Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bypassing the "Play Store" to get apps anonymously
2,327 views
Skip to first unread message
Nomen Nescio
May 25, 2014, 8:59:10 AM5/25/14
to
Considering google requires an account to download from the Play
store, and at the same time it's stupid security to disclose what apps
one is running, I have been using the F-Droid repo exclusively.
The problem is, some unique apps are *exclusively* on the Play store.
If someone were to redistribute Play store apps, it would be illegal
in some countries (even when the app is free).
But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
tor for each APK download?
store, and at the same time it's stupid security to disclose what apps
one is running, I have been using the F-Droid repo exclusively.
The problem is, some unique apps are *exclusively* on the Play store.
If someone were to redistribute Play store apps, it would be illegal
in some countries (even when the app is free).
But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
tor for each APK download?
Roger Mills
May 25, 2014, 9:51:41 AM5/25/14
to
ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which would let me
buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free apps. ICBW.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.
Theo Markettos
May 25, 2014, 10:03:26 AM5/25/14
to
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
> account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
> that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
> tor for each APK download?
There's:
> But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
> account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
> that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
> tor for each APK download?
http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/
However it's often overloaded. They also have a Chrome extension for doing
the download bit on your PC using a Google account (that you just created,
perhaps).
Theo
Message has been deleted
John B.
May 25, 2014, 8:12:51 PM5/25/14
to
secret? Kiddy Porn on a hand held?
--
Cheers,
John B.
(invalid to gmail)
TJ
May 25, 2014, 9:27:01 PM5/25/14
to
On 05/25/2014 09:51 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 25/05/2014 13:59, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Considering google requires an account to download from the Play
>> store, and at the same time it's stupid security to disclose what apps
>> one is running, I have been using the F-Droid repo exclusively.
>>
>> The problem is, some unique apps are *exclusively* on the Play store.
>> If someone were to redistribute Play store apps, it would be illegal
>> in some countries (even when the app is free).
>>
>> But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
>> account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
>> that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
>> tor for each APK download?
>>
>
> It's a while since I registered my gmail account with Play Store, but
> ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which would let me
> buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free apps. ICBW.
They must have changed that requirement. I created my gmail accounts
> On 25/05/2014 13:59, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Considering google requires an account to download from the Play
>> store, and at the same time it's stupid security to disclose what apps
>> one is running, I have been using the F-Droid repo exclusively.
>>
>> The problem is, some unique apps are *exclusively* on the Play store.
>> If someone were to redistribute Play store apps, it would be illegal
>> in some countries (even when the app is free).
>>
>> But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
>> account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
>> that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
>> tor for each APK download?
>>
>
> It's a while since I registered my gmail account with Play Store, but
> ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which would let me
> buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free apps. ICBW.
some seven years ago or so. No money or credit card numbers changed
hands that I recall. If they did, the credit card number is no longer
valid.
Got my first tablet last December, and when I went to register it with
one of my gmail accounts, it went right through with no problem, and
I've installed several free apps.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if I ever decide to buy an app.
My guess is that I'll be sent an email with a bill and the acceptable
payment methods delineated.
TJ
TJ
May 25, 2014, 9:28:48 PM5/25/14
to
On 05/25/2014 09:51 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 25/05/2014 13:59, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Considering google requires an account to download from the Play
>> store, and at the same time it's stupid security to disclose what apps
>> one is running, I have been using the F-Droid repo exclusively.
>>
>> The problem is, some unique apps are *exclusively* on the Play store.
>> If someone were to redistribute Play store apps, it would be illegal
>> in some countries (even when the app is free).
>>
>> But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
>> account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
>> that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
>> tor for each APK download?
>>
>
> It's a while since I registered my gmail account with Play Store, but
> ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which would let me
> buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free apps. ICBW.
I do believe the Amazon App Store may require a credit card number and
>> Considering google requires an account to download from the Play
>> store, and at the same time it's stupid security to disclose what apps
>> one is running, I have been using the F-Droid repo exclusively.
>>
>> The problem is, some unique apps are *exclusively* on the Play store.
>> If someone were to redistribute Play store apps, it would be illegal
>> in some countries (even when the app is free).
>>
>> But there is nothing to stop someone from creating a new google
>> account for each download. (Probably a long shot)-- is there an app
>> that would do the work of auto-generating a google Play account over
>> tor for each APK download?
>>
>
> It's a while since I registered my gmail account with Play Store, but
> ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which would let me
> buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free apps. ICBW.
an account, though.
TJ
Calia
May 25, 2014, 10:09:20 PM5/25/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 14:59:10 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> it's stupid security to disclose what apps
> one is running
Can someone tell me more about what this statement means?
> it's stupid security to disclose what apps
> one is running
The implication is that Google is storing a list of all
the apps you're running but Google already knows all the
apps you've installed ...
Is Google really keeping a daily list of the apps
you are running at the time you visit the play store?
David Harmon
May 25, 2014, 10:21:16 PM5/25/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 14:51:41 +0100 in comp.mobile.android, Roger
Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote,
Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote,
>It's a while since I registered my gmail account with Play Store, but
>ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which would let me
>buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free apps. ICBW.
I didn't.
>ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which would let me
>buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free apps. ICBW.
Jack Ryan
May 26, 2014, 1:57:14 AM5/26/14
to
is only a negligible part of what they want to know about you.
That's why I use CyanogenMod without GApps, the F-Droid repository,
AFWall+, Xposed/XPrivacy and Orbot.
John B.
May 26, 2014, 6:54:44 AM5/26/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 19:21:16 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
wrote:
Registering an account on a new Android device gets the question "do
you want to register a credit card, or some such. the options are
"yes" and "ignore" I believe. Obviously if you don't have a credit
card registered you can't download the "pay for it" apps but the
freebies are still free :-)
wrote:
you want to register a credit card, or some such. the options are
"yes" and "ignore" I believe. Obviously if you don't have a credit
card registered you can't download the "pay for it" apps but the
freebies are still free :-)
Chris Uppal
May 26, 2014, 7:39:08 AM5/26/14
to
TJ wrote:
> It'll be interesting to see what happens if I ever decide to buy an app.
> My guess is that I'll be sent an email with a bill and the acceptable
> payment methods delineated.
You'll be prompted for a payment method. You can pay (as I remember it) by
> It'll be interesting to see what happens if I ever decide to buy an app.
> My guess is that I'll be sent an email with a bill and the acceptable
> payment methods delineated.
credit card, Google Wallet, or by redeeming a Google gift card.
Since you can buy Google gift cards for cash in many shops (at least here in
the UK) that is how I buy apps -- I have never given Google my credit
details[*], but have bought several apps, and even -- as an experiment -- a
song.
You can also buy throwaway "Visa credit cards" for cash (see www.3Vprepaid.com)
in my local shops. Haven't tried that yet though.
-- chris
[*] Doesn't mean they don't have 'em though :(
Chris Uppal
May 26, 2014, 7:49:51 AM5/26/14
to
Calia wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2014 14:59:10 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > it's stupid security to disclose what apps
> > one is running
>
> Can someone tell me more about what this statement means?
The security thinking behind it is, I believe, that it is foolish to expose
> On Sun, 25 May 2014 14:59:10 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > it's stupid security to disclose what apps
> > one is running
>
> Can someone tell me more about what this statement means?
anything that you don't have to. Privacy should be the default, not exposure.
Of course, you do have to factor in any benefits you loose too -- for instance,
because Google knows what apps I have installed, it's much easier (even
automatic) to populate any new device with my favourite apps from the previous
device. Also I get automatic updates without having to "poll" manually.
For an example of how a "harrmless" exposure may in fact have implications you
wouldn't want, it has recently been established that it is possible (even easy)
to track a person's browsing habits /without using cookies/. The idea is that
the resources available to Javascript (such as the list of installed fonts) are
unique enough to allow a website to identify a particular browser instance with
high reliability. The researchers who turned this up (I don't have the link
handy but can probably find it if anyone's interested) also demonstrated that
several big web-sites were actively collecting just that data, presumably (but
not proven) to allow them to track.
-- chris
TJ
May 26, 2014, 8:59:04 AM5/26/14
to
you.
TJ
nospam
May 26, 2014, 9:18:06 AM5/26/14
to
In article <llvdqo$i2b$1...@dont-email.me>, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business>
wrote:
> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> you.
only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
only that a particular ip address connected.
if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
wrote:
> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> you.
anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
only that a particular ip address connected.
if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
Papa Oz
May 26, 2014, 9:27:22 AM5/26/14
to
On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:49:51 +0100, "Chris Uppal"
<chris...@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> wrote:
>The idea is that
>the resources available to Javascript (such as the list of installed fonts) are
>unique enough to allow a website to identify a particular browser instance with
>high reliability. The researchers who turned this up (I don't have the link
>handy but can probably find it if anyone's interested) also demonstrated that
>several big web-sites were actively collecting just that data, presumably (but
>not proven) to allow them to track.
>
> -- chris
>
There is a discussion of this at the link below. You can also see how
<chris...@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> wrote:
>The idea is that
>the resources available to Javascript (such as the list of installed fonts) are
>unique enough to allow a website to identify a particular browser instance with
>high reliability. The researchers who turned this up (I don't have the link
>handy but can probably find it if anyone's interested) also demonstrated that
>several big web-sites were actively collecting just that data, presumably (but
>not proven) to allow them to track.
>
> -- chris
>
unique your setup is among the many visitors who have used their test.
https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Anonymous
May 26, 2014, 10:21:22 AM5/26/14
to
device IDs (Android / services framework / advertising ID, IMEI, IMSI,
MAC ...) to send home in order to integrate your device with the rest
of your personal dataset (Gmail, Google search etc.)?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
Chris Uppal
May 26, 2014, 11:07:06 AM5/26/14
to
Papa Oz wrote:
> There is a discussion of [non-consensual browser tracking] at the link below.
(Not the one I had in mind, though. In that one the researchers used, IIRC, a
hacked Javascript interpretter to find out how many sites were actually using
some of the fingerprinting techniques.)
-- chris
> There is a discussion of [non-consensual browser tracking] at the link below.
> You can also see how unique your setup is among the many visitors
> who have used their test.
> https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Thanks, nice link. Well worth reading.
> who have used their test.
> https://panopticlick.eff.org/
(Not the one I had in mind, though. In that one the researchers used, IIRC, a
hacked Javascript interpretter to find out how many sites were actually using
some of the fingerprinting techniques.)
-- chris
Nomen Nescio
May 26, 2014, 12:43:24 PM5/26/14
to
XS11E
May 26, 2014, 1:29:54 PM5/26/14
to
Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a while since I registered my gmail account with Play Store,
> but ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which
> would let me buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free
> apps. ICBW.
No, you're given that option, I always skip it. You do NOT need to
> It's a while since I registered my gmail account with Play Store,
> but ISTR that I had to register a credit card with them - which
> would let me buy paid-for stuff - before I could download free
> apps. ICBW.
register a credit card to use the Play Store unless you want a paid
app, I have never needed a paid app, free apps do all I want/need.
NOTE: I do have two Paid apps that I got for free in drawings on
Howard's Forums.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Dave U. Random
May 26, 2014, 3:13:29 PM5/26/14
to
nospam wrote:
>In article <llvdqo$i2b$1...@dont-email.me>, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business>
>wrote:
>
>> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
>> you.
>
>only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
>anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
>only that a particular ip address connected.
... which may be a Tor exit node. That's why Google blocks Tor.
>In article <llvdqo$i2b$1...@dont-email.me>, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business>
>wrote:
>
>> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
>> you.
>
>only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
>anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
>only that a particular ip address connected.
It undermines their business model.
But there are tracking methods much more effective than dynamic IP
addresses.
>
>if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
http://www.google.com/analytics/features/index.html
TJ
May 26, 2014, 3:42:10 PM5/26/14
to
TJ
dg1261
May 26, 2014, 3:47:15 PM5/26/14
to
XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:XnsA3396ACBACB...@127.0.0.1:
> I have never needed a paid app, free apps do all I want/need.
>
> NOTE: I do have two Paid apps that I got for free in drawings on
> Howard's Forums.
>
I agree. I prefer free apps. It's not that I have any problem paying a
buck or two for an app I really like, for me the bigger disincentive is
you can't always backup (at least some) paid apps.
When I find a particular version of an app I like, I use AppSaver to back
up the apk to local storage and leave auto updating turned off in the App
Store. If I do a factory reset or switch phones I can reinstall the same
version from the saved apk.
In contrast, AppSaver is blocked from saving the apk for the Swype
keyboard I bought and paid for. I really, really liked the version I
bought, but it's updated itself and I don't like the new version as well.
And if I do a factory reset or get a new phone, I have no option but to
go back to the App Store and accept whatever latest version has replaced
it.
There are a number of apps for which I liked previous versions better. I
never have to worry about those if I have the option of reinstalling the
version I like from saved apks.
news:XnsA3396ACBACB...@127.0.0.1:
> I have never needed a paid app, free apps do all I want/need.
>
> NOTE: I do have two Paid apps that I got for free in drawings on
> Howard's Forums.
>
buck or two for an app I really like, for me the bigger disincentive is
you can't always backup (at least some) paid apps.
When I find a particular version of an app I like, I use AppSaver to back
up the apk to local storage and leave auto updating turned off in the App
Store. If I do a factory reset or switch phones I can reinstall the same
version from the saved apk.
In contrast, AppSaver is blocked from saving the apk for the Swype
keyboard I bought and paid for. I really, really liked the version I
bought, but it's updated itself and I don't like the new version as well.
And if I do a factory reset or get a new phone, I have no option but to
go back to the App Store and accept whatever latest version has replaced
it.
There are a number of apps for which I liked previous versions better. I
never have to worry about those if I have the option of reinstalling the
version I like from saved apks.
John B.
May 26, 2014, 7:48:32 PM5/26/14
to
of 40 million users that day :-)
XS11E
May 26, 2014, 8:41:09 PM5/26/14
to
dg1261 <dgREMOVE...@cs.com> wrote:
> When I find a particular version of an app I like, I use AppSaver
> to back up the apk to local storage and leave auto updating turned
> off in the App Store. If I do a factory reset or switch phones I
> can reinstall the same version from the saved apk.
>
> In contrast, AppSaver is blocked from saving the apk for the Swype
> keyboard I bought and paid for. I really, really liked the
> version I bought, but it's updated itself and I don't like the new
> version as well. And if I do a factory reset or get a new phone,
> I have no option but to go back to the App Store and accept
> whatever latest version has replaced it.
Have you tried a different way to save apps? I use App Backup and
> When I find a particular version of an app I like, I use AppSaver
> to back up the apk to local storage and leave auto updating turned
> off in the App Store. If I do a factory reset or switch phones I
> can reinstall the same version from the saved apk.
>
> In contrast, AppSaver is blocked from saving the apk for the Swype
> keyboard I bought and paid for. I really, really liked the
> version I bought, but it's updated itself and I don't like the new
> version as well. And if I do a factory reset or get a new phone,
> I have no option but to go back to the App Store and accept
> whatever latest version has replaced it.
Restore, have for several years and several phones and it's willing to
backup and restore the two paid apps I have, don't know about your
keyboard but why not give it a try?
There are other app savers as well, I'd try 'em all if it were me....
Nomen Nescio
May 27, 2014, 5:11:47 PM5/27/14
to
> There's:
> http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/
That is so slick! Thanks for sharing. It's exactly what I needed.
I like the idea of downloading on the desktop, then using the SDK to
make it SD-installable before side-loading.
> http://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/
That is so slick! Thanks for sharing. It's exactly what I needed.
I like the idea of downloading on the desktop, then using the SDK to
make it SD-installable before side-loading.
dg1261
May 27, 2014, 8:15:35 PM5/27/14
to
XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:XnsA339B3E97E4...@127.0.0.1:
> Have you tried a different way to save apps? I use App Backup and
> Restore, have for several years and several phones and it's willing to
> backup and restore the two paid apps I have, don't know about your
> keyboard but why not give it a try?
>
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it but it also won't backup Swype.
AB&R shows a padlock next to the Swype entry on the list and tells me
"Protected apps cannot be archived as an apk file."
Which is kind of what I figured. There are undoubtedly multiple ways to
protect an app, such as "phoning home" or installing a secret key file,
so it makes sense that you may or may not be able to back it up depending
on how a paid app protects itself.
Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing beforehand whether I'll be able
to backup the apk, so I tend to shy away from paid apps if I can find a
reasonably acceptable free alternative. I've had enough free apps get
worse when updated, so I expect the same thing happens with paid apps, as
well.
news:XnsA339B3E97E4...@127.0.0.1:
> Have you tried a different way to save apps? I use App Backup and
> Restore, have for several years and several phones and it's willing to
> backup and restore the two paid apps I have, don't know about your
> keyboard but why not give it a try?
>
AB&R shows a padlock next to the Swype entry on the list and tells me
"Protected apps cannot be archived as an apk file."
Which is kind of what I figured. There are undoubtedly multiple ways to
protect an app, such as "phoning home" or installing a secret key file,
so it makes sense that you may or may not be able to back it up depending
on how a paid app protects itself.
Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing beforehand whether I'll be able
to backup the apk, so I tend to shy away from paid apps if I can find a
reasonably acceptable free alternative. I've had enough free apps get
worse when updated, so I expect the same thing happens with paid apps, as
well.
nospam
May 28, 2014, 1:51:42 PM5/28/14
to
In article <8841866f395d35e9...@hoi-polloi.org>, Anonymous
<anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
however, there is an entity that *does* know every single page you
visit and every other connection you make, and that is your isp. they
*have* to know.
a vpn can minimize that, but they will still know you are using a vpn.
<anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
however, there is an entity that *does* know every single page you
visit and every other connection you make, and that is your isp. they
*have* to know.
a vpn can minimize that, but they will still know you are using a vpn.
nospam
May 28, 2014, 1:51:43 PM5/28/14
to
In article <1cb86f14602e8001...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>,
year or two, and that's including after a couple of power outages.
> >if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
>
> With Google Analytics everywhere?
>
> http://www.google.com/analytics/features/index.html
i said connect to google directly or indirectly, and that falls into
the latter category.
it's also trivial to block.
Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
> >> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> >> you.
> >
> >only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
> >anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
> >only that a particular ip address connected.
>
> ... which may be a Tor exit node. That's why Google blocks Tor.
> It undermines their business model.
>
> But there are tracking methods much more effective than dynamic IP
> addresses.
dynamic addresses don't change all that often. mine hasn't changed in a
> >> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> >> you.
> >
> >only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
> >anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
> >only that a particular ip address connected.
>
> ... which may be a Tor exit node. That's why Google blocks Tor.
> It undermines their business model.
>
> But there are tracking methods much more effective than dynamic IP
> addresses.
year or two, and that's including after a couple of power outages.
> >if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
>
> With Google Analytics everywhere?
>
> http://www.google.com/analytics/features/index.html
the latter category.
it's also trivial to block.
nospam
May 28, 2014, 1:51:44 PM5/28/14
to
In article <lm05ei$js7$1...@dont-email.me>, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business>
if you don't connect to google, how will they know anything?
wrote:
> >> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> >> you.
> >
> > only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
> > anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
> > only that a particular ip address connected.
> >
> > if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
>
> That's what they *WANT* you to think.
nope, that's how it works.
> >> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> >> you.
> >
> > only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
> > anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
> > only that a particular ip address connected.
> >
> > if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
>
> That's what they *WANT* you to think.
if you don't connect to google, how will they know anything?
Alan Braggins
May 28, 2014, 5:09:55 PM5/28/14
to
In article <280520141351421369%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
>In article <8841866f395d35e9...@hoi-polloi.org>, Anonymous
><anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
>
>that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
>clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
Unless you use their browser, or a device running their OS....
>In article <8841866f395d35e9...@hoi-polloi.org>, Anonymous
><anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
>
>that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
>clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
nospam
May 28, 2014, 5:39:15 PM5/28/14
to
In article <slrnlock5...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Alan Braggins
their browser or their os and don't visit their site or user any of
their services.
there are a number of alternatives for all of those, and for the sites
that use google analytics and/or cookies, that can be easily blocked.
<ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
> >
> >that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
> >clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
>
> Unless you use their browser, or a device running their OS....
if you don't want google to have information about you then don't use
> >> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
> >
> >that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
> >clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
>
> Unless you use their browser, or a device running their OS....
their browser or their os and don't visit their site or user any of
their services.
there are a number of alternatives for all of those, and for the sites
that use google analytics and/or cookies, that can be easily blocked.
TJ
May 28, 2014, 9:34:57 PM5/28/14
to
that aren't connected to or reporting to Google in some fashion.
And they're probably phishing sites.
TJ
nospam
May 29, 2014, 12:07:25 AM5/29/14
to
In article <lm62s2$jb$1...@dont-email.me>, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business>
> And they're probably phishing sites.
maybe some of them are (and likely a tiny, tiny amount) but certainly
not all.
wrote:
> >>>> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> >>>> you.
> >>>
> >>> only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
> >>> anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
> >>> only that a particular ip address connected.
> >>>
> >>> if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
> >>
> >> That's what they *WANT* you to think.
> >
> > nope, that's how it works.
> >
> > if you don't connect to google, how will they know anything?
>
> OK, you have me. There must be at least two dozen or so sites on the web
> that aren't connected to or reporting to Google in some fashion.
*far* more than two dozen.
> >>>> Google knows all, sees all. If you connect to the Internet, Google *has*
> >>>> you.
> >>>
> >>> only if you connect to google, directly or indirectly, do they know
> >>> anything, and even then, they don't necessarily know *who* you are,
> >>> only that a particular ip address connected.
> >>>
> >>> if you don't connect to google, then they don't 'have' anything.
> >>
> >> That's what they *WANT* you to think.
> >
> > nope, that's how it works.
> >
> > if you don't connect to google, how will they know anything?
>
> OK, you have me. There must be at least two dozen or so sites on the web
> that aren't connected to or reporting to Google in some fashion.
> And they're probably phishing sites.
not all.
Gordon Levi
May 29, 2014, 4:30:53 AM5/29/14
to
analytics?
Wolfgang Barth
May 29, 2014, 4:40:17 AM5/29/14
to
> dynamic addresses don't change all that often. mine hasn't changed in a
> year or two, and that's including after a couple of power outages.
>
Strongly depends. My ADSL access gives me another IP every night.
> year or two, and that's including after a couple of power outages.
>
Alan Braggins
May 29, 2014, 6:01:05 AM5/29/14
to
In article <280520141739150539%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
>if you don't want google to have information about you then don't use
>their browser or their os and don't visit their site or user any of
>their services.
Then comp.mobile.android might not be the newsgroup you are looking for :-)
>if you don't want google to have information about you then don't use
>their browser or their os and don't visit their site or user any of
>their services.
TJ
May 29, 2014, 8:21:32 AM5/29/14
to
TJ
TJ
May 29, 2014, 8:30:47 AM5/29/14
to
connected to Google. I wouldn't doubt that there's a easter egg or two
buried somewhere in the Android OS that automatically connects those
without Play Store access. And if you think it's turned completely off
just because you "disabled" the Play Store, think again.
Google is like death and taxes. It's just there. You can't avoid it. The
only thing you can do is learn to live with it.
TJ
nospam
May 29, 2014, 12:16:55 PM5/29/14
to
In article <svrdo95dbo7h4mb1t...@4ax.com>, Gordon Levi
<gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> How do you prevent a site that you are visiting from using Google
> analytics?
block it.
> How do you prevent a site that you are visiting from using Google
> analytics?
nospam
May 29, 2014, 12:16:59 PM5/29/14
to
In article <slrnloe1b...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Alan Braggins
do so via google groups, which is about the worst possible way to read
usenet.
using an android device, however, is a different story.
<ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >if you don't want google to have information about you then don't use
> >their browser or their os and don't visit their site or user any of
> >their services.
>
> Then comp.mobile.android might not be the newsgroup you are looking for :-)
google has no way to know what usenet groups anyone reads unless they
> >if you don't want google to have information about you then don't use
> >their browser or their os and don't visit their site or user any of
> >their services.
>
> Then comp.mobile.android might not be the newsgroup you are looking for :-)
do so via google groups, which is about the worst possible way to read
usenet.
using an android device, however, is a different story.
John B.
May 29, 2014, 8:13:10 PM5/29/14
to
update? Does your phone call google or does google call your phone?
If your phone goes on line to check for available updates then all
this "get the Apps somewhere else" is futile; isn't it?
My experience is that if you install an App that you didn't download
from google, somehow it will get updated when an update becomes
available.
Gordon Levi
May 30, 2014, 1:19:17 AM5/30/14
to
analytics. How do you do that?
nospam
May 30, 2014, 1:53:51 AM5/30/14
to
In article <3v4go9tf8dcmd8ous...@4ax.com>, Gordon Levi
google-analytics.com in your hosts file.
<https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout>
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/no-google-analytics/>
<gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >> How do you prevent a site that you are visiting from using Google
> >> analytics?
> >
> >block it.
>
> I assume you mean block the visited site from accessing Google
> analytics. How do you do that?
there are browser plugins, including from google, or you can block
> >> How do you prevent a site that you are visiting from using Google
> >> analytics?
> >
> >block it.
>
> I assume you mean block the visited site from accessing Google
> analytics. How do you do that?
google-analytics.com in your hosts file.
<https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout>
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/no-google-analytics/>
Anonymous
May 30, 2014, 7:13:52 AM5/30/14
to
> > it's stupid security to disclose what apps one is running
>
> Can someone tell me more about what this statement means?
All applications have defects. Some defects can be exploited by an
>
> Can someone tell me more about what this statement means?
attacker. Attackers use reconnaissance to discover what software
their target is running so they can work out what vulnerabilities to
take advantage of.
It is therefore not in your interest to needlessly reveal what
applications you use.
Diligent users will go out of the way to disrupt recon. E.g., they
might run a terminal server that normally greets with "RedHat
ver. X.Y", but they change the banner to omit OS, or to say "OS/X",
for example.
> The implication is that Google is storing a list of all
> the apps you're running but Google already knows all the
> apps you've installed ...
Google knows the apps you've installed /from the Play Store/. Also,
if you side-load a Play Store app obtained outside of the Play Store,
your next visit to the Play Store includes updates for side-loaded
apps. So personally I will not use the Play Store again, b/c I have
to assume the play store app fed google.
> Is Google really keeping a daily list of the apps
> you are running at the time you visit the play store?
It's not a real-time threat.
John B.
May 30, 2014, 8:14:02 PM5/30/14
to
On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:13:52 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous
<nob...@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>> > it's stupid security to disclose what apps one is running
>>
>> Can someone tell me more about what this statement means?
>
>All applications have defects. Some defects can be exploited by an
>attacker. Attackers use reconnaissance to discover what software
>their target is running so they can work out what vulnerabilities to
>take advantage of.
>
But do all applications have defects that can be exploited?
<nob...@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>> > it's stupid security to disclose what apps one is running
>>
>> Can someone tell me more about what this statement means?
>
>All applications have defects. Some defects can be exploited by an
>attacker. Attackers use reconnaissance to discover what software
>their target is running so they can work out what vulnerabilities to
>take advantage of.
>
Fritz Wuehler
May 31, 2014, 9:43:38 AM5/31/14
to
> >All applications have defects. Some defects can be exploited by an
> >attacker. Attackers use reconnaissance to discover what software
> >their target is running so they can work out what vulnerabilities
> >to take advantage of.
> >
> But do all applications have defects that can be exploited?
That's not really the right question. In the context of this thread,
> >attacker. Attackers use reconnaissance to discover what software
> >their target is running so they can work out what vulnerabilities
> >to take advantage of.
> >
> But do all applications have defects that can be exploited?
you should ask if just *one* of your apps has a defect that can be
exploited.
IMO, the answer is /likely/.
Therefore sharing your whole catalog of installed apps to give a
threat agent many options to consider for attack is a bad idea.
I R A Darth Aggie
Jun 9, 2014, 5:40:30 PM6/9/14
to
On 28 May 2014 22:09:55 +0100 (BST),
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, in
And how many of both are being used, daily?
Now how many page hits per day?
How many terabytes of information is that? per day, every day.
I'm going to steal a line from "Saving Private Ryan": it's like
looking for a needle in a stack of needles.
If you're that concerned with your privacy, you probably shouldn't be
using computers[*], let alone a smart phone. I would recommend
restricting yourself to old-skool flip phones, and probably have a
closet full of burners at the ready.
And when you feel like one has been compromised, hand it to a homeless
person, and instruct them to take it to a pawn shop. Then it can still
be tracked, just not to you.
[*] no, not even the computers in the library. You don't know if
monitoring software has been installed, and quite possibly they've
been rooted by someone. So unless you're starting them from a linux
distro on a USB thumb drive...but the library probably frowns upon
that, and then there's the small matter of having to vet the code
you'll be running.
Because if you haven't done it yourself, you'll just have to *trust*
someone to have done it right.
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, in
Now how many page hits per day?
How many terabytes of information is that? per day, every day.
I'm going to steal a line from "Saving Private Ryan": it's like
looking for a needle in a stack of needles.
If you're that concerned with your privacy, you probably shouldn't be
using computers[*], let alone a smart phone. I would recommend
restricting yourself to old-skool flip phones, and probably have a
closet full of burners at the ready.
And when you feel like one has been compromised, hand it to a homeless
person, and instruct them to take it to a pawn shop. Then it can still
be tracked, just not to you.
[*] no, not even the computers in the library. You don't know if
monitoring software has been installed, and quite possibly they've
been rooted by someone. So unless you're starting them from a linux
distro on a USB thumb drive...but the library probably frowns upon
that, and then there's the small matter of having to vet the code
you'll be running.
Because if you haven't done it yourself, you'll just have to *trust*
someone to have done it right.
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
John B.
Jun 9, 2014, 9:06:21 PM6/9/14
to
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:40:30 +0000 (UTC), I R A Darth Aggie
<n0b...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 28 May 2014 22:09:55 +0100 (BST),
>Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, in
><slrnlock5...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <280520141351421369%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
>> >In article <8841866f395d35e9...@hoi-polloi.org>, Anonymous
>> ><anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
>> >
>> >that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
>> >clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
>>
>> Unless you use their browser, or a device running their OS....
>
>And how many of both are being used, daily?
>Now how many page hits per day?
>How many terabytes of information is that? per day, every day.
>
>I'm going to steal a line from "Saving Private Ryan": it's like
>looking for a needle in a stack of needles.
>
>If you're that concerned with your privacy, you probably shouldn't be
>using computers[*], let alone a smart phone. I would recommend
>restricting yourself to old-skool flip phones, and probably have a
>closet full of burners at the ready.
>
Actually any cellular signal can be intercepted :-) It takes a bit of
<n0b...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 28 May 2014 22:09:55 +0100 (BST),
>Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, in
><slrnlock5...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <280520141351421369%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
>> >In article <8841866f395d35e9...@hoi-polloi.org>, Anonymous
>> ><anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/what-google-knows-about-you
>> >
>> >that claims that google knows every web page you've visited which is
>> >clearly false on its face, as they *can't* know every page.
>>
>> Unless you use their browser, or a device running their OS....
>
>And how many of both are being used, daily?
>Now how many page hits per day?
>How many terabytes of information is that? per day, every day.
>
>I'm going to steal a line from "Saving Private Ryan": it's like
>looking for a needle in a stack of needles.
>
>If you're that concerned with your privacy, you probably shouldn't be
>using computers[*], let alone a smart phone. I would recommend
>restricting yourself to old-skool flip phones, and probably have a
>closet full of burners at the ready.
>
work to identify the correct signal but after all, the cellular system
automatically does it every day.
The only fool proof system is the one used by the Italian Mafia.
communicate only by direct mouth to ear, or by hand carried written
means. And even that can be compromised :-(
>And when you feel like one has been compromised, hand it to a homeless
>person, and instruct them to take it to a pawn shop. Then it can still
>be tracked, just not to you.
>
>[*] no, not even the computers in the library. You don't know if
>monitoring software has been installed, and quite possibly they've
>been rooted by someone. So unless you're starting them from a linux
>distro on a USB thumb drive...but the library probably frowns upon
>that, and then there's the small matter of having to vet the code
>you'll be running.
>
>Because if you haven't done it yourself, you'll just have to *trust*
>someone to have done it right.
--
Jphn B.
0 new messages