People using Android should live with the notion that Google siphons absolutely everything from their devices. One way is to block any application is not needed to "speak to google" (or Facebook, or any advertisers).
I always use and suggest to other Android users the NoRoot Firewall [1], and then disable/uninstall everything not needed. Of course that applied to IT pros, as tweaking things without the appropriate knowledge may/will result to a phone bricking/reset.
Any way to turn off auto picture upload when you send it over messaging?
I messaged a pic from my android to my email to edit. Instead of an attachment, it was uploaded and I got a link to an auto shared photo album in my google account.
If I'd sent it to someone else I'd have never known because I don't use google photos at all.
I understand saving bandwidth and trying to get people using account features, but no thanks.
My default is to assume anything uploaded will eventually be public via hackers or a misconfiguration somewhere.
If the messenger was your phone's default sms/mms client, sending email is a new trick for me! I just share to gmail or outlook and send it back to me. In outlook it helpfully tags these messages as "note to self". No google drive nonsense either.
There's no way you could brick the phone by using the NoRoot Firewall.
In general, my problem with these apps is that you shift your trust from one company to another. I have no idea who created this app, what their motives are, how securely they guard their signing key and so on.
People play fast and loose with the work 'brick' now-a-days. They usually don't mean brick as in it turns your phone into a brick that can't be brought back. They mean you have to go into recovery mode and restore it.
No I didn't mean it like that. I meant to brick the phone (or get to the need to reset) if someone starts disabling services. With NoRoot worst case scenario is to just block yourself from using some app online.
I don't think we can start from this premise anymore. This premise is precisely what is under question.
The laissez faire framing of this premise is: (1) users can use whatever services they want. (2) services have terms and conditions (3) don't like it, don't "sign it."
The frame that is taking shape (eg, GDPR, Zuck's parliamentary question time grilling) is different. Terms & Conditions are not a contract. Take it or leave it propositions are not OK (especially not for monoplies). They're a disingenuous game that does not represent an agreement in any way. Your actual agreement with customers is dictated by law and custom, and these are going to be updated.
South Park paradied this concept with the human centipod. It sounds simpler than it is, because our legal systems are ancient and ridiculous. Our legal systems can't, for example, just say "don't spy on everyone." It must define spying in minute detail, while trying to avoid loopholes and bycatch. This is why laws are so complicated.
But regardless... terms and conditions have reached well into the "reduced to absurdity" point.
Facebook is a monopoly? That’s absurd. Google also isn’t a monopoly. A monopoly doesn’t mean “big with lots of users and few competitors.” A monopoly is when a company is the exclusive provider of a service or a trade.
It isn’t like Google and Facebook control access to steel thus making it impossible to build a new product.
So yes, you can just not use the service. I don’t use Facebook, Insta or What’s App anymore. No big deal for me at all; I just asked actual friends on Facebook for their email addresses. I share photos with iPhoto shared galleries, I use iMessage or Signal, I use Twitter.
Suggesting that we are obligated to accept terms and conditions is nonsense.
"A monopoly doesn’t mean “big with lots of users and few competitors.” A monopoly is when a company is the exclusive provider of a service or a trade."
That is the legal definition of a monopoly. Legally, at least in the US and the EU, one does not have to be the sole provider of something to have monopoly power.
And, quite frankly, I do not care if there are competitors or not. No one likes these terms, no one wants these terms, and no one sure as hell wants the company to be able to say, "Take it or leave it." So I'm perfectly happy with regulation saying they can't do that.
This will not help with the issue that is raised by the article though. The new messaging service Google is pushing is broken by design. If it gets traction then a lot of conversation that were previously secure will no longer be so.
SMS is in decline because it has poor user experience. This helped provide security to users who decided to use other chat services. Now, if the experience is good enough users might flock back to using insecure communication.
no I don't. but the radio app is a huge black box for everything that the systems sends out and (without enabling root access) there is no way to see what's going on.
I always use and suggest to other Android users the NoRoot Firewall [1], and then disable/uninstall everything not needed. Of course that applied to IT pros, as tweaking things without the appropriate knowledge may/will result to a phone bricking/reset.
[1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.greyshirts...