Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android without the mothership

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: Android without the mothership

#111

Post by EvanAnderson »

XorNot wrote: post #12
privong wrote: post #2

I have been running this setup (Cyanogenmod + f-droid, no google apps) for the past 9 months and have been quite happy. I use owncloud for keeping my calendar, contacts, and files sync'ed. K9mail + APG for (signed/encrypted) email. As the article notes OsmAnd is workable, but the what is available through f-droid is 2 versions behind (apparently with low chance of future updates due to difficulties building it). Many…

I keep looking for a lighterweight alternative to OwnCloud for Calendar/Contacts. I really want to switchover to a proper CardDav/CalDav setup that actually supports "Tasks" in my calendar, exactly how Google doesn't and continually fails to.

I haven't used with an Android client, but DAViCal has been working well for me for years: http://www.davical.org/

Re: Android without the mothership

#112

Post by a-priori »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #107

There should be a name for this privacy craze. It's one of the rare instance where people can act completely irrationally (to the point of paranoia), and people will accept it as completely normal and expected. I hope you realize how silly all of this will sound 20 years from now.

Yes, I think to ensure your privacy by never revealing personal information to third parties, through using open source software and strong cryptography, requires too much inconvenience and vigilance and technical knowledge to be applied properly even by experts, never mind the average person.

It's a dead end because, if the average person can't do it, then strong privacy will forever be on the fringes of society, something only weirdos and techies are worried about. It'll be vulnerable to the 'if you don't have anything to hide [like me]...' arguments.

The answer is instead, I think, strong legal protections on personal information such that we can trust third parties with our information. That third parties are bound by consumer protection and privacy laws to only use the information in acceptable ways and only reveal the information under due process, such as court orders (sparingly given).

People who care about privacy should work with our legal and legislative systems, not against them.

Re: Android without the mothership

#113

Post by Zigurd »

CyanogenMod is now much more relevant to open source computing than Ubuntu, and the popular consumer-oriented face of Linux.

But I'm not sure that either the developers of CyanogenMod or the business-minded people have a firm idea of what CyanogenMod should be or can be.

They have the advantage that, unlike Ubuntu, they are born with a good shot at doing a remunerative business in integrations for OEMs. The question is, is there a business in doing alternative ecosystem integrations, and are any of those alternative ecosystems free and open.

Re: Android without the mothership

#114

Post by DCKing »

ksk wrote: post #99
DCKing wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to call bullshit on this one. Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, with an already free kernel, an optimized and secure app runtime for mobile applications that they keep on improving, a completely functional and usually well-liked user interface, open development tools and even a set of open source core applications needed for basic smartphone functionality. As this article demons…

>Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, Its interesting how Google forces handset makers to ship Google's proprietary software if they wish to use the Android "brand". However, they don't care if handset makers ship device driver code thus crippling the ability of anyone wishing to create a fully working AOSP ROM. I suppose in Googles eyes, Android = more data for Google to mine/sell/profit…

Android was originally developed with the intent that it could make the access of web services better on mobile phones. The intent was to create a market, not to take one. AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Although the Android you find on devices branded as such is most definitely Google's flavour, they still develop Android for everyone to use.

I find it somewhat of a cognitive dissonnance. People complain about Google's increasing grasp on common Android whereas the most compelling parts of the system are fully available for free unlimited use by everyone. Plug in your cloud provider of choice, or none at all, and you're ready to go. Yet people don't complain about the full propietary lock-in on other platforms.

Also, please stop the tiresome meme that "Google/FB/MS/Cloud company X sells your data". These companies sell personalized advertisements, they do not sell your data.

Re: Android without the mothership

#115

Post by miguelrochefort »

josephlord wrote: post #109
miguelrochefort wrote: post #107

There should be a name for this privacy craze. It's one of the rare instance where people can act completely irrationally (to the point of paranoia), and people will accept it as completely normal and expected. I hope you realize how silly all of this will sound 20 years from now.

There should be a name for this absolute trust in corporations to manage intimate personal details of all sorts on out behalf. It's one of the rare instances where people can act as corporations of thousands of people will act in their long term interest and continue to do so indefinitely into the future with no oversight or transparency into their actions. I hope you realize how silly all of this will sound 20 years…

I don't trust them, nor anyone, to keep any "intimate personal details" (whatever that means) secret. But that's not the point.

I don't give them access to information to keep it secure. They shouldn't even need permission to access it. I share information with the world to make it a better place. There's no point in living in the dark.

To keep information for yourself is selfish. To expect that others will keep it secret for you is foolish.

I'm in favor of complete transparency, and I do not favor individuals or corporations in that matter.

Re: Android without the mothership

#116

Post by king_jester »

DominikR wrote: post #103
jlujan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have occasionally downloaded apps through one of the APK downloader services mentioned in the article comments -- I've had mixed luck. One of the biggest issue of running Apps (open source or not) is the inclusion of the Play Store API in the app itself. These apps when not logged into the play store usually crash with NullPointerExceptions. Please... if you are an Android developer... expect your third-party serv…

I agree that an app shouldn't crash, but piracy is a problem. Google In-App purchases are safe, so if that's how you monetize, I don't see why the app should be allowed to work anywhere else but in Google's environment. It's different if the app is open source or you don't need to monetize (sadly, not everyone can afford that luxury), but even there it depends on how important those Play Store API features are to the…

Apps that are provided with for free on Google Play, IAP or no IAP, don't have any fear of piracy from being installed from another source. If Google Play is not available when your app runs, if the user could use that app for some purpose, it is a really good idea to make sure it doesn't crash. Indeed, most free apps with IAPs don't require you to buy the IAP immediately at launch, you can use the app to some degree.

Re: Android without the mothership

#117

Post by ksk »

DCKing wrote: post #114
ksk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google has open sourced a fully featured mobile operating system, Its interesting how Google forces handset makers to ship Google's proprietary software if they wish to use the Android "brand". However, they don't care if handset makers ship device driver code thus crippling the ability of anyone wishing to create a fully working AOSP ROM. I suppose in Googles eyes, Android = more data for Google to mine/sell/profit…

Android was originally developed with the intent that it could make the access of web services better on mobile phones. The intent was to create a market, not to take one. AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Although the Android you find on devices branded as such is most definitely Google's flavour, they still develop Android for everyone to use. I find it somewhat of a cognitive dissonnance. Peop…

> AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably.

Yeah..AOSP "works".. if you happen to have the driver binary blobs (which are not open source), which only work for some android builds on a handful of devices which are blessed by google. Open source indeed.

Oh and those binary blobs.. those are LICENSED. You are not allowed to make an android build and distribute it, if it contains those blobs. And without those blobs the ROMS are useless because you need drivers for basic things like your camera, phone radio, etc.

Google have taken the Open Source ideology and bastardized it to fit their commercial needs. And look, I have no problems with companies making money, but then you don't get to also say how "open source friendly" you are, when clearly you're just using open source as a marketing ploy.

>These companies sell personalized advertisements, they do not sell your data.

Feel free to explain this clause in Google's privacy policy.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

>We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites.

Re: Android without the mothership

#118

Post by miguelrochefort »

a-priori wrote: post #112
miguelrochefort wrote: post #107

There should be a name for this privacy craze. It's one of the rare instance where people can act completely irrationally (to the point of paranoia), and people will accept it as completely normal and expected. I hope you realize how silly all of this will sound 20 years from now.

Yes, I think to ensure your privacy by never revealing personal information to third parties, through using open source software and strong cryptography, requires too much inconvenience and vigilance and technical knowledge to be applied properly even by experts, never mind the average person. It's a dead end because, if the average person can't do it, then strong privacy will forever be on the fringes of society, so…

I agree that preserving privacy is expensive (almost unsustainable), and that only few select entities are technically capable of keeping a substantial part of their activities secret.

However, I don't believe that regulation and laws are solution to anything. I also don't think that it's reasonable to expect entities, even large ones, to be 100% secure and keep your data secret at all time. Ultimately, I'm convinced that the world has MUCH MORE to gain from transparency than from privacy (secrecy).

Fundamentally, what makes you think that people actually should have a right to privacy? Where does that expectation come from, if not as a side-effect of inefficient communication? People believe that they're entitled to privacy, but I can't find any reasonable argument for it.

I don't see many people claiming their right to lie, their right to fraud, their right to steal. What makes privacy so different?

Re: Android without the mothership

#119

Post by DCKing »

ksk wrote: post #117
DCKing wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android was originally developed with the intent that it could make the access of web services better on mobile phones. The intent was to create a market, not to take one. AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Although the Android you find on devices branded as such is most definitely Google's flavour, they still develop Android for everyone to use. I find it somewhat of a cognitive dissonnance. Peop…

> AOSP is still open source for that reason, presumably. Yeah..AOSP "works".. if you happen to have the driver binary blobs (which are not open source), which only work for some android builds on a handful of devices which are blessed by google. Open source indeed. Oh and those binary blobs.. those are LICENSED. You are not allowed to make an android build and distribute it, if it contains those blobs. And without th…

> Google have taken the Open Source ideology and bastardized it to fit their commercial needs.

Ah you're one of the people that thinks open source also comes with a mandatory ideology. That it's not good enough if source is released for everyone unless there are also other strings attached. We can leave this in disagreement then.

> Feel free to explain this clause in Google's privacy policy.

You have to redefine a lot of words if "sharing aggregated non-personally identifiable information" (e.g. statistics of "how many people aged 18-25 are seeing my ad?") is to mean the same as "selling your data".

https://www.google.com/policies/technologies/

> We don’t sell users’ personal information.

Re: Android without the mothership

#120

Post by josephlord »

miguelrochefort wrote: post #115
josephlord wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a name for this absolute trust in corporations to manage intimate personal details of all sorts on out behalf. It's one of the rare instances where people can act as corporations of thousands of people will act in their long term interest and continue to do so indefinitely into the future with no oversight or transparency into their actions. I hope you realize how silly all of this will sound 20 years…

I don't trust them, nor anyone, to keep any "intimate personal details" (whatever that means) secret. But that's not the point. I don't give them access to information to keep it secure. They shouldn't even need permission to access it. I share information with the world to make it a better place. There's no point in living in the dark. To keep information for yourself is selfish. To expect that others will keep it s…

If you are carrying a Google phone and using the Google systems you are giving them access to where you are going, where you have been, who you have met, who you know.

All these can be intimate personal details at times. They may provide information about health, sexual partners and activity. They can also reveal journalistic sources and high level company meetings that might give rise to insider trading.

Is this all information that should in your view be completely transparent.

Post reply on HN