11-20-15 08:33 AM
52 123
tools
  1. harper_ei's Avatar
    I fail to understand why Blackberry failed so miserably on the privacy account on BB Priv!?

    Since there is obviously no privacy to be found in the device, but only some random security, and since Silent Circle has turned its back to the consumer with the SilentOS corporate platform on Blackphone 2, there is noone out there to provide the end consumer with privacy on a mobile device.

    Marshmellow is unfortunately a joke. Despite the fact that you can set granular permissions for single apps, many of them will not function if you do so, and Google still denies you the opportunity to cut internet connectivity to particular apps. It is also still impossible to delete preinstalled Google apps on even the latest android phones, despite the fact that most people never use many of them. And with the fact that Google hysterically hangs on to the "allways online" regime, no user of an android device, or any other device for that matter, will ever be able to live unexploited on a smartphone device.

    The really big question is however still why the majority of people do not demand this massively?? I simply fail to understand how come most people let themselves be exploited by governments and multinational corporations, by handing over deeply personal information and giving them unlimited access to monitor and pry on their daily lives.

    We NEED a phone maker or phone company to make a statement! This is a phone for the people to protect the people! I thought Silent Circle was that statement. Instead they turned their business towards the governments and corporations they set out to protect the end-consumer from in the first place. What a pity.

    SO! Why Blackberry, WHY did you so miserably fail to provide us with PRIVACY?

    Will you make it up to us?

    /H
    lift and Mansoor2 like this.
    11-17-15 10:53 AM
  2. Al moon's Avatar
    google and most apps on the play store are a joke. look thru the permissions on some of these apps why would such a simple app like double tap screen on/off need permissions to look at pictures, emails, contacts seriously wth is wrong with all this and this "security" is a joke if you disable one thing the app wont function properly its all baloney
    lift and Mansoor2 like this.
    11-17-15 11:17 AM
  3. o4liberty's Avatar
    Android is a very open and sometimes dangerous system I believe blackberry has a hand on the security.

    Posted via CB10
    11-17-15 11:18 AM
  4. Lobwedgephil's Avatar
    How have they failed?
    11-17-15 11:21 AM
  5. Al moon's Avatar
    How have they failed?
    because atm its just like any other android phone as far as app security goes, you cant turn off certain things for certain apps, you cant take away permissions that you dont want them to use
    lift likes this.
    11-17-15 11:43 AM
  6. ccfixx's Avatar
    Marshmallow is unfortunately a joke. Despite the fact that you can set granular permissions for single apps, many of them will not function if you do so, and Google still denies you the opportunity to cut internet connectivity to particular apps. It is also still impossible to delete pre-installed Google apps on even the latest android phones, despite the fact that most people never use many of them. And with the fact that Google hysterically hangs on to the "always online" regime, no user of an android device, or any other device for that matter, will ever be able to live unexploited on a smartphone device.
    Google's whole business model relies on people being connected to their services, so why would they want to create a device that doesn't somehow rely on their services? There are, obviously, ways that you can disable all Google tracking on your device, but you're gonna have to put in a little bit of work to root and remove the stuff yourself. If you don't want to you use certain apps and can't uninstall them, then just disable them. It's no different than Samsung, HTC, LG, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. putting their own apps onto phones that you can't uninstall.

    As far as Marshmallow and its permissions option now, a big problem lies in the fact that many developers have not updated their apps to follow the new permissions system, so when you try to remove permissions from certain third party apps you get a warning saying that the app may not work properly. That's all because the developers haven't update their apps. If they would update their apps for Marshmallow, then the apps should still fully work minus the features you decide to not allow.

    The really big question is however still why the majority of people do not demand this massively?? I simply fail to understand how come most people let themselves be exploited by governments and multinational corporations, by handing over deeply personal information and giving them unlimited access to monitor and pry on their daily lives.
    To answer this as objectively as I can, I just don't think the majority of the people in the world either don't care about such things or they're not even aware that it's happening. And, if the people aren't feeling any kind of personal backlash from it, then why would those people even care what's going on? I'm a month away from turning 38, so I experienced plenty of years without cell phones and internet service, but I'm still one of those many people that really don't care what's going on because I don't feel personally affected by any of it. I've had my credit/debit card numbers stolen many times over the years (two months ago again, actually), but nothing terribly major happened to me either time that my banking company didn't react to resolve as soon as possible. Was it a minor inconvenience? Sure, but my life goes on. It's similar to why I have no interest in politics... I've lived through a number of presidents so far, but I've never felt an impact on my life for the better or worse, so to me, whoever is in office makes no difference to me because it's all the same stuff. Also, we could all die tomorrow, so what does it really matter? Sure, protect your identity and privacy while you're here living, but what does it all matter in the big scheme of things... not much from where I'm standing.
    Last edited by ccfixx; 11-17-15 at 12:19 PM.
    11-17-15 12:05 PM
  7. tw1g_007's Avatar
    You don't have to ditch BB10 devices dude. I am still keeping my Passport SE for sensitive data. My Priv is just a play phone for media consumption.

    вιaсĸвεггч ᕵαssρσяτ SE via CB10 (cricket OS 10.3.2.2474) вιaсĸвεггч ᕵяiv via CB for Android 2.0.3 (TMo OS Lollipop 5.1.1)
    11-17-15 12:11 PM
  8. harper_ei's Avatar
    Since many apps require direct access to your SMS, contacts and phone call log, I am looking forward to the day where your wife is able to google your conversations with your mistress.

    Then we can discuss privacy on more sense-full terms.
    11-17-15 12:20 PM
  9. ccfixx's Avatar
    Since many apps require direct access to your SMS, contacts and phone call log, I am looking forward to the day where your wife is able to google your conversations with your mistress.

    Then we can discuss privacy on more sense-full terms.
    Is this because all men are cheating pigs and, therefore, have a mistress? It sounds like there's a bigger issue going on than privacy. If someone is doing something that they shouldn't be doing, then they deserve to be called out and exposed, right? I don't see how your statement makes any kind of sense when it comes to privacy. If your argument for privacy is based on someone cheating on their spouse, then, like I said, there's a bigger issue going on than privacy.
    11-17-15 12:29 PM
  10. cdavisunlimited's Avatar
    I fail to understand why Blackberry failed so miserably on the privacy account on BB Priv!?

    Since there is obviously no privacy to be found in the device, but only some random security, and since Silent Circle has turned its back to the consumer with the SilentOS corporate platform on Blackphone 2, there is noone out there to provide the end consumer with privacy on a mobile device.

    Marshmellow is unfortunately a joke. Despite the fact that you can set granular permissions for single apps, many of them will not function if you do so, and Google still denies you the opportunity to cut internet connectivity to particular apps. It is also still impossible to delete preinstalled Google apps on even the latest android phones, despite the fact that most people never use many of them. And with the fact that Google hysterically hangs on to the "allways online" regime, no user of an android device, or any other device for that matter, will ever be able to live unexploited on a smartphone device.

    The really big question is however still why the majority of people do not demand this massively?? I simply fail to understand how come most people let themselves be exploited by governments and multinational corporations, by handing over deeply personal information and giving them unlimited access to monitor and pry on their daily lives.

    We NEED a phone maker or phone company to make a statement! This is a phone for the people to protect the people! I thought Silent Circle was that statement. Instead they turned their business towards the governments and corporations they set out to protect the end-consumer from in the first place. What a pity.

    SO! Why Blackberry, WHY did you so miserably fail to provide us with PRIVACY?

    Will you make it up to us?

    /H
    I think you need to be more specific on how you define "privacy". Privacy and Security can be found at the Hardware level (and BlackBerry DID provide features at this level), it can be found at the kernel level (Again, BlackBerry DID provide features at his level), it can be found at the storage level (i.e. encrypted database/external SD cards which the Priv offers), Application level (this falls more inline with what you referenced about Marshmallow's app restrictions, and BlackBerry put DTEK in place for a short term notification level solution), data transmission level (i.e. encrypted texts/phone calls/ emails/ etc. Which Blackberry offers in conjunction with their BES suite, and many one off applications provide in the Play Store. On a side note, if hardware Man in the Middle attacks like stingray are introduced, your data will be available to governments or third parties no matter what you do), and User level security(this is more at the kernel level but I separate it out in my mind. And depending on who you listen to - like the Copperhead team - BlackBerry may not have done any work here outside of how the standard Linux kernel handles things).

    So to make a broad statement like "why did BlackBerry fail to provide us with Privacy" is not only absolutely false, it also doesn't help identify what you actually think of when you think of privacy or help identify specific fixes that might be good to include. In fact, it actually just shows your lack of knowledge when it comes to the way mobile software and hardware actually work (and specifically how they work with Linux).
    slowrvr likes this.
    11-17-15 12:29 PM
  11. harper_ei's Avatar
    I think you need to be more specific on how you define "privacy". Privacy and Security can be found at the Hardware level (and BlackBerry DID provide features at this level), it can be found at the kernel level (Again, BlackBerry DID provide features at his level), it can be found at the storage level (i.e. encrypted database/external SD cards which the Priv offers), Application level (this falls more inline with what you referenced about Marshmallow's app restrictions, and BlackBerry put DTEK in place for a short term notification level solution), data transmission level (i.e. encrypted texts/phone calls/ emails/ etc. Which Blackberry offers in conjunction with their BES suite, and many one off applications provide in the Play Store. On a side note, if hardware Man in the Middle attacks like stingray are introduced, your data will be available to governments or third parties no matter what you do), and User level security(this is more at the kernel level but I separate it out in my mind. And depending on who you listen to - like the Copperhead team - BlackBerry may not have done any work here outside of how the standard Linux kernel handles things).

    So to make a broad statement like "why did BlackBerry fail to provide us with Privacy" is not only absolutely false, it also doesn't help identify what you actually think of when you think of privacy or help identify specific fixes that might be good to include. In fact, it actually just shows your lack of knowledge when it comes to the way mobile software and hardware actually work (and specifically how they work with Linux).
    Where Priv fails is that it does not provide me with privacy against snooping applications like for example the Blackphone does with its compartmentalisation solution. Neither does it stop Google from constantly probing your data. The Priv fails to be able to stop individual apps from accessing contacts, sms, call log, calendar etz. The latest reading I have seen, so does Marshmallow.

    I understand all the technologies provided by BB, and none of them are able to protect me from this. Yet, it is SO simple to provide. I therefore fail to understand WHY they did not!?

    The only phone that does so is Blackphone atm, and the several rooted hacks like heavily customised and app'ed up Cyanogenmods and CopperheadOS. CopperheadOS has further implied directly that BBs implementation of the 5.1.1 is a patchwork solution, and that much is yet to be done.
    theboogeyman likes this.
    11-17-15 12:39 PM
  12. harper_ei's Avatar
    Is this because all men are cheating pigs and, therefore, have a mistress? It sounds like there's a bigger issue going on than privacy. If someone is doing something that they shouldn't be doing, then they deserve to be called out and exposed, right? I don't see how your statement makes any kind of sense when it comes to privacy. If your argument for privacy is based on someone cheating on their spouse, then, like I said, there's a bigger issue going on than privacy.
    This is such a sad answer. So you believe that there is some higher authority that should call down right and wrong, and that moral and ethics are universals that should be governed by mobile phone apps!? Is that what you want?

    Then tell me: Who defines this right and wrong? You?

    That is a joke, right?
    11-17-15 12:42 PM
  13. cdavisunlimited's Avatar
    Where Priv fails is that it does not provide me with privacy against snooping applications like for example the Blackphone does with its compartmentalisation solution. Neither does it stop Google from constantly probing your data. The Priv fails to be able to stop individual apps from accessing contacts, sms, call log, calendar etz. The latest reading I have seen, so does Marshmallow.

    I understand all the technologies provided by BB, and none of them are able to protect me from this. Yet, it is SO simple to provide. I therefore fail to understand WHY they did not!?

    The only phone that does so is Blackphone atm, and the several rooted hacks like heavily customised and app'ed up Cyanogenmods and CopperheadOS. CopperheadOS has further implied directly that BBs implementation of the 5.1.1 is a patchwork solution, and that much is yet to be done.
    So it sounds like you're more worried about application level security. First of all, the way Cyanogen handles application level security is with the Xposed framework. Which by the way you can install on your Priv right now without needing to root the device. So if your argument is that the Priv doesn't provide the same level of Application security as Cyanogen, then install Xposed.

    Second of all, the Blackphone was zero day hacked in a matter of minutes at Devcon and has since been laughed out of the consumer market (which is why they "switched" their market focus).

    The issue of Privacy happens at so many different levels, and while BlackBerry address quite a few of these levels, if you think it didn't go far enough, then install the Xposed framework on your Priv, decline Google Services EULA so that it doesn't run on your phone, and only use encrypted phone/text applications which are available in abundance. Application level security is actually the easiest level of security to fix in today's mobile market.
    anon9133023 and slowrvr like this.
    11-17-15 12:47 PM
  14. harper_ei's Avatar
    So it sounds like you're more worried about application level security. First of all, the way Cyanogen handles application level security is with the Xposed framework. Which by the way you can install on your Priv right now without needing to root the device. So if your argument is that the Priv doesn't provide the same level of Application security as Cyanogen, then install Xposed.

    Second of all, the Blackphone was zero day hacked in a matter of minutes at Devcon and has since been laughed out of the consumer market (which is why they "switched" their market focus).

    The issue of Privacy happens at so many different levels, and while BlackBerry address quite a few of these levels, if you think it didn't go far enough, then install the Xposed framework on your Priv, decline Google Services EULA so that it doesn't run on your phone, and only use encrypted phone/text applications which are available in abundance. Application level security is actually the easiest level of security to fix in today's mobile market.
    Installing Xposed (XPrivacy) apps will not solve the issue since I would then have to hand over trust of my private information to third party developers. Besides I doubt that it will work on the Priv. Has anyone tried? Can you provide a link?

    Second. The Blackphone 1 was rooted because someone got physical access to the phone. The exploit was shut down and was not related to SilentOS but to Android. BP2 is much more robust. Silent Circle further has a 3 day update service. And they did not shift focus because of the root episode. They went where the money is, and therefore also lost their virginity.

    Denying the EULA will also cut you from the apps stores, and force you to install third party apps. Probably not the best way to achieve privacy and little less security.
    theboogeyman likes this.
    11-17-15 12:58 PM
  15. lift's Avatar
    BlackBerry does not protect your privacy on the Priv. That was a marketing gimmick. DTEK tells you about all the privacy leaks after the fact. So What!! It does nothing to help you stop any of it.
    I agree with the OP. The Priv is no better than any other android device when it comes to privacy. Sure, BlackBerry secured the boot sector and the kernel so rooting will be impossible but that's it. There are other OEM phones that have yet to be rooted also.
    Sorry, but android isn't and never will be private. Google will always be sure to keep it that way. BlackBerry trying to sell what they claim to be a private version of android is nothing but fraud.
    11-17-15 01:01 PM
  16. BoldMaverick's Avatar
    I fail to understand why Blackberry failed so miserably on the privacy account on BB Priv!?

    Since there is obviously no privacy to be found in the device, but only some random security, and since Silent Circle has turned its back to the consumer with the SilentOS corporate platform on Blackphone 2, there is noone out there to provide the end consumer with privacy on a mobile device.

    Marshmellow is unfortunately a joke. Despite the fact that you can set granular permissions for single apps, many of them will not function if you do so, and Google still denies you the opportunity to cut internet connectivity to particular apps. It is also still impossible to delete preinstalled Google apps on even the latest android phones, despite the fact that most people never use many of them. And with the fact that Google hysterically hangs on to the "allways online" regime, no user of an android device, or any other device for that matter, will ever be able to live unexploited on a smartphone device.

    The really big question is however still why the majority of people do not demand this massively?? I simply fail to understand how come most people let themselves be exploited by governments and multinational corporations, by handing over deeply personal information and giving them unlimited access to monitor and pry on their daily lives.

    We NEED a phone maker or phone company to make a statement! This is a phone for the people to protect the people! I thought Silent Circle was that statement. Instead they turned their business towards the governments and corporations they set out to protect the end-consumer from in the first place. What a pity.

    SO! Why Blackberry, WHY did you so miserably fail to provide us with PRIVACY?

    Will you make it up to us?

    /H
    I don't want to address the BlackBerry portion of your argument. For that, I have no solutions.

    However, regarding Silent Circle, while they have shifted focus toward governments and corporations rather than consumers, if you like their phone, couldn't you purchase it regardless of what their marketing content says?

    BlackBerry markets, primarily, toward a similar audience. Yet, any of us willing to pay the appropriate fees can choose to use BlackBerry phones and services. Couldn't you do the same with Silent Circle?

     Posted via CB10 on my Q10 
    11-17-15 01:01 PM
  17. lift's Avatar
    First of all, the way Cyanogen handles application level security is with the Xposed framework. Which by the way you can install on your Priv right now without needing to root the device.
    I call complete BS on this. Xposed requires root so I stopped reading the rest of your post after that.
    Mansoor2 likes this.
    11-17-15 01:03 PM
  18. crackbb10's Avatar
    There is still BlackBerry 10 or Legacy OS for you.
    11-17-15 01:05 PM
  19. ccfixx's Avatar
    So you believe that there is some higher authority that should call down right and wrong,
    There already is a higher authority that dictates right and wrong... it's called government and law enforcement.

    and that moral and ethics are universals that should be governed by mobile phone apps!? Is that what you want?
    Morals and ethics, for the most part, are governed by society and individuals. Obviously, many people in the world have differing morals and ethics, and those people have their own idea of what's "right" and what's "wrong." I'm sure every person throughout the dawn of time involved in wars due to religion felt like they were right in their actions when killing others over a differing opinion. Is killing someone over a difference of opinion ethical or morally sound, though? You're talking about privacy on an electronic, though, which I don't think has anything to morals and ethics.

    Then tell me: Who defines this right and wrong? You?
    You used an example of having a mistress and being caught by a wife when it concerns privacy, which I believe is a terrible example in the point you're trying to make. If someone believes it's morally okay to have a mistress, then that's their prerogative, but it's, obviously, not okay or they wouldn't be worried about trying to keep it hidden or their spouse finding out about it.
    11-17-15 01:07 PM
  20. lift's Avatar
    There already is a higher authority that dictates right and wrong... it's called government and law enforcement.



    Morals and ethics, for the most part, are governed by society and individuals. Obviously, many people in the world have differing morals and ethics, and those people have their own idea of what's "right" and what's "wrong." I'm sure every person throughout the dawn of time involved in wars due to religion felt like they were right in their actions when killing others over a differing opinion. Is killing someone over a difference of opinion ethical or morally sound, though? You're talking about privacy on an electronic, though, which I don't think has anything to morals and ethics.



    You used an example of having a mistress and being caught by a wife when it concerns privacy, which I believe is a terrible example in the point you're trying to make. If someone believes it's morally okay to have a mistress, then that's their prerogative, but it's, obviously, not okay or they wouldn't be worried about trying to keep it hidden or their spouse finding out about it.
    Why are you guy's talking about this. Can we stay on the Priv and android privacy issue and keep cheating husbands and wives out of this.
    11-17-15 01:09 PM
  21. ccfixx's Avatar
    Why are you guy's talking about this. Can we stay on the Priv and android privacy issue and keep cheating husbands and wives out of this.
    Hahaha. I've been thinking the exact same thing as I was replying. I'll stay out of it.
    lift likes this.
    11-17-15 01:12 PM
  22. cdavisunlimited's Avatar
    Installing Xposed (XPrivacy) apps will not solve the issue since I would then have to hand over trust of my private information to third party developers. Besides I doubt that it will work on the Priv. Has anyone tried? Can you provide a link?

    Second. The Blackphone 1 was rooted because someone got physical access to the phone. The exploit was shut down and was not related to SilentOS but to Android. BP2 is much more robust. Silent Circle further has a 3 day update service. And they did not shift focus because of the root episode. They went where the money is, and therefore also lost their virginity.

    Denying the EULA will also cut you from the apps stores, and force you to install third party apps. Probably not the best way to achieve privacy and little less security.
    Well now I'm really confused as to what you're trying to accomplish other than trolling. You make statements like "Cyanogen has privacy" and then when I suggest installing Cyanogen's specific application security framework you say "no that's not secure", even though you just said it was secure when used with Cyanogen?

    Then when I point out that the Blackphone can and has been easily hacked, and that you can install Silent Circle's encrypted communication app on your Priv you say "no that's not secure", which again contradicts your 3 previous posts about the Blackphone.

    Then you claim that Google Play Services does not respect your privacy, and when I suggest not using them (and using something else like the Amazon store, which btw is EXACTLY what is used on many BB10 devices) you say "no that's not secure, going away from the Google Store would be less secure". So you contradicted your own statements at least 3 times and haven't pointed to a single specific change that you think could be made to fix these alleged "privacy concerns" you keep vaguely talking about.

    So it's pretty clear that this is a troll thread and actually providing real information and solutions won't do any good here. So enjoy.
    11-17-15 01:13 PM
  23. kbz1960's Avatar
    Get a flip phone.
    donnation likes this.
    11-17-15 01:18 PM
  24. harper_ei's Avatar
    Well now I'm really confused as to what you're trying to accomplish other than trolling. You make statements like "Cyanogen has privacy" and then when I suggest installing Cyanogen's specific application security framework you say "no that's not secure", even though you just said it was secure when used with Cyanogen?

    Then when I point out that the Blackphone can and has been easily hacked, and that you can install Silent Circle's encrypted communication app on your Priv you say "no that's not secure", which again contradicts your 3 previous posts about the Blackphone.

    Then you claim that Google Play Services does not respect your privacy, and when I suggest not using them (and using something else like the Amazon store, which btw is EXACTLY what is used on many BB10 devices) you say "no that's not secure, going away from the Google Store would be less secure". So you contradicted your own statements at least 3 times and haven't pointed to a single specific change that you think could be made to fix these alleged "privacy concerns" you keep vaguely talking about.

    So it's pretty clear that this is a troll thread and actually providing real information and solutions won't do any good here. So enjoy.
    You obviously completely miss my point. It is rater clearly stated in the first post. There is a need for a Company that Will take Lead in providing privacy for the end consumer. Blackberry had an obvious opportunity to do so but failed to comply.
    11-17-15 02:28 PM
  25. anon(2313227)'s Avatar
    Since many apps require direct access to your SMS, contacts and phone call log, I am looking forward to the day where your wife is able to google your conversations with your mistress.

    Then we can discuss privacy on more sense-full terms.
    That's what burner phones are for.
    anon9133023 likes this.
    11-17-15 02:30 PM
52 123

Similar Threads

  1. OK, this overheating thing is getting out of hand!
    By mania626 in forum BlackBerry Priv
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 12-23-15, 01:17 PM
  2. My z10 is working to slow
    By samyag Shah in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-17-15, 08:53 PM
  3. The battery on my Priv is draining much fater all of the sudden?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-17-15, 11:28 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-17-15, 10:56 AM
  5. Capsule CRM via Snap = white screen. Who has it working?
    By ron_jeremy in forum More for your BlackBerry 10 Phone!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-15, 10:48 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD