Google backdoor into all android phones.

[astevens54]

So is this feature disabled in the ROM's that are available to flash your phone with?

 

[Skull One]

I...did not know that. Their capabilities must be limited at this point, otherwise, they would know who has apps such as wireless tether, root explorer, etc. If they knew this you would think they would crack down on illegitimate tethering and retain greater control over warranty issues. Maybe they do have this ability but figure the pool of rooted users is still relatively small and not worth the hassle.

I am of the same opinion. I doubt custom ROMs make up 10% of their user base.

My theory goes along the lines of "They want to see what we can do and what we actually do with power we create for ourselves". This allows them a whole level of market research that would be costly for them to try otherwise. I would not doubt for a second their is a team of people looking over the metrics of "Custom" versus "OTA" and how it impacts both their network and profit margins in the Market.

 

[Skull One]

You are right, of course, but if Verizon started shutting off modded phones they would get an AWFUL lot of bad press.. Just the same as if Google started monkeying around in people's data. I believe it's come to a mutual trust thing.. Verizon trusts us not to break the geneva convention with our modded phones, and we trust them not to nuke us for it. Same goes for Google. Once they give us cause to question that trust, then we'll have to reconsider the arrangement - but for now it would seem that both sides are (more or less) content with the arrangement.

I could not have said it any better. This balancing act so far, in my opinion, has actually been in our favor. The only real grumblings VZW has had, is the same one that Motorola has had. People bringing in phones that are screwed up from bad ROM flashes and didn't know how to undo the damage themselves. That has cost both companies times and money.

 

[Skull One]

So is this feature disabled in the ROM's that are available to flash your phone with?

At present I am unaware of any ROM maker disabling that feature. And if they did, I believe they would get a Cease & Desist letter within a few days of the ROM coming out. C&Ds have been sent to ROM makers before for just adjusting functionality in Google apps for the better. Imagine the wrath if you turned off security feature.

 

[pc747]

Really vzw and motorola only care if they need to care. Vzw and motorola knew about roms and they did not really care as long as people were buying phones. They only cared, like Skull one pointed out, when people started breaking phones. Same with pdanet and other tethering apps. Vzw knew abou that and did not care if people tethered sparingly here and there. They only cared when people started using torrents, tethering xboxes, and blowing through 10- 20 gigs a month when the avg heavy user uses 2-5 gigs. As much as I am angry about motorola and verizon cracking down we as users are the problem. People not taking their time and reading and understanding and then thinking they bricked their phone. Its all about money and if 5% of android users, root users, are the group burning through phones and using a bunch of gigs then vzw and motorola is going to want to stop that. If you want motorola and verizon to spend more time and effort improving their network and less time locking our phones and throttling back our data then we as a community need to get wiser in what we do. Do not root your device with out knowing what is going on. Do not use a rom unless you understand what to do and the developer has a good reputation. There is no need to tether constantly because the phone browser work just as good.

 

[Pupalei]

...But by your logic, Oscar Meyer shouldn't recall tainted meat because hey, that meat is on the market and if you buy it it's your fault you attain the illness, right?

I don't disagree with this, or with Google's action (or their right to action).

But I was thinking, what if instead of simply removing bad bologna from the market, Oscar Meyer had the ability to come into your home and take it from your fridge without your knowledge?

See, when you bought these wieners, the package clearly stated that they could do this. Did you not read it?

I'm not making a point. I'm just sharing the vision you gave me :icon_eek:

 

[Skull One]

...But by your logic, Oscar Meyer shouldn't recall tainted meat because hey, that meat is on the market and if you buy it it's your fault you attain the illness, right?

I don't disagree with this, or with Google's action (or their right to action).

But I was thinking, what if instead of simply removing bad bologna from the market, Oscar Meyer had the ability to come into your home and take it from your fridge without your knowledge?

See, when you bought these wieners, the package clearly stated that they could do this. Did you not read it?

I'm not making a point. I'm just sharing the vision you gave me :icon_eek:

If it saved my granddaughters life because it was removed before she ate it, I would be all for it.

BTW, locks on a door are for keeping the honest people honest. If someone wants into my house, there isn't jack I can do to stop them.

Oh and I am one of those people that reads everything before I sign it. The title company for my current house couldn't believe I could read everything they had in under an hour.

 

[WallyIAm]

I have to say that I' ve been enjoying this thread. There's been honest debate with little sniping, and I'm learning something. Keep it up y'all.

Sent from my Droid

 

[kodiak799]

If it saved my granddaughters life because it was removed before she ate it, I would be all for it.

That pretty well illustrates the point. Some people just have what seems to be an irrational level of distrust and concern for their privacy. It's very much in your interest to have that protection, and one could argue it's almost irresponsible for a corporation not to provide you such protection. As mentioned, there's a sort of "consumer contract" that a good company understands and embraces not to do harm, even unintentionally for benevolent reasons.

You make trade-offs. I think it's a bit dangerous to go it alone against any and all threats. I don't know anyone that wouldn't want a cop to act if he sees your house burning or a thief breaking in while you sleep, so I don't understand the distinction here. At the end of the day, if you have problem with this then I don't know why you're on "the grid" in the first place, much less on the internet.

 

[AngryHatter]

So the OP'll never buy a car with onstar...because GM has backdoor access.

:wacko:

Cops can shut your car off while you are driving and you're worried about a backdoor in your phone?

 

[kodiak799]

Cops can shut your car off while you are driving and you're worried about a backdoor in your phone?

But what if they use the backdoor in your phone to shut off your car? Ponder that!

 

[B.E.McAllister]

Once again it's all in your view. If a criminal or someone under the influence was driving crazy on the same highway as my family, shut that car down!



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[B.E.McAllister]

Oh in your phone. Lol, that's good. Sorry reread after I posted.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[tearlach2]

Ok, I have thought about this some more. Talked with some folks at the office about it 3 out of 3 android users in my very unofficial poll did not understand this functionality was agreed to by them. Take that as you may only one of them was running a rom, tranQ.

Do you support google doing this on wifi only tablets? How about if ms did it for apps on their rumored tablets? How about if ms did it for windows? Let's say evil ms makes a marketplace for apps for windows. What if ms said they can come into your system and delete apps, but only because its a security issue and we are too stupid to know any better. Id be surprised if everyone on this forum wouldn't get mad about that and its exactly the same thing google is doing right now.
Also I don't work for google or own any stock.

 

[kodiak799]

You might have a point if they were deleting benevolent and useful apps. But that's not the case here. I understand the view, but it's mostly complaining about a boogeyman that doesn't exist. I suspect you would find a much higher percentage of consumers would be upset if Google/MS DIDN'T provide a convenient and transparent solution as opposed to doing nothing.