[byex]

This is absolutely false. I know a couple of executives at Google, a half-dozen high-level engineers, and several dozen lower/mid-level employees. Even the executives don't have any access, and neither do normal network admins and the like. Only the legal team gets such access, and it takes multiple levels of authorization to do so, in writing, and they require very specific requests - they don't just unlock entire accounts even for the FBI without a very specific warrant.

And since 2013, all data at Google has been encrypted "at rest" (meaning, it's stored encrypted), while at one time, some types of information were only encrypted "in transit".

What you write might have been true a decade or more ago, but Google is far too big, and has far too many eyes on them, to be that sloppy, and I assure you, they aren't. In fact, any attempts to hack accounts or access customer data without approval is grounds for immediate termination - and it happens (the terminating - I've heard a few stories). Google has some of the best engineers and data security specialists in the world working for them, and it's in their best interest to do so, because NOT giving out any raw data to anyone is what keeps their advertisers coming to them every month to pay for ads.

Letting anyone have access to raw data would completely undermine their entire business model.

Lol.
Many instances of Google engineers accessing accounts.

Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

....'World Class'?...not particularly...but OK...and if you buy into that bit in the last part of your post I have the usual bit of land in Florida etc...etc

Posted on my Powerful Passport

Where in Florida? I might be interested...... LOLOLOL

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

BlackBerry and TCL both get free passes here when it comes to data collection.

And they definitely shouldn't, as both of them are collecting data and both of them give themselves permission to share/sell it. That's one thing Google's privacy policy does NOT allow themselves to do.

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

This is absolutely false. I know a couple of executives at Google, a half-dozen high-level engineers, and several dozen lower/mid-level employees. Even the executives don't have any access, and neither do normal network admins and the like. Only the legal team gets such access, and it takes multiple levels of authorization to do so, in writing, and they require very specific requests - they don't just unlock entire accounts even for the FBI without a very specific warrant.

And since 2013, all data at Google has been encrypted "at rest" (meaning, it's stored encrypted), while at one time, some types of information were only encrypted "in transit".

What you write might have been true a decade or more ago, but Google is far too big, and has far too many eyes on them, to be that sloppy, and I assure you, they aren't. In fact, any attempts to hack accounts or access customer data without approval is grounds for immediate termination - and it happens (the terminating - I've heard a few stories). Google has some of the best engineers and data security specialists in the world working for them, and it's in their best interest to do so, because NOT giving out any raw data to anyone is what keeps their advertisers coming to them every month to pay for ads.

Letting anyone have access to raw data would completely undermine their entire business model.

Confirmed this (what you're replying to) is 100% false.

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

@sorinv how are you appalled at Google's data collection practices, but ok with those of Mobile Nations?

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

.and if you buy into that bit in the last part of your post I have the usual bit of land in Florida etc...etc...

Posted on my Powerful Passport

What's your question? How you can delete data on your Google account? Or why you can't on most other services? Or do you think one of those two premises is false?

[sorinv]

@sorinv how are you appalled at Google's data collection practices, but ok with those of Mobile Nations?

I am not OK with anyone who collects data.


Posted via CB10

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

I am not OK with anyone who collects data.


Posted via CB10

Ok, so how does that work using this site or a BlackBerry device, or even an ISP? And how do you perceive any of those three to be different from Facebook?

[Elephant_Canyon]

I am not OK with anyone who collects data.

So, you’re not okay with banks, grocery stores, credit card processing companies, airlines, car dealers, insurance companies, shipping companies, the Postal Service, the DMV, or basically any retail chain with a regional or larger presence.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

[sorinv]

So, you’re not okay with banks, grocery stores, credit card processing companies, airlines, car dealers, insurance companies, shipping companies, the Postal Service, the DMV, or basically any retail chain with a regional or larger presence.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

No. I am not OK.
I use cash whenever possible. It's always cheaper than using my bank card or my credit cards, especially when abroad.
The fact that sometimes you can't avoid it doesn't mean that I like it or that I should not avoid it whenever I can.
Hopefully the regulators will soon step in and give us the option to pay rather than be tracked, even when you search the web.


Posted via CB10

[sorinv]

Ok, so how does that work using this site or a BlackBerry device, or even an ISP? And how do you perceive any of those three to be different from Facebook?

Less data mining Is always better than more.
You reduce the exposure surface.
I already switched ISP s when I read the fine print and was not given the option of not having my data stored on US servers.

Sure, that doesn't mean that the other ISP isn't doing it, but if we do not protest and take action, things will not change.

Cross country check-up on CBC radio last Sunday was pretty good and encouraging. Let the EU data protection rules come to Canada, too!

By the way, I don't carry my phone with me all the time, certainly not when I walk or jog. I can live without my tracking devices.
It's all about will and strength of character. You can do it if you set yourself to.

Posted via CB10

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Less data mining Is always better than more.
You reduce the exposure surface.
I already switched ISP s when I read the fine print and was not given the option of not having my data stored on US servers.

Sure, that doesn't mean that the other ISP isn't doing it, but if we do not protest and take action, things will not change.

Cross country check-up on CBC radio last Sunday was pretty good and encouraging. Let the EU data protection rules come to Canada, too!

By the way, I don't carry my phone with me all the time, certainly not when I walk or jog. I can live without my tracking devices.
It's all about will and strength of character. You can do it if you set yourself to.

Posted via CB10

So I agree with the less exposure comment but I'm trying to understand how you think that this site differs from Facebook.

[sorinv]

I have never used Facebook. I stopped using Microsoft software on any of my computers in 2007 or so (before it was just a back-up system on my Linux Pcs) and don't use Google search except very rarely.
This, of course, does not mean that my data are not being collected, but less so than most people's data.

This site has much less information about its users than Facebook does.
It doesn't have the same power over its users as Facebook does. Only Google, Facebook, Microsoft (if you use windows) and likely Amazon (if you use them) have the breadth and world-wide data centers and fibre-optic networks to collect more data and know more about you than any government or even you do.

If you are wondering, I removed the Amazon store from my bb10 devices right from the get-go when Chen brought them in...

Posted via CB10

[byex]

I'm trying to understand how you think that this site differs from Facebook.

Too funny.

Posted via CB10

[nogutsnoglory]

And they definitely shouldn't, as both of them are collecting data and both of them give themselves permission to share/sell it. That's one thing Google's privacy policy does NOT allow themselves to do.

The one thing that I find ironic is how so many of the early adapters of Blackberry are willing to stay with Blackberry after its partnership with Google/Android. I used to use Blackberry for several reasons, including its security and privacy. You just don't get that with Android. I feel that for privacy your best bet is iPhone. They collect data but I think they do it more responsibly and anonymously.

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

The one thing that I find ironic is how so many of the early adapters of Blackberry are willing to stay with Blackberry after its partnership with Google/Android. I used to use Blackberry for several reasons, including its security and privacy. You just don't get that with Android. I feel that for privacy your best bet is iPhone. They collect data but I think they do it more responsibly and anonymously.

That's a common sentiment, but I can't fully agree. Between Google, BlackBerry and Apple, Google is the only one that doesn't give itself permission to sell/share user data. Apple does a great job of marketing their stance, but Google's transparency and user controls are technically better for the user. What I can't believe is that anyone is willing to pretend that TCL is blackberry and to treat them, rhetorically from a privacy and security standpoint, as if they were blackberry making BB os devices. TCL gives itself permission to sell and share user data.

[Invictus0]

The one thing that I find ironic is how so many of the early adapters of Blackberry are willing to stay with Blackberry after its partnership with Google/Android.

Are they really though? BlackBerry had just under 50 million subscribers around a year before BB Android was announced. Total BB Android sales to date might only be around 2 million if we assume the recent IDC number and most pre licensing shipments were BB Android.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...erry-john-chen

That's a common sentiment, but I can't fully agree. Between Google, BlackBerry and Apple, Google is the only one that doesn't give itself permission to sell/share user data. Apple does a great job of marketing their stance, but Google's transparency and user controls are technically better for the user. What I can't believe is that anyone is willing to pretend that TCL is blackberry and to treat them, rhetorically from a privacy and security standpoint, as if they were blackberry making BB os devices. TCL gives itself permission to sell and share user data.

I don't think anyone is actually selling it directly but sharing could be for targeted ads, analytics, marketing, etc. Google is perhaps the only company in that list that has all of those services in house. As recent events have shown, its not without its own concerns.

[cribble2k]

....and yes the BB10 model of originally not collecting personal data still has interest and could still have traction.

Did you not read BlackBerry's privacy policy?

They collect and share your personal information. Unlike Google, you cannot easily delete said information.

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

Did you not read BlackBerry's privacy policy?

They collect and share your personal information. Unlike Google, you cannot easily delete said information.

I love the chatter that says Google doesn't do anything with your information and they guard it zealously. Ha ha jokes on us (anonomized, only for a trivial effort of a third party to non-anonomize if they wish) . Nor does apple, laugh again.
Why can't my electicity provider have a privacy policy as well that tells me they will track all my movements, actions, words and deeds in my home and may choose to share it with others, don't like it? Then don't use our electricity! I think everyone knows the reason why they can't. Theoretically they could.

It's hillarious the crazyiness of the 'smartphone' marketplace....sure live in a glass house without walls or curtains, if you are dumb enough (or because that's all the monopolies would allow you to buy) - because hey its not a house its a vapourware fabrication. But there should be a demand for brick houses with solid doors with locks as well - however currently you can't have that option - unless you are a corporate entity maybe (that is ironic, don't you think?)...you can use bb10 to maximize privacy to an extent (harder for one-of consumer though)....(not sure what amazon collects ) same cannot be said of Google when you use their services, and don't think all the apple pre-loaded services are just whistling with their eyes covered and ears plugged on device and on-pc.
Honestly how does the ability to delete information help your privacy? It's probably deleted so YOU can't see it again, there is no guarantee it wasn't already tacitly copied and shipped to a third party player prior to "deletion". No guarantee they didn't already get what they needed. Doesn't stop future collections either.

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

I don't think anyone is actually selling it directly but sharing could be for targeted ads, analytics, marketing, etc. Google is perhaps the only company in that list that has all of those services in house. As recent events have shown, its not without its own concerns.

The problem is one or both of two things. First, some companies give themselves permission to sell/share user data to other companies. Second, most of those companies actually do it. Google is the exception to both in the industries it spans. Apple gives themselves permission to sell/share user data, but doesn't do it and afaik has never done it. Others, like Microsoft, Verizon, Samsung, etc. give themselves permission to sell/share user data and actually do it. In a former occupation I've been on the receiving end of data purchases from two of those three companies.

The list of those that are participating in selling/sharing user data is HUGE, and it's easier to list the companies that are not. Many of those sales/sharing occurrences are with the credit reporting agencies, consumer reporting companies and typically fall under the "affiliates" part of the company's privacy agreement. But affiliate means different things in different companies. At Apple, an Affiliate is a company contracted by Apple to do specific analytics or other tasks on their data and they are bound by all of Apple's rules in handling that data, from both a privacy and security standpoint. The only question with them is - do I trust the third party? Do I trust whomever they give themselves permission to share with? Maybe, maybe not. At Amazon and Microsoft, affiliates means something closer to transactional business partners. Most consumers think that the only way their name/address/etc is being shared is if the third party is conducting a specific point of sale transaction with the consumer and the parent site. That is how it works with Google, as an example. Google will give your name/address to FedEx as the recipient of a package, should you buy something from them. But at MS and Amazon, affiliate means THEIR partners, not your partners in common. Example, Amazon, as a marketplace, hosts Microsoft products. That makes them mutual customers of each other - and they both give themselves permission to share data directly with each other, without the informed consent of any consumers who do business with them. There's no opt in or out, it just is. Facebook's recent example proves that Facebook was intentionally sharing private user data to third parties whom they thought were doing consumer research. We could pretend that part was in good faith, but we know for certain that no consumer ever intentionally opted in to that operation.

The key understanding is that they're all collecting every scrap of data that they can. And if they can monetize it, it is hard for them to refrain from doing so. Another user said they were using Lawnchair launcher instead of Google Launcher because they don't trust Google. Choosing an alternative is fine, however Lawnchair doesn't have a posted privacy policy and they don't have a site where you can go see what data they've collected about you and delete it, if you choose, and see what for and how it is used. Google does. That was on this site as well, so another question - this site, CrackBerry, is collecting a ton of information. Do you know how exactly it is used? Do you know who they share/sell it with? Do you trust those companies? This is why I prefer Google's model, because I know who they're sharing it with - no one that I don't specifically tell them to. Apple is in second place because of only one thing: their reputation for privacy and security, even though it's mostly nonsense and/or just marketing, whichever term you like better - would be absolutely shattered if they were caught giving out personal information to other companies, whether in exchange for money or other data. They're not showing restraint, they're afraid of losing their entire business. That makes them a good fit for the "devil you know" character in this.

Google's data collection is creepy, it's amazing how much they know about everything and everyone. And if they choose to go rogue and let it out, there's not much anyone could do about it to put the cat back into the bag. What's worse than creepy though? Terrifying. And MS, Amazon, etc. don't have any restraints and are therefore terrifying. Add into this every major telecom carrier, most financial institutions (Paypal excluded), most online forums, etc. Ever used Disqus? Is it tied to your FB or Google account? Did Disqus call or email you when they got hacked and your personal information, including profile information from linked account were lost?

There was an analogy I made earlier about this practice of eschewing Google for third parties (and many people do choose Microsoft and Amazon) - it's like taking your money out of the bank because they got your social security number when you signed up and taking your money to the local loan shark because they ask fewer questions. Yes, the loan shark asks fewer questions. But does anyone really think they don't do their homework? The bank and LS both know where you live, they both know where you work, they both know how much money you have and realistically, they both probably have your social security number. The diffeerence? You agreed to give this info to the bank, the loan shark just took it - and the bank has rules about who gets to see that data and under which circumstances, while the LS has no rules. I get it, some people are going to trust the LS more, and that's their choice. I just think it's a poorly informed choice.

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

I love the chatter that says Google doesn't do anything with your information and they guard it zealously. Ha ha jokes on us (anonomized, only for a trivial effort of a third party to non-anonomize if they wish) . Nor does apple, laugh again.
Why can't my electicity provider have a privacy policy as well that tells me they will track all my movements, actions, words and deeds in my home and may choose to share it with others, don't like it? Then don't use our electricity! I think everyone knows the reason why they can't. Theoretically they could.

It's hillarious the crazyiness of the 'smartphone' marketplace....sure live in a glass house without walls or curtains, if you are dumb enough (or because that's all the monopolies would allow you to buy) - because hey its not a house its a vapourware fabrication. But there should be a demand for brick houses with solid doors with locks as well - however currently you can't have that option - unless you are a corporate entity maybe (that is ironic, don't you think?)...you can use bb10 to maximize privacy to an extent (harder for one-of consumer though)....(not sure what amazon collects ) same cannot be said of Google when you use their services, and don't think all the apple pre-loaded services are just whistling with their eyes covered and ears plugged on device and on-pc.
Honestly how does the ability to delete information help your privacy? It's probably deleted so YOU can't see it again, there is no guarantee it wasn't already tacitly copied and shipped to a third party player prior to "deletion". No guarantee they didn't already get what they needed. Doesn't stop future collections either.

The important distinction is what they allow themselves to share, versus the competition. Is it ideal? hell no. Is it better than what Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Verizon, AT&T, Samsung, TCL and other companies are doing? Yes, in every way that can possibly be imagined, yes it is better. While I am not familiar enough with BB10 to know exactly what data BlackBerry was collecting, I do know for certain that it was a lot of data and I do know that their (BlackBerry themselves, as well as TCL on the new devices with BlackBerry branding) privacy policy allows them to share/sell, while Google's does not. That distinction matters much more than the quantity of data collected - see the above longer response for details on how.

IMO this is not a very nuanced topic, it's just a very poorly misunderstood topic. Here's a good thread on the topic, the response in post 2 is dead on. https://forums.crackberry.com/genera...berry-1006718/

[Invictus0]

The problem is one or both of two things. First, some companies give themselves permission to sell/share user data to other companies. Second, most of those companies actually do it. Google is the exception to both in the industries it spans. Apple gives themselves permission to sell/share user data, but doesn't do it and afaik has never done it. Others, like Microsoft, Verizon, Samsung, etc. give themselves permission to sell/share user data and actually do it. In a former occupation I've been on the receiving end of data purchases from two of those three companies.

The list of those that are participating in selling/sharing user data is HUGE, and it's easier to list the companies that are not. Many of those sales/sharing occurrences are with the credit reporting agencies, consumer reporting companies and typically fall under the "affiliates" part of the company's privacy agreement. But affiliate means different things in different companies. At Apple, an Affiliate is a company contracted by Apple to do specific analytics or other tasks on their data and they are bound by all of Apple's rules in handling that data, from both a privacy and security standpoint. The only question with them is - do I trust the third party? Do I trust whomever they give themselves permission to share with? Maybe, maybe not. At Amazon and Microsoft, affiliates means something closer to transactional business partners. Most consumers think that the only way their name/address/etc is being shared is if the third party is conducting a specific point of sale transaction with the consumer and the parent site. That is how it works with Google, as an example. Google will give your name/address to FedEx as the recipient of a package, should you buy something from them. But at MS and Amazon, affiliate means THEIR partners, not your partners in common. Example, Amazon, as a marketplace, hosts Microsoft products. That makes them mutual customers of each other - and they both give themselves permission to share data directly with each other, without the informed consent of any consumers who do business with them. There's no opt in or out, it just is. Facebook's recent example proves that Facebook was intentionally sharing private user data to third parties whom they thought were doing consumer research. We could pretend that part was in good faith, but we know for certain that no consumer ever intentionally opted in to that operation.

The key understanding is that they're all collecting every scrap of data that they can. And if they can monetize it, it is hard for them to refrain from doing so. Another user said they were using Lawnchair launcher instead of Google Launcher because they don't trust Google. Choosing an alternative is fine, however Lawnchair doesn't have a posted privacy policy and they don't have a site where you can go see what data they've collected about you and delete it, if you choose, and see what for and how it is used. Google does. That was on this site as well, so another question - this site, CrackBerry, is collecting a ton of information. Do you know how exactly it is used? Do you know who they share/sell it with? Do you trust those companies? This is why I prefer Google's model, because I know who they're sharing it with - no one that I don't specifically tell them to. Apple is in second place because of only one thing: their reputation for privacy and security, even though it's mostly nonsense and/or just marketing, whichever term you like better - would be absolutely shattered if they were caught giving out personal information to other companies, whether in exchange for money or other data. They're not showing restraint, they're afraid of losing their entire business. That makes them a good fit for the "devil you know" character in this.

Google's data collection is creepy, it's amazing how much they know about everything and everyone. And if they choose to go rogue and let it out, there's not much anyone could do about it to put the cat back into the bag. What's worse than creepy though? Terrifying. And MS, Amazon, etc. don't have any restraints and are therefore terrifying. Add into this every major telecom carrier, most financial institutions (Paypal excluded), most online forums, etc. Ever used Disqus? Is it tied to your FB or Google account? Did Disqus call or email you when they got hacked and your personal information, including profile information from linked account were lost?

There was an analogy I made earlier about this practice of eschewing Google for third parties (and many people do choose Microsoft and Amazon) - it's like taking your money out of the bank because they got your social security number when you signed up and taking your money to the local loan shark because they ask fewer questions. Yes, the loan shark asks fewer questions. But does anyone really think they don't do their homework? The bank and LS both know where you live, they both know where you work, they both know how much money you have and realistically, they both probably have your social security number. The diffeerence? You agreed to give this info to the bank, the loan shark just took it - and the bank has rules about who gets to see that data and under which circumstances, while the LS has no rules. I get it, some people are going to trust the LS more, and that's their choice. I just think it's a poorly informed choice.

Well written post!

I'm not saying one is better than the other, privacy is no longer a viable business model for a competitive smartphone OS and it'll probably take another smartphone "revolution" for that to change. Depending on your personal needs and where you draw the line it's possible Apple or Google could have the more compelling offering but it's not a particularly great choice in the grand scheme of things. The days of smartphones with a built in firewall and the ability for a user to easily fine tune this are long gone.

I do agree with your general point that while TOS and Privacy Policies will sound similar among the major organizations that it's the practice that will actually matter. And it's not just something to look into once, you have to continuously keep up with it. Apple has made some great moves regarding privacy and data collection over the years (certainly enough to cause BlackBerry trouble) but they might be coming up against the limitations of it.

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-ai-privacy/

Regarding Disqus, I'm not familiar with that example because I don't use the service but I assume they got your information from a Google or Facebook account that was authorized to the service. Funny enough, both allow users to share/developers to request this data through an API and the latter especially is currently in hot water for it.

[Slash82]

That's what happens when people don't think about, why any company would provide
an OS to hardware manufactures "for free" - like Google does with Android.
It cost millions and millions to develop and to keep it alive.

How will it be paid?
With users data, which are worth billions.

How many data do they need for that?
As much as possible - privacy on Android is just a lie in all parts.

Sure, with apps like DTEK, you can gain some (sort of) feeling of privacy - but Google ain't stupid, they have too many workarounds to get what they want.

Same with apps like Facebook - they suggest users to be "tool to stay in touch with friends and families". But in reality it's the most powerful private data base.
No one thinks about: "Why does this app require access to anything when I want to install it?".

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

That's what happens when people don't think about, why any company would provide
an OS to hardware manufactures "for free" - like Google does with Android.
It cost millions and millions to develop and to keep it alive.

How will it be paid?
With users data, which are worth billions.

How many data do they need for that?
As much as possible - privacy on Android is just a lie in all parts.

Sure, with apps like DTEK, you can gain some (sort of) feeling of privacy - but Google ain't stupid, they have too many workarounds to get what they want.

Same with apps like Facebook - they suggest users to be "tool to stay in touch with friends and families". But in reality it's the most powerful private data base.
No one thinks about: "Why does this app require access to anything when I want to install it?".

Same question to you, how are you so unhappy with Google yet ok with TCL, etc?

[Slash82]

Same question to you, how are you so unhappy with Google yet ok with TCL, etc?

To be honest - with EOL of OS10 I jumped the BlackBerry (device) ship after 12 years.
I started with the 8700 (end of 2005) and ended my BlackBerry "relationship" in 2017 with the Passport SE.
I switched to iPhone 8 (which comes with iOS closest to me to OS10).

I did not follow that "Android way", I have never used any Google Services, nor I won't any cloud solutions (including iCloud).
Options are rare nowaday, so I personally think that iOS is less worse than Android.

I know BlackBerry puts a lot of afford and work into making Android "private", but I think Google is stronger than anyone would believe.

So, I'm personally (and I just speak for myself) not happy with TCL and Android - but there is a market for it, so BlackBerry does it right for others.