Google’s Advanced Protection Arrives on Android: Should You Use It?
Technology
17
Beiträge
15
Kommentatoren
64
Aufrufe
-
Most features here let Google scan and evaluate what you do on the web, messages, and apps.
They say it helps security, but of course it assures those features are on letting them suck in more data about the person.
A company like Google doesn't do something out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it for profit
As every other company.
-
As every other company.
Some smaller ones can take a hit for doing good. Weird, how greedier you get the more assets you have.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I’ve been checking out the localhost tracking vulnerability and there’s something I can’t work out: it’s not even a terribly obscure or convoluted exploit, especially Yandex’s implementation that’s been chugging for more than 8 years over basic HTTP. It’s just a glaring sandboxing workaround that’s been exclusive to this OS for more than a decade.
No matter how many ways I look at it, I haven’t come up with a reasonable explanation for how it was ignored, by demonstrably capable engineers, unless Google itself had use for it in the first place. And that fits a pattern of selective competence in information security that they just can’t seem to quit.
In short it’s the data collection backdoors they leave themselves that defeat the otherwise top-tier security of their consumer offerings, and it’s why I’ll probably never trust anything they’ve touched until I’ve taken it apart and put it back together again.
So no, you probably shouldn’t use it. Trusting the privacy or security claims of any adtech company will always be a mistake.
-
Some smaller ones can take a hit for doing good. Weird, how greedier you get the more assets you have.
It's not weird. When a small company does something like this they lose users and it could damage them. Google doesn't care because they know people will use them no matter what.
-
Some smaller ones can take a hit for doing good. Weird, how greedier you get the more assets you have.
I meant that literally every other company is after the money, not only Google or big ones.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not if you're a journalist investigating Sundar Pichai and his anti-competitive and monopolist behaviors
-
I meant that literally every other company is after the money, not only Google or big ones.
Depends on the form of the company. German space, we have GmbH, there's nonprofit too. And some "normal" ones with a social vein.
But as soon as they get trade market, they get money only, usually.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If you ever had IG natively installed on a device, is it possible for that meta pixel script to still be used on your device?
Don’t have an IG account anymore, but makes me wonder what “services” are running in the background on my mobile.
-
If you ever had IG natively installed on a device, is it possible for that meta pixel script to still be used on your device?
Don’t have an IG account anymore, but makes me wonder what “services” are running in the background on my mobile.
If you uninstalled the app or disabled it, then it can't run in the background.
makes me wonder what “services” are running in the background on my mobile.
A lot unless it's a degoogled ROM, especially on non-Pixel phones like Samsung, they add a massive amount of background processes.
-
If you ever had IG natively installed on a device, is it possible for that meta pixel script to still be used on your device?
Don’t have an IG account anymore, but makes me wonder what “services” are running in the background on my mobile.
pornhub probably
-
I’ve been checking out the localhost tracking vulnerability and there’s something I can’t work out: it’s not even a terribly obscure or convoluted exploit, especially Yandex’s implementation that’s been chugging for more than 8 years over basic HTTP. It’s just a glaring sandboxing workaround that’s been exclusive to this OS for more than a decade.
No matter how many ways I look at it, I haven’t come up with a reasonable explanation for how it was ignored, by demonstrably capable engineers, unless Google itself had use for it in the first place. And that fits a pattern of selective competence in information security that they just can’t seem to quit.
In short it’s the data collection backdoors they leave themselves that defeat the otherwise top-tier security of their consumer offerings, and it’s why I’ll probably never trust anything they’ve touched until I’ve taken it apart and put it back together again.
So no, you probably shouldn’t use it. Trusting the privacy or security claims of any adtech company will always be a mistake.
I’ll probably never trust anything they’ve touched until I’ve taken it apart and put it back together again.
Me too. But the vast majority of users need guardrails, and have a different threat model. Even those that also care about privacy, if they just want a solution that comes by default, this adtech 'fake' or 'superficial' solution does provide something. And anything is more than nothing.
