DeGoogle Yourself

8984 readers

8 users here now

A community for those that would like to get away from Google.

Here you may post anything related to DeGoogling, why we should do it or good software alternatives!

Rules

Be respectful even in disagreement
No advertising unless it is very relevent and justified. Do not do this excessively.
No low value posts / memes. We or you need to learn, or discuss something.

Related communities

!privacyguides@lemmy.one !privacy@lemmy.ml !privatelife@lemmy.ml !linuxphones@lemmy.ml !fossdroid@social.fossware.space !fdroid@lemmy.ml

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml

CrypticCoffee@lemm.ee

Byereddithellolemmy@lemmy.world

chevy9294@monero.town

195

Who owns your shiny new Pixel 9 phone? You can’t say no to Google’s surveillance (cybernews.com)

submitted 2 months ago by gytrash@feddit.uk to c/degoogle@lemmy.ml

122 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Google's latest flagship smartphone raises concerns about user privacy and security. It frequently transmits private user data to the tech giant before any app is installed. Moreover, the Cybernews research team has discovered that it potentially has remote management capabilities without user awareness or approval.

Cybernews researchers analyzed the new Pixel 9 Pro XL smartphone’s web traffic, focusing on what a new smartphone sends to Google.

“Every 15 minutes, Google Pixel 9 Pro XL sends a data packet to Google. The device shares location, email address, phone number, network status, and other telemetry. Even more concerning, the phone periodically attempts to download and run new code, potentially opening up security risks,” said Aras Nazarovas, a security researcher at Cybernews...

... “The amount of data transmitted and the potential for remote management casts doubt on who truly owns the device. Users may have paid for it, but the deep integration of surveillance systems in the ecosystem may leave users vulnerable to privacy violations,” Nazarovas said...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 2 months ago (5 children)

It’s so ironic that Pixels are the go to devices for privacy roms these days.

It's so ironic it's a show-stopper for me. I'm not paying fucking Google to escape the Google dystopia. Nosiree! That's just too rich for me.

This is why I own a Fairphone running CalyxOS. Yes, I know GrapheneOS is supposedly more secure - I say supposedly because I think 95% of users don't have a threat model that justifies the extra security really. But I don't care: my number one priority is not giving Google a single cent. If it means running a less secure OS, I'm fine with that.

There's no way on God's green Earth I'm buying a Pixel phone to run a deGoogled OS. That's such an insane proposition I don't even know how anybody can twist their brain into believing this is a rational thing to do.

[–] mearce@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago

I think some people buy used/refurbished.

[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

That's why I buy my phones used or refurbished. It's also cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

[–] extremeboredom@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Wait for the 9 to hit refurb market, boom. Google phone without paying Google.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I say supposedly because I think 95% of users don't have a threat model that justifies the extra security really.

Does street cred with my Cybersecurity peers count as a threat model?

I'm definitely one of the users of GrapheneOS that you're talking about. My threat model is "this is fucking cool!"

Also, the grass is always greener on the other side. I want a Fair phone.

[–] whats_all_this_then@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What if you buy a used Pixel? Google was already getting that money, but you haven't paid them...or would that just be a cop out?

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I've been arguing this many times with many people, and everybody seems to adopt their own way of interpreting things to suit their preferences.

Here's my line of thinking:

If the first buyer buys a Google cellphone new for, say, $500 (no idea of the price, just making it up for the sake of explaining), this buyer gives $500 to Google
If I then buy this cellphone second-hand for, say, $300, the original buyer gets $300 back, meaning Google now has $300 of my money.

That's a hard no.

Of course, there's the argument that Google got $500 no matter what and they don't know who the money is from. But that's besides the point: I know Google got my money. I most defintely parted with $300 to acquire a Google cellphome, meaning as far as I'm concerned, I indirectly gave Google $300 of my money. And I refuse to give Google any money, however indirect the transaction might be. The only way I could become the owner of a Google phone is if someone gave one to me, I found it in the trash or I stole it.

There's also the argument that if I don't buy the cellphone, it might end up in a landfill, so if I'm environmentally-minded, I should save it from the landfill. That's true, but my counter-argument to this is that a healthy second-hand market for Google phones gives them more value, therefore makes them more appealing to potential buyers and ultimately supports Google's business.

I don't like serviceable stuff being landfilled for no good reason (otherwise I wouldn't pay extra to buy a Fairphone) but in the case of Google hardware, I reckon it should end up at the landfill as often as possible to diminish its value and hurt Google. Of course, I'm only one meaningless guy, but I reckon boycotting Google is a moral duty for anybody who's concerned about privacy and civil liberties.

And of course, I don't want a Google product in my pocket because it would make me nauseous. But that's entirely subjective.