[vrud]

The idea pushed by many here is that because a person has already shared some information with payment processor, government, friends, etc then it's no harm to give ALL your info to google to be sold to advertisers (albeit in aggregated form).
Well, I must confess I am of different opinion.
I, for one, check applications permissions (on BB10) and deny access to my personal info to almost all apps downloaded from a store.
I don't upload my intimate photos to clouds and store on home computers only.

A question for those who don't value privacy as high as I am.
Do you agree that it was unfair for BalloonPop2 game developers who put their efforts to build a game for the price of personal info (in the form of whatsapp chats) to be removed from the app store? Are google employees have more privileges or what?

I don't understand why android OS offers app permissions to the user.
If one shared personal info with google, facebook, etc. then it should be safe to give it to next processor, right?

If you look at the market place today, you'll find that many companies are working hard to develop a 'secure' solution in one form or another. Likely I will be a victim of their products and kudos to those who don't care.

[Nine54]

RyanGermann - what are your thoughts about freely available commercial TV or radio stations playing commercials? Are those TV and radio stations, which provide programming that you may enjoy and that is freely available to you, bad because they are trying to make money through getting advertisers to pay them? Are you forced to buy everything that is advertised on freely available commercial TV and radio stations?

Come on - Google's business model allows people to access (some) desirable products for free, just like those commercial, over-the-air TV and radio stations. I think most people like free, and aren't complaining about being able to access Google Maps or Angry Birds or whatever ad-supported product they enjoy using and can freely obtain.

Exactly. Google essentially has taken the ad-subsidized business model common in media and brought it to computing apps and services. It's been very disruptive because by making these apps and services free or near-free, one barrier to adoption, cost, has been removed from the equation. Take a game like Angry Birds; let's say that, without ads, Rovio would need to charge $9.99 to cover the development costs and ongoing overhead of keeping the game up and running. It's safe to say that far fewer people would buy the game. And if it were priced like a PS4 or Xbox One game, it's not even a question because people recognize that the cost and effort to create Angry Birds is not comparable to, say, Call of Duty. And it's not providing a comparable experience. But am I willing to see some ads in order to enjoy a simple game like Angry Birds? Sure. It goes back to Troy's point about whether the product or service is valuable enough to outweigh the perhaps less-than-ideal experience from ads. There's sort of a self-correcting balance. Imagine a game where, right before you reached a level boss, the game stopped and you had to view an add before you could continue: "This level boss is brought to you buy Clorox Bleach. Disinfect your home like you disinfected this level." That would be pretty annoying, word would get out, and fewer and fewer people would download and play the game.

There are some downsides to this business model, though, which are apparent when you look at something like TV. How many times has a show that you enjoyed been cancelled because of low ratings? Yet, these low ratings still can equate to millions of viewers. But, if the network knows that other shows during that time-slot can generate higher ratings, it's going to replace your show. In this scenario, you have a significant number of people who want the product and may even be willing to pay for it, but no method to distribute it to them.

That's what's interesting about what Netflix, Amazon, and the WWE Network are doing with their in-house content. The on-demand consumption model removes the competitive pressures that come with time-slots on the major networks. So, something like House of Cards doesn't have to compete with American Idol.

But Netflix, et. al., are more like hybrids between a subsidized and consumption-based model. But, this is something they could address in the future with small surcharges for premium content. Even if a show is not as popular as other shows, as long as people are willing to buy it so that it covers its costs and maintains the desired level of profitability, the creator can keep it going. Apple, with its vast iTunes distribution channel, could go even further and offer paid on-demand content through more iTunes-exclusive shows and movies.

[rthonpm]

Paragraphs, ain't nobody got time fo' dat'

Yeah, and grammar is just that lady living with grammpa.

Posted via CB10

[RyanGermann]

Re: comparison of unidirectional mass marketing to online tracking: if you think seeing a Tim Horton's logo on the boards at a community skating rink so the public skating rink can be maintained, or a commercial on broadcast TV is "the same" as online tracking...

Posted via CB10

[WorkStation 0]

when I needed an email account with massive storage, Google offered just that. Killed Hotmail and Yahoo. The price- Ads

Cloud storage: way more than competitors when few even knew what it was. The price: Ads

An OS: Standardization. BlackBerry and Windows conforming to hardware and software standards. This is underway. Consumers benefit greatly from this. BlackBerry Microsoft Amazon all benefit. Google benefits. I benefit. The Cost: ADS

I've had a Google account forever. Don't remember how long. Never been compromised. I get free email, ridiculous amounts of cloud storage (media+ files), free video hosting, and a badass phone for cheap. All subsidized by advertisers.

Google was revolutionary in monetizing the internet. It's a utility. Everyone should have access. Corporate advertising dollars will make this a reality.

It's naive to point at Google as nefarious identity thieves. Especially considering our western ways. We give our social and credit report to so many. Our lives of new and shiny things on installment payments.

I've never given Google my social, they have not run my credit. But I can't say the same for T-Mobile, ATT, Sprint, Verizon, Ford, Lending Tree, eBay, Amazon, Bank America, Scana, Capitol One...

[Nine54]

This is an interesting thread, but it seems like some lines of thinking are impacted by:

• NIH (Non Invented Here) syndrome on behalf of BlackBerry. If it were BlackBerry that had all these very popular apps and services, some of these same people would be reveling in BlackBerry's success and shouting to the world about how innovative BlackBerry is. Instead, these folks are now feigning a value system around security and privacy because it's one of the few value propositions that, somewhat by default, BlackBerry maintains (though I'm sure BlackBerry would be willing to forego this if it meant more profit). These same folks who are sharing all kinds of info via Facebook and Foursquare and what-not are now suddenly concerned about someone snooping in on their "sensitive" emails.
  
  Again, this doesn't apply to everyone touting security and privacy, but seems like it does to some. For those who are true privacy advocates regardless of the vendor, I expect that you all have pre-ordered Blackphones. But if you're truly concerned about privacy, you might want to consider not using a phone at all. Even if you don't voluntarily send a bit of data, the carriers can triangulate your approximate location through the phone's regular "pings" with nearby towers.
• False altruism applied to BlackBerry. While security always has been a core competency of BlackBerry, the benefit mostly has been targeted towards businesses and security-sensitive organizations--not individual users. BlackBerry is not Blackphone: the company is not going on a campaign about user privacy. Just look at how BlackBerry markets features like Balance: it's all about protecting corporate data from you or those around you--not about keeping your personal data safe from the prying eyes of your employer. That's just more of a side-benefit. The main user-centric angle BlackBerry markets is around BYOD where your personal data can remain untouched after you leave the company since the company only needs to wipe your corporate profile. BlackBerry's prime focus and allegiance is around enterprise security.

[WorkStation 0]

You are on the internet. You are being watched.

Did you believe that no one could find you?

Stop searching for illegal pornography on the internet.

Do not sell Drugs, Explosives, Controlled Substances, or Other Human Beings on the internet.

Do not buy Drugs, Explosives, Controlled Substances, or Other Human Beings on the internet.

Do not openly plan/fund organized crime, acts of subversion, or The Revolution on the internet

Stop trying to find love on the internet.

Stay off of Craig's list.

Do not post/store/transmit pictures that you don't want the public to see

If you have to say something to another human being that you would never want revealed: Say it in person.

If you do these things your concerns about data security will be greatly diminished.

[iN8ter]

The OP nailed it. The latest android OS even passively collects location data from nearby wifi networks even if you have your wifi turned off. In the end, nothing is free. I would much rather go to BlackBerry World and spend a few dollars on a product than sell myself as that product.


Posted via CB10

That's untrue. The Wi-Fi setting is off-by default and is Opt-In.

Check any Android 4.3+ handset.

[iN8ter]

The idea pushed by many here is that because a person has already shared some information with payment processor, government, friends, etc then it's no harm to give ALL your info to google to be sold to advertisers (albeit in aggregated form).
Well, I must confess I am of different opinion.
I, for one, check applications permissions (on BB10) and deny access to my personal info to almost all apps downloaded from a store.
I don't upload my intimate photos to clouds and store on home computers only.

A question for those who don't value privacy as high as I am.
Do you agree that it was unfair for BalloonPop2 game developers who put their efforts to build a game for the price of personal info (in the form of whatsapp chats) to be removed from the app store? Are google employees have more privileges or what?

I don't understand why android OS offers app permissions to the user.
If one shared personal info with google, facebook, etc. then it should be safe to give it to next processor, right?

If you look at the market place today, you'll find that many companies are working hard to develop a 'secure' solution in one form or another. Likely I will be a victim of their products and kudos to those who don't care.

No, they are wondering why is it okay for you to potentially violate your own privacy in every way except the way that helps the company that has almost single-handedly helped displace Blackberry in the smartphone market.

That's what they're getting at.

It makes literally no sense to complain about Google, when some of the same users are Pushing Channels which will be run not much differently than Google+, Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, and for much of the same reasons.

It makes no sense to deride Google for data collection, when Blackberry does the same thing. The only way you can avoid this is to stop using smartphones and technology.

On top of that, a lot of the information in this thread is either flat out wrong, unintentionally misleading, or an outright lie; which makes it even less possible to have a productive discussion about the matter - especially when certain personalities go out of their way to be as aggressive and vitriolic as possible.

No matter how much some of you people try to rationalize the drivel posted in this thread, we weren't born yesterday and know what the real/actual objective is.

[Sesameopen]

Wow you have actually opened my eyes a bit more. I had a lot of android and an iphone and I completely agree with you. The apps send you update notifications literally EVER SINGLE ******* DAY. Wow, I am glad I'm on my Q10 now.

Q10

[iN8ter]

when I needed an email account with massive storage, Google offered just that. Killed Hotmail and Yahoo. The price- Ads

True.

Cloud storage: way more than competitors when few even knew what it was. The price: Ads

Untrue. For those who were early getting to the Cloud Storage Craze, before Google Drive even existed all you had was 1GB storage on Picasa Web Albums and like 1GB on Google Docs, which was not the same as your Gmail storage back then. SkyDrive had 25GB Storage that you could use for anything years before Google Drive even existed. DropBox referrals allowed you to amass up to 16GB or so easily. Box was giving away 10-50GB capacity left and right, etc.

You could get more space on DropBox/Box/SkyDrive and even iCloud before Google Drive even existed when it was just Docs and Picasa Web Albums and the storage wasn't even integrated.

Google was actually kind of late to Cloud Storage.

They were actually late to a lot of markets, but their reputation and tying their products together does help them push them. This is a lot easier now with Android proliferation than it was back then, even.

[Wiki Cydia]

The idea pushed by many here is that because a person has already shared some information with payment processor, government, friends, etc then it's no harm to give ALL your info to google to be sold to advertisers (albeit in aggregated form).

Really. Who made that argument? I don't recall anyone claiming that by virtue of providing some information to some vendors it is suddenly okay to give "all" information to Google; do you have a particular post in mind?

[Wiki Cydia]

Wow you have actually opened my eyes a bit more. I had a lot of android and an iphone and I completely agree with you. The apps send you update notifications literally EVER SINGLE ******* DAY. Wow, I am glad I'm on my Q10 now.

Q10

First of all, you don't have to exaggerate to prove your point. There isn't a developer out there updating apps every day, so the only way you get daily updates is if you have so many apps that even with only occasional updates for individual apps you still have something being updated every day.

Second, I'm not sure the frequency of app updates has anything to do with the data sharing issue that's central to this thread.

[vrud]

when Blackberry does the same thing.
a lot of the information in this thread is either flat out wrong, unintentionally misleading, or an outright lie

Please show the readers privacy statement where BB collects personal data for sale.
The governments around the globe will be happy.

You're absolutely right that there is a lot of misleading information in this thread.

[vrud]

Really. Who made that argument? I don't recall anyone claiming that by virtue of providing some information to some vendors it is suddenly okay to give "all" information to Google; do you have a particular post in mind?

I might have misunderstood some ideas.
My state is the following - even though I shared entry code to my house with my close friend, it doesn't necessarily mean that I need to start giving it out to others.
I don't advocate that everybody should treat privacy seriously.

[pantlesspenguin]

Just FYI -

c) Aggregated or anonymous information

RIM reserves the right to process, sell, trade or rent aggregated or anonymous information that is not associated with or linked to an identifiable individual.

http://us.blackberry.com/legal/priva.../overview.html

Section 4 is a good read as well, outlining the types of data they collect.

[sleepngbear]

WHY does everyone assume there's malicious intent to Google wanting location and other data????

I don't think everyone assumes the intent is malicious. The real concern is that it's much easier for something malicious to be carried out with all that information being captured and potentially 'out there'. We really have no idea what they are doing with any of your information or with whom they are sharing iit. And face it, Android's reputation for security isn't exactly stellar. To be honest, this is one of the two biggest reasons I won't touch Android.

As for some of your scenarios, it totally creeps me out when I see ads on a web page for something I did a search for days ago. Don't like it at all.

[TgeekB]

I don't think everyone assumes the intent is malicious. The real concern is that it's much easier for something malicious to be carried out with all that information being captured and potentially 'out there'. We really have no idea what they are doing with any of your information or with whom they are sharing iit. And face it, Android's reputation for security isn't exactly stellar. To be honest, this is one of the two biggest reasons I won't touch Android.

As for some of your scenarios, it totally creeps me out when I see ads on a web page for something I did a search for days ago. Don't like it at all.

That is your choice and perfectly fine. People are not and should not be forced to use Google. Many of us enjoy the benefits we get from using Google without any ill effects.

Posted via the Android CrackBerry App!

[pantlesspenguin]

I don't think everyone assumes the intent is malicious. The real concern is that it's much easier for something malicious to be carried out with all that information being captured and potentially 'out there'. We really have no idea what they are doing with any of your information or with whom they are sharing iit. And face it, Android's reputation for security isn't exactly stellar. To be honest, this is one of the two biggest reasons I won't touch Android.

As for some of your scenarios, it totally creeps me out when I see ads on a web page for something I did a search for days ago. Don't like it at all.

Some of the webpage ads annoy me. Like when I was searching for mattresses and made a purchase, I'd still get Mattress Firm ads for a day or two, even though I didn't need the ads anymore. Same when I placed an order on Adagio. I got ads for Adagio even though I obviously knew about Adagio. However, they help sometimes. Like when I was searching Ghost Adventures episodes on YouTube I got a notification when the latest season was about to start. That was cool.

Also, we don't know who BlackBerry is "selling or trading" their information with, either.

[app_Developer]

No one finds it odd that we're discussing the evil of ad-supported models on a free discussion site that makes money from placing targeted ads?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TgeekB]

No one finds it odd that we're discussing the evil of ad-supported models on a free discussion site that makes money from placing targeted ads?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Very nice. The evil CrackBerry! Lol.

Posted via the Android CrackBerry App!

[Tre Lawrence]

No one finds it odd that we're discussing the evil of ad-supported models on a free discussion site that makes money from placing targeted ads?

LOL.

A bit too much logic right there dear friend.

[Yatezy]

And face it, Android's reputation for security isn't exactly stellar. To be honest, this is one of the two biggest reasons I won't touch Android

Androids biggest problem with security is the ability to download from dodgy third party app stores. After reading a thread the other day, this place seems to direct people to download from the same app stores that are the cause of Androids huge monopoly on malware in all the virus/malware surveys.

Can't quite get my head round that

[The Big Picture]

There are some very strong advocates for google on this thread. I think the OP is just expressing his feelings and opinions which are also valid.

Most of us on this chat who are for or against google know at least this is true: Google makes money by collecting data and sells ads.

Who knows? Maybe they might do other things with that data besides ads. You will never know. Also the use of that data can change in the years to come. For now data collected is anonymous but who can really tell? For all you know combine google maps, location tracking on your android device together with the data they already have on you they could figure out pretty much everything about you.

Just know what google has a tremendous amount of data and info on just about anyone on the internet.

Who are they to be the "gatekeepers" of that information? Who is governing what they do with that data and information?

Information is power. And the way things are going google is set to be the most powerful company in the world.

Who made them king of the world? I for some would like some check and balance. No singular company should have that kind of power.

If you can live without these questions answered then go ahead and enjoy your google powered devices and services.

I choose the devices and services which does things more transparently.

If anyone's privacy has been violated and posted up for all of the internet to see, google is not gonna help one bit. Why? Because its bad for business aint it?

Posted via CB10

[Troy Tiscareno]

Q10Nutter,

That's a perfectly reasonable and valid opinion. I'm fine if people choose not to use Google or any of its services. I just don't like when people exaggerate or outright lie about what Google does, or tells me that I'm stupid/crazy/uninformed/a sheep for choosing to use them myself, nor when they attribute evilness to things that are simply a straightforward business model. Google's business model is nothing new, as people have pointed out in this thread - TV has used the same model for decades. Google just uses a lot more data to do a lot better job at targeting the right groups of people for a particular ad. Their usage of your data to facilitate that has been in the news thousands and thousands of times, so it's not like it's any secret, and of course, you have to agree to their Terms Of Service to create an account as well.

Most of us live in countries where we are relatively free to make our own decisions. I fully support those who choose to use services other than Google, for whatever reasons they may have. Viva freedom!