Finally Google bows to pressure to offer offline routing

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 12:05:02 PM11/10/15

to

Finally Google bows to pressure to offer *offline* routing
on both Android & iOS (much like most map apps already do).

"Google Maps adds offline turn-by-turn directions, search"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3003913/apps/google-maps-adds-offline-turn-by-turn-directions-search.html

I guess they realized the competition of the many free
offline map programs was too great, so they added this
long-needed feature where routing works even when there
is no cellular connection.

Traffic doesn't work though (and probably never will).
The article says "search" works, but I don't see how it can.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 2:20:33 PM11/10/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:7823c$564223bd$6c1fe631$17...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

> Finally Google bows to pressure to offer *offline* routing
> on both Android & iOS (much like most map apps already do).
>
> "Google Maps adds offline turn-by-turn directions, search"
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3003913/apps/google-maps-adds-offline-turn-by-turn-directions-search.html

That mangles the real story considerably, particularly with
what has been available offline for years how. You have
been able to setup a route while your wifi is available,
and then have turn by turn directions available while
travelling the route for years now. The only real lack
is that you do have to follow the route. If you deviate
from it, you will no longer get turn by turn directions
until you return to the route, when they will continue.

> I guess they realized the competition of the many
> free offline map programs was too great, so they
> added this long-needed feature where routing
> works even when there is no cellular connection.

Much more likely it has nothing to do with competition
and is just adding more features as they always have done.

> Traffic doesn't work though (and probably never will).

Unsurprising as that data has to come from somewhere.

> The article says "search" works, but I don't see how it can.

Corse it can if the data it needs is now in the phone.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 3:21:03 PM11/10/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:20:26 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> The only real lack
> is that you do have to follow the route. If you deviate
> from it, you will no longer get turn by turn directions
> until you return to the route, when they will continue.

Now it seems to do turn-by-turn and re-routes even when offline
if you have a map tile saved.

Dunno if Google will save those tiles automatically or if you
still have to save them ahead of time.

> Much more likely it has nothing to do with competition
> and is just adding more features as they always have done.

We will never know, but I, for one have given up on Google apps
(more because of the privacy breaches than anything else) so
maybe others have too.

In the case of maps, there are plenty of free maps which are
just as accurate as Google Maps, all which work offline for
everything (searches, routing, turn-by-turn directions).

>> Traffic doesn't work though (and probably never will).
> Unsurprising as that data has to come from somewhere.

Yes. Traffic kind of has to be real time.
I don't even use Google Maps for traffic anymore, because plenty
of other free apps have the same traffic information for free
without the spyware.

HERE Maps by Nokia Apps LLC
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.here.app.maps

Beat the Traffic by Pelmorex Canada Inc. (US & Canada only)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=triangleSoftware.traffic.android

INRIX XD Traffic Maps & Alerts by INRIX, Inc.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=inrix.android.ui&hl=en

Traffic, Radars & GPS - Glob by Loïc Monthorin
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.monthorin.rttraffic16

>> The article says "search" works, but I don't see how it can.
> Corse it can if the data it needs is now in the phone.

Yes. You are correct. I read a few more articles. It downloads the
points of interest along with the map tile. That's a good idea. I don't
think the older map tile offline maps did that before.

Of course, all the free offline map apps also come with a database of
points of interest, so, again, I still think Google may have bowed to
the pressure of people using apps that are NOT Google to do the job.

For example, these are all perfectly good alternatives to Google
apps, if you're interested in reducing Google spying on you.

1. Google Play app => You can use f-droid.org instead of google play
2. GMail app => use K9Mail and consider a non-gmail account
3. Google Maps => use Navigator or Copilot or OSMAnd~ instead
4. YouTube media player => use VLC instead (and download YT content)
5. Chrome browser => use Mozilla Firefox and Tor Browser Bundle instead
6. Google Hangouts VOIP app => lousy app but does free incoming calls!
7. Google Picassa picture app => lots of good alternatives!
8. OK Google widget => use Dragon Mobile Assistant instead
9. Google MyTracks => does not seem to require a log in so it's ok

I think those are the *only* common Google Apps on most phones,
so those are the ones to replace with non-spyware better alternatives.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 6:32:24 PM11/10/15

to

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:21:03 -0500, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> I think those are the *only* common Google Apps on most phones,
> so those are the ones to replace with non-spyware better alternatives.

On the iPad, it's the same or similar story but with far fewer choices.

1. Instead of Google maps, just use Copilot or Map Plus or Be-on-Road
or even Apple Maps, which isn't too bad by way of comparison.

2. Safari is very bad because it leaks private information giving away
all the encrypted web sites you've been to, to any site that wants to
know, so, just use Mercury instead.

3. The Apple Mail is probably ok, and there aren't many alternatives anyway.

4. You're stuck with Hangouts+GV if you want totally free phone calls
both ways to and from landlines though.

5. For video, VLC wins hands down against almost anything else for
a whole bunch of reasons.

6. For Office apps, the Apple apps are pretty good, so there's not a
great need for MS Office but a lot of people use Evernote.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 6:52:19 PM11/10/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

> Dunno if Google will save those tiles automatically
> or if you still have to save them ahead of time.

Yeah, I turned that off, mainly because I have to have data
on for the facebook group of my own that I use during the
garage/yard sale run, so no need to use google.maps offline.

>> Much more likely it has nothing to do with competition
>> and is just adding more features as they always have done.

> We will never know, but I, for one have given up on
> Google apps (more because of the privacy breaches
> than anything else) so maybe others have too.

I'm sure some do for that reason, but they are unlikely
to believe that google won't be keeping track of where
they have been while offline if they are that paranoid.

> In the case of maps, there are plenty of free maps
> which are just as accurate as Google Maps,

I can't agree with that at all, particularly with the
amendments that google has been very quick to accept
when users tell them about errors, unlike apple.

Just had an odd result tho, Snaidero Rd here just
recently got misspelled as Snaldero Rd and it doesn’t
even offer you Snaldero Rd if you search for Snaidero Rd,
just says no result. I've told them about that twice now
and it still isn't fixed. Dunno if that's because they are
now processing amendments much more slowly or if
some fool has decided that I must be wrong because
they are checking some official database that has it
wrong and are too stupid to check what their own
system used to have it spelt as.

> all which work offline for everything
> (searches, routing, turn-by-turn directions).

But don’t have street view. That can be very useful indeed
at times like when one of the garage salers asked me where
a garage sale actually was a week ago so he could go and
knock on the door and ask him about some stuff that the
person having the garage sale might have in a future one.

>>> Traffic doesn't work though (and probably never will).

>> Unsurprising as that data has to come from somewhere.

> Yes. Traffic kind of has to be real time.
> I don't even use Google Maps for traffic anymore,
> because plenty of other free apps have the same
> traffic information for free without the spyware.

I don’t use it at all myself, we just don’t have any
congestion here and none of them cover it anyway.

What I would like to know about is cop cars out and about.
I came tearing up behind one just a couple of weeks ago
at what must have been 100Kmph in a 50Kmph speed limited
area during the garage sale run. The cops were in one of the
smallest vans we call paddy wagons with no back window
and a very poor view out of the wing mirrors, so the must
not have noticed me. Just as well, that would have been
instant loss of license and an immense fine.

We just don’t have anyone reporting cop cars out and about
here even tho there are some apps that support that.

> HERE Maps by Nokia Apps LLC
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.here.app.maps

> Beat the Traffic by Pelmorex Canada Inc. (US & Canada only)
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=triangleSoftware.traffic.android

> INRIX XD Traffic Maps & Alerts by INRIX, Inc.
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=inrix.android.ui&hl=en

> Traffic, Radars & GPS - Glob by Loïc Monthorin
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.monthorin.rttraffic16

I do mine on an iphone.

>>> The article says "search" works, but I don't see how it can.

>> Corse it can if the data it needs is now in the phone.

> Yes. You are correct. I read a few more articles. It downloads the
> points of interest along with the map tile. That's a good idea.
> I don't think the older map tile offline maps did that before.

Can't remember, didn’t use it for any more than a play.

Don’t actually use the search much. I mostly use the google
app rather than google maps for stuff like opening hours
which is about all the searching I do like that.

> Of course, all the free offline map apps also come with a database
> of points of interest, so, again, I still think Google may have bowed to
> the pressure of people using apps that are NOT Google to do the job.

I doubt google operates like that myself.

> For example, these are all perfectly good alternatives to Google
> apps, if you're interested in reducing Google spying on you.

I don’t care. I don’t care about the supermarkets knowing what I buy
or about google knowing what I have searched for online either.

> 1. Google Play app => You can use f-droid.org instead of google play
> 2. GMail app => use K9Mail and consider a non-gmail account

No thanks, I like the much better than usual auto spam flushing with gmail.

Yahoo is MUCH worse on that, puts much too much stuff in bulk mail.

> 3. Google Maps => use Navigator or Copilot or OSMAnd~ instead

No thanks, google maps does much better on user supplied amendments.

> 4. YouTube media player => use VLC instead (and download YT content)

I can't be bothered. I do use VLC for watching some of the
files that the PVR produces, but hate the fact that it doesn’t
keep track of where I have watched to in those files.

And it’s conversion system is a steaming turd
compared with Roxio's Video Copy and Convert.

> 5. Chrome browser => use Mozilla Firefox and Tor Browser Bundle instead

Firefox is a steaming turd IMO. Pale Moon isn't too bad except for the
stupid name.

Chrome does some stuff much better than the other browsers,
but is a very minimal browser, bugger all in the way of real
configurability and very little in the way of a proper session manager.

> 6. Google Hangouts VOIP app => lousy app but does free incoming calls!

Not here on the incoming calls unfortunately.

> 7. Google Picassa picture app => lots of good alternatives!
> 8. OK Google widget => use Dragon Mobile Assistant instead
> 9. Google MyTracks => does not seem to require a log in so it's ok

> I think those are the *only* common Google Apps on most phones,
> so those are the ones to replace with non-spyware better alternatives.

No thanks, I don’t give a damn about them snooping.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 8:01:27 PM11/10/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Paul M. Cook wrote

>> I think those are the *only* common Google Apps on most phones,
>> so those are the ones to replace with non-spyware better alternatives.

> On the iPad, it's the same or similar story but with far fewer choices.

> 1. Instead of Google maps, just use Copilot or Map Plus or Be-on-Road

No thanks, google maps is much better with
traffic and street view and correcting map errors.

> or even Apple Maps, which isn't too bad by way of comparison.

Nowhere near as good traffic info, no street
view at all, just ignores all error reports.

> 2. Safari is very bad because it leaks private information
> giving away all the encrypted web sites you've been to,
> to any site that wants to know,

I use Chrome just because I prefer the UI and the
fact that it keeps track of my stuff like saved links
across all the platforms I use Chrome on.

> so, just use Mercury instead.

No thanks.

> 3. The Apple Mail is probably ok,

Certainly is fine, and quite intelligent about when it uses the
best way of getting the message where you want it to go.

> and there aren't many alternatives anyway.

Corse there are, all the majors support it.

> 4. You're stuck with Hangouts+GV if you want totally free
> phone calls both ways to and from landlines though.

But with very limited non US support for that.

> 5. For video, VLC wins hands down against almost
> anything else for a whole bunch of reasons.

Yes, but due to the way iOS operates, not
as convenient for the simpler users to use.

> 6. For Office apps, the Apple apps are pretty
> good, so there's not a great need for MS Office

There is when you normally use MS Office on your desktop/laptop etc.

Lewis

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 8:12:17 PM11/10/15

to

In message <33c7$564251af$44021f46$19...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
> We will never know, but I, for one have given up on Google apps
> (more because of the privacy breaches than anything else) so
> maybe others have too.

What privacy breaches?

--
'An appointment is an engagement to see someone, while a morningstar is
a large lump of metal used for viciously crushing skulls. It is
important not to confuse the two.'

nospam

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 8:15:23 PM11/10/15

to

In article
<33c7$564251af$44021f46$19...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul M.

Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> For example, these are all perfectly good alternatives to Google
> apps, if you're interested in reducing Google spying on you.

anyone interested in reducing what google knows about you should stop
using android entirely.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 10:00:52 PM11/10/15

to

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 20:15:23 -0500, nospam wrote:

> anyone interested in reducing what google knows about you should stop
> using android entirely.

While Cyanogenmod will eliminate Google, I'm not sure what you mean
about stop using Android.

You can easily set up Android just like Apple to not spy on you.
How does Google spy on you "if" you do these things?

1. You set your phone to NOT allow anyone to use your location
2. You make up a Google Play account (because you have to)
3. You never use that Google Play account (use F-droid instead)
4. You never use Gmail (use K9Mail instead)
5. You never use Google Maps (use CoPilot instead)
3. You never use Google Traffic (Use Beat the Traffic instead)
4. You never use YouTube (use VLC instead)
5. You never use Chrome (use Firefox instead)
6. You never use Google Hangouts (use Skype instead)
7. You never use Picassa (use almost anything instead)
8. You never use OK Google (use Dragon Mobile Assistant instead)
9. You never use MyTracks (use MyTrails instead)

Of those things above, some are the same that Apple users would
encounter. For example, not using Gmail or Google Maps or Youtube
or Google Traffic.

But, if you do those simple things above (which are designed to
PREVENT Google from spying on you), how *else* can Google spy?

This is a serious question because I have thought about it, and,
as far as I can tell, if you do the things above, what's left
for Google to spy on you?

Serious question: How else can Google spy on you?

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 10:13:52 PM11/10/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:01:21 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> No thanks, google maps is much better with
> traffic and street view and correcting map errors.

Google Maps is damn good, I agree.
So is their traffic.

But, the goal is to eliminate Google spying.

So, the alternatives are pretty good.
1. CoPilot is the second best out there (second to Google).
2. Plenty of free Traffic Apps are out there, all using exactly the
same database that Google Traffic uses.

However, Copilot is also damn good, and, it works offline.
There are plenty of traffic apps that use the *same data* that Google
uses, so, they're just as good.

The only thing you lose is 'street view', which, I agree is nice, but,
on a cellular connection, isn't normally fast enough for me (I have
crappy cellular signal most of the time).

> Nowhere near as good traffic info, no street
> view at all, just ignores all error reports.

There are *plenty* of freeware traffic apps that report the exact same
data as does Google Traffic.

They are no better than Google Traffic - but - the presumption is that
we want to avoid Google spying, so, they are as good.

>> so, just use Mercury instead.
> No thanks.

Actually, I'd recommend "Firefox" (or Tor Browser Bundle) but while both
are available on Android, neither are available on iOS, so, you're kind
of stuck with insecure browsing if you use Safari.

That's why I suggested Mercury.
I wouldn't use Chrome because it's from Google, but, I don't know that
they spy on you with Chrome (maybe they don't, I don't know - but I don't
trust Google, so I avoid *all* Google apps).

Luckily, it's not hard at all to avoid Google apps, because there are
only 10 of them, as far as I can tell, all of which have free alternatives.

1. Google Play app => use f-droid.org instead
2. GMail app => use K9Mail instead
3. Google Maps => use Copilot instead
4. Google Traffic => use Beat the Traffic instead.
5. YouTube media player => use VLC instead
6. Chrome browser => use Firefox instead
7. Google Hangouts VOIP app => use Skype instead
8. Google Picassa picture app => what's a good alternative?
9. OK Google widget => use Dragon Mobile Assistant instead
10. Google MyTracks => use MyTrails instead

Once you've easily replaced these 10 apps, what else can Google do
to spy on you?

I don't know of anything else, and I've thought about it.

Can you find anything else that Google can do to spy on you if
you eliminate the 10 apps above?

nospam

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 10:19:41 PM11/10/15

to

In article
<e6b1f$5642af63$44021f46$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> > anyone interested in reducing what google knows about you should stop
> > using android entirely.
>
> While Cyanogenmod will eliminate Google, I'm not sure what you mean
> about stop using Android.

google owns android.

if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.

> You can easily set up Android just like Apple to not spy on you.

no you can't.

google makes money by collecting information.

apple does not nor do they want your information. they even go out of
their way to obscure it *for* you so they *can't* get at it.

worse, a lot of android apps have access to things they shouldn't
because the permissions model is a complete mess. google finally fixed
it to be like ios, where an app asks for what it needs rather than
enable everything or not run the app.

> How does Google spy on you "if" you do these things?
>
> 1. You set your phone to NOT allow anyone to use your location
> 2. You make up a Google Play account (because you have to)
> 3. You never use that Google Play account (use F-droid instead)
> 4. You never use Gmail (use K9Mail instead)
> 5. You never use Google Maps (use CoPilot instead)
> 3. You never use Google Traffic (Use Beat the Traffic instead)
> 4. You never use YouTube (use VLC instead)
> 5. You never use Chrome (use Firefox instead)
> 6. You never use Google Hangouts (use Skype instead)
> 7. You never use Picassa (use almost anything instead)
> 8. You never use OK Google (use Dragon Mobile Assistant instead)
> 9. You never use MyTracks (use MyTrails instead)

google knows what apps you've downloaded, where you've been, who you
call and much more.

you have no control over how much stuff it's phoning home. plus those
apps all have analytics too, some of which could be google's.

if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 10:37:31 PM11/10/15

to

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:19:40 -0500, nospam wrote:

> google owns android.
> if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.

No. That's just fear mongering.
I'm not saying Google doesn't spy on you though.
What I'm saying is, that as far as I can tell, there are about 10
apps that Google has, which "can" spy on you (some of which Apple
users also use).

Just don't use those ten apps.
If you don't use them - how does Google spy on you?

This is a serious question, so, just saying "don't use android" isn't
a serious answer.

I can't think of anything else that Google "can" do to spy on you
once you do those ten things (half of which apply to Apple users too).

>> You can easily set up Android just like Apple to not spy on you.
> no you can't.

It's easy for you to say that, but it's just fear mongering.
How does Google spy on you if you don't use those ten apps?

> google makes money by collecting information.

Google makes more money that the GDP of a lot of countries.
They collect and SELL your information.
Whether you're on iOS or on Android, they do that.

If you don't use the 10 apps I listed, then I don't see how Google
knows ANYTHING about you.

I may be wrong - so please correct me.
How can Google spy on you if you don't use those ten apps?

> apple does not nor do they want your information. they even go out of
> their way to obscure it *for* you so they *can't* get at it.

You like to believe this.
But it's just fear that makes you believe this.
I'm NOT saying that Apple spies on you.
But, if you use Google Maps on iOS, then, bingo.
If you use Gmail on iOS, then, bingo.

There are simple alternatives to EVERY one of the 10 Google apps
that I have identified. Maybe there are more Google apps to watch
out for? I don't know. I'm still looking.

But, as far as I can tell, if you don't use these ten apps, there is
no way for Google to spy on you. If I'm wrong, please tell me WHERE
I am wrong (just saying it's bullshit or something like that is just
fear mongering).

> worse, a lot of android apps have access to things they shouldn't
> because the permissions model is a complete mess. google finally fixed
> it to be like ios, where an app asks for what it needs rather than
> enable everything or not run the app.

I do agree that on both Android and iOS, apps have too much permission.
Luckily, on both, you can set the permissions to be whatever you want.

For example, on android, you can easily turn off access to anything you
want in any app you want.

So, I agree the user has to *know* this, but I think all Android users
who are on this newsgroup are fully aware that this is easy to do.

> google knows what apps you've downloaded, where you've been, who you
> call and much more.

Let's take them one by one.

1. Does Google know what apps you've downloaded?
A. Not if you use F-droid (or are you saying they tap F-droid?)

2. Does Google know where you've been?
A. Not if you turn that off, and if you don't use Google Maps.

3. Does Google know who you called?
A. No. How would Google know who you called?

Of the first two of your statements, I can see where you're coming from,
since Android, by default, sends anonymous tracking information to google
which you can opt out of in the settings.

But on the third, maybe you know something that I don't know?
How do you think Google tracks our phone calls?

> you have no control over how much stuff it's phoning home. plus those
> apps all have analytics too, some of which could be google's.
>
> if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.

That's just fear mongering.
What we want here are real facts.

My current premise is that if you don't use the 10 Google spyware apps,
then Google has no way of spying on you.

If anyone thinks that's wrong, I'm fine with that - I just want to know
HOW it's wrong.

nospam

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 11:56:57 PM11/10/15

to

In article
<17e59$5642b7fb$44021f46$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> > google owns android.
> > if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.
>
> No. That's just fear mongering.

no it isn't. it's reality.

> I'm not saying Google doesn't spy on you though.
> What I'm saying is, that as far as I can tell, there are about 10
> apps that Google has, which "can" spy on you (some of which Apple
> users also use).
>
> Just don't use those ten apps.
> If you don't use them - how does Google spy on you?

you're using google's os!!

they can (and do) collect all sorts of stuff.

even if you use a fake name for the google account (which you can also
do for ios) and use gift cards to buy apps, everything is still linked
together.

they also know where and when the gift card was purchased as well as
which ip addresses you connect from plus a whole lot more.

in other words, even if you turn off location services, you can be
located.

> This is a serious question, so, just saying "don't use android" isn't
> a serious answer.

it is a serious answer.

> I can't think of anything else that Google "can" do to spy on you
> once you do those ten things (half of which apply to Apple users too).

then you're not thinking very hard.

> > google makes money by collecting information.
>
> Google makes more money that the GDP of a lot of countries.
> They collect and SELL your information.
> Whether you're on iOS or on Android, they do that.

that's what i said.

> If you don't use the 10 apps I listed, then I don't see how Google
> knows ANYTHING about you.

then you're in denial.

> I may be wrong - so please correct me.
> How can Google spy on you if you don't use those ten apps?

i did.

> > apple does not nor do they want your information. they even go out of
> > their way to obscure it *for* you so they *can't* get at it.
>
> You like to believe this.
> But it's just fear that makes you believe this.

nope. it's reality.

> I'm NOT saying that Apple spies on you.

they don't.

the only information apple collects is for providing a specific
service. if it's not needed to provide a specific service, then it's
anonymized or obscured. data in transit is encrypted and even apple
can't crack it.

for example, if you request map routings, apple can't tie it to you.
they generate *two* unique identifiers that are *not* tied to your
apple id, one for each half of the trip, so the full trip is not known.
they also *skip* the actual beginning and end points so that they can't
figure out who you are by an address either.

> But, if you use Google Maps on iOS, then, bingo.
> If you use Gmail on iOS, then, bingo.

it's not just apps. it's the operating system.

> There are simple alternatives to EVERY one of the 10 Google apps
> that I have identified. Maybe there are more Google apps to watch
> out for? I don't know. I'm still looking.

you're missing the key component, the operating system.

> But, as far as I can tell, if you don't use these ten apps, there is
> no way for Google to spy on you. If I'm wrong, please tell me WHERE
> I am wrong (just saying it's bullshit or something like that is just
> fear mongering).

you're wrong and i already explained it.

you just want to argue again.

> > worse, a lot of android apps have access to things they shouldn't
> > because the permissions model is a complete mess. google finally fixed
> > it to be like ios, where an app asks for what it needs rather than
> > enable everything or not run the app.
>
> I do agree that on both Android and iOS, apps have too much permission.
>
> Luckily, on both, you can set the permissions to be whatever you want.
>
> For example, on android, you can easily turn off access to anything you
> want in any app you want.

now you can, because android fixed the permissions model.

prior to that, it was all or nothing and if you said nothing, you
couldn't run the app.

there was no granularity as there was on ios, where an app asked for
each service when it needed to access something, not when it was
installed. you could say no and keep using the app, although usually
with reduced functionality. an app could access the camera but not
contacts, for example.

> So, I agree the user has to *know* this, but I think all Android users
> who are on this newsgroup are fully aware that this is easy to do.

maybe, but millions of android users aren't on this newsgroup.

> > google knows what apps you've downloaded, where you've been, who you
> > call and much more.
>
> Let's take them one by one.

let's not.

the apps aren't the issue.

> > you have no control over how much stuff it's phoning home. plus those
> > apps all have analytics too, some of which could be google's.
> >
> > if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.
>
> That's just fear mongering.
> What we want here are real facts.

they were provided but your tin foil hat is blocking them.

> My current premise is that if you don't use the 10 Google spyware apps,
> then Google has no way of spying on you.
>
> If anyone thinks that's wrong, I'm fine with that - I just want to know
> HOW it's wrong.

no you don't.

you just want to argue.

Michael Eyd

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:40:01 AM11/11/15

to

Am 11.11.2015 um 04:37 schrieb Paul M. Cook:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:19:40 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> google owns android.
>> if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.
>
> No. That's just fear mongering.
> I'm not saying Google doesn't spy on you though.
> What I'm saying is, that as far as I can tell, there are about 10
> apps that Google has, which "can" spy on you (some of which Apple
> users also use).
>
> Just don't use those ten apps.
> If you don't use them - how does Google spy on you?

You miss out on seeing the OS *itself* as a tool for spying on you.

> This is a serious question, so, just saying "don't use android" isn't
> a serious answer.

It *is* the *only* valid answer if you really want to avoid Google
spying on you to the best extent (100% is hardly possible, there are too
many websites out there e.g. using Google Analytics to go completely
untracked).

> I can't think of anything else that Google "can" do to spy on you
> once you do those ten things (half of which apply to Apple users too).

What you can think of (or not) is non of our business... ;-)

>>> You can easily set up Android just like Apple to not spy on you.
>> no you can't.
>
> It's easy for you to say that, but it's just fear mongering.
> How does Google spy on you if you don't use those ten apps?

Because your list is missing the OS itself.

>> google makes money by collecting information.
>
> Google makes more money that the GDP of a lot of countries.
> They collect and SELL your information.
> Whether you're on iOS or on Android, they do that.

Yes, but iOS itself will not deliver any information to Google.
Something that Android definitively does.

> If you don't use the 10 apps I listed, then I don't see how Google
> knows ANYTHING about you.

One example: Android (like iOS) keeps track of the WiFi networks in your
vicinity. Put this information together with the basic location
monitoring they get from the mobile network, and you have a nice way of
knowing where you are. Not as precise as GPS tracking, but still not too
bad. And this information is reported back to Google, in order to update
their database of WiFi networks (to help in localizing other users in
the same area later on, possibly only by the visible WiFis).

> I may be wrong - so please correct me.

Done.

> How can Google spy on you if you don't use those ten apps?

Done. And the above is just one way for them to track you.

>> apple does not nor do they want your information. they even go out of
>> their way to obscure it *for* you so they *can't* get at it.
>
> You like to believe this.

No. That's (for all that the public knows) a fact. Is there room for
deceiving the public? Sure there is. But if you want to take that option
into account then you *really* shouldn't use Android in the first
place... ;-)

> But it's just fear that makes you believe this.

It's just your unwillingness to give up on Android that makes you say this.

> I'm NOT saying that Apple spies on you.
> But, if you use Google Maps on iOS, then, bingo.

I can use Google Maps on iOS *without* a Google account. Your Android
device is automatically logged into a Google account, so there is
*automatically* a link between your usage of Google Maps and your
account. Prey to tell me how Google can get this link in the case of
iOS... ;-)

> If you use Gmail on iOS, then, bingo.

Here you're right - but still this is limited to Google Mail. If I use
any other Google app on iOS, they have *no* access to the information
stored in the configuration of the Google Mail account, just because
they have neither access to the corresponding settings in iOS, nor to my
Google account (if I don't give it as well in the second app).

> There are simple alternatives to EVERY one of the 10 Google apps
> that I have identified. Maybe there are more Google apps to watch
> out for? I don't know. I'm still looking.
>
> But, as far as I can tell, if you don't use these ten apps, there is
> no way for Google to spy on you. If I'm wrong, please tell me WHERE
> I am wrong (just saying it's bullshit or something like that is just
> fear mongering).

Done.

>> worse, a lot of android apps have access to things they shouldn't
>> because the permissions model is a complete mess. google finally fixed
>> it to be like ios, where an app asks for what it needs rather than
>> enable everything or not run the app.
>
> I do agree that on both Android and iOS, apps have too much permission.

I can withdraw almost any (security relevant) permission from any app on
iOS (the exception being: I can't withdraw permission to connect to the
internet via WiFi). At any time, and the apps will continue to work (as
much as possible under the imposed restriction, a browser e.g. won't be
of much use without a WiFi if you don't give it access to Mobile Data).
So which 'excess' permissions do apps have under iOS? For Android that's
(up to now) unfortunately a severe problem. And even with Android 6
(which brings the new authorization concept) only time will change this,
as only apps coded specifically for Android 6 will support the new
authorization system.

> Luckily, on both, you can set the permissions to be whatever you want.

A 'normal' Android user (running Android 5 or older and without rooting
and other special tricks) can't.

> For example, on android, you can easily turn off access to anything you
> want in any app you want.

Wrong. Without some advanced wizardry, which goes well beyond what a
'normal' Android user can (and would) do.

> So, I agree the user has to *know* this, but I think all Android users
> who are on this newsgroup are fully aware that this is easy to do.

But there are literally millions and millions of Android users out
there, who are neither reading this NG, nor are capable of performing
the necessary steps (or even know of the possibility).

>> google knows what apps you've downloaded, where you've been, who you
>> call and much more.
>
> Let's take them one by one.
>
> 1. Does Google know what apps you've downloaded?
> A. Not if you use F-droid (or are you saying they tap F-droid?)

Android itself knows about each and every app that's installed. Whether
it talks to Google about this I don't know, but it certainly could.
Therefore again: If you really want to keep Google out, stop using
Android altogether.

> 2. Does Google know where you've been?
> A. Not if you turn that off, and if you don't use Google Maps.

Wrong, as shown above.

> 3. Does Google know who you called?
> A. No. How would Google know who you called?

Because the phone app comes from Google, doesn't it? And I'm talking
about normal phone connections via the mobile network, not about any
VoIP connections!

> Of the first two of your statements, I can see where you're coming from,
> since Android, by default, sends anonymous tracking information to google
> which you can opt out of in the settings.
>
> But on the third, maybe you know something that I don't know?
> How do you think Google tracks our phone calls?

Again: I don't know whether they do track them, but they could.

>> you have no control over how much stuff it's phoning home. plus those
>> apps all have analytics too, some of which could be google's.
>>
>> if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.
>
> That's just fear mongering.

No, that's plain true. And if you cared to think a bit deeper about
this, you would see it as well.

> What we want here are real facts.

I don't think you would accept even a smoking gun type of proof... ;-)

> My current premise is that if you don't use the 10 Google spyware apps,
> then Google has no way of spying on you.

I've shown you several possibilities how this can easily be wrong. Do
you accept them?

> If anyone thinks that's wrong, I'm fine with that - I just want to know
> HOW it's wrong.

See above.

Best regards,

Michael

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 4:23:24 AM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:e6b1f$5642af63$44021f46$23...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

By having android snoop on what those apps do.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 4:38:17 AM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> No thanks, google maps is much better with
>> traffic and street view and correcting map errors.

> Google Maps is damn good, I agree.
> So is their traffic.

> But, the goal is to eliminate Google spying.

Then you have to stop using any android device.

> So, the alternatives are pretty good.
> 1. CoPilot is the second best out there (second to Google).

It’s a hell of a long way below google on traffic,
street view and fixing errors in the maps.

> 2. Plenty of free Traffic Apps are out there,

None of which are anything like as good as google's.

> all using exactly the same database that Google Traffic uses.

There is a lot more involved than the database.

> However, Copilot is also damn good,

It’s a hell of a long way below google on traffic,
street view and fixing errors in the maps.

> and, it works offline.

So does google.

> There are plenty of traffic apps that
> use the *same data* that Google uses,

There is a lot more involved than the database.

> so, they're just as good.

Nope.

> The only thing you lose is 'street view',

Nope, you lose a better traffic UI, and
much better fixing of errors in the maps.

> which, I agree is nice, but, on a cellular
> connection, isn't normally fast enough for me

Works fine for me.

> (I have crappy cellular signal most of the time).

Then you need to get a much better one.

>> Nowhere near as good traffic info, no street
>> view at all, just ignores all error reports.

> There are *plenty* of freeware traffic apps that
> report the exact same data as does Google Traffic.

There is a lot more involved than the database.

> They are no better than Google Traffic

Much worse in fact.

> - but - the presumption is that
> we want to avoid Google spying,

Nope.

> so, they are as good.

Nope.

>>> so, just use Mercury instead.

>> No thanks.

> Actually, I'd recommend "Firefox"

No thanks, it’s a steaming turd.

> (or Tor Browser Bundle)

No thanks, it’s a steaming turd.

> but while both are available on Android, neither
> are available on iOS, so, you're kind of stuck with
> insecure browsing if you use Safari.

I'm not that stupid. I use Chrome.

> That's why I suggested Mercury.

No thanks, Chrome leaves it for dead.

> I wouldn't use Chrome because it's from Google,

More fool you.

> but, I don't know that they spy on you with
> Chrome (maybe they don't, I don't know - but I
> don't trust Google, so I avoid *all* Google apps).

More fool you. And you use google's OS and that
spies on you much more than any of their apps do.

> Luckily, it's not hard at all to avoid Google apps, because there are
> only 10 of them, as far as I can tell, all of which have free
> alternatives.

None of which are anything like as good.

> 1. Google Play app => use f-droid.org instead

No thanks.

> 2. GMail app => use K9Mail instead

No thanks, gmail leaves it for dead.

> 3. Google Maps => use Copilot instead

No thanks, google maps leaves it for dead
on traffic, street view, fixing map errors.

> 4. Google Traffic => use Beat the Traffic instead.

No thanks google traffic leaves it for dead.

> 5. YouTube media player => use VLC instead

No thanks, much more convenient to just play
the damned things when they show up in a link.

> 6. Chrome browser => use Firefox instead

No thanks, it’s a steaming turd.

> 7. Google Hangouts VOIP app => use Skype instead

No thanks, skype has no free incoming and outgoing
calls to landlines and mobiles/cellphones.

> 8. Google Picassa picture app => what's a good alternative?

iOS.

> 9. OK Google widget => use Dragon Mobile Assistant instead

Google leaves it for dead intelligence wise.

> 10. Google MyTracks => use MyTrails instead

No thanks, MapMyWalk leaves it for dead.

> Once you've easily replaced these 10 apps,
> what else can Google do to spy on you?

Use their OS to spy on anything you run on it.

> I don't know of anything else, and I've thought about it.

You clearly didn’t put your brain into gear on that.

> Can you find anything else that Google can do to
> spy on you if you eliminate the 10 apps above?

Yep, their OS.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 4:57:10 AM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> nospam wrote

>> google owns android.
>> if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.

> No. That's just fear mongering.

Nope, its just stating the obvious.

> I'm not saying Google doesn't spy on you though.

Corse they do, because that's where they make their money.

> What I'm saying is, that as far as I can tell, there are
> about 10 apps that Google has, which "can" spy
> on you (some of which Apple users also use).

Pity about their OS which not only can, but does spy on not
only what you do, but what all the apps you run do too.

> Just don't use those ten apps.
> If you don't use them - how does Google spy on you?

Using their OS.

> This is a serious question, so, just saying
> "don't use android" isn't a serious answer.

Yes it is.

> I can't think of anything else that Google "can" do to spy on you
> once you do those ten things (half of which apply to Apple users too).

Google uses their OS to spy on anything any app you run does.

>>> You can easily set up Android just like Apple to not spy on you.

>> no you can't.

> It's easy for you to say that, but it's just fear mongering.

Nope, statement of fact.

> How does Google spy on you if you don't use those ten apps?

By having their OS spy on everything you
do, and everything any app you run does.

>> google makes money by collecting information.

> Google makes more money that the GDP of a lot of countries.
> They collect and SELL your information.
> Whether you're on iOS or on Android, they do that.

They can't spy on what anything any non google app does on iOS
except those that use google resources like their traffic database.

> If you don't use the 10 apps I listed, then I don't
> see how Google knows ANYTHING about you.

More fool you.

> I may be wrong - so please correct me.

We just did.

> How can Google spy on you if you don't use those ten apps?

Their OS knows everything you do, and everything any app you use does too.

>> apple does not nor do they want your information. they even go
>> out of their way to obscure it *for* you so they *can't* get at it.

> You like to believe this.

We know that.

> But it's just fear that makes you believe this.

Nope. We know that Apple does some stuff that
makes it harder for any app that runs on iOS to
snoop on what you are doing with sandboxing.

> I'm NOT saying that Apple spies on you.
> But, if you use Google Maps on iOS, then, bingo.
> If you use Gmail on iOS, then, bingo.

If you use android, its bingo in spades.

> There are simple alternatives to EVERY one
> of the 10 Google apps that I have identified.

Useless when android snoops on them all.

> Maybe there are more Google apps to watch
> out for? I don't know. I'm still looking.

But ignoring the OS which snoops much more than any app does.

> But, as far as I can tell, if you don't use these ten
> apps, there is no way for Google to spy on you.

You're wrong.

> If I'm wrong, please tell me WHERE

We just did, only to have you deny that.

> I am wrong (just saying it's bullshit or
> something like that is just fear mongering).

>> worse, a lot of android apps have access to things they shouldn't
>> because the permissions model is a complete mess. google finally
>> fixed it to be like ios, where an app asks for what it needs rather
>> than enable everything or not run the app.

> I do agree that on both Android and iOS, apps have too much permission.

It isn't true of iOS.

> Luckily, on both, you can set the permissions to be whatever you want.

Not with what android gets to spy on you don’t.

> For example, on android, you can easily turn off
> access to anything you want in any app you want.

You have no control whatever on what android spys on.

> So, I agree the user has to *know* this, but I think all Android users
> who are on this newsgroup are fully aware that this is easy to do.

Pity about what the OS spys on.

>> google knows what apps you've downloaded,
>> where you've been, who you call and much more.

> Let's take them one by one.

> 1. Does Google know what apps you've downloaded?

Corse it does, because their OS installs them.

> A. Not if you use F-droid (or are you saying they tap F-droid?)

The OS obviously has to know what is installed.

> 2. Does Google know where you've been?

Yep, because the OS and spy on anything it likes
including everything that works out where you
are like the GPS and other location information
like the bases the phone can see and wifi etc.

> A. Not if you turn that off, and if you don't use Google Maps.

Wrong.

> 3. Does Google know who you called?

Corse it does, because the OS has to do the calling
and keep track of who you have called and can spy
on any app you use to call anyone, even if you use
skype to do that etc.

> A. No. How would Google know who you called?

Because their OS can spy on anything it likes.

> Of the first two of your statements, I can see where you're
> coming from, since Android, by default, sends anonymous tracking
> information to google which you can opt out of in the settings.

And you have no way of knowing what the OS
does when you opt out of that in the settings.

> But on the third, maybe you know something that I don't know?

Corse we do.

> How do you think Google tracks our phone calls?

By spying on that the installed apps do.

>> you have no control over how much stuff it's phoning home. plus
>> those apps all have analytics too, some of which could be google's.

>> if you're worried about google, android is the *wrong* choice.

> That's just fear mongering.

Nope, statement of fact.

> What we want here are real facts.

You'll just deny them.

> My current premise is that if you don't use the 10 Google
> spyware apps, then Google has no way of spying on you.

That is just plain wrong.

> If anyone thinks that's wrong, I'm fine with
> that - I just want to know HOW it's wrong.

Just told you.

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:25:08 AM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> You miss out on seeing the OS *itself* as a tool for spying on you.

I don't miss out on that.

What's different is that I *LOOK* to see if/where the OS is spying.

The *only* place anyone yet has said the OS is spying is with the user
setting to allow anonymous data and the private advertising cookie, both
of which can be circumvented (although I'd like a better way to turn off
the advertising cookie if folks have one).

> It *is* the *only* valid answer if you really want to avoid Google
> spying on you to the best extent (100% is hardly possible, there are too
> many websites out there e.g. using Google Analytics to go completely
> untracked).

C'mon. Websites? What does that have to do with Android?

And, did you realize that Safari allows *any* site that wants to, to see
EVER SINGLE ENCRYPTED SITE you've ever visited, since the beginning of
time? (And there is no way you can stop it!).

So, let's keep web sites out of the operating system issue please.

Besides, it's trivial to stop all those websites anyway, via a whole
bunch of methods (my desktophosts file is 50,000 lines long - there's
nothing that Google gets out of me, nor Facebook, nor doubleclick, and
49,997 other tracking sites).

While I don't employ them on my mobile devices, I'm sure there are
*plenty* of ways even on a mobile device to add noscript, ghostscript,
canvass blockers, ghostery, random agent spoofer, privoxy, etc.

> Yes, but iOS itself will not deliver any information to Google.
> Something that Android definitively does.

If you don't use the dozen apps, and if you go through your settings to
circumvent advertising cookies and turn off anonymous tracking, do you
know something I don't know about how the OS "delivers information to
Google?".

This is a direct question.
If you know the answer, then speak up.
Otherwise, you're just as bad as Rod by fear mongering.

Where, other than where I've already mentioned, does the OS "deliver
information to Google?"

>> If you don't use the 10 apps I listed, then I don't see how Google
>> knows ANYTHING about you.
>
> One example: Android (like iOS) keeps track of the WiFi networks in your
> vicinity. Put this information together with the basic location
> monitoring they get from the mobile network, and you have a nice way of
> knowing where you are. Not as precise as GPS tracking, but still not too
> bad. And this information is reported back to Google, in order to update
> their database of WiFi networks (to help in localizing other users in
> the same area later on, possibly only by the visible WiFis).

Thank you for this information; but let's look at it first before we
succumb to fear.

First off, we already know that Google gets WiFi information when they
drive those Google cars around your block - which is *different* than
what you're saying above.

I understand what you're saying above, which is that Google, somehow,
steals your WiFi ESSID. But is that really true?

Given the thousands of people reading these combined newsgroups, I would
like to ask any one of them to show us where Google is stealing our ESSID
information from our home routers.

Because if Google was stealing our home ESSID from our cellphones, and if
we couldn't stop it, that would be a big deal indeed. (Otherwise it's
just baseless fear mongering).

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:32:46 AM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> I can use Google Maps on iOS *without* a Google account. Your Android
> device is automatically logged into a Google account, so there is
> *automatically* a link between your usage of Google Maps and your
> account. Prey to tell me how Google can get this link in the case of
> iOS... ;-)

You are incorrect I believe.

But, to your point, I have looked at the settings of *all* the dozen apps
I listed, and almost all do *default* to your google play account (the
MyTracks app doesn't have a login setting - but all the rest do).

Again, to your point, *by default*, many of those apps that do have a
login, default to logging you in.

However, contrary to your point, you can log *out* of all those apps.

So, once you log out, you stay logged out.

Hence, using Google Maps on Android is no different in that respect than
using Google maps on iOS.

If I am wrong, then one of the thousands of Android & iOS users on these
newsgroups will show me where I err (but just saying it isn't so, isn't
saying anything).

But, I have personally looked at the settings of all those apps, and I
found where I was logged in, and I logged myself out. Plus, my Google
Play account is a throw-away account which I change periodically with no
ill effects whatsoever).

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:32:46 AM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

>> You like to believe this.
>
> No. That's (for all that the public knows) a fact. Is there room for
> deceiving the public? Sure there is. But if you want to take that option
> into account then you *really* shouldn't use Android in the first
> place... ;-)

You're just working off of fear, like Rod.
No logic.

Your fear doesn't really help us here.
What matters is truth. Not fiction.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:36:04 AM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> It's just your unwillingness to give up on Android that makes you say
> this.

heh heh... at the risk of starting a flame war, you have to realize that
I use Apple products for what they're good for, and I use Android for
what it's good for.

Both have their place, and "giving up" on one would mean to lose all the
huge advantages that it has over the other.

That you can even suggest that, shows more about how *you* think, than
how I do.

Michael Eyd

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:50:01 AM11/11/15

to

Am 11.11.2015 um 16:25 schrieb Paul M. Cook:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>
>> You miss out on seeing the OS *itself* as a tool for spying on you.
>
> I don't miss out on that.
>
> What's different is that I *LOOK* to see if/where the OS is spying.
>
> The *only* place anyone yet has said the OS is spying is with the user
> setting to allow anonymous data and the private advertising cookie, both
> of which can be circumvented (although I'd like a better way to turn off
> the advertising cookie if folks have one).

The only place? You didn't read my post, did you?

>> It *is* the *only* valid answer if you really want to avoid Google
>> spying on you to the best extent (100% is hardly possible, there are too
>> many websites out there e.g. using Google Analytics to go completely
>> untracked).
>
> C'mon. Websites? What does that have to do with Android?

Nothing. And I didn't claim that. Just care to read one more what (and
how) I wrote it.

> And, did you realize that Safari allows *any* site that wants to, to see
> EVER SINGLE ENCRYPTED SITE you've ever visited, since the beginning of
> time? (And there is no way you can stop it!).

We're talking about Android here - care to tell me where you got Safari
for Android? I'm not aware that Apple ever released that... So please,
let's keep to the subject of Google spying on someone.

> So, let's keep web sites out of the operating system issue please.

I didn't bring it in, I just mentioned it to show that looking at the OS
(and app) side is not sufficient to stop all spying by Google.

> Besides, it's trivial to stop all those websites anyway, via a whole
> bunch of methods (my desktophosts file is 50,000 lines long - there's
> nothing that Google gets out of me, nor Facebook, nor doubleclick, and
> 49,997 other tracking sites).

Trivial? Building up a hosts file of about 50000 lines? You definitively
have a very different view on what's trivial than I do... And that's
even leaving apart the fact, that most probably more than 99% of all
Android users (or Windows users, for that matter) wouldn't even know
what a hosts file is, what its significance is or where to find it in
the first place.

> While I don't employ them on my mobile devices, I'm sure there are
> *plenty* of ways even on a mobile device to add noscript, ghostscript,
> canvass blockers, ghostery, random agent spoofer, privoxy, etc.
>
>> Yes, but iOS itself will not deliver any information to Google.
>> Something that Android definitively does.
>
> If you don't use the dozen apps, and if you go through your settings to
> circumvent advertising cookies and turn off anonymous tracking, do you
> know something I don't know about how the OS "delivers information to
> Google?".
>
> This is a direct question.

I've already answered that in my original post. And we'll come to that
further down here again.

> If you know the answer, then speak up.
> Otherwise, you're just as bad as Rod by fear mongering.
>
> Where, other than where I've already mentioned, does the OS "deliver
> information to Google?"
>
>>> If you don't use the 10 apps I listed, then I don't see how Google
>>> knows ANYTHING about you.
>>
>> One example: Android (like iOS) keeps track of the WiFi networks in your
>> vicinity. Put this information together with the basic location
>> monitoring they get from the mobile network, and you have a nice way of
>> knowing where you are. Not as precise as GPS tracking, but still not too
>> bad. And this information is reported back to Google, in order to update
>> their database of WiFi networks (to help in localizing other users in
>> the same area later on, possibly only by the visible WiFis).
>
> Thank you for this information; but let's look at it first before we
> succumb to fear.
>
> First off, we already know that Google gets WiFi information when they
> drive those Google cars around your block - which is *different* than
> what you're saying above.

And which is *exactly* the reason why I didn't say a single word about
what you call 'Google cars' in the first place - because they've got
nothing to do with what I was talking about. We do you deviate to a
complete different topic here?

> I understand what you're saying above, which is that Google, somehow,
> steals your WiFi ESSID. But is that really true?

Bullshit. I'm not talking about anybody stealing any ESSID. How do you
get that idea? First of all, stealing means taking something away from
somebody, so that you have it, and the other person does no longer have
it. Semantics only, but should be kept in mind.

> Given the thousands of people reading these combined newsgroups, I would
> like to ask any one of them to show us where Google is stealing our ESSID
> information from our home routers.

Secondly, I'm not talking about Google doing anything illegal (an
inherent semantic of 'stealing'), therefor I would prefer to talk about
'Google recording where they found which ESSIDs'. Put those locations in
a database, send the database out to all the Android devices, and those
devices can (and will) use it to locate the device even if not GPS
reception is possible (or allowed). That's all quite nice, helpful and
legal. And, btw, Apple basically does exactly the same with all the iOS
devices.

BUT: Where Apple really goes out of their way to make sure that this
recorded information cannot be connected to which device actually
recorded it (and thus to the owner of the device), this is not known
from Google. And technically it's way easier to connect the location and
the Google ID than to (securely) separate the two.

> Because if Google was stealing our home ESSID from our cellphones, and if
> we couldn't stop it, that would be a big deal indeed. (Otherwise it's
> just baseless fear mongering).

Neither is it, it's just that completely missed my point...

Best regards,

Michael

Michael Eyd

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:00:01 AM11/11/15

to

Am 11.11.2015 um 16:32 schrieb Paul M. Cook:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>>> You like to believe this.
>>
>> No. That's (for all that the public knows) a fact. Is there room for
>> deceiving the public? Sure there is. But if you want to take that option
>> into account then you *really* shouldn't use Android in the first
>> place... ;-)
>
> You're just working off of fear, like Rod.

You really don't understand what I wrote, do you?

> No logic.

No logic on your side.

> Your fear doesn't really help us here.

My fear? I'm not using Android, I'm hardly using any Google services at
all but search and maps, and never with a Google account. Nor did I
bring this paranoid topic up, that was you - just in case you forgot
over all your blaming of others for fear mongery...

> What matters is truth. Not fiction.

What matters is that you don't want to see other people's arguments. You
stick to your belief that Android minus some Google apps is safe. But if
you're so sure about this, why did you ask here in the first place?

So, either you start discussing here your question (and with discussing
I mean real discussion, not just blaming everybody else for fear
mongering), or this thread will die very soon...

Best regards,

Michael

Jolly Roger

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:07:09 AM11/11/15

to

On 2015-11-11, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>
> What matters is that you don't want to see other people's arguments. You
> stick to your belief that Android minus some Google apps is safe. But if
> you're so sure about this, why did you ask here in the first place?
>
> So, either you start discussing here your question (and with discussing
> I mean real discussion, not just blaming everybody else for fear
> mongering), or this thread will die very soon...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael

"Paul M. Cook" is a well-known troll in the iOS / Apple news groups. He
changes his nym often, and always cross posts to android, linux, and
apple news groups. His posts are always similar format, where he asks
supposed questions that are actually just thinly veiled trolls, where he
laboriously blabs his bullshit ideas and opinions while claiming anyone
who disagrees with him is trolling or stupid. His writing style and
bullshit lines are easy to detect if you know what to look for.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:30:02 AM11/11/15

to

Not more than Android users are used to being constantly spied on by
Google. ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:32:52 AM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:32 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> So, either you start discussing here your question (and with discussing
> I mean real discussion, not just blaming everybody else for fear
> mongering), or this thread will die very soon...

You'll notice that "I" am answering the questions.

In fact, you'll notice that I agreed with you that the OS spies, and I
just asked where you know that I don't already know.

And I brought up issues you didn't bring up, so, I'm being fair (e.g., I
brought up the advertising cookie, which nobody else brought up).

I am looking at EACH issue, and then seeing if it's valid.

If the issue is just fear, what you're objecting to is that I "say" it's
fear mongering. You can't object to the fact that the person who brought
up that fear had NOTHING concrete to back it up.

You'll notice that Rod Speed, for example, answered with nothing
concrete, only fear (and total BS, since he, himself has never tested the
traffic apps). However, even Rod Speed, who is an intelligent guy,
brought up the point that HE uses Google Maps simply because it's the
best (and I never disagreed with him).

So, please -- when you read what you're reading - realize who is telling
truth versus who is spouting mere bullshit (nospam is one of the best at
that, even though he himself, is also intelligent).

You brought up a GREAT issue for me to check out, which is that you
believe that Google is spying on our SSIDs that we use at home.

I appreciate that. I am searching for confirmation of that as we speak.
https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=google+ssid+spying

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:42:12 AM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:49:29 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> And which is *exactly* the reason why I didn't say a single word about
> what you call 'Google cars' in the first place - because they've got
> nothing to do with what I was talking about. We do you deviate to a
> complete different topic here?

You seem reasonable so I am responding to you reasonably.

I have been searching diligently for what you implied, which, if I
inferred it correctly, is that Google spies on our WiFi access points at
home, from the Android operating system itself.

If that turns out to be true, that would (a) be very bad, and it
would (b) be something that I will figure out how to turn off.

Certainly it is universally known that the google cars collect our
WiFi SSIDs, but neither one of us is talking about that.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-admits-street-view-cars-collected-e-mails-passwords/

I did find something odd in my search, which was the preposterous
suggestion from Google that we all add "_nomap" to the end of our
SSIDs so that Google cars won't map us.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Google-Maps-Wi-Fi-Location-SSID,14000.html

But, so far, I have found zero evidence that the Android os itself
is collecting our SSIDs (but if anyone has a pointer, let me know
as the only thing I seek is the truth).

Michael Eyd

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:50:01 AM11/11/15

to

Am 11.11.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Paul M. Cook:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:32 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> So, either you start discussing here your question (and with discussing
>> I mean real discussion, not just blaming everybody else for fear
>> mongering), or this thread will die very soon...
>
> You'll notice that "I" am answering the questions.
>
> In fact, you'll notice that I agreed with you that the OS spies, and I
> just asked where you know that I don't already know.
>
> And I brought up issues you didn't bring up, so, I'm being fair (e.g., I
> brought up the advertising cookie, which nobody else brought up).

Isn't that again website based, something that you claimed I
artificially brought into the discussion (which I didn't)? ;-)

> I am looking at EACH issue, and then seeing if it's valid.
>
> If the issue is just fear, what you're objecting to is that I "say" it's
> fear mongering. You can't object to the fact that the person who brought
> up that fear had NOTHING concrete to back it up.

The question for you to answer is: Do you want to only accept hard (and
proven) facts or do want to know about just likely, but as of now
unproven, thoughts? In the first case we probably don't need to discuss
much further, as many details of what Google is recording are not
officially known - and thus nobody (but a Google insider) can give you
hard facts there. Among the thoughts however there are some (many?) that
are backed by quite some evidence about how Google worked in other
cases. But again, they are hard to prove (if at all). Your decision.

> You'll notice that Rod Speed, for example, answered with nothing
> concrete, only fear (and total BS, since he, himself has never tested the
> traffic apps). However, even Rod Speed, who is an intelligent guy,
> brought up the point that HE uses Google Maps simply because it's the
> best (and I never disagreed with him).
>
> So, please -- when you read what you're reading - realize who is telling
> truth versus who is spouting mere bullshit (nospam is one of the best at
> that, even though he himself, is also intelligent).
>
> You brought up a GREAT issue for me to check out, which is that you
> believe that Google is spying on our SSIDs that we use at home.
>
> I appreciate that. I am searching for confirmation of that as we speak.
> https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=google+ssid+spying

Spying is possibly too big a word for just recording what is publicly
(via the announcements of the router) available...

Best regards,

Michael

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:50:06 AM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:49:29 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Secondly, I'm not talking about Google doing anything illegal (an
> inherent semantic of 'stealing'), therefor I would prefer to talk about
> 'Google recording where they found which ESSIDs'. Put those locations in
> a database, send the database out to all the Android devices, and those
> devices can (and will) use it to locate the device even if not GPS
> reception is possible (or allowed). That's all quite nice, helpful and
> legal. And, btw, Apple basically does exactly the same with all the iOS
> devices.

Michael,

Your point about "stealing" is valid, so, I'll start, from here, to use
the word "spying" or "gathering" or "storing" or "saving" or something to
that effect (depending on the sentence).

However, you said one thing, and then said another, and all I'm trying
to do is understand and validate where you said google is "obtaining"
our SSIDs.

Since text is a two-dimensional medium, it's natural for clarity to
be required once someone drops a bombshell such as you seemingly
dropped on me.

We agree that we're talking about Google apps on Android OS, right?
So, what we're concerned about here is whether either the Android OS
itself or any specific Google app itself "gathered" or "stored" our
SSID.

Do we agree?
So, the google cars don't play any role whatsoever. Right?

So far, I can find no article that says that the Android operating
system "gathers" or "obtains" or "saves" your SSID on a google server.

I did find a frightening article that says Google Chrome listens to
your microphone, but that applies to all operating systems.
http://www.infowars.com/google-secretly-spying-on-computer-users-via-microphones/

Since text is a medium where we may need to clarify what we say,
may I ask you to clarify WHERE in the Android operating system
that Google "obtains" and then "saves" to their servers our SSID?

I can't find any indication this is the case yet.
But I'm still looking to validate what I perceived your argument to be.

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:57:06 AM11/11/15

to

In article
<9df80$56435dd3$44021f46$24...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> And, did you realize that Safari allows *any* site that wants to, to see
> EVER SINGLE ENCRYPTED SITE you've ever visited, since the beginning of
> time? (And there is no way you can stop it!).

nonsense.

> So, let's keep web sites out of the operating system issue please.

no.

people use their phones to visit web sites.

> Besides, it's trivial to stop all those websites anyway, via a whole
> bunch of methods (my desktophosts file is 50,000 lines long - there's
> nothing that Google gets out of me, nor Facebook, nor doubleclick, and
> 49,997 other tracking sites).

that's not a trivial fix and doesn't prevent all forms of data
collection.

> While I don't employ them on my mobile devices, I'm sure there are
> *plenty* of ways even on a mobile device to add noscript, ghostscript,
> canvass blockers, ghostery, random agent spoofer, privoxy, etc.

not really, although with ios 9, much of that can be blocked with a
simple app install.

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:57:07 AM11/11/15

to

In article <n1vpqf$smt$1...@dont-email.me>, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

>
> > You and nospam both have the same opinion, but I think that's the wrong
> > approach to just roll over and play dead.
>
> That's what apple users do all the time.
> They're very used to just giving up.

troll.

Michael Eyd

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 12:00:01 PM11/11/15

to

I remember discussions a few years back (starting around the time Apple
released its own Maps app) about Apple collecting such information. And
in those articles it was mentioned just as well (for all I remember)
that Google does the same. This became especially interesting once Apple
detailed how they make sure that this information is not linked to any
individual device - and how Google failed to provide similar information.

But as already said, that's already quite old, but I doubt that anything
was changed in this in the meantime.

And one more thing: How often do you see Google cars pass by your
neighborhood? Not too often, I assume. WiFi networks on the other hand
can change rather often. You might want to try and find an answer to the
question how good years old information about long time gone networks
would be to support the OS in locating the device. And once you have
that answer think about whether Google wouldn't want to find another way
to track those changes. ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 12:09:57 PM11/11/15

to

In article <n1vrse$jn9$1...@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de>
wrote:

> I remember discussions a few years back (starting around the time Apple
> released its own Maps app) about Apple collecting such information. And
> in those articles it was mentioned just as well (for all I remember)
> that Google does the same. This became especially interesting once Apple
> detailed how they make sure that this information is not linked to any
> individual device - and how Google failed to provide similar information.

apple originally partnered with skyhook wireless, who created the first
wifi location database.

apple later decided to create their own geolocation database, so they
collected *anonymous* location data to build it up, a small portion of
which is kept local on the phone so that apps can get a location very
quickly (if enabled), rather than hitting the network which might not
be available.

apple did not nor does not track users.

the user can also disable location services entirely at any time,
either systemwide or per app.

obviously, that will have a downside, as some apps need location
services to work properly, such as a navigation app, but the choice is
entirely up to the user.

google and microsoft also have their own wifi location databases.

Michael Eyd

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 12:10:01 PM11/11/15

to

Am 11.11.2015 um 17:50 schrieb Paul M. Cook:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:49:29 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> Secondly, I'm not talking about Google doing anything illegal (an
>> inherent semantic of 'stealing'), therefor I would prefer to talk about
>> 'Google recording where they found which ESSIDs'. Put those locations in
>> a database, send the database out to all the Android devices, and those
>> devices can (and will) use it to locate the device even if not GPS
>> reception is possible (or allowed). That's all quite nice, helpful and
>> legal. And, btw, Apple basically does exactly the same with all the iOS
>> devices.
>
> Michael,
>
> Your point about "stealing" is valid, so, I'll start, from here, to use
> the word "spying" or "gathering" or "storing" or "saving" or something to
> that effect (depending on the sentence).
>
> However, you said one thing, and then said another, and all I'm trying
> to do is understand and validate where you said google is "obtaining"
> our SSIDs.
>
> Since text is a two-dimensional medium, it's natural for clarity to
> be required once someone drops a bombshell such as you seemingly
> dropped on me.
>
> We agree that we're talking about Google apps on Android OS, right?
> So, what we're concerned about here is whether either the Android OS
> itself or any specific Google app itself "gathered" or "stored" our
> SSID.

Not an app, it's Android itself. And, btw, iOS just as well.

> Do we agree?
> So, the google cars don't play any role whatsoever. Right?

Right. They (most probably) did similar recordings as well (the ballyhoo
about that was because they not only recorded the ESSID, but as well (on
unencrypted networks) some actually transmitted data by others).

> So far, I can find no article that says that the Android operating
> system "gathers" or "obtains" or "saves" your SSID on a google server.

They do, I'm sure about this.

But as I'm a nice guy I just spend about two to three minutes (in two
languages actually, as I wasn't completely sure about the correct
English search terms) for that search and have a (first) result:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_positioning_system#Privacy_concerns> There
you find Google's WPS database explicitly mentioned. And this database
certainly didn't fall from heaven... ;-)

> I did find a frightening article that says Google Chrome listens to
> your microphone, but that applies to all operating systems.
> http://www.infowars.com/google-secretly-spying-on-computer-users-via-microphones/

And is an altogether different issue.

> Since text is a medium where we may need to clarify what we say,
> may I ask you to clarify WHERE in the Android operating system
> that Google "obtains" and then "saves" to their servers our SSID?

Please direct this question to the guys at Google, I have no knowledge
about the internals of Android.

> I can't find any indication this is the case yet.

Strange enough, it took me really only a very short time to come up with
a first proof.

> But I'm still looking to validate what I perceived your argument to be.

Have fun! :-)

Best regards,

Michael

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 12:48:37 PM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:54:37 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> And one more thing: How often do you see Google cars pass by your
> neighborhood? Not too often, I assume. WiFi networks on the other hand
> can change rather often. You might want to try and find an answer to the
> question how good years old information about long time gone networks
> would be to support the OS in locating the device. And once you have
> that answer think about whether Google wouldn't want to find another way
> to track those changes. ;-)

Michael,
Again, you seem reasonable. Not like the "nope" guys who have nothing
to offer of real substance.

The fact that Google cars can't be traversing streets constantly is
valid. I live within only a few miles of Google HQ, so, I certainly have
seen their cars a lot. I once watched them by my road, so, I followed
the car, and then waited at home, and it never came back.

I looked on the Google maps and I noticed they don't do my street.
In fact, I realized, they have NEVER done my street!

I wondered why, but then I just chalked it up to the fact that I live
far off the main street on a long private road, so, they must not be
traveling private roads, I guess.

So, if they have "my" SSID, they'd have to get it either while I'm
driving down the road (and they pull it off my phone somehow), or,
more likely, from when I'm home and connecting to my home broadband
router's SSID.

I do know that when you set your router to *hide* your SSID, you actually
end up *broadcasting* that home SSID at hotspots, at least from some
operating systems, merely because the *first* SSID that the OS looks
for is the one that it remembers from your home.

Only after *not* finding your home SSID at a local hotspot, do some
operating systems then *look* for the hotspot SSID.

However, since that's how typical WiFi networking is supposed to work,
I would think that both iOS and Android do that, so, it's probably
not what you were talking about anyway.

I am still searching, but, so far I can't find any indication that
the Android OS 'collects' your SSID for later use by a Google server.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 1:31:06 PM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:47:27 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

>> And I brought up issues you didn't bring up, so, I'm being fair (e.g., I
>> brought up the advertising cookie, which nobody else brought up).
>
> Isn't that again website based, something that you claimed I
> artificially brought into the discussion (which I didn't)? ;-)

You bring up a good point Michael, because, in I wasn't clear about
what I meant by the "advertising cookie".

See this screenshot shots below for clarification:
http://i.imgur.com/2zaiHhI.gif

It's fair, since I used the word "cookie" that you thought I was
talking about 'web cookies', which we all know are the bane of our
privacy on *any* operating system.

However, I wasn't talking about web cookies (but it's my fault, in this
two dimensional medium for not making that clear to you).

To explain further, apparently Android assigns a unique ID to each
Android user, and somehow (I don't really understand how), they provide
that unique id to their subscribers.

I can (and do) periodically wipe out that unique id though (and
lots of other things).

I think uninformed people like Rod & nospam think that nobody
knows about these settings, just because *they* don't know about
these settings, which is why they think Android is inherently
less private than iOS.

However, they are misinformed about just about anything having to
do with the difference between how iOS handles things versus Android.
For example, I simply tapped on the screenshot and sent it over to
my laptop using Bluetooth, which nospam insists is too slow (it
works fine - but he says that only because Apple can't do it - just
as I could transfer over my entire file system on Android over WiFi
to my laptop using my laptop's own file system manager - again -
something he professes can't happen only because "he" can't do it
using iOS).

So we have to take what Rod Speed and nospam say with a huge bucket
of salt, since they know iOS limitations well, but they extrapolate
them over to Android (where they are wrong in almost every case).

They're both smart. They don't intend on being wrong. They just
don't know what they're talking about when it comes to such things.

They don't even *know* about the common settings below, for example,
acting as if nobody knows about them (since they don't have a clue).

Basic Android Privacy Settings:
Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > {Search, Location settings, Ads}
0. Settings > Accounts > Google
Account: f...@bar.com
Sync turned off
1. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Search >
a. Google Account
Signed out for Google Search, and no Google Now cards can be shown.
b. Google location settings
A. Access location: [unchecked]
[Do not] Let Google apps use this device's location any time it is on.
B. Google Location History = blank
c. SafeSearch filter [unchecked]SafeSearch is not active
d. Legal
Web History = off
Personal Results = off
2. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Location settings >
a. Location access for your phone is off.
Google applications are unable to access your location because
location access for the phone has been turned off.
To turn it back on click below to go to Settings > Location Access
b. Settings > More > Location services > Access to my location = [unchecked]
c. Settings > More > Location services > Location sources >
Use GPS statellites = [unchecked](and grayed out)
Use wireless networks = [unchecked](and grayed out)
3. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Ads >
a. Ads: Reset advertising ID (click it to reset)
b. Opt out of interest-based ads (check it to opt out)
c. Ads by Google (clicking it will pop up a browser session)
https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/html/mobile-about.html?(x)
[where (x) is a huge encrypted mess of characters]

By the way, Rod Speed and nospam will decry Linux being connected to a
mobile device, but, guess what? I edited those screenshots from my Linux
laptop while they were "on" the Android device! Point is that they
don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the power that
they know nothing about because they don't have it on iOS.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 1:39:37 PM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:57:05 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> And, did you realize that Safari allows *any* site that wants to, to see
>> EVER SINGLE ENCRYPTED SITE you've ever visited, since the beginning of
>> time? (And there is no way you can stop it!).
>
> nonsense.

Nospam,
You really shouldn't try to enter conversations in which you know
nothin about, yet, you spout "nonsense" when someone who does know
what they're talking about mentions a well-known fact.

I knew you know nothing about Android, but, why you correspondingly
also openly say "nonsense" to well known facts shows that either you
also know nothing of iOS apps, or, you're just spouting "nonsense"
because it makes you feel better about yourself (or about iOS).

Just look up HSTS supercookies. Will ya?
Here, I'll help you out.

http://www.radicalresearch.co.uk/lab/hstssupercookies/
quote
Considerably more worrying is the behavior displayed by Safari,
the default browser for iPad and iPhone. When using Safari on an
Apple device there appears to be no way that HSTS flags can be
cleared by the user. HSTS flags are even synced with the iCloud
service so they will be restored if the device is wiped. In this
case the device can effectively be "branded" with an indelible
tracking value that you have no way of removing.
endquote

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/01/browsing-in-privacy-mode-super-cookies-can-track-you-anyway/
quote:
The latest version of firefox, 34.0.5, no longer allows HSTS Super Cookies
set in regular mode to persist in private mode. Greenhalgh said this fix
is recent and produced screenshots showing his PoC worked on version 33
of Firefox, at least when running on Windows. Firefox 34.0.5 continued
to allow multiple websites access super cookies. Chrome on Windows remained
fully vulnerable, as did Chrome and Safari running on an iPad tested by
Ars. Internet Explorer isn't vulnerable because currently supported versions
of the browser don't support HSTS.
endquote

Here's how to clear the HSTS supercookies on a desktop Safari
(but the iPad and iPhone remain vulnerable)
http://classically.me/blogs/how-clear-hsts-settings-major-browsers
quote
Close Safari.
Delete the ~/Library/Cookies/HSTS.plist file.
Reopen Safari.
endquote

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 1:50:22 PM11/11/15

to

In article
<3f37b$56438b69$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> >> And, did you realize that Safari allows *any* site that wants to, to see
> >> EVER SINGLE ENCRYPTED SITE you've ever visited, since the beginning of
> >> time? (And there is no way you can stop it!).
> >
> > nonsense.
>
> Nospam,
> You really shouldn't try to enter conversations in which you know
> nothin about, yet, you spout "nonsense" when someone who does know
> what they're talking about mentions a well-known fact.

take your own advice.

safari does not allow anyone to see encrypted sites. the whole concept
is ludicrous.

you're full of shit and trolling like you normally do.

> I knew you know nothing about Android, but, why you correspondingly
> also openly say "nonsense" to well known facts shows that either you
> also know nothing of iOS apps, or, you're just spouting "nonsense"
> because it makes you feel better about yourself (or about iOS).
>
> Just look up HSTS supercookies. Will ya?
> Here, I'll help you out.
>
> http://www.radicalresearch.co.uk/lab/hstssupercookies/
> quote
> Considerably more worrying is the behavior displayed by Safari,
> the default browser for iPad and iPhone. When using Safari on an
> Apple device there appears to be no way that HSTS flags can be
> cleared by the user. HSTS flags are even synced with the iCloud
> service so they will be restored if the device is wiped. In this
> case the device can effectively be "branded" with an indelible
> tracking value that you have no way of removing.
> endquote

that has nothing to do with being able to see encrypted sites.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:06:44 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>>> But, the goal is to eliminate Google spying.

>> Then you have to stop using any android device.

> Rod,

> You and nospam both have the same opinion,

And plenty more than just us too.

> but I think that's the wrong approach to just roll over and play dead.

Neither of us are rolling over and playing dead.

I couldn’t care less what google knows about me.

I couldn’t care less about what my vsp and cellphone
provider or the govt or the NSA knows about who
I call or who calls me, or what I look at on the net
or where I go or what I do with my time.

I couldn’t care less what any store or ebay
or paypal knows about what I choose to do.

If I do ever decide to murder someone I will
use stuff I have had for decades to do that with.

> I do agree that Google spies anywhere and everywhere
> it can; that I do not even attempt to dispute.

> But, what I'm asking is not for a knee-jerk uninformed
> unenlightened feeling, but for a logical thought process.

> My approach is to identify *where* google spies, and then eliminate that.

You don’t in fact do that at all. If you did you would
never use another android device ever again.

> To that end, I have identified less than a
> dozen "things" where Google can spy on us.

But didn’t even notice by far the biggest problem, their OS.

> It turns all, all of those dozen "things" are easy
> not to use, since perfectly good alternatives exist.

Just as true of google's OS, but you keep using it anyway.

> For you to assume you need to roll over and play dead

We assume nothing of the sort.

> is simply giving up.

Like hell it is.

> Since Google products pervade both dynasties (Apple &
> Android), all I'm asking the folks here is to help identify
> WHERE Google spies, and to help identify viable alternatives.

And you have just been told that by far the biggest
problem is with google's OS and refuse to do what
is the obvious fix for that, use iOS instead.

> For you, working wholly off of fear,

That's a lie.

> there is only one "viable alternative",

There is if you are stupid enough to care about google spying.

> but, for more logical people, the alternative
> is to employ reasonable countermeasures.

There is no possible countermeasure except
to use an OS that is not supplied by google.

> I'm proposing a set of reasonable countermeasures.

You are proposing doing nothing about the biggest
problem, the FACT that google's OS is free to spy on
everything you do and everything any app you choose
to use does.

> All I ask is for people to identify WHERE
> those countermeasures fail (if they fail).

And that is what we have done.

Only to have you claim that we are scare mongering.

Jolly Roger

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:18:53 PM11/11/15

to

On 2015-11-11, Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> See this screenshot shots below for clarification:
> http://i.imgur.com/2zaiHhI.gif
>

> To explain further, apparently Android assigns a unique ID to each
> Android user, and somehow (I don't really understand how), they provide
> that unique id to their subscribers.
>
> I can (and do) periodically wipe out that unique id though (and
> lots of other things).
>
> I think uninformed people like Rod & nospam think that nobody
> knows about these settings, just because *they* don't know about
> these settings, which is why they think Android is inherently
> less private than iOS.

Bullshit. The rest of us are well aware of what UDIDs are, how they are
used, and how to reset them on iOS. And privacy implications are
controlled by far more than just this single factor.

> However, they are misinformed about just about anything having to
> do with the difference between how iOS handles things versus Android.

More nonsense. Your posting history shows that it is *you* who are
generally ignorant about all things Apple, and many things not Apple.
And that doesn't stop you from talking as if you know better than
everyone else on the planet.

> For example, I simply tapped on the screenshot and sent it over to
> my laptop using Bluetooth, which nospam insists is too slow (it
> works fine - but he says that only because Apple can't do it - just
> as I could transfer over my entire file system on Android over WiFi
> to my laptop using my laptop's own file system manager - again -
> something he professes can't happen only because "he" can't do it
> using iOS).

Here you go yet again. You have been corrected on all of this before and
continue to ignore it because you prefer to troll and spread your silly
little lies:

iOS users actually can do Bluetooth file transfers if they really want
to. The phrase "there's an app for that" does apply. Here's one of those
apps:

<http://www.redmondpie.com/airblue-for-ios-5-iphone-ipod-touch-ipad/>

[Jail breaking iOS devices is brain-dead easy and amounts to something
like three clicks of the mouse, and takes just a minute or three. I've
watched friend's kids do it with zero assistance.]

Your ancient and outdated methodology for manually transferring files
here and there over Bluetooth has been replaced in iOS with something
that is much more convenient (completely automatic) and transfers way
faster than Bluetooth could. When iOS users take a photo or screen shot,
it's automatically and instantly available on all of their other
devices. They don't even have to think about it or open an app. So while
you are futzing around copying files back and forth, iOS users are
already out the door (eg: much more productive than you).

> So we have to take what Rod Speed and nospam say with a huge bucket
> of salt, since they know iOS limitations well, but they extrapolate
> them over to Android (where they are wrong in almost every case).
>
> They're both smart. They don't intend on being wrong. They just
> don't know what they're talking about when it comes to such things.

You're projecting, old man.

[useless drivel deleted]

> I edited those screenshots from my Linux laptop while they were "on"
> the Android device!

Because you couldn't edit them on the device itself. Lame.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:20:45 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>>> 1. CoPilot is the second best out there (second to Google).

>> It’s a hell of a long way below google on traffic,
>> street view and fixing errors in the maps.

> Rod,

> On the one hand, you say "don't use Android" because of privacy issues,

Nope. I am saying IF YOU CARE ABOUT GOOGLE SPYING, YOU SHOULD
NOT BE USING ANDROID BECAUSE IT CAN SEE EVERYTHING YOU DO
AND EVERYTHING ANY APP YOU CHOOSE TO USE DOES.

> and then, on the other hand, you say "use google maps" and forget all
> about privacy.

I couldn’t care less about privacy.

> You're not being fair to yourself

Wrong.

> because you are conceding privacy

I am saying that I COULDN’T CARE LESS ABOUT PRIVACY.

> at the same time that you're gaining
> "traffic, streetview, and fixing errors".

> So, you need to look at the problem with
> both the pros and cons, and not just the pros.

I COULDN’T CARE LESS ABOUT PRIVACY.

I use whatever is most convenient for me and
couldn’t care less that anyone is free to keep
track of where my car goes, what I buy, where
I walk, who I call, who calls me, what I watch,
when I sleep, etc etc etc.

In fact I have a VERY visible car just because I
prefer to be able to find it easily in the carpark
and because that makes it less likely some fool
will not notice me coming and pull out in front
of me and damage my car. That means that I
am instantly recognisable to anyone who even
knows me only slightly AND I COULDN’T CARE
LESS ABOUT THAT con.

I have in fact had people who I have never ever
spoken to at all pull up beside me when I am
stopped during the garage sale run because
they recognise my car and assume that where
I am stopped is likely where one of the garage
sales is that hasn’t got their balloons out yet etc.

> PRIVACY:
> Google maps lose big time.

I COULDN’T CARE LESS.

> ACCURACY & FIXING ERRORS:
> While Google maps win against all other maps on
> accuracy and fixing errors, the free CoPilot maps are
> the most accurate out there (other than Google).

Not interested in anything but the best.

> Besides, truth be told (and you already know this), even the pervasive
> free OSM maps are "accurate enough" at this point in time.

No they are not. That’s why I report errors that I find to google.

> And, you can fix your own errors in the OSM database

Doesn’t help everyone else. With google it does.

> (although I, personally, have never bothered).

> TRAFFIC:
> Plenty of free apps offer the exact same TRAFFIC database that
> Google offers (the specific apps were noted a few times already).

There is a lot more involved than just the database.

> All but one of these apps use the same maps that Google has, so,
> the accuracy and coloring is exactly the same as with Google Maps.

There is a lot more involved than just the accuracy and coloring.

> My only worry here is, that since they use underlying Google
> Maps, are they *REPORTING* us to Google? I don't know.

Corse they are.

> STREETVIEW:
> I concede streetview to Google Maps. I, myself, never use it;

Because you keep cutting of your nose to spite your face.

> but certainly it has advantages. If I had to use it, I would
> *only* use this feature of Google Maps, simply because
> of the PRIVACY issues with Google maps.

Your mindless obsession with privacy is your problem.

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:27:04 PM11/11/15

to

In article
<4fc1f$5643896a$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> However, they are misinformed about just about anything having to
> do with the difference between how iOS handles things versus Android.
> For example, I simply tapped on the screenshot and sent it over to
> my laptop using Bluetooth, which nospam insists is too slow (it
> works fine

because bluetooth file transfer is very slow.

you hate facts.

> - but he says that only because Apple can't do it

nonsense. not only can it be done, but it can be done more easily and
muuuuuuch faster.

you're stuck in the past on a very slow pipe.

> - just
> as I could transfer over my entire file system on Android over WiFi
> to my laptop using my laptop's own file system manager - again -
> something he professes can't happen only because "he" can't do it
> using iOS).

more bullshit.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:29:30 PM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:50:21 -0500, nospam wrote:

> that has nothing to do with being able to see encrypted sites.

You're an idiot because you contort words to try to squiggle out
of when you're just downright wrong. I said they could tell which
sites you've visited (I know how the exploit works, so I know that
they have to have an idea of what sites they *want* to know about
but that's not hard to come up with a certain set of sites).

That you say what you say, the way you say it, means you're just
a troll, and, I, for one, will read the sign and ignore your trolls.
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
╔═══════════════════╗ .:\:\:/:/:.
║ PLEASE DO NOT ║ :.:\:\:/:/:.:
║ FEED THE TЯOLLS ║ :=.' - - '.=:
║ ║ '=(\ 9 9 /)='
║ Thank you, ║ ( (_) )
║ Management ║ /`-vvv-'\
╚════════╤═╤════════╝ / \
│ │ @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
│ │ @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ │ │ │/ WW( ( ) )WW
\││││/ │ │ \│ __\,,\ /,,/__
\││/ │ │ │ (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Jolly Roger

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:33:43 PM11/11/15

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:57:17 PM11/11/15

to

On 2015-11-11, Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> iOS users actually can do Bluetooth file transfers if they really want
>> to. The phrase "there's an app for that" does apply. Here's one of those
>> apps:
>>
>> <http://www.redmondpie.com/airblue-for-ios-5-iphone-ipod-touch-ipad/>
>>
>> [Jail breaking iOS devices is brain-dead easy and amounts to something
>> like three clicks of the mouse, and takes just a minute or three. I've
>> watched friend's kids do it with zero assistance.]
>
> This is one of the extremely rare cases where you actually add value
> to a conversation, other than just calling the other person a "troll"
> (which is funny, coming from you).

Not rare at all, and you wouldn't know anyway, because you are only in
the Apple news groups to troll under your current nym, only to change
your nym and come back to do it again - over, and over again. Your
record speaks for itself. You are the troll here.

> However, did notice the supreme *effort* it takes to get iOS to do something
> as simple as transfer a file?

Wrong again. There is *less* effort since the photo is automatically
available on all of your Apple kit without having to lift a finger or
even *think* about it. You refuse to acknowledge this no matter how many
times you are told about it, because you are trolling.

> You can minimize the effort of rooting (um, jailbreaking) an iOS device
> all you want, but you're talking to someone who has done it, and the
> research alone (so that you don't brick your expensive) device is appreciably
> more than the effort it takes on Android to just transfer a file via Bluetooth.

Bullshit. Jailbreaking iOS is simple. I've jail broken iOS many, many
times. It takes *minimal* research, and there is little risk of bricking
your device. And you are equally full of shit on the level of effort
required. While you are futzing around with your ancient Bluetooth file
transfers, iOS users already have their photo on all of their Apple
devices, automatically transferred over much faster WiFi interface, and
have already done whatever it is they wanted to do with the photo. There
is *no* need for silly Bluetooth file transfers on iOS devices.

> Oh, and what if you have the most current iOS? How do you jailbreak that?

Again, no need since iOS users have something way better than your
ancient and slow Bluetooth file transfers.

> Oh, did I forget to mention that, on Android, to transfer a file via bluetooth
> is a single button press. It just works.

Meanwhile, the moment I take a photo, it's automatically available
everywhere I need without having to tap any buttons or even think about
it. You just love saying "it just works" when referencing some lame
thing you did on Android, as if that somehow makes you witty or cool,
but you don't know what the phrase really means.

> Same with WiFi file transfer.
> And USB file transfer.
> It just works.

It doesn't work anywhere near as well.

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:57:51 PM11/11/15

to

In article
<8f603$5643971a$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> > that has nothing to do with being able to see encrypted sites.
>
> You're an idiot because you contort words to try to squiggle out
> of when you're just downright wrong. I said they could tell which
> sites you've visited (I know how the exploit works, so I know that
> they have to have an idea of what sites they *want* to know about
> but that's not hard to come up with a certain set of sites).

you said (and snipped because you're a lying sack of shit):
<9df80$56435dd3$44021f46$24...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
> And, did you realize that Safari allows *any* site that wants to, to see
> EVER SINGLE ENCRYPTED SITE you've ever visited, since the beginning of
> time? (And there is no way you can stop it!).

you then try to change the topic to supercookies, which is a different
issue and doesn't affect only safari. it also has nothing to do with
encrypted sites.

you also do not realize that your isp knows *every* ip address you
connect to, whether it's safari, firefox or an entirely different app
(voip, ssh, ftp, bittorrent, etc.), or whether it's an encrypted
connection or not.

with an encrypted connection, your isp knows that the connection was
made and to whom, but not what was transferred.

you're ignorant.

> That you say what you say, the way you say it, means you're just
> a troll, and, I, for one, will read the sign and ignore your trolls.

you're the one who is trolling.

you repeatedly make up bogus info, causing threads to explode into many
hundreds of posts, at which point you 'discover' the solution that was
originally explained to you at the very start.

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:57:53 PM11/11/15

to

In article
<e72ff$56439ab7$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> However, did notice the supreme *effort* it takes to get iOS to do something
> as simple as transfer a file?

one tap is hardly supreme effort.

you are once again, full of shit and trolling.

> You can minimize the effort of rooting (um, jailbreaking) an iOS device
> all you want, but you're talking to someone who has done it, and the
> research alone (so that you don't brick your expensive) device is appreciably
> more than the effort it takes on Android to just transfer a file via
> Bluetooth.
>
> Oh, and what if you have the most current iOS? How do you jailbreak that?

easily, but so what? jailbreaking is not required to transfer a file.

his point is that if you really want to use bluetooth (which would be
stupid but some people do stupid things), you *can* use bluetooth.

why anyone would want to do that is another story.

> Oh, did I forget to mention that, on Android, to transfer a file via bluetooth
> is a single button press. It just works.

as has been repeatedly explained to you countless times, on ios, all it
takes is a single button press to transfer a file, and it's *much*
faster than can be done on android.

in another thread, you said a 3 meg jpeg took 10 seconds or so to
transfer (i don't remember the exact length). on ios it's instant. the
transfer is *complete* the moment the finger comes off the display.

> Same with WiFi file transfer.
> And USB file transfer.
> It just works.

nonsense.

transferring a file over wifi on android is *not* in any way a single
button press. at a minimum, you have to join a wifi network with both
devices.

on ios, it *is* a single button press, because the configuration is
done automatically and the file sent directly peer to peer.

you are once again, wrong.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:58:01 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Michael Eyd wrote

>> You miss out on seeing the OS *itself* as a tool for spying on you.

> I don't miss out on that.

Corse you did.

> What's different is that I *LOOK* to see if/where the OS is spying.

Not even possible for you to do that.

> The *only* place anyone yet has said the OS is spying

Irrelevant to where it can and does spy.

> is with the user setting to allow anonymous data and the private
> advertising cookie, both of which can be circumvented (although I'd
> like a better way to turn off the advertising cookie if folks have one).

Irrelevant to where the OS can and does spy.

>> It *is* the *only* valid answer if you really want to avoid
>> Google spying on you to the best extent (100% is hardly
>> possible, there are too many websites out there e.g.
>> using Google Analytics to go completely untracked).

> C'mon. Websites? What does that have to do with Android?

He never said it did. He's making the point
that whatever you to on the phone or tablet
does nothing about what the web site tracks.

> And, did you realize that Safari allows *any* site that wants to,
> to see EVER SINGLE ENCRYPTED SITE you've ever visited, since
> the beginning of time? (And there is no way you can stop it!).

If you don’t like that, don’t use Safari. Not a shred of rocket science
whatever required. Even you should be able to manage that.

> So, let's keep web sites out of the operating system issue please.

No thanks. That means that no matter how mindlessly
obsessive you are about the phone or tablet, while ever
you use it for anything at all, you will be tracked anyway.

> Besides, it's trivial to stop all those websites anyway, via a
> whole bunch of methods (my desktophosts file is 50,000
> lines long - there's nothing that Google gets out of me, nor
> Facebook, nor doubleclick, and 49,997 other tracking sites).

Pity about all the others that still track you anyway.

And the OS that tracks every single thing you do, including
ALL your furious changes to the Mac address etc etc etc.

> While I don't employ them on my mobile devices, I'm sure there are
> *plenty* of ways even on a mobile device to add noscript, ghostscript,
> canvass blockers, ghostery, random agent spoofer, privoxy, etc.

And while ever its google's OS, that is a complete waste of time.

>> Yes, but iOS itself will not deliver any information to Google.
>> Something that Android definitively does.

> If you don't use the dozen apps, and if you go through
> your settings to circumvent advertising cookies and turn
> off anonymous tracking, do you know something I don't
> know about how the OS "delivers information to Google?".

Yep, everything in fact.

> This is a direct question.

You've had a direct answer from EVERYONE
who has bothered to comment.

> If you know the answer, then speak up.

He just did that.

> Otherwise, you're just as bad as Rod by fear mongering.

You're lying now.

> Where, other than where I've already mentioned,
> does the OS "deliver information to Google?"

The OS itself talks to google and reports on everything you do.

>>> If you don't use the 10 apps I listed, then I don't
>>> see how Google knows ANYTHING about you.

>> One example: Android (like iOS) keeps track of the WiFi networks
>> in your vicinity. Put this information together with the basic location
>> monitoring they get from the mobile network, and you have a nice way
>> of knowing where you are. Not as precise as GPS tracking, but still not
>> too bad. And this information is reported back to Google, in order to
>> update their database of WiFi networks (to help in localizing other
>> users in the same area later on, possibly only by the visible WiFis).

> Thank you for this information; but let's
> look at it first before we succumb to fear.

You're the only one cowering under the bed about privacy.

> First off, we already know that Google gets WiFi information
> when they drive those Google cars around your block - which
> is *different* than what you're saying above.

Yes, but your phone and tablet does much more than that.

> I understand what you're saying above, which
> is that Google, somehow, steals your WiFi ESSID.

There is no theft involved.

> But is that really true?

Corse it is. There is other way to use wifi for location.

> Given the thousands of people reading these combined newsgroups,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> I would like to ask any one of them to show us where Google
> is stealing our ESSID information from our home routers.

There is no other way to do wifi for location.

> Because if Google was stealing our home ESSID from our cellphones,
> and if we couldn't stop it, that would be a big deal indeed.

Then you had best set fire to yourself outside google HQ or something.

> (Otherwise it's just baseless fear mongering).

Nothing baseless about it. There is no other way to do wifi for location.

Jolly Roger

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:01:35 PM11/11/15

to

Extremely! And a list of domains you've visited isn't very useful
anyway. He's trolling hard, and failing spectacularly, as usual.

>> That you say what you say, the way you say it, means you're just
>> a troll, and, I, for one, will read the sign and ignore your trolls.
>
> you're the one who is trolling.
>
> you repeatedly make up bogus info, causing threads to explode into many
> hundreds of posts, at which point you 'discover' the solution that was
> originally explained to you at the very start.

That's his modus operandi. Lame troll.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:03:20 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Michael Eyd wrote

>> I can use Google Maps on iOS *without* a Google account.
>> Your Android device is automatically logged into a Google
>> account, so there is *automatically* a link between your
>> usage of Google Maps and your account. Prey to tell me
>> how Google can get this link in the case of iOS... ;-)

> You are incorrect I believe.

You're wrong, again.

> But, to your point, I have looked at the settings of *all* the dozen apps
> I listed, and almost all do *default* to your google play account (the
> MyTracks app doesn't have a login setting - but all the rest do).

Irrelevant to what ANDROID does.

> Again, to your point, *by default*, many of those
> apps that do have a login, default to logging you in.

> However, contrary to your point, you can log *out* of all those apps.

But you can't do that with ANDROID.

> So, once you log out, you stay logged out.

Not with ANDROID.

> Hence, using Google Maps on Android is no different
> in that respect than using Google maps on iOS.

Wrong.

> If I am wrong,

You are.

> then one of the thousands of Android
> & iOS users on these newsgroups

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> will show me where I err

He just did.

> (but just saying it isn't so, isn't saying anything).

> But, I have personally looked at the settings of all those apps,
> and I found where I was logged in, and I logged myself out.

Irrelevant to what ANDROID does.

> Plus, my Google Play account is a throw-away account
> which I change periodically with no ill effects whatsoever).

And the OS keeps track of that too.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:04:18 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:4368$56435f9e$44021f46$24...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>>> You like to believe this.
>>
>> No. That's (for all that the public knows) a fact. Is there room for
>> deceiving the public? Sure there is. But if you want to take that option
>> into account then you *really* shouldn't use Android in the first
>> place... ;-)
>
> You're just working off of fear, like Rod.
> No logic.

You're lying now.

> Your fear doesn't really help us here.
> What matters is truth. Not fiction.

Yours is the fiction and lies.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:07:47 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Michael Eyd wrote

>> It's just your unwillingness to give up on Android that makes you say
>> this.

> heh heh... at the risk of starting a flame war, you have
> to realize that I use Apple products for what they're
> good for, and I use Android for what it's good for.

But don’t even realise that android is very bad
for what you claim to care most about, privacy.

If you really did do what you said there, you'd be
using apple products for their MUCH better privacy.

> Both have their place, and "giving up" on one would mean
> to lose all the huge advantages that it has over the other.

Yes, your mindless obsession with privacy does get that result.

> That you can even suggest that, shows more
> about how *you* think, than how I do.

We know how you do, in ignorance usually.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:16:43 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:c7ecd$56436db3$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:32 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> So, either you start discussing here your question (and with discussing
>> I mean real discussion, not just blaming everybody else for fear
>> mongering), or this thread will die very soon...
>
> You'll notice that "I" am answering the questions.
>
> In fact, you'll notice that I agreed with you that the OS spies, and I
> just asked where you know that I don't already know.

>
> And I brought up issues you didn't bring up, so, I'm being fair (e.g., I
> brought up the advertising cookie, which nobody else brought up).
>

> I am looking at EACH issue, and then seeing if it's valid.
>
> If the issue is just fear, what you're objecting to is that I "say" it's
> fear mongering. You can't object to the fact that the person who brought
> up that fear had NOTHING concrete to back it up.
>
> You'll notice that Rod Speed, for example, answered with nothing
> concrete, only fear (and total BS, since he, himself has never tested the
> traffic apps).

You're lying thru your teeth now.

> However, even Rod Speed, who is an intelligent guy,
> brought up the point that HE uses Google Maps simply
> because it's the best (and I never disagreed with him).

> So, please -- when you read what you're reading - realize
> who is telling truth versus who is spouting mere bullshit

We've all noticed that its you that is doing that, and lying too.

> (nospam is one of the best at that, even
> though he himself, is also intelligent).

> You brought up a GREAT issue for me to check out, which is that you
> believe that Google is spying on our SSIDs that we use at home.

> I appreciate that. I am searching for confirmation of that as we speak.

There is no other way to do wifi location when GPS is not available.

> https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=google+ssid+spying

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:23:30 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Michael Eyd wrote

>> And which is *exactly* the reason why I didn't say a single
>> word about what you call 'Google cars' in the first place -
>> because they've got nothing to do with what I was talking
>> about. We do you deviate to a complete different topic here?

> You seem reasonable so I am responding to you reasonably.

You lied thru your teeth about what I have done.

> I have been searching diligently for what you implied, which,
> if I inferred it correctly, is that Google spies on our WiFi access
> points at home, from the Android operating system itself.

> If that turns out to be true, that would (a) be very bad, and it
> would (b) be something that I will figure out how to turn off.

That last isn't even possible.

> Certainly it is universally known that the google cars collect
> our WiFi SSIDs, but neither one of us is talking about that.
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-admits-street-view-cars-collected-e-mails-passwords/

Even you should have noticed that the cars pass so rarely that that it
would be completely useless way to only collect wifi SSIDs that way.

> I did find something odd in my search, which was the preposterous
> suggestion from Google that we all add "_nomap" to the end of our
> SSIDs so that Google cars won't map us.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Google-Maps-Wi-Fi-Location-SSID,14000.html

> But, so far, I have found zero evidence that
> the Android os itself is collecting our SSIDs

There is no other viable way to do it. The cars
pass FAR too infrequently to be any use.

> (but if anyone has a pointer, let me know
> as the only thing I seek is the truth).

All you need to know is that there is no other way to do wifi location.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:28:51 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:a7459$564371bd$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:49:29 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> Secondly, I'm not talking about Google doing anything illegal (an
>> inherent semantic of 'stealing'), therefor I would prefer to talk about
>> 'Google recording where they found which ESSIDs'. Put those locations in
>> a database, send the database out to all the Android devices, and those
>> devices can (and will) use it to locate the device even if not GPS
>> reception is possible (or allowed). That's all quite nice, helpful and
>> legal. And, btw, Apple basically does exactly the same with all the iOS
>> devices.
>
> Michael,
>
> Your point about "stealing" is valid, so, I'll start, from here, to use
> the word "spying" or "gathering" or "storing" or "saving" or something to
> that effect (depending on the sentence).
>
> However, you said one thing, and then said another, and all I'm trying
> to do is understand and validate where you said google is "obtaining"
> our SSIDs.
>
> Since text is a two-dimensional medium, it's natural for clarity to
> be required once someone drops a bombshell such as you seemingly
> dropped on me.
>
> We agree that we're talking about Google apps on Android OS, right?

Nope. We're talking about what the OS does, not google apps.

> So, what we're concerned about here is whether either the Android OS
> itself or any specific Google app itself "gathered" or "stored" our SSID.

> Do we agree?
> So, the google cars don't play any role whatsoever. Right?

They do collect that data, but pass so infrequently that that is
nowhere near good enough to be much use for wifi location.

> So far, I can find no article that says that the Android operating
> system "gathers" or "obtains" or "saves" your SSID on a google server.

Because there is no other way to do it.

> I did find a frightening article that says Google Chrome listens
> to your microphone, but that applies to all operating systems.
> http://www.infowars.com/google-secretly-spying-on-computer-users-via-microphones/

And for all you know Android does too.

> Since text is a medium where we may need to clarify what we say,
> may I ask you to clarify WHERE in the Android operating system
> that Google "obtains" and then "saves" to their servers our SSID?

It clearly has to be aware of them to use them.

> I can't find any indication this is the case yet.

There is no other way to do wifi location.

> But I'm still looking to validate what I perceived your argument to be.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:36:10 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message

news:1da9e$56437f75$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:54:37 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> And one more thing: How often do you see Google cars pass by your
>> neighborhood? Not too often, I assume. WiFi networks on the other hand
>> can change rather often. You might want to try and find an answer to the
>> question how good years old information about long time gone networks
>> would be to support the OS in locating the device. And once you have
>> that answer think about whether Google wouldn't want to find another way
>> to track those changes. ;-)
>
> Michael,
> Again, you seem reasonable. Not like the "nope" guys who have nothing
> to offer of real substance.
>
> The fact that Google cars can't be traversing streets constantly is
> valid. I live within only a few miles of Google HQ, so, I certainly have
> seen their cars a lot. I once watched them by my road, so, I followed
> the car, and then waited at home, and it never came back.
>
> I looked on the Google maps and I noticed they don't do my street.
> In fact, I realized, they have NEVER done my street!
>
> I wondered why, but then I just chalked it up to the fact that I live
> far off the main street on a long private road, so, they must not be
> traveling private roads, I guess.
>
> So, if they have "my" SSID, they'd have to get it either while I'm
> driving down the road (and they pull it off my phone somehow), or,
> more likely, from when I'm home and connecting to my home broadband
> router's SSID.
>
> I do know that when you set your router to *hide* your SSID, you actually
> end up *broadcasting* that home SSID at hotspots, at least from some
> operating systems, merely because the *first* SSID that the OS looks
> for is the one that it remembers from your home.
>
> Only after *not* finding your home SSID at a local hotspot, do some
> operating systems then *look* for the hotspot SSID.
>
> However, since that's how typical WiFi networking is supposed to work,
> I would think that both iOS and Android do that, so, it's probably
> not what you were talking about anyway.
>
> I am still searching, but, so far I can't find any indication that
> the Android OS 'collects' your SSID for later use by a Google server.

There is no other way to do it given that the cars pass so infrequently.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:46:02 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message

news:4fc1f$5643896a$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:47:27 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>>> And I brought up issues you didn't bring up, so, I'm being fair (e.g., I
>>> brought up the advertising cookie, which nobody else brought up).
>>

>> Isn't that again website based, something that you claimed I
>> artificially brought into the discussion (which I didn't)? ;-)
>
> You bring up a good point Michael, because, in I wasn't clear about
> what I meant by the "advertising cookie".

>
> See this screenshot shots below for clarification:
> http://i.imgur.com/2zaiHhI.gif
>

> It's fair, since I used the word "cookie" that you thought I was
> talking about 'web cookies', which we all know are the bane of our
> privacy on *any* operating system.
>
> However, I wasn't talking about web cookies (but it's my fault, in this
> two dimensional medium for not making that clear to you).

>
> To explain further, apparently Android assigns a unique ID to each
> Android user, and somehow (I don't really understand how), they provide
> that unique id to their subscribers.
>
> I can (and do) periodically wipe out that unique id though (and
> lots of other things).
>
> I think uninformed people like Rod & nospam think that nobody
> knows about these settings, just because *they* don't know about
> these settings,

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> which is why they think Android is inherently less private than iOS.

Nope, because we KNOW who wrote android.

> However, they are misinformed about just about anything having to
> do with the difference between how iOS handles things versus Android.

We'll see...

> For example, I simply tapped on the screenshot and sent it over
> to my laptop using Bluetooth, which nospam insists is too slow

> (it works fine - but he says that only because Apple can't do it

Another bare faced lie.

> - just as I could transfer over my entire file system on Android
> over WiFi to my laptop using my laptop's own file system
> manager - again - something he professes can't happen
> only because "he" can't do it using iOS).

Another bare faced lie. We keep rubbing your lying nose in the
FACT that with iOS you don’t have to do a thing except setup
the use of the cloud just once AND HAVE IT ALL DONE WITH
NO TAPS AT ALL, EVER, COMPLETELY AUTOMATICALLY.

> So we have to take what Rod Speed and nospam say
> with a huge bucket of salt, since they know iOS limitations
> well, but they extrapolate them over to Android

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> (where they are wrong in almost every case).

And again. In spades with the completely different approach to privacy with
iOS.

> They're both smart. They don't intend on being wrong. They just
> don't know what they're talking about when it comes to such things.

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> They don't even *know* about the common settings below, for example,
> acting as if nobody knows about them (since they don't have a clue).

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> Basic Android Privacy Settings:
> Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > {Search, Location settings, Ads}
> 0. Settings > Accounts > Google
> Account: f...@bar.com
> Sync turned off
> 1. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Search >
> a. Google Account
> Signed out for Google Search, and no Google Now cards can be shown.
> b. Google location settings
> A. Access location: [unchecked]
> [Do not] Let Google apps use this device's location any time it is
> on.
> B. Google Location History = blank
> c. SafeSearch filter [unchecked]SafeSearch is not active
> d. Legal
> Web History = off
> Personal Results = off
> 2. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Location settings >
> a. Location access for your phone is off.
> Google applications are unable to access your location because
> location access for the phone has been turned off.
> To turn it back on click below to go to Settings > Location Access
> b. Settings > More > Location services > Access to my location =
> [unchecked]
> c. Settings > More > Location services > Location sources >
> Use GPS statellites = [unchecked](and grayed out)
> Use wireless networks = [unchecked](and grayed out)
> 3. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Ads >
> a. Ads: Reset advertising ID (click it to reset)
> b. Opt out of interest-based ads (check it to opt out)
> c. Ads by Google (clicking it will pop up a browser session)
> https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/html/mobile-about.html?(x)
> [where (x) is a huge encrypted mess of characters]

Even a pathological liar such as yourself can use groups.google
and see where I have told others all that stuff long before you
ever said anything about it.

> By the way, Rod Speed and nospam will decry
> Linux being connected to a mobile device,

You're lying thru your teeth about me, again.

> but, guess what? I edited those screenshots from my

> Linux laptop while they were "on" the Android device!

And I rubbed your stupid lying nose in the FACT that
its just as easy to do that with linux as with any other
OS if you have enough of a clue to use a cloud.

> Point is that they don't know what they're talking
> about when it comes to the power that they know
> nothing about because they don't have it on iOS.

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 3:57:15 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Michael Eyd wrote

>> They do, I'm sure about this.

>> But as I'm a nice guy I just spend about two to three minutes
>> (in two languages actually, as I wasn't completely sure about the
>> correct English search terms) for that search and have a (first) result:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_positioning_system#Privacy_concerns>
>> There you find Google's WPS database explicitly mentioned.
>> And this database certainly didn't fall from heaven... ;-)

> Hi Michael,
> Thanks for that URL.

> I had read that already and all it talks about is what I already said we
> weren't talking about since it has *nothing* to do with *any* operating
> system.

> If that's anyone can find on whether or not "Android" collects the SSID,
> then we can probably lay to rest this errant (but well intentioned) idea
> that
> the Android "operating system" (somehow) is "collecting" SSID data for
> Google servers to use.

Have fun explaining where the google database comes from.

It can't be coming from JUST their cars.

It must be coming from android phones and tablets as well.

> What is collecting the data are Google cars, but that's
> wholly outside the scope of the Android operating system.

But keeping that database up to date isn't.

> Do you see why I keep saying that all the objections
> are based on fear though? They're not based on facts.

No fact from you in this post.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 4:01:39 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:e72ff$56439ab7$44021f46$25...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:18:51 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> iOS users actually can do Bluetooth file transfers if they really want
>> to. The phrase "there's an app for that" does apply. Here's one of those
>> apps:
>>
>> <http://www.redmondpie.com/airblue-for-ios-5-iphone-ipod-touch-ipad/>
>>
>> [Jail breaking iOS devices is brain-dead easy and amounts to something
>> like three clicks of the mouse, and takes just a minute or three. I've
>> watched friend's kids do it with zero assistance.]
>
> This is one of the extremely rare cases where you actually add value
> to a conversation, other than just calling the other person a "troll"
> (which is funny, coming from you).
>
> However, did notice the supreme *effort* it takes to
> get iOS to do something as simple as transfer a file?

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

No effort what so ever to transfer a file using a cloud, NONE WHAT SO EVER,
you don’t even have to tap on anything, ITS ALL COMPLETELY AUTOMATIC.

And airdropping a file only requires a tap or two.

> You can minimize the effort of rooting (um, jailbreaking) an iOS device
> all you want, but you're talking to someone who has done it, and the
> research alone (so that you don't brick your expensive) device is
> appreciably
> more than the effort it takes on Android to just transfer a file via
> Bluetooth.

But no effort what so ever to use a cloud once its been setup.

> Oh, and what if you have the most current iOS? How do you jailbreak that?

> Oh, did I forget to mention that, on Android, to transfer
> a file via bluetooth is a single button press. It just works.

You don’t even need a button press with a cloud.

And an airdrop leave bluetooth for dead speed wise.

> Same with WiFi file transfer.
> And USB file transfer.
> It just works.

So does a cloud and airdrop.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:02:17 PM11/11/15

to

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:36:06 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> There is no other way to do it given that the cars
> pass so infrequently.

Some of you iOS folks are certifiably crazy.

What you're trying to imply is that Android, the OS, "captures"
your SSIDs (bearing in mind that you can have a dozen of 'em
stored in your WiFi networks GUI), and then *sends* the list
of your SSIDs to Google servers?

And, you make (up) this story based on, um.... on... absolutely
nothing?

A whim perhaps?
A funny feeling maybe?
Wishful thinking?

What?
Show me a single place (Micheael Eyd already tried but he could
only come up with the Google car storing SSIDs, which we all
knew years ago) where this is documented.

Oh, it's not documented?
Nowhere?

Absolutely nowhere on the entire net?
Oh?
I see... I do.

You're just making this stuff up.
Why? (Because you have nothing else to bash.)

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:02:34 PM11/11/15

to

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:23:25 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> All you need to know is that there is no other way to do wifi location.

Paul M. Cook

> What you're trying to imply

Nope, stating quite explicitly.

> is that Android, the OS, "captures" your SSIDs
> (bearing in mind that you can have a dozen of
> 'em stored in your WiFi networks GUI), and then
> *sends* the list of your SSIDs to Google servers?

Have fun explaining how their database gets updated.

> And, you make (up) this story

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> based on, um.... on... absolutely nothing?

Nope, based on where the database updates
must be coming from given that cars pass so
rarely and its completely trivial to check when
a car past your place most recently.

> A whim perhaps?
> A funny feeling maybe?
> Wishful thinking?

> What?

Based on where the database updates must
be coming from given that cars pass so rarely.

> Show me a single place (Micheael Eyd already tried but
> he could only come up with the Google car storing SSIDs,
> which we all knew years ago) where this is documented.

No one ever said its documented.

> Oh, it's not documented?
> Nowhere?

Same with the stuff google apps do that
you are so mindlessly paranoid about.

> Absolutely nowhere on the entire net?
> Oh?
> I see... I do.

Obvious lie. You have clearly wanked
yourself completely blind, again.

> You're just making this stuff up.

You're projecting now. It you that lies
thru your teeth, time and time again.

> Why? (Because you have nothing else to bash.)

Not bashing anything, just rubbing your nose in the
basics, only to have you desperately attempt to bullshit
and lie your way out of your predicament, as you ALWAYS
do when you have got done like a fucking dinner, as always.

We can all see you doing that AGAIN with file transfers with iOS
which are in fact MUCH easier and COMPLETELY AUTOMATIC
with a cloud, even with android. Only a fool like you would
try to claim that doing it manually with bluetooth is less effort.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:46:56 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> All you need to know is that there is no other way to do wifi location.

> Some of you iOS folks are certifiably crazy.

We'll see...

And I'm not an iOS folk either, I use them all,
most of them more than I use iOS thanks.

> What you're trying to imply

Nope, stating quite explicitly.

> is that Android, the OS, "captures" your SSIDs
> (bearing in mind that you can have a dozen of
> 'em stored in your WiFi networks GUI), and then
> *sends* the list of your SSIDs to Google servers?

Have fun explaining how their database gets updated.

> And, you make (up) this story

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> based on, um.... on... absolutely nothing?

Nope, based on where the database updates
must be coming from given that cars pass so
rarely and its completely trivial to check when
a car past your place most recently.

> A whim perhaps?
> A funny feeling maybe?
> Wishful thinking?

> What?

Based on where the database updates must
be coming from given that cars pass so rarely.

> Show me a single place (Micheael Eyd already tried but
> he could only come up with the Google car storing SSIDs,
> which we all knew years ago) where this is documented.

No one ever said its documented.

> Oh, it's not documented?
> Nowhere?

Same with the stuff google apps do that
you are so mindlessly paranoid about.

> Absolutely nowhere on the entire net?
> Oh?
> I see... I do.

Obvious lie. You have clearly wanked
yourself completely blind, again.

> You're just making this stuff up.

You're projecting now. It you that lies
thru your teeth, time and time again.

> Why? (Because you have nothing else to bash.)

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:47:44 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Have fun explaining where the google database comes from.

>> It can't be coming from JUST their cars.

>> It must be coming from android phones and tablets as well.

> Some of you iOS folks are certifiably crazy.

We'll see...

And I'm not an iOS folk either, I use them all,
most of them more than I use iOS thanks.

> What you're trying to imply

Nope, stating quite explicitly.

> is that Android, the OS, "captures" your SSIDs
> (bearing in mind that you can have a dozen of
> 'em stored in your WiFi networks GUI), and then
> *sends* the list of your SSIDs to Google servers?

Have fun explaining how their database gets updated.

> And, you make (up) this story

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> based on, um.... on... absolutely nothing?

Nope, based on where the database updates
must be coming from given that cars pass so
rarely and its completely trivial to check when
a car past your place most recently.

> A whim perhaps?
> A funny feeling maybe?
> Wishful thinking?

> What?

Based on where the database updates must
be coming from given that cars pass so rarely.

> Show me a single place (Micheael Eyd already tried but
> he could only come up with the Google car storing SSIDs,
> which we all knew years ago) where this is documented.

No one ever said its documented.

> Oh, it's not documented?
> Nowhere?

Same with the stuff google apps do that
you are so mindlessly paranoid about.

> Absolutely nowhere on the entire net?
> Oh?
> I see... I do.

Obvious lie. You have clearly wanked
yourself completely blind, again.

> You're just making this stuff up.

You're projecting now. It you that lies
thru your teeth, time and time again.

> Why? (Because you have nothing else to bash.)

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 7:48:26 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> There is no other way to do wifi location.

> Some of you iOS folks are certifiably crazy.

We'll see...

And I'm not an iOS folk either, I use them all,
most of them more than I use iOS thanks.

> What you're trying to imply

Nope, stating quite explicitly.

> is that Android, the OS, "captures" your SSIDs
> (bearing in mind that you can have a dozen of
> 'em stored in your WiFi networks GUI), and then
> *sends* the list of your SSIDs to Google servers?

Have fun explaining how their database gets updated.

> And, you make (up) this story

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> based on, um.... on... absolutely nothing?

Nope, based on where the database updates
must be coming from given that cars pass so
rarely and its completely trivial to check when
a car past your place most recently.

> A whim perhaps?
> A funny feeling maybe?
> Wishful thinking?

> What?

Based on where the database updates must
be coming from given that cars pass so rarely.

> Show me a single place (Micheael Eyd already tried but
> he could only come up with the Google car storing SSIDs,
> which we all knew years ago) where this is documented.

No one ever said its documented.

> Oh, it's not documented?
> Nowhere?

Same with the stuff google apps do that
you are so mindlessly paranoid about.

> Absolutely nowhere on the entire net?
> Oh?
> I see... I do.

Obvious lie. You have clearly wanked
yourself completely blind, again.

> You're just making this stuff up.

You're projecting now. It you that lies
thru your teeth, time and time again.

> Why? (Because you have nothing else to bash.)

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 9:58:20 PM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:37:01 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> You miss out on seeing the OS *itself* as a tool for spying on you.

I already showed many screenshots which turn off all of that.

What you're implying, but providing zero evidence for, is that there
is stuff that I missed.

I'm not doubting that someone who knows Android better than I do
can find stuff that I missed - but - notice that NOBODY here yet
has found anything that I have missed.

I'd be *glad* if someone found something that I missed (and, in fact,
there is a separate thread opened earlier today, just to the android
group, *asking* if there's stuff I missed).

So far nobody has found *anything* that I missed; so, for all "I" know,
I have accomplished the task of turning off the spying by both the
Google operating system and the Google apps.

Even I am not that naive to ever think that I got 'em all; but, the
point is that I am closing down all the open doors to Google.

So far it has been very easy to close down those doors.
You guys are so afraid of the bogeyman that you just assume that
it can't be done.

But, it's easy to do.

At least nobody has told me a single thing in this entire thread
that I missed (which means all those arguing with me don't know
the first thing about Android - because I'm no expert - and I
obviously know way more than they do since all they can do is
say 'nope' and 'bullshit' and 'troll' and other childish things).

Even Michelle knows better than to try to say something can't
be done without knowing anything about that which they say can't
be done.

It turns out to be *easy* to do.
You just find that hard to believe.

Which is fair.
But that doesn't make it wrong.

Like hell you did.

> What you're implying, but providing zero
> evidence for, is that there is stuff that I missed.

We all swooned at the evidence you presented that
after doing that stuff, that android no longer sends any
updates to the database about SSID changes it sees.

And it isn't just SSIDs either. The OS clearly knows all about
everything about your android, what apps have been installed,
regardless of how they have been installed, how they have been
used, and about all your silly games with Mac addresses etc etc etc.

> I'm not doubting that someone who knows Android better
> than I do can find stuff that I missed - but - notice that
> NOBODY here yet has found anything that I have missed.

You're lying thru your teeth AGAIN. You completely missed
the FACT that android on your phone knows everything about
what you have done on your phone until your pig ignorant nose
was rubbed in that.

> I'd be *glad* if someone found something that I missed

Another bare faced lie. You in fact hurled accusations about
scare mongering when you nose was rubbed in the basics.

> (and, in fact, there is a separate thread opened earlier today,
> just to the android group, *asking* if there's stuff I missed).

We already know you missed the OS completely.

> So far nobody has found *anything* that I missed;

Another bare faced lie with the OS alone,
and the updating of the wifi database alone.

> so, for all "I" know, I have accomplished the task of turning off the
> spying by both the Google operating system and the Google apps.

We know that you haven't, because there is nothing you have any
control over with the updating of the wifi SSID database that we
know must be being updated that way because google's cars don’t
go past anything even remotely often enough to be do that alone.

> Even I am not that naive to ever think that I got 'em all; but, the
> point is that I am closing down all the open doors to Google.

Like hell you are on the knowledge that the OS has on what apps
you have installed, no matter how you have done that, what you
have done usage wise with those apps, and all the other silly games
you keep playing with VPNs and Mac addresses etc etc etc.

> So far it has been very easy to close down those doors.

You have no way of knowing if you have closed the ones that matter.

> You guys are so afraid of the bogeyman
> that you just assume that it can't be done.

We know that you don’t have any control what so ever on what
the OS knows about what apps you have installed, how you have
used them, what you have done about using VPNs or your silly
games with Mac addresses, etc etc etc.

> But, it's easy to do.

Nothing you have done has done anything what so ever about
what the OS knows about what apps you have installed, how
you have used them, what you have done about using VPNs
or your silly games with Mac addresses, etc etc etc.

> At least nobody has told me a single thing in this entire thread
> that I missed

Another bare faced lie about the OS alone, and the wifi SSIDs alone.

> (which means all those arguing with me
> don't know the first thing about Android

Its you that doesn’t have a fucking clue about anything
the OS knows about, and with wifi location in spades.

> - because I'm no expert - and I obviously know way
> more than they do since all they can do is say 'nope'
> and 'bullshit' and 'troll' and other childish things).

There you go, lying thru your teeth, yet again.

We have ALL said a hell of a lot more than
that, you silly little pathological liar.

> Even Michelle knows better than to try to say
> something can't be done without knowing
> anything about that which they say can't be done.

She's written you off as just another terminal fuckwit/
pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

> It turns out to be *easy* to do.

You have absolutely no way of knowing what your
androids STILL tell google about what you are doing.

> You just find that hard to believe.

We know you don’t have a fucking
clue about even the most basic stuff.

Just like we all do about moving files with iOS.

> Which is fair.
> But that doesn't make it wrong.

You're just plain wrong anyway.

Just like you are with moving files with iOS.

Pig ignorant, bone headed, and a terminal fuckwit to boot.

Savageduck

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:44:58 PM11/11/15

to

Our routine nym-shifter/sock changer who regularly uses "it just works"
relating to Android stuff rears his opinion once more.
It looks like "Paul M. Cook" has just moved his agenda from
comp.mobile.ipad to misc.phone.mobile.iphone, but this time didn't
nymshift/sockchange. He just changed NGs.

The M.O. is so familiar.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:51:39 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> nospam wrote

>> it logs every ssid/gps coords it encounters and uploads it to google's
>> servers.

> Hi nospam,

> If this is true, I'd be perfectly happy to know about
> it, and, to publicly apologize, and eat crow.

Just like you did with moving files with iOS eh ?

> I'd even agree (for the first time) that you
> know more about Android than I do.

And everything else too.

> However, NOBODY can find a SINGLE WEB PAGE on this
> entire planet that actually *says* what you're saying above.

Don’t need one. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO WIFI LOCATION.

GOOGLE CARS DON’T PASS OFTEN ENOUGH TO BE ANY USE FOR THAT.

> Michael already tried, for example. And failed.
> So did I.
> I presume so did Rod (but I don't know - maybe he was just
> talking out of his ass again - with nothing to back it up).

No talking out my arse with the stuff in capitals above.

And you can't even lie credibly about not have seen
it because you quoted that when you played your
juvenile games about being certifiably insane.

> So, either it's the best-kept secret on the planet, or, it isn't true.

Or its obvious to anyone with even half a clue that
it has to be done like that so no one has bothered
to spell that out where you can find it when you
too stupid to work it out for yourself.

> Again, I'd be perfectly happy to know the truth.

Just like you were with file transfers with iOS eh ?

> But, for you to say it, and yet, for there not to be a
> single source on the entire planet that backs up what
> you said, merely means that what you said isn't true.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

> This is basic stuff.

Too much for you tho, just like with file transfers with iOS.

> It's either true. Or not.

> If it's true - there will be a reference explaining it.
> If it's not true - there will be nothing.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

> So far, there is nothing.

Another bare faced lie. THERE IS NO OTHER
WAY TO DO WIFI LOCATION, stupid.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:52:23 PM11/11/15

to

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:41:40 -0500, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> http://i.imgur.com/N9ng7x1.jpg
>
> 1. I start WiFi FTP Server on my Android (just one button press).
> 2. And then my browser mounts it (in a single click).

I should have clarified that this is the "file browser".
In this case, it's "Nautilus" which is a common file browser on Linux.
But *any* file browser would have worked as well (e.g., Dolphin).

http://i.imgur.com/N9ng7x1.jpg

1. On Android, I start WiFi FTP Server
2. On Linux, my normal file browser mounts the entire file system.

Powerful. Very powerful. And easy.

The beauty is that I have all my Linux scripts available to me, e.g.,
to I have scripts to rsync, or to edit pictures, to size them, to
caption them, to change their canvas size, to convert them to animated
GIFs, to crop them, etc.

All the power of Linux or Windows is available to edit any file
I want to, while it sits on the Android file system or not.

Whatever I want to do, I can do over the local LAN.
It's that easy.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 10:59:23 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> No one ever said its documented.

> So you admit that you just made it up?

Nope. It isn't documented what google apps
do with what they can see about you either.

Doesn’t mean that they don’t do anything
and its completely trivial to PROVE that they
do what is claimed by doing a quite specific
search and see that the ads in facebook start
offering you those items.

Even someone as stupid as you should be
able to work out what that means, if someone
was actually stupid enough to lend you a
seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> Realize, I just want the truth.

Just like you claimed to with file transfers with iOS eh ?

> You guys are the ones who say that Google saves
> your SSID that they obtain from Android.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO UPDATE THE DATABASE.

GOOGLE CARS DON’T PASS OFTEN ENOUGH TO DO IT THAT WAY.

> I can't find a single reference that says that.

Your problem, as always.

> Neither could Michael (he pointed us
> to a Google cars reference instead).

> So, if you can show me a single reliable web page
> that says what you say, then I can believe you.

You can't find any reliable web page that tells
you what google apps send to google either.

You know they do anyway.

You just don’t like the FACT that android
does too, because that would mean that
you'd have to stop using it.

> But nobody ... not you ... not michael .. not nospam ... not a
> single person on the android newsgroup... and not me ... can find
> a single reference on this planet that backs up your assertion.

You can't find any reliable web page that tells
you what google apps send to google either.

You know they do anyway.

You just don’t like the FACT that android
does too, because that would mean that
you'd have to stop using it.

> Therefore you simply made it up.

Presumably you actually are that terminally bone headed.

You clearly are with file transfer with iOS, even tho that is
documented on reliable web sites all over the fucking place.

Paul M. Cook

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:02:05 PM11/11/15

to

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:59:17 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Even someone as stupid as you should be
> able to work out what that means, if someone
> was actually stupid enough to lend you a
> seeing eye dog and a white cane.

That's your documentation to back up your claim?

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:05:33 PM11/11/15

to

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Yours is the fiction and lies.

> Heh heh...

Giggling cuts no mustard around here.

> You say Android spies.

Everyone KNOWS it does, BECAUSE THERE
IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO WIFI LOCATION.

> I show how I turn off spying.

You do nothing of the sort. ALL you actually
to is play silly buggers that has no effect what
so ever about what the OS has to know about
the apps you have installed, how you have used
them, all your silly games with Mac addresses,
etc etc etc. IT HAS TO KNOW ALL THAT STUFF
TO EVEN WORK AT ALL. THERE IS NO WAY TO
TURN ANY OF THAT OFF.

> You say Android saves the SSID.
> Nobody can show any documentation.

Just like they can't with what google apps do either.

BECAUSE ITS IN GOOGLE'S INTEREST TO NOT TELL YOU THAT.

But its perfectly possible to work out what the OS has
to know to be able to do wifi location and to run the
apps etc etc etc.

> And I'm the one telling fibs?

Bare faced lies actually.

In spades with your bare faced lies about file transfers with iOS.

You're so fucking stupid that you don’t
even realise that they are bare faced lies.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:07:31 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:5857e$56440505$44021f46$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

Using a cloud leaves that for dead on ease, seamlessness and power wise.

The FACT that you never have the balls to publicly
admit that you fucked up completely noted.

Rod Speed

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:10:53 PM11/11/15

to

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message

news:d0bbb$5644054f$44021f46$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:01:33 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> No effort what so ever to transfer a file using a cloud,

> If you want to put all your sensitive files on the cloud that is.

Even someone as stupid as you can use a cloud that encrypts
whatever goes on the cloud so that there is no risk whatever
to your sensitive files. AND ITS STILL COMPLETELY AUTOMATIC
ONCE ITS BEEN SETUP, NO USE ACTION WHATEVER IS REQUIRED
FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DECIDED YOU WANT ON ALL YOUR
DEVICES TO SHOW UP ON ALL OF THEM, COMPLETELY SEAMLESS
AND MUCH MORE POWERFUL AND MUCH FASTER THAN FARTING
AROUND WITH BLUETOOTH MOVING FILES MANUALLY.

nospam

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 11:21:01 PM11/11/15

to

In article
<5857e$56440505$44021f46$26...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> > transferring a file over wifi on android is *not* in any way a single
> > button press. at a minimum, you have to join a wifi network with both
> > devices.
> >
> > on ios, it *is* a single button press, because the configuration is
> > done automatically and the file sent directly peer to peer.
>
> For once you show that you actually know how Android works.

since i have an android phone, i would hope so.

> On Android, to send the *entire file system* over from Android to
> your laptop via WiFi takes the following two steps...
>
> PUSH MODEL:
> 1. On Android, you start ES File Explorer & scan for Samba shares
> 2. Then you push the files over from ES File Explorer to the Samba shares
>
> PULL MODEL:
> A. On Android, you start an FTP server & obtain an FTP filespec
> B. On the desktop, right click to mount that filespec and copy the
> files over.
>
> In fact, that second model is how I edited those Android screenshots.

who cares how you edited it.

> a. I snap the screenshot
> b. I browse from my computer to the file on the cellphone file system
> c. I edit the file on Android using the computer's editing software
> d. I upload the file to an image-hosting site using the computer's browser
>
> All the while, the file never left the Android file system.
>
> Pretty easy. Seamless. And Powerful.

did you have a point?

on ios, it's trivial to take a screenshot (something android could not
even do until a few years ago outside of plugging it into a computer),
then edit the image *on* the ios device itself and/or copy it to a
computer with a tap, and a helluva lot faster than over bluetooth.