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…

    • averyminya@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I will never understand buying a google phone just to deGoogle it. why would you give them money.

      I’ve seen the reasoning, I just …

    • Southern Boy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
        0
        ·
        2 months 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.

        • Chulk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          In my country, it’s the law that a cop is allowed to examine a phone during a traffic stop.

          One underrated feature of the Graphene OS is that you can set a duress PIN that wipes your entire phone when entered.

          • Tazerface@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            25 days ago

            I have the duress pin/password set, the pin is written on a post-it in the case.

            I should clarify, the cop can give the phone a once over but not connect to a machine or clone the phone. Cloning is a bit more involved - legally speaking.

            • Chulk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              24 days ago

              Oh, I was mostly leaving the comment for other people who might be interested in the feature.

              the pin is written on a post-it in the case.

              That’s not a bad idea. If someone steals the phone, they might inadvertently erase it for you if they find that post-it.

  • DavidGarcia@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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.

    • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months 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.

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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.

  • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months 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.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months 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.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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
          0
          ·
          2 months 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.

          • MasterBuilder@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            That only blocks for the browser. What about your apps? I never see add banners or popups in apps as i use adaway. Further, I can customize with well maintained blocklists that include other categories like malware and harvesting sites.

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

              I’m aware, I used to use adaway several years ago.

              I had the same feelings as you, in that I needed to have system-wide ad blocking, but I revaluated that requirement a couple years ago and realised that I don’t use any apps featuring banner ads and such.

              Several of my apps will just fall back to system webview and Firefox (+uBo) will power that too.

  • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    GrapheneOS + buy your phone from a store in-case you’re allergic to PETN