without giving him complete details about your problems. You can't talk privacy there. So unless the system learns what you like and what you don't, there is no way it will present stuff (including ads) that will be interesting to you.
With that said, why are are we overemphasizing this aspect of our lives? Is the privacy lobby inflating the privacy problem more than is necessary? Especially since much of what Google learns (according to them) about you is private, and only you can access/ control it, and also because the open-source alternatives are overrated. I say overrated because there are no audit reports (from trustworthy audit entities) available. Their codes may be available for audit, but is there a trustworthy source that is actually auditing them? Are the platforms where they are available being audited? So the issue of privacy and security applies to these platforms too, and more so because they aren't scrutinized as heavily as Google products and services.
As far as more personal info is concerned, like location, age, gender, searches I perform, accounts, mobile number, etc - Google already has all those because I provided them with much of that info when I created my account. Sure, one can always provide fake info for some of them. But if you use 'Find my Device', you are pretty much giving away your location to Google REAL-TIME. While this can potentially be misused, how else is Google supposed to help you if you were to lose your device? Mobile numbers and email addresses are necessarily required to be correct because they are needed when you are locked out of your account. They are the only means to get your account back.
While I am a strong proponent of privacy, I also feel that too much is made out about a lot of stuff that aren't really something to worry about. Those stuff are essential to get the service we expect in return, in other words, putting technology to use.
That said, it is still important not to give anyone a free hand over data, and there has to be several layers of checks and balances, and accountability for safeguarding and using them.
All that said, my current position is this. Make best use of the technology at hand, because if you don't provide the necessary inputs, there cannot be a proper output.
As with some things that we do online which we might want to keep completely private, use a non-google browser (like Firefox Focus or Duck Duck Go) in incognito mode with Duck Duck Go search engine.
For everything else, use GOOGLE (assuming there is accountability and severe penalties for violations).

Reserved for additional info.

@Ultramanoid
We may continue the discussion here.
I have a few specific questions for which I haven't found answers. May be you or others could answer them. I'll compile them and post these later.

Sridhar Ananthanarayanan said:
@Ultramanoid
We may continue the discussion here.
I have a few specific questions for which I haven't found answers. May be you or others could answer them. I'll compile them and post these later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a hard time understanding how you can say you're a strong proponent of privacy, while at the same time justifying how you exchange yours for convenient services.
I can't justify that exchange, and yet use, work in, and develop in an IT field. No Google account here. So it'd be difficult to discuss the issue when our basic premises and understanding of the situation are completely opposed.
I want a good mail service, so I PAY for it, with MONEY, and I assure you it beats all the tech prowess and illusions of magic that GMail and its indecent, immoral, and insulting data mining and tracking provide. Same for everything else.
The aberration that is 'service' ( lower quality feature set, no support, security issues, client is the product ) for information, which, as mentioned in MiX's thread, also has the tremendously damaging side effect of reducing to zero the value of good honest developer work. 'Google gives it for free' -- No, it doesn't, and no, it's not free.
Edit : And by the way, giving your data away not only puts you at risk, it puts others at risk as well. Unacceptable.
　

Ultramanoid said:
I have a hard time understanding how you can say you're a strong proponent of privacy, while at the same time justifying how you exchange yours for convenient services.
I can't justify that exchange, and yet use, work in, and develop in an IT field. No Google account here. So it'd be difficult to discuss the issue when our basic premises and understanding of the situation are completely opposed.
I want a good mail service, so I PAY for it, with MONEY, and I assure you it beats all the tech prowess and illusions of magic that GMail and its indecent, immoral, and insulting data mining and tracking provide. Same for everything else.
The aberration that is 'service' ( lower quality feature set, no support, security issues, client is the product ) for information, which, as mentioned in MiX's thread, also has the tremendously damaging side effect of reducing to zero the value of good honest developer work. 'Google gives it for free' -- No, it doesn't, and no, it's not free.
Edit : And by the way, giving your data away not only puts you at risk, it puts others at risk as well. Unacceptable.
　
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You spoke of making 'reasonable compromises' on the MiX thread.
I have only elaborated the same. How does it matter if Google learns what I like to search on the internet? I am willing to give them that information so that they can provide me with content I am interested in, so that my news feed is mostly content I like to read/ watch, and little garbage. In the process, if they are showing me ads relevant to me, what is wrong with it?
My view is based only on this premise that this is how my data is being used. I have never had a financial security issue (like money being stolen from my account) because of what Google learns about my internet activity.
Also, I am assuming that Google won't learn anything about the searches I may do in incognito mode. They are supposed to respect the privacy. I'm aware they have been sued for not adhering to it strictly.
So assuming that they stick with usage of data as per their declared privacy policies and in accordance with laws, what is the problem?

Sridhar Ananthanarayanan said:
You spoke of making 'reasonable compromises' on the MiX thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As to security. As long as you rely on someone else's software, some company's cables and infrastructure, there's no other way.
No reasonable compromise on privacy in the "service x information" business model. It needs to die.
Edit : Have a look at this; https://privacytools.io ( "Privacy? I don't have anything to hide." )
　

my view on this is:
i agree, you should protect privacy as much you're able to, but if you need some services and you need "to give up privacy" for acquiring that service you need, then for me it's legit.
i wouldnt go all crazy on privacy as many go (to completely ditch google, windows, and become open source - privacy - government consipiracy evangelist), but i wouldnt rely on them for my whole life.
yes, i use google calendar and notes and all my data is on google, and if google go down or misuse my data, maybe i will lose that data but still i can easily use on another platform one stop working or is not trustworthy (publicly misuses data)
i love to use custom ROMs not to ditch google or become privacy conscious (using f-droid and living under rock without google services) but to ditch stock ROM from manufacturer as i dont like any manufacturer stock ROM, i want just their hardware, and software i want to be my choise.
for normal people storing something on google, microsoft, apple is not at all bad idea, when you store not that important or sensitive data on google. but i would never upload any top secret, sensitive data on any those services, as they WILL allow governemnt to exctract data (like edward snowden said ), so anyone from governemnt can access it or even misuse it, but if you dont store top secret sensitive info on those services you are fine.
if you want to store top secret sensitive data you would make it and encrypt it and store local copies.
and for google search, same applies, you will be fine with normal use, use firefox and duckgo , and also ingonito dont respect any privacy, it just make to browser not to store history, everything else is visible to them, unless you use firefox and duckgo.
and also many say vpn secure you (ones you buy) , but i wouldnt trust not even them (even if you pay), if you want to have encrypted connection you better MAKE your own VPN server (you can buy remote linux server online and make it as VPN), carrier to whom you pay for server dont care what you store on server (because you pay for it) and if governement comes to there he wont be able to provide anything.
but still even with all said, i dont advocate on trusting government as they dont care about freedom or rights, they care just about power, so protect privacy as much you are able to, but dont go all crazy on it, because best way to be secure on internet is not to use it at all, as at the end of the day dont forget that all intel, arm, amd chips (hardware) are hackable and exploitable to survevilance if they want to
EDIT: and also always remmeber, if you are censored for your rights, you have full right to protect your right, but i didnt got censored for searching for something on google. maybe google censored it to control media, but everyone do it, even media is manipulating you with fake news.
like if i am in china and i cant open news that reveal china government because china censorshiped that source "for greated good", i would use linux, tor and vpn so i can bypass censorship to know what's right. as long you dont face censorship for your rights it still okay to use those services, but if someone censorship for your rights, then its time to act and stand up for yourself, and not accept anyone's "censorship for greater good".

You know what's funny, people talking about privacy (intrinsically security also), yet many (and by many I mean the majority) of ROMs released on XDA are released without source code. Devs link to some other sources other than the source to be able to build the project. Here is an example. So while privacy is important, security is highly problematic with this modding model we all follow. Not to mention flashing different unchecked magiks modules.

Ultramanoid said:
As to security. As long as you rely on someone else's software, some company's cables and infrastructure, there's no other way.
No reasonable compromise on privacy in the "service x information" business model. It needs to die.
Edit : Have a look at this; https://privacytools.io ( "Privacy? I don't have anything to hide." )
　
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the moment you are online, you are presenting yourself to be tracked. No matter what tools you use to safeguard your privacy, a country's intelligence has an upper hand because they have the resources and much more advanced technology that is not commercially available.
They can also set up something like the link you shared as just another means to track you (by misleading you into believing that you are remaining private and anonymous).
I think one can truly stay private only by staying away from technology. Otherwise, you are just opening yourself up for tracking.

atttoush said:
You know what's funny, people talking about privacy (intrinsically security also), yet many (and by many I mean the majority) of ROMs released on XDA are released without source code. Devs link to some other sources other than the source to be able to build the project. Here is an example. So while privacy is important, security is highly problematic with this modding model we all follow. Not to mention flashing different unchecked magiks modules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope, check here
XDAevDB Information
[ROM][UNOFFICIAL][10.0.0][raphael] LineageOS 17.1, ROM for the Redmi K20 Pro
Source Code: http://bigota.d.miui.com/V11.0.1.0....NGlobal_V11.0.1.0.QFKINXM_5e75bba584_10.0.zip
this is source code for ROM, they are always released somewhere, github, dont matter, but they are released, you just need to look it up

indestructible master said:
nope, check here
XDAevDB Information
[ROM][UNOFFICIAL][10.0.0][raphael] LineageOS 17.1, ROM for the Redmi K20 Pro
Source Code: http://bigota.d.miui.com/V11.0.1.0....NGlobal_V11.0.1.0.QFKINXM_5e75bba584_10.0.zip
this is source code for ROM, they are always released somewhere, github, dont matter, but they are released, you just need to look it up
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not a source code ... Just because it says source code, it doesn't mean it's a source code. That's a zip file containing the OEM firmware from Xiaomi.

indestructible master said:
my view on this is:
i agree, you should protect privacy as much you're able to, but if you need some services and you need "to give up privacy" for acquiring that service you need, then for me it's legit.
i wouldnt go all crazy on privacy as many go (to completely ditch google, windows, and become open source - privacy - government consipiracy evangelist), but i wouldnt rely on them for my whole life.
yes, i use google calendar and notes and all my data is on google, and if google go down or misuse my data, maybe i will lose that data but still i can easily use on another platform one stop working or is not trustworthy (publicly misuses data)
i love to use custom ROMs not to ditch google or become privacy conscious (using f-droid and living under rock without google services) but to ditch stock ROM from manufacturer as i dont like any manufacturer stock ROM, i want just their hardware, and software i want to be my choise.
for normal people storing something on google, microsoft, apple is not at all bad idea, when you store not that important or sensitive data on google. but i would never upload any top secret, sensitive data on any those services, as they WILL allow governemnt to exctract data (like edward snowden said ), so anyone from governemnt can access it or even misuse it, but if you dont store top secret sensitive info on those services you are fine.
if you want to store top secret sensitive data you would make it and encrypt it and store local copies.
and for google search, same applies, you will be fine with normal use, use firefox and duckgo , and also ingonito dont respect any privacy, it just make to browser not to store history, everything else is visible to them, unless you use firefox and duckgo.
and also many say vpn secure you (ones you buy) , but i wouldnt trust not even them (even if you pay), if you want to have encrypted connection you better MAKE your own VPN server (you can buy remote linux server online and make it as VPN), carrier to whom you pay for server dont care what you store on server (because you pay for it) and if governement comes to there he wont be able to provide anything.
but still even with all said, i dont advocate on trusting government as they dont care about freedom or rights, they care just about power, so protect privacy as much you are able to, but dont go all crazy on it, because best way to be secure on internet is not to use it at all, as at the end of the day dont forget that all intel, arm, amd chips (hardware) are hackable and exploitable to survevilance if they want to
EDIT: and also always remmeber, if you are censored for your rights, you have full right to protect your right, but i didnt got censored for searching for something on google. maybe google censored it to control media, but everyone do it, even media is manipulating you with fake news.
like if i am in china and i cant open news that reveal china government because china censorshiped that source "for greated good", i would use linux, tor and vpn so i can bypass censorship to know what's right. as long you dont face censorship for your rights it still okay to use those services, but if someone censorship for your rights, then its time to act and stand up for yourself, and not accept anyone's "censorship for greater good".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I said, we are overemphasizing on many of the things and linking them to privacy. Much of the seemingly private things have no bearing in real life, even when made public. Because, no matter where you are, you have to adhere to the local laws and your internet activity isn't important (unless one is into prohibited activities).
It is a very niche segment of people (like those working for intelligence, journalists, etc.) that must pay special attention. For most others, there isn't too much to worry about, as long as the companies providing services adhere to data regulations and act with responsibility.

atttoush said:
You know what's funny, people talking about privacy (intrinsically security also), yet many (and by many I mean the majority) of ROMs released on XDA are released without source code. Devs link to some other sources other than the source to be able to build the project. Here is an example. So while privacy is important, security is highly problematic with this modding model we all follow. Not to mention flashing different unchecked magiks modules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Few months back, I made a decision to stop using custom ROMs. This decision is made easier by OEMs promising 3 to 4 years of software/ security updates.
OEM ROMs are largely scrutinized. Custom ROMs are not. You never know what they bake into their codes. There is absolutely no assurance on them respecting your privacy or security.

Sridhar Ananthanarayanan said:
Few months back, I made a decision to stop using custom ROMs. This decision is made easier by OEMs promising 3 to 4 years of software/ security updates.
OEM ROMs are largely scrutinized. Custom ROMs are not. You never know what they bake into their codes. There is absolutely no assurance on them respecting your privacy or security.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not the case with few established ROMs. Lineage OS comes to mind. As they encourage people to build ROMs from source. But device support is problematic. That's why I turn to custom ROMs. It's a great idea, but I thought XDA ROMs guaranteed security with the GPL and Open source philosophy. But it's being violated all over the place.

Sridhar Ananthanarayanan said:
Few months back, I made a decision to stop using custom ROMs. This decision is made easier by OEMs promising 3 to 4 years of software/ security updates.
OEM ROMs are largely scrutinized. Custom ROMs are not. You never know what they bake into their codes. There is absolutely no assurance on them respecting your privacy or security.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which OEMs are these ? Please mention one and point to where and how their code can be reviewed. Almost none provide support for a device after 2 or 3 years. Almost none are scrutinized because their additions to Android are proprietary and closed source, they barely release kernel changes and those only because they are legally obliged, sometimes even after the device which uses that kernel is not even on sale anymore.
Partial exception for SONY, that provides repositories for AOSP support for many of their devices, and sometimes have released blobs ( not code ) for their drivers and cameras. This is the rare exception, not the rule.
Almost no OEMs provide timely security updates incorporating Google's monthly patches for critical vulnerabilities. Some pile them up in batches, leaving devices vulnerable for months and even years. Stagefright, bluetooth, Qualcomm ... They don't give a crap.
Get the facts straight.
Lineage, in contrast, is developed in plain sight by hundreds of developers revising the code every single day, include Google's vulnerability patches religiously every month and have provided fixes time and again for things Google and OEMs don't bother to fix. They also support devices securely years after OEMs have completely abandoned them.
LineageOS
A free and open-source operating system for various devices, based on the Android mobile platform. This is a mirror of https://review.lineageos.org/ - LineageOS
github.com
Edit : Remember that this is a developers' forum, by developers for developers. Checking and editing code daily is what we do.
Edit 2 : Can't comment as to other 'custom ROMs', from which it may very well be better to stay away.
　

Ultramanoid said:
Which OEMs are these ? Please mention one and point to where and how their code can be reviewed. Almost none provide support for a device after 2 or 3 years. Almost none are scrutinized because their additions to Android are proprietary and closed source, they barely release kernel changes and those only because they are legally obliged, sometimes even after the device which uses that kernel is not even on sale anymore.
Partial exception for SONY, that provides repositories for AOSP support for many of their devices, and sometimes have released blobs ( not code ) for their drivers and cameras. This is the rare exception, not the rule.
Almost no OEMs provide timely security updates incorporating Google's monthly patches for critical vulnerabilities. Some pile them up in batches, leaving devices vulnerable for months and even years. Stagefright, bluetooth, Qualcomm ... They don't give a crap.
Get the facts straight.
Lineage, in contrast, is developed in plain sight by hundreds of developers revising the code every single day, include Google's vulnerability patches religiously every month and have provided fixes time and again for things Google and OEMs don't bother to fix. They also support devices securely years after OEMs have completely abandoned them.
LineageOS
A free and open-source operating system for various devices, based on the Android mobile platform. This is a mirror of https://review.lineageos.org/ - LineageOS
github.com
Edit : Remember that this is a developers' forum, by developers for developers. Checking and editing code daily is what we do.
Edit 2 : Can't comment as to other 'custom ROMs', from which it may very well be better to stay away.
　
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't say that OEMs make their source codes available. I said they are scrutinized. Scrutinized by security researchers around the world, who may or may not be funded by competition. There is lot of benefits by doing so because OEMs can use this as an opportunity to push sales of their own devices. Example is the clipboard scandal of OnePlus, as well as others.
Compare that to custom ROMs. There are so many custom ROMs available for popular devices. Official builds, unofficial builds, nightlies, etc. etc. The ROMs are available for free. Who cares to audit/ scrutinize these? No one cares because there is nothing to gain. This is also because a very minute % of Android users actually install custom ROMs. So no one cares.
Just like root, the need for custom ROMs is decreasing by the day. OEMs are now promising upto 3 years of Android upgrades and 4 years of security updates, atleast for their flagship devices. And now the Google-Qualcomm partnership that is making these upgrades easier and faster. Unlike in the past, OEMs are much faster in releasing security updates today.
Lineage official builds, in my experience, isn't feature rich like some other custom ROMs or unofficial forks of Lineage. People may opt for Lineage official builds primarily for two reasons:
1. Debloat their OEM software like those from Xiaomi, Huawei, even Samsung.
2. OEM has stopped providing official support (this is now changing because 3 to 4 years of official support is synonymous to life of the device because a large % of people usually buy a new device every 3 or 4 years).
Some of the developers of custom ROMs are arrogant arses. That's another reason to tell them to eff-off.

Sridhar Ananthanarayanan said:
I said they are scrutinized. Scrutinized by security researchers around the world, who may or may not be funded by competition.
OEMs are now promising upto 3 years of Android upgrades and 4 years of security updates, atleast for their flagship devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Which security experts ? We have some in XDA whose daily job is precisely that, have you spoken to them ? I don't know of a single audit of any OEM's version of Android. Please mention or link at least one if you think they exist.
2. Which OEMs ? I don't know of a single OEM providing support of any kind for any of their devices ( maybe OnePlus barely reaches 3 for some of theirs, again, a very rare exception ) beyond 3 years, much less 4.
Provide real data points or stop speculating on vague promises and supposed security experts somewhere. When I say LineageOS is available, you can see it is. You can also build SONY's AOSP from their code. ( Edit : https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/ )
One thing is to express an opinion, another to give facts.
　

Ultramanoid said:
1. Which security experts ? We have some in XDA whose daily job is precisely that, have you spoken to them ? I don't know of a single audit of any OEM's version of Android. Please mention or link at least one if you think they exist.
2. Which OEMs ? I don't know of a single OEM providing support of any kind for any of their devices ( maybe OnePlus barely reaches 3 for some of theirs, again, a very rare exception ) beyond 3 years, much less 4.
Provide real data points or stop speculating on vague promises and supposed security experts somewhere. When I say LineageOS is available, you can see it is. You can also build SONY's AOSP from their code. ( Edit : https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/ )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fact 1: OnePlus is collecting your private data without permission
Fact 2: Engineer Mode
Fact 3: Clipboard Scandal
Fact 4: Shot on OnePlus
Fact 5: MiUI stealthily sending user data back to China
Fact 6: Xiaomi Recording Millions Of People’s ‘Private’ Web And Phone Use
...
Thats just some of them. If you search, you will find more.
In most of these cases, it is some security researcher somewhere in the world who found a questionable activity that goes against acceptable privacy and security standards. In other cases, it was some random user who found a vulnerability or some unacceptable practice.
The point? Number of users of stock ROMs are way way higher than those that use custom ROMs, and as a result someone somewhere might find something either accidentally, or as part of security research work (paid by competition or otherwise).
OEMs will be careful when they make their ROMs. They are not only under scrutiny, but also need to ensure they stick with doing the right things because they have a business to run. The same isn't true for custom ROMs that some nobody will make and act like trash when questioned. Thats also because the product is free (or may not be depending on what is baked into the codes) and so the developer may think he isn't answerable.
Ultramanoid said:
One thing is to express an opinion, another to give facts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now you may point out the opinions. All the above are actually facts, that support my previous comment.

Sridhar Ananthanarayanan said:
Fact 1: OnePlus is collecting your private data without permission
Fact 2: Engineer Mode
Fact 3: Clipboard Scandal
Fact 4: Shot on OnePlus
Fact 5: MiUI stealthily sending user data back to China
Fact 6: Xiaomi Recording Millions Of People’s ‘Private’ Web And Phone Use
...
Thats just some of them. If you search, you will find more.
In most of these cases, it is some security researcher somewhere in the world who found a questionable activity that goes against acceptable privacy and security standards. In other cases, it was some random user who found a vulnerability or some unacceptable practice.
The point? Number of users of stock ROMs are way way higher than those that use custom ROMs, and as a result someone somewhere might find something either accidentally, or as part of security research work (paid by competition or otherwise).
OEMs will be careful when they make their ROMs. They are not only under scrutiny, but also need to ensure they stick with doing the right things because they have a business to run. The same isn't true for custom ROMs that some nobody will make and act like trash when questioned. Thats also because the product is free (or may not be depending on what is baked into the codes) and so the developer may think he isn't answerable.
Now you may point out the opinions. All the above are actually facts, that support my previous comment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What all that proves is that OEMs are pure solid garbage, thank you for agreeing. Rest the case already. ^_^
Sorry to hear you still prefer to stand by out of date systems, unsecured protocols, and shady immoral companies. It is useless to discuss when you keep insisting on sustaining your biased opinion against hard evidence -- that YOU yourself provided.
Cheers !
　

Ultramanoid said:
What all that proves is that OEMs are pure solid garbage, thank you for agreeing. Rest the case already. ^_^
Sorry to hear you still prefer to stand by out of date systems, unsecured protocols, and shady immoral companies. It is useless to discuss when you keep insisting on sustaining your biased opinion against hard evidence -- that YOU yourself provided.
Cheers !
　
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are simply exaggerating it.
Like the saying goes, better to trust the known devil than the unknown angel.
Cheers!