[FF22]

I didn't read every page, so don't know if this has been answered, but the Google Camera app has undergone numerous UI changes in this past year.

Easiest way to solve your problem... Open the camera app, swipe from left to right from the left side of the screen, tap the gear/settings icon at the bottom right of the screen (if you're in portrait, top right in landscape), and toggle Save Location off. Again, I didn't read every post in this thread so I don't know if this has already been answered. But I will say that the Google Camera app's UI sucks rocks.

It is now resolved, I hope. It was a setting in either google maps or elsewhere. I did not have my photos backed up to google for "safe keeping and sharing with the world!!!"

I do use the BB Camera app and I do want geotagging for the photos but not to share with Google.

[Wezard]

At the moment my conclusion is that using Android on BlackBerry by definition means handing info to google.

Leave the BlackBerry out, Android by definition IS Google, with all the associated data mining.

[werkregen]

Exchange is a protocol that works for email, contacts, calendars and similar things. There are several public email providers that allow it to be used; I run my own, so all my data remains under my control.

It also is inherently push-enabled, so (in addition) you get fast response, and it is friendly to both threaded conversations and S/MIME encrypted email.

Doesn't exchange copy contacts locally so you can access them offline? If they're local, they might still be accessible by other google apps. Right?

[ubizmo]

I've caught apps doing this on the Priv (the latest was Trip Advisor -- it was pulling high-res location every 10 minutes, and which was good for an immediate delete).

This is another reason to use Greenify. Trip Advisor, an occasionally useful app, it's one of the ones on my hibernate list.

Settings>location tells you which apps are making use of location services, even without Dtek.

[tickerguy]

Doesn't exchange copy contacts locally so you can access them offline? If they're local, they might still be accessible by other google apps. Right?

You can funnel a contact to a specific app (e.g. you have an address) but in general, nope, it doesn't work that way.

For example, I can open Google Maps and type the name of a contact. It won't find it. If I open the contact (in the BlackBerry contacts app) and select the address to drive there, the phone will ask me which app to use (since I have not set a default), and will suggest Waze (which I used last.) When I confirm that it sends the address to the specific app.

Looking at my Google account in the "contacts" list I find that list to be empty. Of course that's because I have denied the Google Maps app access to my contacts in the general sense....



It's not all that difficult to keep the GooglePlex out of your data, but you do​ have to pay attention....

[yyz321]

Exchange is a protocol that works for email, contacts, calendars and similar things. There are several public email providers that allow it to be used; I run my own, so all my data remains under my control.

It also is inherently push-enabled, so (in addition) you get fast response, and it is friendly to both threaded conversations and S/MIME encrypted email.

So you are essentially running your own server? If so, then I would be less inclined to go that route.
Would storing e-mail, contacts, and calendars through a public e-mail service provider be more secure than Google? (ie. Google's servers being safer against outside attacks)

[guygardner73]

Nice pic, F2. Mind if I ask where that is?

Posted via the CB App for PRIV

Just look on Google maps. There's a ton of his photos on there!

PassportSQW100-1/10.3.2.2876

[tickerguy]

So you are essentially running your own server? If so, then I would be less inclined to go that route.

I am running my own infrastructure, yes. Have been for 20 years.

Would storing e-mail, contacts, and calendars through a public e-mail service provider be more secure than Google? (ie. Google's servers being safer against outside attacks)

I suspect that Google is arguably safer than many, but not all. They're certainly better at defense than many, but they're also probably a higher-profile target and thus also take more attempts against them. How that balances out is unknown.

I'm a fairly high-profile target since I used to run an Internet company in the 1990s and a lot of people know who I am. That just means I have to do it "right" or I'll wake up some morning to find all my stuff in China and my disks erased So far that hasn't happened but it's not because they don't try (the logs say otherwise!)

[yyz321]

I am running my own infrastructure, yes. Have been for 20 years.

I suspect that Google is arguably safer than many, but not all. They're certainly better at defense than many, but they're also probably a higher-profile target and thus also take more attempts against them. How that balances out is unknown.

I'm a fairly high-profile target since I used to run an Internet company in the 1990s and a lot of people know who I am. That just means I have to do it "right" or I'll wake up some morning to find all my stuff in China and my disks erased So far that hasn't happened but it's not because they don't try (the logs say otherwise!)

If you were average-joe with an awareness to the importance of security for privacy reasons, would you continue to use a free service from a company such as Google or use a paid service from a hosting company / e-mail service provider?

I've been using Google's services for years so I'm sure they've already data-mined the crap out of my e-mails and contact lists. Would it still be worth switching to a paid service?

[tickerguy]

Maybe.

Ask yourself this:

1. Do you have any need, of any sort, for either (1) signed emails or (2) encrypted ones? If so then you *need* Exchange, since while IMAP doesn't care BlackBerry's hub has no clue how to do S/MIME on anything else. In short the question becomes "do you ever want to send something to someone that is irrefutably yours" (e.g. a contract consent, etc -- if you use your phone for business) or do you ever want anyone to send you something that nobody but you can read? If either question is "yes" then you do not want to use Gmail -- period.

2. As for contacts and calendars those are potentially even more-sensitive than emails, depending on what you do with them. Knowing exactly where you are at a given point in time is quite valuable, and so is your address book. Much here depends on whether you are using your phone for work-related things (again) where such contacts and calendars might be trade secrets with material value and thus worth stealing.

From my point of view and for the sort of work I do I don't want anyone in any of those three resources, thus, I run my own even today. But is it worth it for the "ordinary person"? Depends on what you do for a living and what you use your phone for.

Google bets on the answer being "no" to anyone caring; after all, that's how they make their money (ditto for Facebook and many others.)

[gizmo21]

Oh wow F2 what have you done? Asking for maps to grab your photos and now they're talking bout own own PIM server infrastructure.

[FF22]

Oh wow F2 what have you done? Asking for maps to grab your photos and now they're talking bout own own PIM server infrastructure.

I know!!! I am reading carefully. I have to admit that I don't know an Exchange Server from an Exchange Rate.

But it is comforting to know that I'm not alone in finding the intrusions into PRIVACY on my PRIV(acy) alarming or maybe just very surprising.

Seriously, I was just sitting there and suddenly this Google Notice pops up with my recent photo and a suggestion that I might want to share it with the world. I was not flattered. Shocked that the photo was up-for-grabs when I was pretty certain that I did not allow sync/backup/steal as an option.

I'm not sure that I want BB to feel the brunt of this situation but the Priv is far from secure unless the user carefully dots every I and crosses every T and maintains eternal vigilance. Every day another app is updated and you have to check what's being done with Permissions. And those of us on Verizon has even less control.

Carry On, friends, Romans and countrymen............

[tickerguy]

Well, that's a bit unfair -- unless you're on Verizon.

On Lollipop you're pretty-much hosed. Google didn't do that by accident either; some versions of KitKat had a developer option "left available" that shut off permissions, and they updated the code to revoke it -- on purpose. It was only when Apple went all-in on app-specific permissions that they folded with "M", and had they not.....

Nobody hides good news, of course, which simply lends even more credibility to the precept that it's for evil. But Google isn't the big problem; it's everyone else, and at least DTEK gives you warning on Lollipop (so you can remove it) or shut it off (on M.)

[gizmo21]

But Google isn't the big problem; it's everyone else, and at least DTEK gives you warning on Lollipop (so you can remove it) or shut it off (on M.)

Situation on BB-device with marshmallow:
1. On app install you can't revoke an permission right away, you have to accept and revoke it before you start the app the first time, via DTEK (or prefs->apps). So that could be better.
2. No permissions on preinstalled BB-apps or Google-apps can be revoked in DTEK but in Prefs->Apps. So that could be better.
3. Even if some permission can be revoked you can see in Prefs->Apps-><app name>->***-menu (Action Overflow) "all permissions" which can't be revoked. So that could be better.

[FF22]

Situation on BB-device with marshmallow:
1. On app install you can't revoke an permission right away, you have to accept and revoke it before you start the app the first time, via DTEK (or prefs->apps). So that could be better.
2. No permissions on preinstalled BB-apps or Google-apps can be revoked in DTEK but in Prefs->Apps. So that could be better.
3. Even if some permission can be revoked you can see in Prefs->Apps-><app name>->***-menu (Action Overflow) "all permissions" which can't be revoked. So that could be better.

Is this Pref-Apps a MM feature or have I missed it somewhere in LL?

[tickerguy]

1. On app install you can't revoke an permission right away, you have to accept and revoke it before you start the app the first time, via DTEK (or prefs->apps). So that could be better.

Nonsense; a Marshmallow-compiled (or later) app installs with nothing on, and asks for permissions on first use.

An older-API app installs with the permissions but you don't have to start it before you can go revoke them.

The overflow issue ("all app capabilities") is a somewhat-legitimate complaint -- the most-serious ones there are network access and wakelock, but neither really has a security implication per-se as the former only "gets you" if you've granted the app access to something it is then capable of transporting (e.g. contacts, phone state, location, storage, etc.) There are others, however, that have potential to be at issue (look at the overflow menu for Google Play Services for the best set of examples); the most-serious is the ability to run at startup (which is what is used to detach a listener); the problem with allowing that to be disabled is that any app that has a listener would typically be entirely non-functional without it.

BTW you can revoke a lot of Google Play Services' permissions without having a material impact on functionality, despite it complaining that "ordinary functions" will be disrupted. No they won't, in general. Even the Android Device Manager (allowing you to find the device) will work with most of the Play Service permissions off.

And yes, this is all "M" stuff; Lollipop permits revoking exactly nothing individually, and since you can't uninstall things like Play Services (and if you disable them then the Play Store stops working entirely) you're stuck with them pre-Marshmallow.

[FF22]

Nonsense; a Marshmallow-compiled (or later) app installs with nothing on, and asks for permissions on first use.

An older-API app installs with the permissions but you don't have to start it before you can go revoke them.

The overflow issue ("all app capabilities") is a somewhat-legitimate complaint -- the most-serious ones there are network access and wakelock, but neither really has a security implication per-se as the former only "gets you" if you've granted the app access to something it is then capable of transporting (e.g. contacts, phone state, location, storage, etc.) There are others, however, that have potential to be at issue (look at the overflow menu for Google Play Services for the best set of examples); the most-serious is the ability to run at startup (which is what is used to detach a listener); the problem with allowing that to be disabled is that any app that has a listener would typically be entirely non-functional without it.

BTW you can revoke a lot of Google Play Services' permissions without having a material impact on functionality, despite it complaining that "ordinary functions" will be disrupted. No they won't, in general. Even the Android Device Manager (allowing you to find the device) will work with most of the Play Service permissions off.

And yes, this is all "M" stuff; Lollipop permits revoking exactly nothing individually, and since you can't uninstall things like Play Services (and if you disable them then the Play Store stops working entirely) you're stuck with them pre-Marshmallow.

Keeping blood pressure down as Verizon gets me more and more irritated!

[guygardner73]

Is this Pref-Apps a MM feature or have I missed it somewhere in LL?

Granular app permissions aren't available in lollipop unfortunately.

PassportSQW100-1/10.3.2.2876

[gizmo21]

[COLOR=#333333][FONT=NRegular]
Nonsense; a Marshmallow-compiled (or later) app installs with nothing on, and asks for permissions on first use.

An older-API app installs with the permissions but you don't have to start it before you can go revoke them.

Then I haven't installed many newer API apps

I have never said you have to start the app before revoking, I said you can't revoke right away on installing in Play where you are presented the permissions the app wants.

But then you have to remind yourself of that after install that you first have to go to DTEK to revoke, because the data is gone if you don't and start the app right away e.g. via Play-button "OPEN"

Just saying it could be done better.

[Zeddepher]

This permissions stuff on MM all sounds very Heath Robinson to me. BlackBerry permission control remains to the top dog there. Has anyone tried Android N yet?

��� вℓα�квєяяу ραѕѕρσят ѕιℓνєя є∂ιтιση ���

[Wezard]

Heath Robinson

You must be UK or EU, stateside, we would refer to it as Rube Goldberg

[OnTheFence001]

One of the reasons I will not go OEM android...the other being that because of this, google advertising gets my info.