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…

  • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I know this isn’t the topic here, but I really wish these researchers would unroll what all Apple harvests from Apple devices. It’s quite a lot as well. Could help pop that “we’re so private” myth.

    • AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Do they have passkeys yet

      Edit: passkeys support. Last year when I checked they didn’t support pass keys yet.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        What does that even mean? It’s not the function of an OS to have passkeys.

        • AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Grapheneos didn’t support pass keys last year when I checked, so you couldn’t use them at all. There was some APIs broken/missing between the OS to browser comms so you couldn’t use 3rd party apps for pass keys, like proton or bit warden. I have been actively experimenting and adopting passkeys and didn’t want to revert. It sounds like there is support now though, so I will give it a try soon.

    • Southern Boy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      What is the advantage over Calyx/Lineage/iode OS on compatible devices? I just don’t want Google to have any of my money at all. Buying a privacy solution from them recoups their loss.

      • Tazerface@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t know about Calyx or Iode but Lineage doesn’t allow for a locked bootloader. This is a massive security hole and without security, sooner or later, your privacy will be violated.

        Currently, GrapheneOS on a newer Pixel are the only phones that Celebrite can’t breach. Celebrite machines are cheap enough that the border guards and your local cops probably have one. In my country, it’s the law that a cop is allowed to examine a phone during a traffic stop.

      • yonder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s my understanding that Graphene has security as its main goal, not privacy, though it’s also quite private.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        I like calyx, might try graphene some day. But I absolutely won’t run Google’s play services ala graphene. It’s sandboxed, supposedly, but why run it at all?

        Calyx uses microG, a much smaller, fully open source emulator of Google’s services.

          • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Just about all of your identifying data is stripped out by the framework before interacting with Google at all: https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/wiki/Google-Network-Connections

            That alone makes it an important tool. I’m not too worried about memory exploits as I don’t really install apps, but it’s an important feature in graphene’s toolkit.

            For most people who want an Android alternative that’s open source but don’t have time to fiddle with it, calyxOS seems like a good solution. It just works out of the box.

      • Wave@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Can’t speak to what others are saying about Graphene but Calyx is amazing if you prefer a FOSS-centric option but still want GMS/GSF compatibility. Bootloader relocking is a requirement for their devices.

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Who truly owns the device is a question that has been answered ever since Android came into being.

    Ask yourself: do you have root access to YOUR phone? No you don’t: Google does.

    It’s the so-called “Android security model”, which posits that the users are too dumb to take care of themselves, so Google unilaterally decides to administer their phone on their behalf without asking permission.

    Which of course has nothing to do with saving the users from their own supposed stupidity and everything to do with controlling other people’s private property to exfiltrate and monetize their data.

    How this is even legal has been beyond me for 15 years.

    • ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 days ago

      Weirdly, Pixels are actually the best Android phones for installing custom ROMs, at least out of the major manufacturers. So for me, there isn’t another choice, because I can finance a Pixel, and I can’t finance a Fairphone or something.

      GrapheneOS is really the furthest away from Google you can get on an Android phone and it’s mainly developed for Pixel.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Please read the many write-ups by developers of well regarded privacy and security ROMs, such as grapheneOS and divestOS.

      Who detail in great length why root access is a bad idea, and why many apps that require root access, are just poorly developed security nightmares.

      That said, I agree that it should be an option, or at least a standardized means of enabling it. As well as all bootloaders should be unlockable. But phones are more personal devices than the PC ever was, and there are good reasons NOT to push for the proliferation of standardized root access.

      • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes. It is the principle, everyone should be informed of the security risks, but not stripped of the root privileges they keep for themselves.

      • Psyhackological@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        I have GrapheneOS and I know having root is not ideal and I was wondering about https://shizuku.rikka.app/ It looks like a more elegant way to have for some apps higher privileges while preserving security but I’m not sure about it so I’m thinking out loud

        • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I will admit that I also use Shizuku, but I only enable it for short bursts when I need access for a very select number of precise use cases. Immediately afterwards, I reboot.

          I also assume that if I spent any amount of time digging into it, I would realize it’s a bad idea, but nothing’s perfect.

          And don’t assume that all apps allowing Shizuku access were developed securely, or that there all developers have good intentions. Really I only use it for Swift, or if I’m really behind on my updates, I’ll briefly allow Droidify access for hands off updating.

      • daddy32@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        These writeups never managed to to convince me me that I should not be able to modify any file on my device. If the system is not able to grant this access to me, and me only, while doing it securely, than it’s bad operating system, designed without my interests first on mind. I am absolutely sure that granting so-called “root access” can be done securely, as decades of almost-every-other-OS have shown.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      do you have root access to YOUR phone?

      Yes. On a Pixel 9 Pro Fold.

      Ironically, Google Pixels are among the few (US available) brands that still let you fully unlock the BL

      • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Yes. On a Pixel 9 Pro Fold.

        Not if you run the stock OS you don’t.

        My comment was generic. The vast majority of Android users don’t unlock their bootloader and install a custom ROM. The people who do that are fringe users.

        My point was that when the normal state of affairs is Google controlling YOUR property that YOU paid with YOUR hard-earned, and you have to be technically competent and willing to risk bricking your device to regain control, that’s full-blown dystopia right there.

        • Vik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          out of interest, what use cases do you have in mind that require root access?

          I used to use a root based solution to block ads system wide via hosts but now I just use ublock origin in Firefox.

          • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            AdAway, AFWall+ (for restricting network access to apps), Root File Explorer (needed to get my watch working with GadgetBridge), Permission Manager X, Xposed Edge Pro (for hardware keys remapping), Pixels (for a hardware display fix)

            • Vik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Adaway was what I used prior to ublock origin on Firefox. The network access toggles can be found directly in ROMs like Calyx Grapene, Lineage, Divest, though I’m not sure if they’re widely seen elsewhere.

              I know the process you’re referring you WRT gadgetbridge. I used to do the same thing until I switched to a pinetime.

              I’m not familiar with permission manager X. Does that deviate from the android permissions framework in some way?

              Can you tell me more about the hardware tweaks?

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            3 days ago

            what use cases do you have in mind that require root access?

            Ownership.

            • Vik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              okay cool but what are you specifically using system or systemless root for now?

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yep, what radicalized me against Google was all the way back when they had bought Android and rolled out the Play Store for the first time.

      I was on my first-ever phone, and yes, it did have rather limited internal storage, but then the Play Store got installed, taking up all the remaining space. I had literally around 500KB of free storage left afterwards, making it impossible to install new apps.

      Couldn’t uninstall the Play Store, couldn’t move it to the SD-card and it didn’t even fucking do anything that the Android Market app didn’t do. It just took up 40MB more space for no good reason.

    • refalo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You still have to trust their black box Titan security chip that’s only in Pixels, that they pinky promised to open source but never did.

      • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You will have to inevitably trust someone somewhere for every phone, unfortunately. At least the Titan has been tested in the real world, and it’s not like it’s phoning home on it’s own or anything.

  • crimsoncobalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    This doesn’t seem surprising at all. Isn’t that what Google Play Services is for? If you don’t want it, custom ROMs are easily installed.

  • DavidGarcia@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

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

    All this shit is probably happening at the hardware level too, with 100 different backdoors you can’t remove with your megamind plan of installing a custom rom.

    The silicon probably has the ability to live stream all sensor data directly to the NSA using the fanciest ML compression technology lmao.

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Citation needed. I get that it’s healthy not to trust anyone, but with the amount of security research that goes into these devices if something like that was happening then we would know about it.

        • smeg@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago
          1. Applies to every phone, smart or simple, can be combatted with a £5 Faraday bag
          2. That is about monitoring by your network, nothing to do with the phone manufacturer really
          3. A ten year old article about Samsung phones
          4. An exploit affecting lots of phones that seems like it was fixed

          So a few interesting points, but nothing even slightly like what OP was suggesting.

          • refalo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            can be combatted with a £5 Faraday bag

            I don’t consider that a reasonable solution for most people, and there are many posts claiming those almost never work well enough. You could also make the argument that it shouldn’t be necessary in the first place.

            That is about monitoring by your network

            I don’t think it matters to most people, as you are still tracked by having the phone physically with you, which is what people are against.

            A ten year old article about Samsung phones

            Are you suggesting Samsung phones should have ever been allowed to spy on people? Or that this doesn’t highlight a bigger issue? I don’t see why this should get a pass at all.

            An exploit affecting lots of phones that seems like it was fixed

            I think it’s very much a real threat, and leaked docs show world governments and bad actors actively use such exploits routinely for years, including keeping previously unknown exploits a secret to use for themselves.

            I understand your desire to turn talking points into nothingburgers but I feel like this is not only disingenuous but against the entire principal of security and privacy. Of course we all have our own individual threat models, but to dismiss another person’s model because you think it shouldn’t matter to anyone, doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

            • smeg@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Look, I’m not trying to say there aren’t real security/privacy issues that aren’t being exploited right now, my citation needed was regarding this comment:

              The silicon probably has the ability to live stream all sensor data directly to the NSA using the fanciest ML compression technology lmao.

              The articles you linked are real issues that have been documented, OP was arguing that Google phones specifically are bad because of this statement they pulled out of their arse.

    • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

        • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours 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.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours 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.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’d say newer Pixels have even more privacy issues than the older ones because of cloud based AI features (ugh when will the bubble finally pop?) and stuff. However the stock OS is bad for privacy in both cases so a custom ROM is a must and afaik installing it on a Pixel is not too hard. Also new Pixels seem to get custom ROMs very quickly so you don’t have to wait for months or even years for someone to make one.

    • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      The Pixel 9 line had GrapheneOS avaliable a couple of days after launch. That’s how fast. You order the phone, and by the time you got it, GrapheneOS was ready to replace Stock Android.