Google Bans Disconnect.me App From Play Store

Discussion in 'privacy problems' started by dogbite, Sep 3, 2014.

  1. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
    That is not the case as it would make Disconnect look bad. There is not third party download currently available.
     
  2. TheWindBringeth

    TheWindBringeth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Posts:
    2,171
    We would begin by recognizing the software developer and software user as the first two parties. Lets go with a "the first-party is the producer & the second-party is the consumer" definition. Here, the Disconnect.Me app developers would be the first-party and the user would be the second-party. Google would be a third-party and thus an entity you would want to eliminate from the equation. Anyone developing security/privacy software should be cognizant of the "eliminate third parties" rule as well as the "no one size fits all rule". IOW, the Disconnect.Me developers would look bad if they didn't offer distribution and updating from their own servers.
     
  3. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
  4. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    How would that make Disconnect look bad? It's Google that's looking bad here.
     
  5. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
    Disconnect would look bad if they hosted a third party side-load but this is not the case as they (Disconnect) no longer host the app. Google is clearly the bad guy here as they want to monetize Play apps as much as possible without any fussy apps that could possibly protect your Privacy in the way.

    This will not be the last Privacy app booted from the Google Play Store.
     
  6. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    Why would they look bad? They would be standing for privacy, and refusing to be censored. That's all good. Google would consider them "bad", but why does that matter?

    Maybe EFF or the Guardian Project ought to host privacy-friendly apps censored by Google or Apple.
    Yes, of course.
    No doubt :( Isn't it past time for a viable alternative?
     
  7. Countryboy15

    Countryboy15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    82
    Google is a company that is difficult to place trust in, imho. They are more than willing to take a public stand against NSA spying, even going so far as encrypting all of their services to thwart such activity. But when it comes to their own privacy issues, suddenly they don't feel so inclined to stand up for the "little people" anymore. It is very two-faced of them, and I miss the days before they saw data as a giant pile of money. I don't know what kind of alternative there could be, that people would be able to trust of course. Being an Android user myself, I'm quite surprised that Google has not yet removed the ability to install third-party applications.
     
  8. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    I will never use an Android until there's a secure OS that firewalls baseband attacks. And indeed, I'll probably wait until someone creates a secure baseband radio.
     
  9. Countryboy15

    Countryboy15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    82
    I knew nothing and still know next to nothing about those kinds of attacks. I did a short search and came across a couple of links from 2011 that gave a very basic rundown. With all these fake cell towers that are evidently being found across the U.S now, I guess that sort of mischief is a reasonable concern. Shoot, a man can't hardly do anything anymore without his government or some other horses behind interfering or causing trouble :thumbd:
     
  10. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    5,554
    Location:
    USA still the best. But barely.
    Should be on F-Droid but tisn't.
     
  11. Veeshush

    Veeshush Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Posts:
    643
    I only got into Android within the last few years, and only cause I had a phone (with service disabled) that a family member didn't want anymore cause they upgraded. Of all the mobile platforms (Mac/Windows) Android is the lesser of the evils, but it's very Google branded (obviously). Even with Cyanogenmod, there's quite a few Google services that still get installed by default, basically all of which I have little use for and wish I could remove just on the basis of it chewing up resources.

    But there are a handful of neat apps I do like: https://prism-break.org/en/categories/android/
    Practically almost everything on the Google Play store is adware ridden garbage, much like you'd find with the "freeware" of the 90s and early 2000s. There is F Droid though as an alternative.

    I would encourage you to pick up a cheap device and play around with it though. Can always pop the battery out and throw it in a Faraday cage when you're done. ;) But really, I'd just like to see someone with your know-how dabble with Android.
     
  12. TheWindBringeth

    TheWindBringeth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Posts:
    2,171
    Are there Android platform limitations that negatively impact the updating of sideloaded of apps? Is it possible for a sideloaded app to be automatically updated (from a non Google server of course)?

    Assuming the app we're discussing isn't some cloud-query-based filtering engine, it would need to frequently download/update its filtering rules. Which would mean either updating the app in its entirely (if rules are inextricably linked to the package) or separately downloading just the filter rules (updates).

    I'm wondering if disparities between not-sideloaded and sideloaded are enough to require significant changes to and/or additions to the app itself. From what I've read, Android's updater is hard-coded to the Google Play store and thus sideloaded apps and developers would have no platform features to help carryout and standardize updating. Is that correct? Are there any [other] client-side issues that "discourage" developers from offering sideloaded versions?
     
  13. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    5,554
    Location:
    USA still the best. But barely.
    That's why these "rogue" apps should be on F-Droid if they knew whats good for them.
     
  14. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
  15. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    Cool :thumb:

    Now, what about Adblock Plus?
     
  16. TheWindBringeth

    TheWindBringeth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Posts:
    2,171
    From the earlier blog post:
    From the CNet Article:
    Some reasons why people block ALL ads by default:

    1) The mechanisms used to retrieve ads (especially personalized ads) can make you vulnerable to tracking. Including some forms of tracking that are obscured due to it being done server side.
    2) There is often an active component (javascript, flash, ...) involved and that active component can be a threat (using APIs to gather info from the client, attempting to exploit vulnerabilities, generating secondary requests).
    3) The ads themselves are usually configured to subject you to tracking if you interact with them. Clicking on an ad, even accidentally, can expose you to systems which use more sophisticated tracking and data sharing.

    The original Disconnect.Me conditional wording had me wondering if it would be a truly effective tool. Did they change something to further weaken it? I don't use Android so observations aren't possible. Perhaps if someone else does and takes a hard look at how things behave when the app is installed, they'll let us know.
     
  17. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,782
  18. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
    It would seem Disconnect have run afoul of Google Play yet again ! The download you point to requires installing from unknown sources effectively allowing a side-load.

    Stand by as Disconnect and Google duke it out.
     
  19. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    It's not an "unknown source"! It's the developer's website!
     
  20. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
  21. Countryboy15

    Countryboy15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    82
    Google should just go ahead and say they don't want these applications in their store, instead of trying to make it sound as if application developers are not following some convoluted agreement. I'm a simple sort of man, but I can see their game. They do this just about every time someone has come up with a permissions controlling application or a privacy type of application. My opinion on the matter is that I bought the darned device, I ought to have a say in who gets to see my data and who gets to send what to my device.
     
  22. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    9,252
    I get that. But why is that bad, in this case? Except for Google's issues, I mean.

    In my opinion, what's bad is the whole idea of a closed system with a gatekeeper.
     
  23. siljaline

    siljaline Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,618
  24. Countryboy15

    Countryboy15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    82
    Sideload, unknown sources be darned, if it allows us users to take some control back I support it. You have got to be awful careful about applications and developers claiming to do this and that when you install things, but if they are reputable do what you have to do. I don't have any problems with having a gatekeeper, so long as they are watching out for my well being and are on my side. In this case though, it sure seems more like a warden than a gatekeeper.
     
  25. Countryboy15

    Countryboy15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    82
    I guess I'm not understanding the problem. If Disconnect is pushing its own product on its own website and not using the Play store, how in the world does the Play store agreement apply? Are you saying that because Disconnect is a trusted developer in the store that, simply by making their product available elsewhere they are infringing on that agreement? Heck, if that is the case I would never sign that agreement again and avoid the store for the rest of my days.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.