DED surely knows that isn't true. They go to court challenging government requests for user data, were one of the first companies to publish a "transparency report" opening our eyes to the number times our government and others have tried to get their hands on our information and how many times they've had to comply. Google was also one of the first to put out a call to arms over further attempts by the US government to expand on its monitoring activities. Tim Cook's ability to get the attention of the press may garner him more popular articles, but Google has long pressed for more restrictions on government spying and monitoring of its own citizens. If Daniel spent the tiniest bit of time on the subject he would already know that, as I'm sure he does.
Apple has done a great service by using its influence to call attention to privacy issues, but that does not mean Google isn't in the fight too.
Why? When you do that it comes off a bit trollish sounding. Familiar with baiting?
I've always thought we should hang our collective hats on every opinion and pronouncement from any ACLU spokesperson. There's few organizations with such widespread respect so what can be said? Fortunately for those concerned ACLU folks the poor have little if anything left to steal so they're pretty safe.
Apple's efforts to protect the privacy of its users, including end-to-end encryption of their communications, effectively separates the company's more affluent iOS users from the poor and disadvantaged forced to use Android.
Quote:
Soghioan said this means "someone who uses a cheap Android device is a much easier target for law enforcement or intelligence agencies--which he argues are prone to abusing their surveillance powers,"
Quote:
"Google has by far the best security team of any company in Silicon Valley," Soghioan said, but added, "the security people I know at Google are embarrassed by Android."
Yeah the governement will target the poor and uneducated and claim they catching the terroist but in reality they only catching the ones which do not matter.
Yeah Google has some top level security people, but their sole job is to protect the data on their servers which they mined from your computer and phones. Yeah they protect your data, but only from their competitors, but and scam artist can still anything they like off your phone.
I have made the case for a while now that google is less secure due to how they decided to handle the marketing of there platform. Microsoft at least pushes out patches system wide for there OS when major holes are found. Google can not even muster that level of security control. I can not abide that in a personal setting for my self, and certainly not in a professional setting. People always argue oh well there is nothing on my phone so what does it matter. This always leads me to trying to explain security is only as good as the weakest point of failure. This used to be the end users and there horrible 1234 password. Now the game has elevated to whole platforms that are insure by the consequence of a a business decision.
Used or not you can get a communication device that will put you in touch with entire world, video, audio, text... included, with end to end encryption for less then $100US including the latest version of iOS.
Apple makes very good quality phones that last. My wife was using a 4s until recently and it was a great phone. Battery started to run short after 4 years of medium/hard use.
I'll never buy an Android phone period! Encryption would stifle their data collection.
When you get your services free, _you_ are the product!
As noted in the article, many of the cheap Android phones don't have adequate hardware to support encryption as Apple does it, while software encryption taxes performance too much. So it is switched off. The ability of Android engineers is not really the issue here.
That Google compiles a database on each user and extracting commercial value from it is a separate issue. Its advertising business requires that, and would regardless of encryption. It is designed into the business model.
Malware at the various Android app stores is a third problem that can partly be linked to the anything-goes attitude of many Android users and a preference by the typical Android user not to spend money on apps.
I’m waiting for this story to be spun into an Apple negative. “Elitist Apple refuses to give iPhones to poor people so they can be safe!” or some such bullshit. Wait for it because it’s coming.
You know…, I was all interested and excited to read this article when I saw the headline. But then I realized it's just a bunch of "class warfare" bullshit, blahblah blah.
"The next civil rights movement will use the technology against which surveillance works best," he said, stating that protest movements 'don't typically start in society's upper socioeconomic echelons.'
Historically, revolutions have been led by the upper class. People who are well educated and have the luxury to think about politics. Not the very richest who are at the top of the heap, but people who are not too far down. He's right about most of the followers, though.
"The next civil rights movement will use the technology against which surveillance works best," he said, stating that protest movements 'don't typically start in society's upper socioeconomic echelons.'
Historically, revolutions have been led by the upper class. People who are well educated and have the luxury to think about politics. Not the very richest who are at the top of the heap, but people who are not too far down. He's right about most of the followers, though.
Pretty sure they were using the term "brand new" as reference to "brand newest model". Rather than as a distinction from "used".
If that's the case, then you can't compare the price of the 5s against the cheap entry level model androids either. What they were trying to get across is that you can, from a store, purchase a brand new android device cheaper than any iPhone offering without subsidies or contracts. Yes, the entry level android phones are lesser phones than the iPhone 4, but that wasn't the point of contention. people with no money want to buy new phones too, and if the iPhone is too expensive, they will buy the cheap crap.
You know…, I was all interested and excited to read this article when I saw the headline. But then I realized it's just a bunch of "class warfare" bullshit, blahblah blah.
stopped reading.
Truth hurts...
Buh-bye...
You misunderstand me. I just didn't give a shit.
The headline suggested it was about Android lack of security.
"The phone used by the rich is encrypted by default and cannot be surveilled," Soghioan said, "and the phone used by most people in the global south and the poor and disadvantaged in America can be surveilled."
Most "organic" stuff is actually more dangerous...
You are absolutely right. If use of organic foods spreads to the rich, ignorant, atavistic class, those who are now eating poison feedlot beef in the country clubs and the political fundraising dinners in flyover country, they may start living longer.
Our future depends on their dying off as soon as possible.
I'm surprised that an MIT branded media outlet would stray into an area that's so far off their core competency. It's like dinging inexpensive automobile manufacturers for not including all of the fancy safety features that the high end auto makers provide. What's their mission, Technology or sociology?
The difference between encryption and security on iOS and Android isn't just a technical issue but a "digital security divide," according to the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union. That's because Apple secures its devices while Google leaves Android open to data collection and surveillance.
"The phone used by the rich is encrypted by default and cannot be surveilled," Soghioan said, "and the phone used by most people in the global south and the poor and disadvantaged in America can be surveilled."
That's because "Apple sells luxury goods and Google gives away services for free in return for access to data," Soghioan said, highlighting that the difference wasn't purely technical but a corporate decision.
Instead, Google has made tracking users and compiling data about their behaviors and activities a core part of its business model. That leaves encryption and privacy for Android an afterthought or even an obstacle.
.
DED stopped just short of mentioning that both new Nexus models sold by Google are encrypted by default, possibly omitting it because it didn't fit the storyline IMO. Google also requires all new smartphones shipping with Android M have it enabled out of the box. That would directly contradict Mr Dilger's statement that Google considers "encryption and privacy for Android an afterthought or even an obstacle". https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/10/21/new-android-marshmallow-devices-must-have-default-encryption-google-says/
It's fair to mention that due to valid issues DED raised, older Android handsets receiving an update to the latest OS won't have the same requirement, tho it will be strongly suggested. In that arena Apple is far ahead.
Comments
DED surely knows that isn't true. They go to court challenging government requests for user data, were one of the first companies to publish a "transparency report" opening our eyes to the number times our government and others have tried to get their hands on our information and how many times they've had to comply. Google was also one of the first to put out a call to arms over further attempts by the US government to expand on its monitoring activities. Tim Cook's ability to get the attention of the press may garner him more popular articles, but Google has long pressed for more restrictions on government spying and monitoring of its own citizens. If Daniel spent the tiniest bit of time on the subject he would already know that, as I'm sure he does.
Apple has done a great service by using its influence to call attention to privacy issues, but that does not mean Google isn't in the fight too.
I've always thought we should hang our collective hats on every opinion and pronouncement from any ACLU spokesperson. There's few organizations with such widespread respect so what can be said? Fortunately for those concerned ACLU folks the poor have little if anything left to steal so they're pretty safe.
I love these statements
Yeah the governement will target the poor and uneducated and claim they catching the terroist but in reality they only catching the ones which do not matter.
Yeah Google has some top level security people, but their sole job is to protect the data on their servers which they mined from your computer and phones. Yeah they protect your data, but only from their competitors, but and scam artist can still anything they like off your phone.
I have made the case for a while now that google is less secure due to how they decided to handle the marketing of there platform. Microsoft at least pushes out patches system wide for there OS when major holes are found. Google can not even muster that level of security control. I can not abide that in a personal setting for my self, and certainly not in a professional setting. People always argue oh well there is nothing on my phone so what does it matter. This always leads me to trying to explain security is only as good as the weakest point of failure. This used to be the end users and there horrible 1234 password. Now the game has elevated to whole platforms that are insure by the consequence of a a business decision.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1277322-microsoft-admits-windows-10-spying-cannot-be-disabled/
Apple makes very good quality phones that last. My wife was using a 4s until recently and it was a great phone. Battery started to run short after 4 years of medium/hard use.
I'll never buy an Android phone period! Encryption would stifle their data collection.
When you get your services free, _you_ are the product!
That Google compiles a database on each user and extracting commercial value from it is a separate issue. Its advertising business requires that, and would regardless of encryption. It is designed into the business model.
Malware at the various Android app stores is a third problem that can partly be linked to the anything-goes attitude of many Android users and a preference by the typical Android user not to spend money on apps.
I’m waiting for this story to be spun into an Apple negative. “Elitist Apple refuses to give iPhones to poor people so they can be safe!” or some such bullshit. Wait for it because it’s coming.
You can still get it but refurbished from gazelle or Clyde for that or less
You know…, I was all interested and excited to read this article when I saw the headline. But then I realized it's just a bunch of "class warfare" bullshit, blahblah blah.
stopped reading.
Truth hurts...
Buh-bye...
Historically, revolutions have been led by the upper class. People who are well educated and have the luxury to think about politics. Not the very richest who are at the top of the heap, but people who are not too far down. He's right about most of the followers, though.
Pretty sure they were using the term "brand new" as reference to "brand newest model". Rather than as a distinction from "used".
If that's the case, then you can't compare the price of the 5s against the cheap entry level model androids either. What they were trying to get across is that you can, from a store, purchase a brand new android device cheaper than any iPhone offering without subsidies or contracts. Yes, the entry level android phones are lesser phones than the iPhone 4, but that wasn't the point of contention. people with no money want to buy new phones too, and if the iPhone is too expensive, they will buy the cheap crap.
You know…, I was all interested and excited to read this article when I saw the headline. But then I realized it's just a bunch of "class warfare" bullshit, blahblah blah.
stopped reading.
Truth hurts...
Buh-bye...
You misunderstand me. I just didn't give a shit.
The headline suggested it was about Android lack of security.
"The phone used by the rich is encrypted by default and cannot be surveilled," Soghioan said, "and the phone used by most people in the global south and the poor and disadvantaged in America can be surveilled."
I like that line.
Nope. Brand new 5s is $450
i think he means the 6s and 6plus s
You are absolutely right. If use of organic foods spreads to the rich, ignorant, atavistic class, those who are now eating poison feedlot beef in the country clubs and the political fundraising dinners in flyover country, they may start living longer.
Our future depends on their dying off as soon as possible.
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/10/21/new-android-marshmallow-devices-must-have-default-encryption-google-says/
It's fair to mention that due to valid issues DED raised, older Android handsets receiving an update to the latest OS won't have the same requirement, tho it will be strongly suggested. In that arena Apple is far ahead.
When it comes to Apple vs. Android, you sure do get what you pay for.