How safe are pixel 9 devices?

Pacienco

ignition Has anyone run a similar test on Graphene to see what data Google siphons via the sandboxed Play Store after its given the usual permissions necessary for most banking apps? Reading through the article, a couple of the things mentioned would still apply to Graphene.

It would be interesting to see the results of that test, at least for people who use Google Play Services. No doubt someone like Leith or maybe Kuketz would put the time and effort into investigating and publishing it.

ignition It's unclear for the used phone number and other SIM information, which are clearly the most important pieces there, but it's also true that Graphene currently provides no means to give fake data to apps needlessly requesting such information.

Yes, not yet, although features to that effect are planned and the project definitely seems open to proper implementation and maintenance for those features: https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/4075 & https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/4076.

ignition

Pacienco No doubt someone like Leith or maybe Kuketz would put the time and effort into investigating and publishing it.

Great guys! Doug's papers in particular (two linked earlier) have been very useful for dispelling certain claims and beliefs about Google not siphoning data.

lost_cause

I will just chime in that I am not using Play Services on a personal device. I do occasionally use it on test devices but only for a limited time. Sandboxed Google Play was not always available.

Any longtime users will be familiar with using GrapheneOS without GPS. We may now be a minority, but I'm sure we are still out there.

[deleted]

lost_cause there are more of us than may meet the eye. It's because we are more accustomed to life without Google Play and we don't scream for help at first sign of inconvenience.

ignition

Rizzler Cuz GrapheneOS doesn't equal Play Store??

Who said it did?

If you don't trust the software you install ontop of the OS, thats entirely on you.

What does this have to do with prerequisites for necessary apps you have no control over?

Your made a claim that goes against all logic, by doubting that even 1% of the users avoid Play Services

This might be the silliest thing I have read this year. Doubting and asking for data is the opposite of 'made a claim'. That you need this explained to you is what's 'insane' here.

None of us have concrete data about this

Then don't waste my time with headcanon. If you don't have data then drop it. It's been multiple posts now on headcanon. If I wanted to discuss headcanon distractions, I would've gone to a fanfiction forum.

de0u the part about how putting Play and Play apps in a secondary profile means that the telemetry can be stopped at will

Regular Pixels have a button to disable Google Play Services.

Rizzler

ignition

What does this have to do with prerequisites for necessary apps you have no control over?

Its not necessary at all. You can choose to install privacy invasive apps but its not the OS's job to protect you from yourself. They have as much access as any other apps. Wost case is that they collect as much data as available to any normal app. I don't understand play store related questions because they are literally just an app with no special access. They cant do anything weird.

If you use Facebook from Firefox, its not firefox's fault that they collect the data you give them.

de0u

ignition Regular Pixels have a button to disable Google Play Services.

Thanks for the update! I haven't used the stock Google OS since the Nexus 7.

What does that button do? Is it possible to turn off Play in one user profile while it's on in another? If it's off, are there app complaints or failures with built-in apps?

I ask because of some things seen online (some admittedly old):

ignition

Rizzler Its not necessary at all.

It's nice you have this power to decide banking and ID apps aren't necessary.

I don't understand play store related questions

Shocking.

Carlos-Anso I do not think it is necessary to repeat testing with the Play apps on GrapheneOS.

I'd disagree because certain beliefs and claims about Google not siphoning data have gone on to proven false by detailed research. Real data trumps speculation.

Carlos-Anso

I do not think it is necessary to repeat testing with the Play apps on GrapheneOS. They are the same apps and will do the same things.

They do however not have the highly elevated privileges they have on stock Android that allows them to do things like access device identifiers, install apps without user consent etc.

They also do not have a whole load of permissions granted by default. They only get permissions that you grant them, same as any other app.

It is true that other apps, which include Google libraries, will communicate with Play Services. But in the majority of cases those app libraries will communicate the same data directly to Googles servers if Play Services is not present on the device
For example see https://firebase.google.com/docs/android/android-play-services

Rizzler

de0u I think they just meant the standard system app disabe button.

admin

The link to the highly inaccurate clickbait article has been removed. For reference, it's this:

cybernews dot com/security/google-pixel-9-phone-beams-data-and-awaits-commands/

We won't be giving them search rank for this nonsense.

@N3rdTek has been suspended for 1 week due to promoting this drivel with this ridiculous take which is simply trolling:

Pixel 9 devices appear very unsafe and insecure.

@ignition has been permanently suspended for persistently trolling and spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS.

Thread is being left up as an example of what not to do if you want to participate here. Wasting people's time trolling isn't going to be tolerated.

admin

Links to cybernews dot com are now considered spam and will be automatically filtered. The few threads with links to previous content on the site have been removed. The article and lots of their content is clickbait nonsense based on largely false claims, spin and misrepresentations.

Misrepresenting how a bunch of Google Play connections do and when they're done combined with blaming it on the Pixel 9 is not journalism or security research. Egregiously false claims in that article such as the complete misrepresentation of the optional network location that's given as a choice in the initial setup wizard, which is used by all Android and iOS devices if you don't choose to opt-out. Many users want a similar service for GrapheneOS built into the OS which we're working on providing. Truly ridiculous article and not believable that @N3rdTek wasn't simply trolling again as they often do.

admin

maximus87 Network location is provided as a clear choice during the initial setup. Every Android and iOS device has network location with opt-out in the same way. It's a feature included in other operating systems too. Their claims about it are complete nonsense and that reflects on the overall article. GrapheneOS isn't going to use network-based location by default but is going to be adding our own implementation with a choice between a GrapheneOS proxy for Apple's service or directly using Apple's service. It will then be extended with the option to use our own first party GrapheneOS database either via remote queries to our server or regional database downloads. Our database will be built by combining scraping Apple's data and combining that with open BeaconDB data. Apple's service is nicer for us than Google's service because Apple made it trivial to scrape huge amounts of data from their service, and data isn't copyrightable so we're free to do that and organize it in our own way. We haven't agreed to any Apple terms of service for it and it doesn't require any authentication to use. Anyway, portraying network location as some kind Pixel 9 flaw is genuinely ridiculous and is not the worst part of the article.

« Previous Page