[chetmanley]

Hello,

I want to start out by stating that I believe Blackberry makes the most secure devices on the market today for reasons I've stated in a number of threads on the topic.

So my concern is not that BB is making an insecure device. My concern is they are no longer making Private devices - which is in complete contradiction of their advertising and not in the spirit of statements made recently by John Chen regarding his views on privacy and data collection.

I've also noticed a troubling trend on BB devices. With every software update since the Priv, we've seen system applications become more and more chatty with their home corporations, whether that's Blackberry/TCL, Qualcomm, Google or the many analytical firms out there.

One of these system applications in particular, the new Dual App Service, also connects home with the developer of the service LBE Tech and Facebook.

This new Dual App Service is the most concerning to me because, as far as I know, it is the first example of a system application on a Blackberry Android device which is connecting to facebook social graph without user consent or knowledge, even while the app is not in use.

So now we have an application, baked into the OS by TCL/BB, which cannot be disabled, that is connecting with Facebook. This, IMO, is unacceptable.

Update - It is possible to disable this app using this method: https://forums.crackberry.com/blackb...ethod-1168996/


This application, as far as I can tell (since I can't find any official BB and BB Mobile documentation on it) was never developed by BB, Google, nor TCL. It is a 3rd party service created by LBE Tech which also created Parallel Space which is available on Google Play.

From what I can tell, when this service is used to "clone" an application like Whatsapp for example, the service simply starts up it's preinstalled version of Whatsapp. This "clone" has its own permissions (more than the standard app), and makes its own connections beyond the scope of the original application.

In addition, connections are not made directly from this cloned app, but instead are routed through the Dual App Service, which connects to facebook, google, and LBE Tech.

This service dormantly houses the it's own versions of the following applications on the device, whether you've installed the real application or not:

-Instagram
-Facebook Messenger
-QQ
-WeChat
-Weibo
-Whatsapp

While these applications remain dormant until "cloned", all of those applications are privacy nightmares and I certainly wouldn't install them on my device if given the choice.

I find this very troubling considering this dual application service cannot be disabled.

This brings me to Firewalls. Thanks to applications like Netguard, these bad actors can be blocked and monitored.

If Blackberry really wants to set itself apart from the crowd when it comes to Privacy, they need to put their money where their mouth is. Show the average consumer what really goes on behind the scenes with their devices, and show them the best way to combat it, is with a Blackberry.

DTEK is great, it could be far better if they could combine it with a firewall functionality, especially one which does not require the VPN service to function.

Applications permissions only scratch the surface - they are the tinsel of true privacy control.

My final point - TCL sells a device in China with no reliance on Google services. That right there is half the battle. This sets a precedent which shows it is possible.

Blackberry/TCL - Please offer a version of your future devices which are clean slates - No baked in Google, no Tencent or Baidu. Just the bare essentials required to get the phone to run. Let the user choose what they want to install on their devices, and offer it to all markets.

In closing, I really hope Blackberry/TCL take a close look at what it means to make a private device going forward. They are in a unique position to capitalize on this, and they clearly understand that based on their advertising. Sadly, they are not delivering in my opinion.

Maybe the mods and power users on this forum with connections can bring these concerns to the folks at TCL and BB.

Blackberry could be the poster child in the battle against the facebooks of the world, but it needs to first take advantage of what people already know - that they make the most secure devices on Earth - and apply that to privacy.

Cheers

@BlackBerry Mobile
@BlackberrySupportTeam
@JohnAtBlackBerry
@bbwng
@BB_RobertL

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Get a few million other customers and they'll jump right on it.

Sadly the market for a device that won't easily access Google's Services... is not very large. Just look at the efforts that BB10 users went through to add that ability.

I do think that BlackBerry could have taken DTEK much further, and given users an option for a more secure phone. But it's probable not a viable product, and BlackBerry isn't in a position to take risk on small niches (ones smaller than what they are selling to now).

Too be honest the best thing BlackBerry could do is allow rooting, so that those wanting more security could install a custom ROM.

[chetmanley]

Get a few million other customers and they'll jump right on it.

Sadly the market for a device that won't easily access Google's Services... is not very large. Just look at the efforts that BB10 users went through to add that ability.

I do think that BlackBerry could have taken DTEK much further, and given users an option for a more secure phone. But it's probable not a viable product, and BlackBerry isn't in a position to take risk on small niches (ones smaller than what they are selling to now).

Too be honest the best thing BlackBerry could do is allow rooting, so that those wanting more security could install a custom ROM.

They already provide that device - in China. Now they just need to make it available to all markets to buy online, and preferably without any of the potential spyware goodies baked into the Chinese version sans google.

As for Rooting, I too would like that option. However, that will not increase security, it will only degrade it. What it would allow for is increased privacy by allowing the user to control system applications and install a no-root firewall.

[chetmanley]

Here are a couple screen shots showing the connections being made behind the scenes by the Dual App Service.

The 1st is of two connection attempts that were just made on my device, first on IP4 and then IP6 when that failed. I do not have any cloned apps created nor running.

The 2nd screen shot is of the activity created by the Whatsapp clone. As you can see, connections are made to google, LBE Tech and Facebook Social Graph. The real Whatsapp application only makes connections to Whatsapp (Facebook) but no facebook social graph.

[Vistaus]

They already provide that device - in China. Now they just need to make it available to all markets to buy online, and preferably without any of the potential spyware goodies baked into the Chinese version sans google.

As for Rooting, I too would like that option. However, that will not increase security, it will only degrade it. What it would allow for is increased privacy by allowing the user to control system applications and install a no-root firewall.

I would love to be able to root the KEY2, but only to change the system font to a more readable font (but that's subjective). Unless BlackBerry somehow integrates that functionality in the core, like Samsung, then no need for root.

[Chuck Finley69]

Hello,

I want to start out by stating that I believe Blackberry makes the most secure devices on the market today for reasons I've stated in a number of threads on the topic.

So my concern is not that BB is making an insecure device. My concern is they are no longer making Private devices - which is in complete contradiction of their advertising and not in the spirit of statements made recently by John Chen regarding his views on privacy and data collection.

I've also noticed a troubling trend on BB devices. With every software update since the Priv, we've seen system applications become more and more chatty with their home corporations, whether that's Blackberry/TCL, Qualcomm, Google or the many analytical firms out there.

One of these system applications in particular, the new Dual App Service, also connects home with the developer of the service LBE Tech and Facebook.

This new Dual App Service is the most concerning to me because, as far as I know, it is the first example of a system application on a Blackberry Android device which is connecting to facebook social graph without user consent or knowledge, even while the app is not in use.

So now we have an application, baked into the OS by TCL/BB, which cannot be disabled, that is connecting with Facebook. This, IMO, is unacceptable.

This application, as far as I can tell (since I can't find any official BB and BB Mobile documentation on it) was never developed by BB, Google, nor TCL. It is a 3rd party service created by LBE Tech which also created Parallel Space which is available on Google Play.

From what I can tell, when this service is used to "clone" an application like Whatsapp for example, the service simply starts up it's preinstalled version of Whatsapp. This "clone" has its own permissions (more than the standard app), and makes its own connections beyond the scope of the original application.

In addition, connections are not made directly from this cloned app, but instead are routed through the Dual App Service, which connects to facebook, google, and LBE Tech.

This service dormantly houses the it's own versions of the following applications on the device, whether you've installed the real application or not:

-Instagram
-Facebook Messenger
-QQ
-WeChat
-Weibo
-Whatsapp

While these applications remain dormant until "cloned", all of those applications are privacy nightmares and I certainly wouldn't install them on my device if given the choice.

I find this very troubling considering this dual application service cannot be disabled.

This brings me to Firewalls. Thanks to applications like Netguard, these bad actors can be blocked and monitored.

If Blackberry really wants to set itself apart from the crowd when it comes to Privacy, they need to put their money where their mouth is. Show the average consumer what really goes on behind the scenes with their devices, and show them the best way to combat it, is with a Blackberry.

DTEK is great, it could be far better if they could combine it with a firewall functionality, especially one which does not require the VPN service to function.

Applications permissions only scratch the surface - they are the tinsel of true privacy control.

My final point - TCL sells a device in China with no reliance on Google services. That right there is half the battle. This sets a precedent which shows it is possible.

Blackberry/TCL - Please offer a version of your future devices which are clean slates - No baked in Google, no Tencent or Baidu. Just the bare essentials required to get the phone to run. Let the user choose what they want to install on their devices, and offer it to all markets.

In closing, I really hope Blackberry/TCL take a close look at what it means to make a private device going forward. They are in a unique position to capitalize on this, and they clearly understand that based on their advertising. Sadly, they are not delivering in my opinion.

Maybe the mods and power users on this forum with connections can bring these concerns to the folks at TCL and BB.

Blackberry could be the poster child in the battle against the facebooks of the world, but it needs to first take advantage of what people already know - that they make the most secure devices on Earth - and apply that to privacy.

Cheers

@BlackBerry Mobile
@BlackberrySupportTeam
@JohnAtBlackBerry
@bbwng
@BB_RobertL

Without Google Play Services, you end up with little more than a BB10 like device. There’s no economic success because consumers don’t want to give up convenience for privacy. The solution is to not do business with people that want your data. If that means you give up Android/IOS, then do so. There’s nothing forcing either side to do business with the other, except for modern day convenience. Stand your ground, use whatever device or apps you desire and in 12-24 months, reevaluate the mobile landscape.

[chetmanley]

Without Google Play Services, you end up with little more than a BB10 like device. There’s no economic success because consumers don’t want to give up convenience for privacy. The solution is to not do business with people that want your data. If that means you give up Android/IOS, then do so. There’s nothing forcing either side to do business with the other, except for modern day convenience. Stand your ground, use whatever device or apps you desire and in 12-24 months, reevaluate the mobile landscape.

What, in your opinion, makes Google Play Services so critical? I can tell you that in my experience, it is not required in any way, shape, or form. It's sole function is data collection.

Making a device without Google Play Services does not turn it into BB10. It still runs modern android applications normally. There are already a number of threads discussing this topic and I don't want to stray off course.

I'm not arguing that Blackberry abandon devices with Google pre-installed. That would be illogical due to the market considerations you mentioned.

What I am recommending is they offer a device, a PRD if you will, that does not have this bloatware installed for those of us who don't want a device where 90% of the pre-installed applications are effectively spyware, and I'd imagine government and corporate customers would appreciate that also.

I would also like them to reconsider their use of the Dual Services App because of the privacy concerns I described above. I love the idea, but their implementation is flawed, and frankly appears to be lazy.

Based on the current trend, in 12-24 months the privacy landscape on BB is bound to get worse. Which is why I'd rather not wait, and would hope BB reverses course sooner rather than later.

[Chuck Finley69]

What, in your opinion, makes Google Play Services so critical? I can tell you that in my experience, it is not required in any way, shape, or form. It's sole function is data collection.

Making a device without Google Play Services does not turn it into BB10. It still runs modern android applications normally. There are already a number of threads discussing this topic and I don't want to stray off course.

I'm not arguing that Blackberry abandon devices with Google pre-installed. That would be illogical due to the market considerations you mentioned.

What I am recommending is they offer a device, a PRD if you will, that does not have this bloatware installed for those of us who don't want a device where 90% of the pre-installed applications are effectively spyware, and I'd imagine government and corporate customers would appreciate that also.

I would also like them to reconsider their use of the Dual Services App because of the privacy concerns I described above. I love the idea, but their implementation is flawed, and frankly appears to be lazy.

Based on the current trend, in 12-24 months the privacy landscape on BB is bound to get worse. Which is why I'd rather not wait, and would hope BB reverses course sooner rather than later.

If there was true money to be made, it would be offered by somebody already. Whatever business model every Android OEM has in place, is dependent on whatever revenues are expected for including GPS on every device manufactured. If large, high volume OEMs don’t want to create in essence, more differentiation in product lines, small niche OEM like BBMo surely doesn’t want to do this. Look at the problems already caused with different PRDs regarding just security updates.

You’re asking BBMo to implement a unique business model that doesn’t allow them full benefits of the Android OS from revenue standpoint. TCL doesn’t fully support TCT which itself limits BBMo and it’s economic resources. The reality of Facebook after two full years of investigations and revelations of shared data, is the vast majority of consumers don’t care. It’s more profitable to lose those customers that wish this device than attempting to serve the low demand for lower profit or probable loss. Same with the Dual Services App offered. If the choice is as-is to stay in business or shut down from not enough revenue, what should BBMo do? As business owner, I get requests from people everyday to sell my product at break even or loss. I choose to let those people be someone else’s customer or problem. As business, I’m not a nonprofit organization and neither is BBMo from what I gather.

[bb10adopter111]

BlackBerry Mobile has no commitment that I've seen to privacy. I think there is a niche for someone to focus on that, and I think Apple is currently the best phone (besides BB10) for protecting privacy, though I dislike almost everything else about their phones.

I'm think if one of the larger brands released a security and privacy-enhanced phone, it would sell very well. But BlackBerry's PKB-only policy locks them out of launching a second niche line of products for now.

It's early, but there will be a market for privacy-protecting IoT devices if all sorts. I just wouldn't expect that to come from BlackBerry Mobile. But I know I'll be one of the first buyers!

Posted with my trusty Z10

[Chuck Finley69]

BlackBerry Mobile has no commitment that I've seen to privacy. I think there is a niche for someone to focus on that, and I think Apple is currently the best phone (besides BB10) for protecting privacy, though I dislike almost everything else about their phones.

I'm think if one of the larger brands released a security and privacy-enhanced phone, it would sell very well. But BlackBerry's PKB-only policy locks them out of launching a second niche line of products for now.

It's early, but there will be a market for privacy-protecting IoT devices if all sorts. I just wouldn't expect that to come from BlackBerry Mobile. But I know I'll be one of the first buyers!

Posted with my trusty Z10

I agree with you on IOS and feel they’ve locked up the proprietary OS with proprietary device market.

I somewhat disagree on the Android side from revenue standpoint. I believe the OEMs have some kind of revenue dependent model with the Google ecosystem that subsidizes Google so as not to offer. The lawsuit about bundling GPS in Europe was somewhere along those lines.

I also think privacy issues might help Apple more than Google since the revenue system is set different. The disagreement is purely the revenue aspect and consumer indifference. Average person concerned with privacy would generally move to Apple first, psychologically divorcing Google ecosystem.

[bb10adopter111]

I agree with you on IOS and feel they’ve locked up the proprietary OS with proprietary device market.

I somewhat disagree on the Android side from revenue standpoint. I believe the OEMs have some kind of revenue dependent model with the Google ecosystem that subsidizes Google so as not to offer. The lawsuit about bundling GPS in Europe was somewhere along those lines.

I also think privacy issues might help Apple more than Google since the revenue system is set different. The disagreement is purely the revenue aspect and consumer indifference. Average person concerned with privacy would generally move to Apple first, psychologically divorcing Google ecosystem.

I think, as device growth stalls, we'll see someone try to differentiate their offering in response to consumers' growing awareness that their privacy is being aggressively compromised. It's early, as I said, but I think privacy is something that a subset of people will pay to protect. If Apple gets really serious about it (as I think they might) things will get interesting.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[co4nd]

BlackBerry Mobile has no commitment that I've seen to privacy. I think there is a niche for someone to focus on that, and I think Apple is currently the best phone (besides BB10) for protecting privacy, though I dislike almost everything else about their phones.

I'm think if one of the larger brands released a security and privacy-enhanced phone, it would sell very well. But BlackBerry's PKB-only policy locks them out of launching a second niche line of products for now.

It's early, but there will be a market for privacy-protecting IoT devices if all sorts. I just wouldn't expect that to come from BlackBerry Mobile. But I know I'll be one of the first buyers!

Posted with my trusty Z10

I don't think I would invest in a company producing a privacy phone. Alot of people say they care about privacy, but when push comes to shove few really do. Anyone who really cared anything about privacy would not have anything to do with facebook. Yet look how many people can't function without it.

[bb10adopter111]

I don't think I would invest in a company producing a privacy phone. Alot of people say they care about privacy, but when push comes to shove few really do.

Certainly that's been the general consensus up to now. I see that changing significantly in the coming decade, resulting in more stringent privacy requirements by consumers and through the political process, by regulators. If the producers of mobile phones meet that demand, we'll have market-based solution with winners and losers. If they don't, we'll have a regulated solution, like we're beginning to see in Europe, Australia and Canada.

[chetmanley]

I believe some people are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Blackberry makes conscious decisions on what it packages into its devices.

For some reason earlier this year, TCL thought it would be a great idea to package a piece of software from a 3rd party vendor that contains facebook and google spyware. (Dual App Service) I'm assuming they did this because they couldn't be bothered to develop the software themselves.

It is very simple for them to remove it, or allow us to disable it at the very least.

Privacy is about choices. If people want to use facebook, let them. If they want to use google, let them.

But to differentiate itself from the sea of data sucking slabs out there, Blackberry needs to make a device that gives users the option to NOT use them. Right now its the other way around. We are forced to use them.

They should be developing tools for their devices which let users CHOOSE what they want to share, and with who they want to share it.

I don't understand why anyone would think that is a bad idea. I don't understand anyone who argues against investing in a security company that also provides privacy.... especially in today's climate where more users are becoming aware of what is going.

Right now they have no options - Blackberry could provide them with one.

[Chuck Finley69]

I believe some people are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Blackberry makes conscious decisions on what it packages into its devices.

For some reason earlier this year, TCL thought it would be a great idea to package a piece of software from a 3rd party vendor that contains facebook and google spyware. (Dual App Service) I'm assuming they did this because they couldn't be bothered to develop the software themselves.

It is very simple for them to remove it, or allow us to disable it at the very least.

Privacy is about choices. If people want to use facebook, let them. If they want to use google, let them.

But to differentiate itself from the sea of data sucking slabs out there, Blackberry needs to make a device that gives users the option to NOT use them. Right now its the other way around. We are forced to use them.

They should be developing tools for their devices which let users CHOOSE what they want to share, and with who they want to share it.

I don't understand why anyone would think that is a bad idea. I don't understand anyone who argues against investing in a security company that also provides privacy.... especially in today's climate where more users are becoming aware of what is going.

Right now they have no options - Blackberry could provide them with one.

My opinions are based simply on wasting resources. Since the beginning of Android/IOS, BB and now BBMo have constantly tried using security as main selling point objective. It has utterly failed and BBMo lacks any economic resources commitment from it’s distant parent company TCT and even further away TCL regarding to chase failed strategies.

BBMo needs to stick with basic principle of spending $1 and receiving back $1.25 over and over. Not hoping or wishing for $1.25 or whatever lands in hand from luck. I’m sure BBMo knows what’s going on either directly from BBMo developers or indirectly through BB developers.

[ajohansson]

Beyond privacy, the issue that bugs me is we as end users subsidize the isp, telecom and hardware firms. All this extra activity consumes resources, which eventually we are told we need to upgrade.

For example, one of the first things I have to do every-time I use a new installation of MS Office is turn off all the animations. All it does is make things look nice, but significantly slows down the ability to complete work, even on newer hardware.

Same with smart-phones. All this excess activity chew up battery life, slows down the phone, eats up data and slows down the entire network. It only gets worse as more traffic congests the network if the device has to retry multiple times to get a successful completion.

What I would like to see is that they take a page out of Amazon's Kindle playbook. I intentionally paid extra to buy a Kindle without the ad services. I would gladly do the same and finally upgrade from my BlackBerry Classic to the Key2.

I want a device that works for me. If I want all that extra entertainment, I'll go to the movies.

When our government tries (err does) this kind of activity that we deem private, the public rises up against it, but if private entities do this, the public shrugs. I don't get it why the public (USA) in general seems to feel less concerned about how commercial interests handle private information over the government.

Posted via CB10

[Troy Tiscareno]

What I would like to see is that they take a page out of Amazon's Kindle playbook. I intentionally paid extra to buy a Kindle without the ad services. I would gladly do the same and finally upgrade from my BlackBerry Classic to the Key2.

That's great... but I'd bet that Google would want $300-500 for this, because they make a lot of money from advertising over the life of a smartphone. And at that expense, the few people who would be willing to pay for it doesn't make it worth the cost of implementing and maintaining a separate system.

Essentially, you need to be looking at a rootable phone that is supported by a custom, Google-free, Facebook-free, security-focused Android ROM. That's the only way you're likely to get what you want, because there's just no commercial market for what you want (meaning: the costs involved don't make it practical, for companies or users).

In any case, expecting BB (who doesn't make phones, and wasn't successful with their security focus when they did) to care about this is naive or misinformed. The company that makes BB-branded phones isn't BB Ltd, it's TCL, under is BBMo division, and TCL *does not care* about your desire for privacy from Google or FB or MS or Amazon or the Chinese government. They care about profits, and privacy isn't profitable.

[bobshine]

They already provide that device - in China. Now they just need to make it available to all markets to buy online, and preferably without any of the potential spyware goodies baked into the Chinese version sans google.

As for Rooting, I too would like that option. However, that will not increase security, it will only degrade it. What it would allow for is increased privacy by allowing the user to control system applications and install a no-root firewall.

But the version they provided in China doesn’t have Google services for a totally different reason... it has nothing to do with privacy!

[chetmanley]

But the version they provided in China doesn’t have Google services for a totally different reason... it has nothing to do with privacy!

Ironic then isn't it, that the one device TCL produces that is free from google spyware is only sold in a surveillance state.

[chetmanley]

Essentially, you need to be looking at a rootable phone that is supported by a custom, Google-free, Facebook-free, security-focused Android ROM. That's the only way you're likely to get what you want, because there's just no commercial market for what you want (meaning: the costs involved don't make it practical, for companies or users).

Yes, but as you know that is not possible on BBs and would completely negate what makes them secure in the first place.

However, what is possible is for BB Ltd (who provides the OS Security and actually does care about Privacy based on Chen's latest public statements), to work with TCL (who keeps adding these bobo apps with privacy concerns to our devices) so they are on the same page.

BB Ltd has a vested interest in what TCL does with their brand. Right now, TCL is not aligned with BB Ltd.

In any case, expecting BB (who doesn't make phones, and wasn't successful with their security focus when they did) to care about this is naive or misinformed. The company that makes BB-branded phones isn't BB Ltd, it's TCL, under is BBMo division, and TCL *does not care* about your desire for privacy from Google or FB or MS or Amazon or the Chinese government. They care about profits, and privacy isn't profitable.

According to John Chen, BB Ltd does not monetize or collect user data. I would expect that should extend to their device brands since it's Blackberry Ltd's reputation on the line. Other companies profit from this data - BB/TCL does not. But TCL is enabling other companies to make money off the data on their devices.

Again, TCL ALREADY produces this google free device for the Chinese market. There is no R&D required. They simply need to make this available on Amazon for privacy conscious customers and corporations.

So exactly what cost does everyone seem to think is involved in this endeavor if they already produce the device?

It would be a huge bonus if they would modify the Dual Services App to stop collecting for LBE tech, Google and Facebook while they are at it. (Or just remove it all together until they can create their own solution)

[Chuck Finley69]

Yes, but as you know that is not possible on BBs and would completely negate what makes them secure in the first place.

However, what is possible is for BB Ltd (who provides the OS Security and actually does care about Privacy based on Chen's latest public statements), to work with TCL (who keeps adding these bobo apps with privacy concerns to our devices) so they are on the same page.

BB Ltd has a vested interest in what TCL does with their brand. Right now, TCL is not aligned with BB Ltd.



According to John Chen, BB Ltd does not monetize or collect user data. I would expect that should extend to their device brands since it's Blackberry Ltd's reputation on the line. Other companies profit from this data - BB/TCL does not. But TCL is enabling other companies to make money off the data on their devices.

Again, TCL ALREADY produces this google free device for the Chinese market. There is no R&D required. They simply need to make this available on Amazon for privacy conscious customers and corporations.

So exactly what cost does everyone seem to think is involved in this endeavor if they already produce the device?

It would be a huge bonus if they would modify the Dual Services App to stop collecting for LBE tech, Google and Facebook while they are at it. (Or just remove it all together until they can create their own solution)

First, obviously, BB already knows about the data gathering and doesn’t mind since it agreed to partner with Google. Second, non-Google version still data gathers, it’s just sending that information elsewhere, state government perhaps ?

[chetmanley]

First, obviously, BB already knows about the data gathering and doesn’t mind since it agreed to partner with Google. Second, non-Google version still data gathers, it’s just sending that information elsewhere, state government perhaps ?

Yes - That is the deal with the devil to make their devices relevant again to consumers.

However, what TCL has done is to package software like the Dual Services App that has nothing to do with google's suite of applications. This was a conscious and unnecessary decision on their part and it happens to be something we can't disable, unlike Google's Suite.

Again, privacy is about choice. Before the dual services app TCL added, the only system concerns were Qualcomm and Google. Google can be disabled, Qualcomm can be blocked with Netguard.

These, presumable, were out of TCL's control, but when it comes to Google, we have the choice to not use it - by disabling it.

The dual services app is not out of TCL's control, but cannot be disabled like Google.


As for the non-google version still collecting data.... I'm using the Chinese variant as an example that TCL CAN and DOES produce a non-google device. I stated in my first post that this device likely has other applications collecting data - potentially for state actors as you mentioned.

What I am arguing for is a device which has non of this, and make it available on Amazon. It is very simple to do.

I've asked a couple of the Chinese variant users on the forum for details on what applications are pre-packaged, and which can be deleted or disabled. Unfortunately I haven't found one willing to do testing with netguard yet to monitor system connections to see what is really going on.

[Chuck Finley69]

Yes - That is the deal with the devil to make their devices relevant again to consumers.

However, what TCL has done is to package software like the Dual Services App that has nothing to do with google's suite of applications. This was a conscious and unnecessary decision on their part and it happens to be something we can't disable, unlike Google's Suite.

Again, privacy is about choice. Before the dual services app TCL added, the only system concerns were Qualcomm and Google. Google can be disabled, Qualcomm can be blocked with Netguard.

These, presumable, were out of TCL's control, but when it comes to Google, we have the choice to not use it - by disabling it.

The dual services app is not out of TCL's control, and cannot be disabled like Google.


As for the non-google version still collecting data.... I'm using the Chinese variant as an example that TCL CAN and DOES produce a non-google device. I stated in my first post that this device likely has other applications collecting data - potentially for state actors as you mentioned.

What I am arguing for is a device which has non of this, and make it available on Amazon. It is very simple to do.

I've asked a couple of the Chinese variant users on the forum for details on what applications are pre-packaged, and which can be deleted or disabled. Unfortunately I haven't found one willing to do testing with netguard yet to monitor system connections to see what is really going on.

Which goes back to my original comments about this being a different phone model. So technically it’s another variation than what you’re using. What’s the matter about the one you have? Just continue to use the variant you have. BBMo knows their sales data. If worth offering it would be offered.

Probably Google licensing rules doesn’t allow the device sold in the same markets that Google Play Store required.

[chetmanley]

Which goes back to my original comments about this being a different phone model. So technically it’s another variation than what you’re using. What’s the matter about the one you have? Just continue to use the variant you have. BBMo knows their sales data. If worth offering it would be offered.

Probably Google licensing rules doesn’t allow the device sold in the same markets that Google Play Store required.

That's a very real possibility. As long as Google remains something that can be disabled, then that's something we may have to live with - however we still have the choice.

My concern - and the reason I started this discussion - is that TCL is beginning to run fast and loose with the BB brand if they continue to run counter to what John Chen is saying about their devices.

TCL shouldn't be making their own devices less private. IMO they appear to be willing to do so in order to cut corners in providing new software features like this dual service app.
Companies should be accountable to their customers - we as BB fans and users have a vested interest in what TCL decides to do with their brand license. TCL should have second thoughts about going down this path.

And BB Ltd could do better to give users more choice and control on the data that is shared by further improving DTEK to include a system wide firewall.

Again, I think this is an untapped resource that BB Ltd / TCL can benefit from. BB Ltd realized this 3 years ago when they produced those Priv Commercials about Privacy.

What has changed in the past 3 years is the public is now more conscious to privacy concerns thanks to all the facebook data breaches.

I think a new ad campaign, on a device with system wide connection monitoring built in, plus DTEK and all of the other privacy tinsel blackberry has created over the years, would resonate with consumers and corporations now, more so than is would have even 1 year ago.

There is no device on the market right now that claims to have privacy in mind which actually delivers on it.

Since the Priv, things have been going down hill in this regard.

Sadly, each new android device from TCL shares more and more data on the system level. I know this because I have a Priv, Key1 and Key2 and I monitor the connections on all of them.

A secure device is of no use if it also doesn't provide privacy.

That's like installing a massive vault as your front door to your glass walled house....

[Chuck Finley69]

That's a very real possibility. As long as Google remains something that can be disabled, then that's something we may have to live with - however we still have the choice.

My concern - and the reason I started this discussion - is that TCL is beginning to run fast and loose with the BB brand if they continue to run counter to what John Chen is saying about their devices.

TCL shouldn't be making their own devices less private. IMO they appear to be willing to do so in order to cut corners in providing new software features like this dual service app.
Companies should be accountable to their customers - we as BB fans and users have a vested interest in what TCL decides to do with their brand license. TCL should have second thoughts about going down this path.

And BB Ltd could do better to give users more choice and control on the data that is shared by further improving DTEK to include a system wide firewall.

Again, I think this is an untapped resource that BB Ltd / TCL can benefit from. BB Ltd realized this 3 years ago when they produced those Priv Commercials about Privacy.

What has changed in the past 3 years is the public is now more conscious to privacy concerns thanks to all the facebook data breaches.

I think a new ad campaign, on a device with system wide connection monitoring built in, plus DTEK and all of the other privacy tinsel blackberry has created over the years, would resonate with consumers and corporations now, more so than is would have even 1 year ago.

There is no device on the market right now that claims to have privacy in mind and actually delivers on it.

Since the Priv, things have been going down hill in this regard.

Sadly, each new android device from TCL shares more and more data on the system level. I know this because I have a Priv, Key1 and Key2 and I monitor the connections on all of them.

A secure device is of no use if it also doesn't provide privacy.

That's like installing a massive vault as your front door to your glass walled house....

You’re assuming that BB doesn’t realize this and isn't ok with it’s decision. They cared so little about this, BB left the hardware space. As I stated before, BB and BBMo focus is on profits and going where the new breed of customers support them. Leaving behind the old life, that almost killed them, seems ok with them.

You’re arguing for BB to go back to bad relationship with personification that it will be different. Sometimes divorce is the healthiest option and leaving behind those problems for someone else to deal with is best....

Remember this is the same company dumping BBOS and BB10 at the end of the year 2019, without diehards having alternative solutions. Clearly not their problems or concern since it has never been profitable.... and they no longer believe it ever will be....