Android - privacy - alternate OS

[Iain]

I am very new to the android scene - only a few weeks; and trying out
different apps and flashing upgrades onto it.

Yesterday, YouTube wanted to update, and I was looking through all the
permissions it was seeking - all of them, not just the new ones. (I have
copied all of the permissions at the bottom)

The app now wants to start running at bootup, and be able to take pictures
and videos at any time and wants to communicate with other near-field
devices. These are just the new permissions.

It already has full access (read/write) to the SD card, viewing account
details and modifying user accounts and passwords. And this is just for
YouTube.

I noticed earlier on that my mobile had been interfering
(combining/associating) with my contacts list, adding things, and stopping
me deleting items that had been added in; and also adding dates (eg.
changing birthdays, adding holidays) to my calendar. This was all by
default. I syncronise my contacts and calendar wirelessly, via a cloud,
with Outlook on my computer.

Do people not worry about all of this happening, and Google messing around
with personal information like this? A year or so ago, Facebook sent me an
email associating myself with some of my friends and relations. I was quite
surprised as to how accurate it was. This was clearly from information that
other people had put into Facebook - obviously including details about me.

I find the amount of information that is being harvested, especially on the
internet, quite frightening.

The third point of my subject - is there an alternative operating system for
androids? (Clearly, not Google-orientated)

--
Iain


====================


ANDROID - YouTube

HARDWARE CONTROLS:
NEW: Take pictures and videos
Allows applications to take pictures and videos with the camera. This
allows the application to collect images that the camera is seeing at any
time.


NETWORK COMMUNICATION:
NEW: Control Near-Field Communication
Allows an application to communicate with Near-Field Communication (NFC)
tags, cards and readers.

Full Internet Access
Allows an application to create network sockets


STORAGE:
Modify/delete SD card contents
Allows an application to write ot the SD card.


SYSTEM TOOLS:
Change network connectivity
Allows an application to change the state of network connectivity

Prevent phone from sleeping
Allows an application to prevent the phone from going to sleep


YOUR ACCOUNTS:
YouTube
Allows applications to sign in to YouTube, using the account(s) stored on
this phone

YouTube usernames
Allows applications to see the YouTube username(s) associated with the
Google account(s) stored on this phone.

Manage the accounts list
Allows an application to perform operations like adding and removing
accounts and deleting their passwords.

Use the authentication creditials of an account
Allows an application to request authentication tokens.


SYSTEM TOOLS:
NEW: Automatically start at boot
Allows an application to start itself as soon as the system has finished
booting. This can make it take longer to start the phone and allow the
application to slow down the overall phone by always running.


NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS:
View Wi-Fi status
Allows an application to view the information about the status of Wi-Fi.

View network status
Allows an application to view the status of all networks


YOUR ACCOUNTS:
Discover known accounts
Allows an application to access the list of accounts known by the phone.

Read Google service configuration
Allows this application to read Google service configuration data.

View configured accounts
Allows applications to see the usernames (email addresses) of the Google
account(s) that you have configured.

[Andy Burns]

Iain wrote:

> I am very new to the android scene - only a few weeks; and trying out
> different apps and flashing upgrades onto it.
>
> Yesterday, YouTube wanted to update, and I was looking through all the
> permissions it was seeking - all of them, not just the new ones. (I have
> copied all of the permissions at the bottom)

If (by the sound of it) your device is rooted, you might look at
something like PDroid

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.privacy.pdroid

Some apps don't notice if you withhold permissions that they would only
need to perform functions you don't use, though if you withdraw a
required permission the app might crash or behave badly, rather than
display an error stating it can't use the permissions you agreed to
during installation.

[David Woolley]

Iain wrote:

>
> Yesterday, YouTube wanted to update, and I was looking through all the
> permissions it was seeking - all of them, not just the new ones. (I have
> copied all of the permissions at the bottom)

All social media applications are predicated on privacy reductions,
however, I suspect that the demand for permissions here arises from the
application suppliers desire to make it the only one you use, and
therefore the need to give it all the capabilities of the OS.

>
> The third point of my subject - is there an alternative operating system for
> androids? (Clearly, not Google-orientated)
>

Android is the operating system, so an Android without Android is not an
Android. I think they are mainly standard ARM etc. smart phone devices,
so assume tht the Linuxes for such devices will work.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Iain" <sp...@smaps.net> wrote in message
news:afpc1g...@mid.individual.net...

>I am very new to the android scene - only a few weeks; and trying out
>different apps and flashing upgrades onto it.
>
> Yesterday, YouTube wanted to update, and I was looking through all the
> permissions it was seeking - all of them, not just the new ones. (I have
> copied all of the permissions at the bottom)
>
> The app now wants to start running at bootup, and be able to take pictures
> and videos at any time and wants to communicate with other near-field
> devices. These are just the new permissions.
>
> It already has full access (read/write) to the SD card, viewing account
> details and modifying user accounts and passwords. And this is just for
> YouTube.
>
> I noticed earlier on that my mobile had been interfering
> (combining/associating) with my contacts list, adding things, and stopping
> me deleting items that had been added in; and also adding dates (eg.
> changing birthdays, adding holidays) to my calendar. This was all by
> default. I syncronise my contacts and calendar wirelessly, via a cloud,
> with Outlook on my computer.

Possibly because your address book and calendar are (by default) associated
with the phone-registered Google account and "backed up" on their servers
without you asking them to. It's useful if (like me) you use a phone and a
tablet, as it keeps everything synced between the two; add an appointment or
a new contact on one, and it'll show up on both.

Try looking at the Android settings and going to your sync settings, you can
turn off various things there, and others may be buried within the settings
screen of the app itself. You can also turn off the backup option which (*in
theory*) stops your contacts, settings etc being backed up online.

I've found that on Google Play Store (where you get apps and games) the more
responsible developers will list each "permission" in their app and tell you
exactly why the app needs that particular permission.

But yeah, when you sit and think about it there is an awful lot of
information that could be (and probably is) harvested by Google and app
developers. Whether any of it is much use to them is another question, apart
from providing data for their "targetted adverts". Personally, I always keep
the "location services" off unless I need them, but even then, the phone
company has a history of where you are all the time you've got a signal.

Trouble is, if you buy an Android phone, then Android is what you're stuck
with. And in fairness to Google, I wouldn't be too sure that Apple and
Microsoft aren't similarly storing your personal info from their own phone
softwares, although they're a lot less transparent about it. At least (most)
Google apps tell you what you could be letting yourself in for and provide
opt-out for most of it.

One major thing to warn you about is the Google+ app - mine came
pre-installed with a Galaxy S3 a few weeks ago, it was uploading *every*
picture and video taken with my phone camera to my own Google+ (Picasa?)
account (which I didn't even use). I noticed a folder in my Gallery app
which contained lots of pics that I'd deleted, and couldn't delete it so I
did a search online and found out the reason. Now Google+ is a social
network a bit like Facebook where you have "friends" who, presumably, could
have seen all of those pics and videos. Luckily I don't use Google+ and
hadn't been taking pictures of my genitals, but you get the idea. You can
only delete those pictures and videos by logging into Google+ online, and of
course turn the auto-upload "feature" off within the phone app.

I think you should be opted out of these things by default unless you
explicitly request them.

[Theo Markettos]

In uk.telecom Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
> Do people not worry about all of this happening, and Google messing around
> with personal information like this?

Yes.

> The third point of my subject - is there an alternative operating system
> for androids? (Clearly, not Google-orientated)

Have a look at:
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/

It's still Android, but a cleaner version without some of the
carrier-foisted tracking stuff (see 'Carrier IQ'). However one thing you
have is root. That means you can install apps like a firewall. Why does my
notepad app want to talk to the internet? Block it! Not least, I can have
a train times app working when roaming at $$$/MB without a dozen other apps
phoning home and spending my money on data. I'm not sure if you can
completely prevent it talking to Google, though.

There's various patches that selectively restrict apps' tracking potential
by pretending data is not available - eg asks for the contacts book and
return an empty one, GPS says there's no signal, etc. I haven't tried any of
these, but they apparently work more reliably than simply denying access to
resources. Has anyone any experience?

Theo

[Iain]

Thanks - this looks like what I want. I tried installing it, but it needed
a patch, which you have to create yourself. Tried doing that, but do not
have the runtime library installed. Anyway, it only seems to be for
Gingerbread 2.3.3-5. I have 2.3.6. I'll have to look for something
similar.

--
Iain

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Theo Markettos" <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:mWk*DS...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

I've read a bit on these and never really decided the pros outweigh the cons
enough to try one. It appears that custom ROMs do allow you to block in-game
adverts and apps/games "phoning home" but I've seen that many of them aren't
quite up to the stock ROM, they're still adding wifi functionality for
example, to match the stock versions.

If you've got the time and the inclination, you can screen the market apps
to see which ones offer the best features for the least privacy issues, they
all list the permissions needed before you decide to install it or not.

I agree about the carrier-foisted crap, 99% of it is useless and
un-removable. I suppose you could always turn mobile data and wifi off when
you're out, and only turn them on when you need to.

[Dave Saville]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:29:54 UTC, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I agree about the carrier-foisted crap, 99% of it is useless and
> un-removable. I suppose you could always turn mobile data and wifi off when
> you're out, and only turn them on when you need to.
>

Possibly not the right NG to ask, but is one better off with an
unlocked to a network version of a phone? I assume one bought as not
locked to any carrier would be free of such.

--
Regards
Dave Saville

[alexd]

Mentalguy2k8 (for it is he) wrote:

> I've read a bit on these and never really decided the pros outweigh the
> cons enough to try one. It appears that custom ROMs do allow you to block
> in-game adverts and apps/games "phoning home" but I've seen that many of
> them aren't quite up to the stock ROM, they're still adding wifi
> functionality for example, to match the stock versions.

On the other hand, Cyanogenmod allows me to easily run a newer version of
the OS than HTC can be bothered to release for my handset, so well worth it
in my opinion.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
19:52:49 up 29 days, 9:13, 5 users, load average: 0.41, 0.53, 0.57
Qua illic est reprehendit, illic est a vindicatum

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Dave Saville" <da...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:fV45K0OBJxbE-pn2-lFNpfZ5ZEdDd@localhost...

With regard to the amount of useless and unremovable crap that networks put
on their phones, definitely. You'll also benefit from the official Android
updates, for instance when "Jelly Bean" (the latest) was released, you'd
have got it on that day. If you're locked to a carrier, you usually get the
update a few weeks/months later, once your network provider's techies have
broken it and bloated it to double the original size, to make sure it's
compatible with all their own useless software already on the phone,
probably with new features missing and unwanted features added.

My last phone was a HTC Desire HD, which had HTC Sense built in, I could
wait for months for the latest update to the Android operating system,
because HTC had to customise it first, otherwise it wouldn't work with the
HTC Sense software. Then HTC decided it was too much bother and announced
that the Desire wouldn't receive any more Android operating system updates.
But look! You can buy one of our new phones with the latest version of
Android on it!

[alexd]

Mentalguy2k8 (for it is he) wrote:

> But yeah, when you sit and think about it there is an awful lot of
> information that could be (and probably is) harvested by Google and app
> developers. Whether any of it is much use to them is another question,
> apart from providing data for their "targetted adverts".

Given that Google derives 96% of it's revenues from advertising, harvesting
information about you is pretty much the raison d'etre of Android.

> Trouble is, if you buy an Android phone, then Android is what you're stuck
> with.

The list of mobile phones where you can change OS as and when you feel like
it must be a pretty short one.

> One major thing to warn you about is the Google+ app - mine came

> pre-installed with a Galaxy S3 a few weeks ago, it was uploading every

> picture and video taken with my phone camera to my own Google+ (Picasa?)
> account (which I didn't even use).

Not only is that a serious risk to privacy, but what a waste of bandwidth
too!

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)

19:55:44 up 29 days, 9:16, 5 users, load average: 0.74, 0.62, 0.60

[Tired]

Iain wrote:
:: I am very new to the android scene - only a few weeks; and trying out

:: different apps and flashing upgrades onto it.
::
:: Yesterday, YouTube wanted to update, and I was looking through all
:: the permissions it was seeking - all of them, not just the new ones.
:: (I have copied all of the permissions at the bottom)
::
:: The app now wants to start running at bootup, and be able to take
:: pictures and videos at any time and wants to communicate with other
:: near-field devices. These are just the new permissions.

::

The new iphone operating system has a similar piece of deviousn behaviour.
It has integrated facebook into the operating system. It goes to great
lengths to tell you that you are in control and you can stop facebook from
accessing your contacts etc. The problem is, that when you first sign in to
facebook using the ios interface it synchronises all your contacts into
facebook and facebook into contacts, it is only *after* it has done this can
you choose the option to tell it not to do it in future. Shocking behaviour.

"you can opt out, only after we have already mined your data for all that we
need".

[AlanG]

Unlocked.
Then you can use any carrier you like as long as your phone will
handle their system.

[AlanG]

My son has an unlocked Apple phone. The latest edition. He offered me
his old one but I turned it down and bought one of these
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-E1150-free-mobile-phone/dp/B005COWXT0/ref=pd_cp_ce_0/277-4138744-6174041

Does phone and text and a charge lasts over a week.
No crap camera or operating system to eat up power and it fits in my
pocket. Has a nice loudspeaker that works with my hearing aid too.

[Iain]

This is almost certainly a breach of the Data Protection Act. I had a
complaint about a company a couple of years ago (June 2010), and in the
Information Commissioner's Office's reply they said:

"XXX Limited are registered for the sharing and trading in personal data.
They can however only share and trade the personal data of individuals who
have expressly agreed to their information being passed to third party
organisations who will then try to market them directly.

The ICO, under its former name of the Data Protection Registrar, took legal
action against XXX in the late 1990's to ensure that they did properly
obtain their customers' consent prior to sharing and selling data regarding
XXX's customers."

This was for a company that was registered to share / sell data. It sounds
as though I am even responding to my own original post now!!

--
Iain

[Dave Saville]

In which case, why does Cyanogenmod have "carrier" versions?

--
Regards
Dave Saville

[AlanG]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:29:12 +0000 (UTC), "Dave Saville"

<da...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:30:28 UTC, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:58:56 +0000 (UTC), "Dave Saville"
>> <da...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:29:54 UTC, "Mentalguy2k8"
>> ><Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> I agree about the carrier-foisted crap, 99% of it is useless and
>> >> un-removable. I suppose you could always turn mobile data and wifi off when
>> >> you're out, and only turn them on when you need to.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Possibly not the right NG to ask, but is one better off with an
>> >unlocked to a network version of a phone? I assume one bought as not
>> >locked to any carrier would be free of such.
>>
>> Unlocked.
>> Then you can use any carrier you like as long as your phone will
>> handle their system.
>
>In which case, why does Cyanogenmod have "carrier" versions?

I have no idea who Cyanogenmod is.
Is he a popular singer?

[Tired]

Iain wrote:

There is no doubt, the terms and conditions clearly tell you what they are
going to do. There is no hiding it. It is a case of dont use the facility if
you arent happy with the conditions.

[Daniel James]

In article <fV45K0OBJxbE-pn2-lFNpfZ5ZEdDd@localhost>, Dave Saville
wrote:
> ... is one better off with an unlocked to a network version of a

> phone? I assume one bought as not locked to any carrier would be
> free of such.

Probably, yes. The advantage of a contract phone is mostly in the
warranty (which gets less comprehensive year by year), and you pay for
that by having crap apps on the phone, and by not being able to upgrade
the OS until your carrier has branded the new version.

I have a Galaxy phone on Vodafone and a SIM-free Galaxy tablet, both
running ICS. The software is very similar, but the tablet doesn't have
the Vodafone-branded crap. (At least with ICS you can "Hide" apps you
don't plan to use ... not quite as satisfying as being able to
obliterate them entirely but they don't run and they don't nag you to
update them.)

Interestingly, the Galaxy TAB *will* make voice calls (with an
appropriate SIM and a headset), which I'm pretty sure the iPad doesn't
support. Could be useful in emergencies.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Dave Saville" <da...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:fV45K0OBJxbE-pn2-U1jCsqQtw4lM@localhost...

Dunno, maybe people who root their phones want them to be as close as
possible to the "real" ROM but with some decent configureability like the
option to block ads and prevent certain data uploading. With a stock ROM you
can only fiddle with the settings that Google wants you to fiddle with, you
can't even see the OS files.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p6mh98p8iautf0gnr...@4ax.com...

If you just want texts and phone calls, then that's perfect. I bet it lasts
for days and days on one charge, too. Most people with new phones are lucky
to get through a day without having to charge it.

[AlanG]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:25:43 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message


>>

>> My son has an unlocked Apple phone. The latest edition. He offered me
>> his old one but I turned it down and bought one of these
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-E1150-free-mobile-phone/dp/B005COWXT0/ref=pd_cp_ce_0/277-4138744-6174041
>>
>> Does phone and text and a charge lasts over a week.
>> No crap camera or operating system to eat up power and it fits in my
>> pocket. Has a nice loudspeaker that works with my hearing aid too.
>
>If you just want texts and phone calls, then that's perfect. I bet it lasts
>for days and days on one charge, too. Most people with new phones are lucky
>to get through a day without having to charge it.

8 days before I need to stick it on charge. Replaces a similar one
that was needing charging every day due to the battery being stuffed.
The only things I would have had extra would have been a decent camera
and a USB socket like my last phone but for the price it is almost
exactly what I want.

[Iain]

Tired wrote:

> Iain wrote:

>>> This is almost certainly a breach of the Data Protection Act. I had
>>> a complaint about a company a couple of years ago (June 2010), and
>>> in the Information Commissioner's Office's reply they said:
>>>
>>> "XXX Limited are registered for the sharing and trading in personal
>>> data. They can however only share and trade the personal data of
>>> individuals who have expressly agreed to their information being
>>> passed to third party organisations who will then try to market them
>>> directly.
>>>
>>> The ICO, under its former name of the Data Protection Registrar,
>>> took legal action against XXX in the late 1990's to ensure that they
>>> did properly obtain their customers' consent prior to sharing and
>>> selling data regarding XXX's customers."
>>>
>>> This was for a company that was registered to share / sell data. It
>>> sounds as though I am even responding to my own original post now!!
>>>
>

> There is no doubt, the terms and conditions clearly tell you what
> they are going to do. There is no hiding it. It is a case of dont use
> the facility if you arent happy with the conditions.

The law says that there must be an opt-out, and I think that you will find
that it has to be a positive act of consent from the data subject to allow
their data to be passed on to a third party. To say that they are going to
pass your information on and include that in their T&Cs is not a positive
act of consent. They must allow an opt-out, and this must be easy.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_1.aspx
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/conditions_for_processing.aspx

--
Iain

[alexd]

Dave Saville (for it is he) wrote:

> In which case, why does Cyanogenmod have "carrier" versions?

In case you actually want the carrier bits?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)

18:18:22 up 30 days, 7:39, 5 users, load average: 0.30, 0.35, 0.32

[Whiskers]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.telecom.mobile.]

As far as I can see, they don't. They do have different 'builds' for
different hardware, but that's entirely different. You have to 'unlock'
and 'root' the device before you can install a CyanogenMod system.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Morten Nygaard Åsnes]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.telecom.mobile.]
On 2012-11-06, Dave Saville <da...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> In which case, why does Cyanogenmod have "carrier" versions?
>

CyanogenMod dosn't have "carrier" versions, but some phones have hardware
differences between carriers, in which case they will have different
CyanogenMod versions too.

--
Morten Nygaard Åsnes
http://www.twitter.com/mortenaa

[Iain]

Now up to Gingerbread 2.3.7, with Cyanogenmod 7.2 (cooper - latest nightly).
My Ace cannot go higher than 7.2. It is missing one or two minor features
which I used before, but it seems quite efficient so far with lots of things
to change to customise it. There are later versions of Cyanogenmod, but
they seem to be experimental, with some features not working on them.
I shall see how it goes. I have a backup (using the Clockwork recovery) of
the 2.3.6 to which I upgraded it before. So it will be easy to downgrade it
if necessary.
It seems to need a fast learning curve to take everything in to do it all!

--
Iain