[DD74]

I understand the principle but I have nothing to hide, so I don't give a fak .

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[Prem WatsApp]

Someone is listening.

Yesterday I was listening to a portion of an audiobook while driving that named a certain facility in a certain Arizona town repeatedly.

Today I received an email from a recruiter advertising a job at that facility.

This evening I went through app permissions and turned off microphone access to every app that would let me...and deleted every app that wouldn't.

Posted via CB10

Area 51...?

Oh the conthpirathy... ;-)))

(sorry, I might confuse the states, funny anyway! )

�   "Chenterprise. We are the future. Resistance is futile. Prepare to BBe... "   �

[crackbrry fan]

Someone is listening.

Yesterday I was listening to a portion of an audiobook while driving that named a certain facility in a certain Arizona town repeatedly.

Today I received an email from a recruiter advertising a job at that facility.

This evening I went through app permissions and turned off microphone access to every app that would let me...and deleted every app that wouldn't.

Posted via CB10

Don't pay any attention to the Gurus here, remember the Samsung TV's that were caught listening in on users and uploading conversations to a third party cloud service? Same principle involved here. The excuse is that they are (google) listening in to better "target ads " to you. Having personally seen the hardware utilized by some Governments to tap into idle phones, it's not surprising that "private sector " entities would be involved in this. Ever wonder why many apps require access to your microphone? Apps that have absolutely nothing to do with verbal communications.

It's like Yahoo admitting that they allowed the NSA to scrape their email accounts for certain key phrases. To the nay sayers here, it didn't happen even though there is clear admission that it was done.

Posted via CB10

[Old_Mil]

Don't pay any attention to the Gurus here, remember the Samsung TV's that were caught listening in on users and uploading conversations to a third party cloud service? Same principle involved here. The excuse is that they are (google) listening in to better "target ads " to you. Having personally seen the hardware utilized by some Governments to tap into idle phones, it's not surprising that "private sector " entities would be involved in this. Ever wonder why many apps require access to your microphone? Apps that have absolutely nothing to do with verbal communications.

It's like Yahoo admitting that they allowed the NSA to scrape their email accounts for certain key phrases. To the nay sayers here, it didn't happen even though there is clear admission that it was done.

Posted via CB10

I don't. Statistically speaking, there is no way that this was a case of confirmation bias. I went through and deleted several apps that requested microphone access including 1 Mobile market.

I already see an improvement in battery life, so something was going on behind the scenes.

Posted via CB10

[Invictus0]

I already see an improvement in battery life, so something was going on behind the scenes.

Posted via CB10

Android apps generally use more battery than native apps on BB10 because they work using a runtime.

[Velocitymj]

I lock my house and car and to me technology has allowed companies like Google to mine data and so on. Here is the question you must ask yourself, has it really directly affected you? For myself the answer is no.

What's scary to me is how folks have embraced this pay with your phone stuff!!! You want to talk about a potential fraud and major hack waiting to happen!!!!

I use the old fashioned method of paying with cash and I only use my debut card for gas if I can pay inside because of the skimmers they are using on the outside pumps.

Scary!! I say those situations are more likely to happen then Google directly affecting your way of life.

It hasn't affected you yet.
The other day I was on Breitling's website looking at watches.
I went to FB a couple of days later and in the right column, I had advertisements from Breitling which never appeared before.
My privacy setting on FB are set so that FB won't follow me.
Same with my browser settings and I always delete my cookies and history before I close my browser.
Yet I was hit by an ad for the exact watch that I was looking at from a site I visited days before.
Vocal conversations are much more intricate and contain a lot more information that can be utilized than just viewing a site.
Would you be okay with everyone on this site listening into all of your conversations on a phone?
Because at the end of the day, it's humans that utilize the information that the machines provide them from your conversations.
Maybe your okay with your life being an open book for a machine to interact with you without your consent so that any and all advertisers can access your life to use as they wish in order to manipulate you out of your money, but I'm not.
And then there is always the option of the government and hackers getting that information and using it.
Google has been hacked by China and we don't really know how deep that hack was.
And as far as Google affecting my life, any business owner will tell you that Google does affect our lives by mining our data.
They know when you move and where you move to. And that affects your placement in their search engines.
And how do they get that information? Because they mine postal data.
Google is trying to know everything and I mean everything so that it's searchable and anyone who likes their privacy, should be worried about that.

[Velocitymj]

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!!

You're shocked, but are you cool for it Bla1ze?

[Thud Hardsmack]

I don't. Statistically speaking, there is no way that this was a case of confirmation bias. I went through and deleted several apps that requested microphone access including 1 Mobile market.

I already see an improvement in battery life, so something was going on behind the scenes.

Posted via CB10

You used apps from a Chinese app store with possibly altered apk's and you're blaming odd behavior on Google? Stick with Google Play or Amazon.

[TgeekB]

I love these threads! Very entertaining to hear all the "theories".

[Velocitymj]

Many people like to pretend that the alternative to relevant ads is NO ads - but that's not the case. The alternative to relevant ads is: a much higher volume of irrelevant ads, so that hopefully a few of the random ones ARE relevant. By showing you ads that are relevant to your shopping and buying habits, they can get away with showing you FEWER ads - because the ads you DO see are much more likely to generate revenue.

If we all turned off data tracking, we'd just end up seeing a ton more ads - and they'd be unskippable ads and would require that ad-blockers be disabled - in front of all the content we consumed.

There's no free lunch.

Who made the rule that we have to see ads if we wish to use the internet?
I understand that the owners of search engines and social media sites have to make money in order to pay their software coders, but in the not so distant past we didn't see ads.
But to be honest, what bothers me about your comment, is that you're giving the impression that relevant ads are there to help us so that we don't have to look at things, i.e. products that we might not be interested in.
"Relevant ads" are there to manipulate us into buying something. There not there to help us as much as they are about helping the search engine and the seller
It's about separating us from our money, so that two other entities can make money.
We pay our ISP to use the internet, that should be enough. That's my viewpoint on it.
From what I've seen, most internet technologies aren't confined to one specific area, like voice recognition for BB Assistant and Google Search..
Usually they are adapted to other areas.
Think about it... we used to be able to talk on the phone (land lines) and only law enforcement could listen in and they had to have a judge issue them a warrant to do that.
People with Android phones don't have that right to privacy that is protected by law in the U.S..

[crackbrry fan]

I love these threads! Very entertaining to hear all the "theories".

Too bad it's NOT THEORY. There are sufficient examples out there now. NOT theories. But I have nothing to hide, my life's an open book. Let's have Tom, **** and Harry O in.

Posted via CB10

[TgeekB]

Too bad it's NOT THEORY. There are sufficient examples out there now. NOT theories. But I have nothing to hide, my life's an open book. Let's have Tom, **** and Harry O in.

Posted via CB10

I think some people take truth (advertising based on surfing habits) and suddenly there's an army of people listening to our conversations in a dark room somewhere.
I think we have to remember, this is not new. There used to be mailing lists which led to junk mail. Now the technology is different. I don't think there's anything to fear, no aliens are landing, just something to be cognizant of and to be smart about the way we interact. It's the modern snakeoil salesman.

[crackbrry fan]

I think some people take truth (advertising based on surfing habits) and suddenly there's an army of people listening to our conversations in a dark room somewhere.
I think we have to remember, this is not new. There used to be mailing lists which led to junk mail. Now the technology is different. I don't think there's anything to fear, no aliens are landing, just something to be cognizant of and to be smart about the way we interact. It's the modern snakeoil salesman.

Losing the point? Regardless ,it's NOT ok to track those who don't wish to be tracked. I know you can't be this naive .everything isn't as benign as you would like to think it is.

Posted via CB10

[TgeekB]

Losing the point? Regardless ,it's NOT ok to track those who don't wish to be tracked. I know you can't be this naive .everything isn't as benign as you would like to think it is.

Posted via CB10

No one is forced to use the service. You have to sign up for it and accept the TOS. Pretty simple.

[crackbrry fan]

No one is forced to use the service. You have to sign up for it and accept the TOS. Pretty simple.

With a duopoly now existing ,how many have a choice?? How many actually read the TOS? How many know how to disable or spoof them in order to mitigate the problem? Simple.? Ah yes simple! .

Posted via CB10

[Thud Hardsmack]

With a duopoly now existing ,how many have a choice?? How many actually read the TOS? How many know how to disable or spoof them in order to mitigate the problem? Simple.? Ah yes simple! .

Posted via CB10

I don't know how Apple does things. But having made a few Gmail accounts I can safely say not only is it simple but upon creating an account Google tries to lead people immediately into account settings to set things up. Which I've done. And to this day I haven't had any tin foil hat incidents where I would believe anyone is listening in on Google's end. People running around with cellular interceptors and government officials using equipment to masquerade as a legitimate cell tower bother me, but not Google.

[wermar]

Google is the evil of the world, as stated by Mr Snowden

Posted via CB10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Who made the rule that we have to see ads if we wish to use the internet?
I understand that the owners of search engines and social media sites have to make money in order to pay their software coders, but in the not so distant past we didn't see ads.
But to be honest, what bothers me about your comment, is that you're giving the impression that relevant ads are there to help us so that we don't have to look at things, i.e. products that we might not be interested in.
"Relevant ads" are there to manipulate us into buying something. There not there to help us as much as they are about helping the search engine and the seller
It's about separating us from our money, so that two other entities can make money.
We pay our ISP to use the internet, that should be enough. That's my viewpoint on it.
From what I've seen, most internet technologies aren't confined to one specific area, like voice recognition for BB Assistant and Google Search..
Usually they are adapted to other areas.
Think about it... we used to be able to talk on the phone (land lines) and only law enforcement could listen in and they had to have a judge issue them a warrant to do that.
People with Android phones don't have that right to privacy that is protected by law in the U.S..

You do know that you can use the internet, without using Google's Browser, Search Engine, Email or other services.... Not much you can do about the ADS on webpages, other than block them... along with cookies.

You do know that US Laws to protect your privacy, it's when you choose to use Google's services and you agree to their terms of service and privacy policies... that YOU choose to give up those protections (within the law of course).

[jimmy zamalot]

I've been having a VPN question that I've never asked, if your using a VPN, thru chrome, can't Google or whoever still pin point the user?
i only use VPN because I heard it's safer for online banking, I don't really care if Google knows I look up big booty Latinas or if they spy on me

[crackbrry fan]

I don't know how Apple does things. But having made a few Gmail accounts I can safely say not only is it simple but upon creating an account Google tries to lead people immediately into account settings to set things up. Which I've done. And to this day I haven't had any tin foil hat incidents where I would believe anyone is listening in on Google's end. People running around with cellular interceptors and government officials using equipment to masquerade as a legitimate cell tower bother me, but not Google.

Goody for you! Tin foil hats are quite in style now. Google and government officials are synonymous.

Posted via CB10

[TgeekB]

I don't know how Apple does things. But having made a few Gmail accounts I can safely say not only is it simple but upon creating an account Google tries to lead people immediately into account settings to set things up. Which I've done. And to this day I haven't had any tin foil hat incidents where I would believe anyone is listening in on Google's end. People running around with cellular interceptors and government officials using equipment to masquerade as a legitimate cell tower bother me, but not Google.

Exactly. What is it we're supposed to be afraid of ?

[Troy Tiscareno]

Who made the rule that we have to see ads if we wish to use the internet?
I understand that the owners of search engines and social media sites have to make money in order to pay their software coders, but in the not so distant past we didn't see ads.
But to be honest, what bothers me about your comment, is that you're giving the impression that relevant ads are there to help us so that we don't have to look at things, i.e. products that we might not be interested in.
"Relevant ads" are there to manipulate us into buying something. There not there to help us as much as they are about helping the search engine and the seller
It's about separating us from our money, so that two other entities can make money.
We pay our ISP to use the internet, that should be enough. That's my viewpoint on it.

Ever watch regular TV (broadcast/cable/satellite)? If so, you're watching TV shows, and while a portion of the cost of those shows comes from cable and satellite companies who license the programming, the bulk of the revenues that pay for those shows come from ADVERTISERS. Without those advertisers, your $100/month TV bill might be closer to $500/month.

Who decided that TV should work this way? CONSUMERS - by not wishing to pay directly for the full cost of TV programming, they motivated broadcasters to find alternative means of funding, and thus, commercials.

The Internet went through exactly the same process. Originally, early, crude services were "free" (most of them being hosted on university server), but as people wanted more, and much more advanced services, those services had to be paid for. Some services, such as, say, Netflix, provide a pay up-front model, but that's also one of the few types of services that mainstream users will pay for under that model.

Most services use an ad-supported model, because they've learned that if they go with a direct-pay model, some other company will go "free, ad-supported" and quickly take all of their business (there are plenty of examples of this). So, companies adopted the model that worked for the vast majority of their users.

From what I've seen, most internet technologies aren't confined to one specific area, like voice recognition for BB Assistant and Google Search..
Usually they are adapted to other areas.
Think about it... we used to be able to talk on the phone (land lines) and only law enforcement could listen in and they had to have a judge issue them a warrant to do that.
People with Android phones don't have that right to privacy that is protected by law in the U.S..

People with cell phones don't have a right to privacy from their ISP - regardless of their phone OS. And people with Android phones can turn off all of the data-sharing with Google, and use alternative browsers and search engines. Yes, of course, that also means foregoing Google's excellent services for what is often someone else's inferior services - but that's not Google's fault. But it's a like to say that "you can't keep Google from tracking you" because of course you can. My last 3 Android phones have carefully ASKED me during initial setup whether or not I agreed to various data collecting in order to use the associated Google services. I could have chosen to answer "no" to those questions, and taken it on myself to find alternative services, and so could anyone else. It's not Google's fault if people choose not to read and simply click "I Agree" - and even if they do, they can go in and change their settings at anytime.

Google (and Apple, and Amazon, and Microsoft) spend billions a year to offer and to improve their various online services. That's REAL MONEY, and it has to be paid by someone somewhere, and since most people CHOOSE to support ad-supported services over direct-pay services, it should be no surprise that everyone - including BB - uses the ad-supported model.

It isn't Google's, or Apple's, or Amazon's, or Microsoft's job to make it easy for you to be an outlier and contrarian - but none of them prevent you from being one. The very fact that most people refuse to "give up" Gmail, Google Maps, Google Docs, etc. tells you that people find those services valuable - and most in fact will not give up "free" access to those services just to avoid data collection. You believe it's because they don't KNOW that it's happening, but I submit that for the majority, they DO know, and they're comfortable with the trade.

You're free to disagree, but that doesn't automatically make everyone who disagrees with you WRONG, or STUPID. It simply means they disagree.

You're free to make whatever choices work best for you, and so am I. I choose to use Google services, knowing exactly how they work and how they're funded (and I also use Amazon quite a bit, and they aren't any less shy about collecting data!). You are free to live an all-cash lifestyle and use payphones if you choose, but that doesn't make me wrong for making the choices I have made.

[TgeekB]

As usual, well said Troy.

[stevec66]

My concern is if we went to a cashless society we would be at the mercy of the banks wanting to add all sorts of fees for us using tap & go on our phones and debit cards etc.

I try to use cash as much as possible, leave the big items to credit cards.

Posted via CB10

[Velocitymj]

..... ..