Yet another reminder to install as few apps as possible. I know it can be a little trite, but I do mean it earnestly. People say they care about privacy, but then they install applications which collect this sort of data. Not using the AirBnB app hardly counts as a hardship.
This is why I will use iOS, all my location services for apps are set to “while using the app” and I can uncheck precise location or outright block locations on a per app basis. Never going back to android!
iOS led the way on these privacy features if I recall someone correct me if I’m wrong, Android implemented them after apple forced the industry to expect a focus on privacy.
Why would google be incentivized to collect less data of their users that can be monetized and profile them if no laws compelled them?
It’s their default mode of operation and I’ve been a hardcore android user since I laid my hands on an android G1, through G2 and then onto the Nexus and Pixel “vanilla” android lines.
I feel like privacy on Android can be summed up as “no we wouldn’t spy on you! Trust us, wink wink. Oh hey, we turned on location tracking across all your google accounts and web activity, and maps, and gmail, and drive, and search… yeah it’s to improve your product experience, yeah… BTW you must agree to these terms to save places in google maps!”
> iOS led the way on these privacy features if I recall someone correct me if I’m wrong, Android implemented them after apple forced the industry to expect a focus on privacy.
At least iOS implemented the user facing interface first and AOSP/Google might have only implemented it because iOS did (we cannot know, but I wouldn't be surprised). However technically the API was already there and was usable by external permission managers long before iOS exposed users to it.
> Why would google be incentivized to collect less data of their users that can be monetized and profile them if no laws compelled them?
NOBUS. It also applies here, since Google's Services are installed in /system it has access to everything and other apps have to go through the hoops that Google can avoid.
> I feel like privacy on Android can be summed up as “no we wouldn’t spy on you! Trust us, wink wink. Oh hey, we turned on location tracking across all your google accounts and web activity, and maps, and gmail, and drive, and search… yeah it’s to improve your product experience, yeah… BTW you must agree to these terms to save places in google maps!”
It's not a big secret that Google is collecting data. Don't use Google products if you can help it. However what happens on Android with Google Apps preinstalled (basically every Stock experience) while using other apps/sites is more of a problem in my opinion.
There where ways to have all of this long before either normal Android or iOS had it.
By rooting your phone you could setup combinations of special firewall, and GPS spoofing rules. Which is more privacy preserving then forbidding GPS in some situations.
All with Apps setting things up for you with reasonable UX.
This is a good example why closed eco systems (Apple) or semi-closed eco systems (Google,1) are a problem.
(1): Many essential Apps stop working on de-googled or even "just" rooted Android phones, so it's still semi-closed wrt. this aspects.
> There where ways to have all of this long before either normal Android or iOS had it.
Do you mean something like PDroid or XPrivacy? Yeah that was indeed pretty awesome, however these already used underlying APIs that were the precursor to permission management. If I recall correctly the first inofficial permission manager was in AOSP Android 4.3 (Jelly Bean). It was however not that useful compared to the alternatives and also hard to access if at all.
As a sidenote: PDroid is still my gold standard. It was annoying to install, but it worked really well.
> iOS led the way on these privacy features if I recall someone correct me if I’m wrong, Android implemented them after apple forced the industry to expect a focus on privacy.
> Why would google be incentivized to collect less data of their users that can be monetized and profile them if no laws compelled them?
Doesn't your first paragraph answer your second?
Btw, I found it much easier to install an ad-blocker for web browsing on Android (in Firefox) than in iOS. Since browser extensions are a big no-no in iOS, I think?
> Why would google be incentivized to collect less data of their users that can be monetized and profile them if no laws compelled them?
Google has a natural incentive to do the same thing even if Apple never existed. This is about third parties being able to collect your location data, which diminishes the value of that data to Google.
On my Android 12 phone, there is a switch to turn off the Precise Location, but every single app refuses to run with it disabled. Canon PRINT app, for example (WTF!).
Bluetooth scanning is gated behind location permission(s).
Though AFAIK communicating with an already-paired device and deferring to the OS for scanning/choosing a device to pair with doesn't require the location permission.
Importantly as well, turning off precise location does not prevent that data from going to Google -- it merely prevents it from going to 3rd party applications.
So, if iOS and Android both completely block Airbnb from actually using gps tracking… this is a complete non-issue it sounds like. I know iOS will auto block location services for any newly installed app, and I assume android does the same. So, someone would have to knowingly and manually give permission for Airbnb to track them. If someone wants to do that, that is up to them.
I run a tech company and have not used any proprietary apps in several years, not had a cell carrier in well over a year, and a few months ago I ditched my phone entirely.
These incremental weaning steps taught me you can live in the modern world comfortably without subscribing to app culture.
Restaurants dig out paper menus for me, banks find alternative ways to verify me, etc. There always exists a sometimes undocumented path to engage with most entities with a webapp and without a cell phone carrier, though I do have a VoIP number which I can use from a laptop or DECT phones.
Life without a smartphone and apps works pretty much just like it did in the 90s . The privacy and mental health wins are huge. My mind feels like mine again.
Mostly same here. I have a newer phone, but only use it mainly for text messages and the occasional phone call. The only additional apps I have on it are K-9 Mail and ConnectBot (for ssh), both via F-Droid. I don't have a google account on this phone, so the google app store doesn't work, so I only use F-Droid.
> I run a tech company and have not used any proprietary apps in
several years, not had a cell carrier in well over a year, and a few
months ago I ditched my phone entirely.
Same here. I'm a "high functioning" :) tech person who ditched my
smartphone years ago now. I get more done. More focus. Vastly better
relationships with business partners, family and kids. I learn more,
retain more, think about things more clearly.
It was my involvement directly in smartphone tech around 2012-16
(during which Snowden happened) that flipped my switch.
Recently I've been looking at the psychological evidence around what
these systems of smartphones, "always-on living" and social networks
do to our brains and, as a fairly conservative scientist, I find it
terrifying.
I really think you'd have to be mad to carry a smartphone at present.
Not any more ... I've been to restaurants with no paper menu and no way to pay except online. I was not willing to do it but my friend was so rather than forcing him to leave I let him order and pay and then vowed to never go there again
How do you travel anywhere, book a flight, hotel or rental car, navigate anywhere, or even get a list of local restaurants? (and when you say 'no proprietary apps', does that include Google Maps?)
Wow, I'm honestly really interested to know your age. I'm Gen X, and easily thought "He runs a tech company, so I'm assuming he knows how to use a (desktop/laptop) computer". All of those things can very easily be accomplished on a laptop, and furthermore, since you're not just going to pick it out of your pocket and randomly start scrolling, those actions are usually much more intentional when done on a computer.
But that doesn't work when traveling. Are you going to carry your laptop with you all day to check for nearby restaurants (unless your plans are perfect and you know for sure how long will each thing take and you can plan where exactly to eat)? How do you even find a café or whatever with wifi when you're in an unknown place? And you never ever change any plan based on new information? I just spent a month in Sri Lanka, and mobile internet was extremely useful multiple times per day ( compare restaurants in the current location, find the nearest bus stop because you're tired and don't want to walk anymore, check how much X should cost because maybe someone will try to scam you, etc etc).
Sometimes I will look up interesting restaurants in advance. Sometimes I just wander and walk into somewhere at random. Ratings are over-rated. I found my new favorite Sushi restaurant, Elephant Sushi, in SF just going for a walk around lunch time.
As for finding Wifi, it is incredibly rare I go to any restaurant or coffee shop I randomly see who does not have wifi.
As for checking pricing... If I think something is over priced I take a note to look it up online later. No need to be in a rush to spend money.
I used to make the same excuses but I encourage you to leave your phone at home long enough for the withdrawl symptoms to wear off and enjoy the self confidence to know you can navigate the modern world with your own brain even if you choose to go back to a phone. Consider it wilderness survival training.
You just plan ahead. Take 15 minutes at the start of your day and plan your day and route. You don't have to stick to the plan, it just gives you a baseline. Experimenting is nice as well. Maybe your favorite restaurant would not have been recommended by an app?
No plan survives first contact with the enemy. That baseline can change dramatically due to unforseen circumstances ( museum was boring so you quit early/very interesting so you spent much more time there/closed; transportation took much longer/shorter than expected, etc.).
As for experimenting, it depends on where you're travelling. I wouldn't want to experiment in a third world country without reading online comments and reviews.
You keep bringing up Sri Lanka as the justification for a smart phone. The reality is you can just walk around a central district and choose a restaurant based on its appearance, convenience, location, or posted menu. This is how it was done 15 years ago and earlier. You don’t need to read reviews or it’s opening hours on a smart phone. If you’re standing in front of it, you know if it is open. If the food turns out to be bad because you did not read online reviews, so what? Is your trip spoiled or did you just make a memory about shitty food in a Sri Lankan square? If the food is good, did you just discover a “hidden gem”?
I’m sure you’ll post a reply that explains some outlier reason for a smartphone: what if I’m in rural Bangladesh and there’s no central square? What if….
But think how people got through these difficulties before smartphones. A lot more experimentation and reaching out to locals. This is why portable language phrase books used to be so popular when traveling.
No, I'm giving examples where your life is made easier by having a smartphone, based on my very recent experiences. They're also very practical in daily life (i can pay with one, share my location with my SO for easier coordination, etc)
Not every city has a central square, not everything you want to see might be within reach of one, not all restaurants are there, and of course all restaurants there can be tourist traps.
I don't need to think about how people struggled with things that are easy to today besides for the fun/novelty of it. While we're at it, exchanging money, carrying around and paying in cash suck. It was slightly less bad because i could look up the locations of ATMs of banks that don't charge you an extra fee for being a tourist on the spot.
> If the food turns out to be bad because you did not read online reviews, so what? Is your trip spoiled or did you just make a memory about shitty food in a Sri Lankan square
Considering how bad "bad" can get, that memory can involve a trip to the hospital ( food poisoning, parasites, etc.).
Do you think locals need a phone constantly to navigate? To avoid bad food? They operate on information cached in their brains and that is transferable. Ask a hotel attendant or a shop owner checking you out for any local restaurants they like or where the nearest X is.
His approach is a great example of how these devices have affected IRL interaction. They’ve significantly reduced them. Whether that’s good bad or neutral, who knows?
I read tons of comments and reviews -before- I travel to a new area and take note of multiple destinations that might be worth checking out.
Thieves target people who are distracted so they can run by and grab a wallet before you see them coming. Scammers and sales people target people who look lost.
When you take the time to learn the things you want to do in advance and where they are you can walk alert, tall, and confident without your head buried in a phone during precious vacation time. This body language wards off many predators be they human or animal.
Again, I'm just really interested to know your age, because it's fascinating to me that many people see living without a smartphone as nigh impossible. I mean, the whole world figured out how to do it just 15 years ago!
First of all, I'm not saying a smartphone isn't useful, but I'm saying it's not that hard to get by without one if you want to "take back control" of your brain. To your examples, you could simply plan ahead, or (shocking I know) ask people in the street.
Again, the while world got by without a smartphone just a short while ago, it's not that hard.
I'm not saying it's hard or impossible, just extremely impractical. It'd be like insisting on walking for long distances when you can take a horse or train.
> or (shocking I know) ask people in the street.
Try that in a country like Sri Lanka and at best you'll get scammed by paying a commission for the reference.
Planning only gets you so far. You can't predict everything ( for instance I've had a museum that turned out to be closed, and another one that turned out to be in a really dodgy part of town recently).
As for my age, I'm what Americans who believe in that crap call a millennial, but I'm from Eastern Europe, didn't get my first phone until well into highschool, and my first smartphone slightly less than 10 years ago ( so I've spent more than half my life without a smartphone).
Sri Lankan here. I'm not sure why you have the impression that asking a random person on the street for directions will result in your being scammed. That's certainly not the culture here. In fact, the many foreign friends I've hosted over the years tell me that your average Sri Lankan will go out of their way to help a foreigner—no fees, compensation, or other inducements needed.
You do want be wary of anyone who starts a conversation with you (as opposed to your starting the conversation with them). And yes, if you're in a "touristy" area, you do have a significantly higher chance of meeting someone aiming to rip you off. But these are true of essentially every country in the world—not just Sri Lanka.
Probably bad luck, or more likely, your being in a tourist hotspot.
Putting ethical and moral values aside, your average person on the street (in say, Colombo, or any other "normal" area) has no interest in (or potential gain from) directing anyone towards a scam.
Maybe it's gotten worse due to the current economic crisis, or maybe it was just really bad luck, but multiple people we asked for help/directions tried to scam us ( by saying there's this amazing ceremony happening now and you have to take a tuktuk to get you there quickly, and waving to a seemingly random one from those passing on the street).
I have encountered hustlers countless times and never been scammed. Have a hard rule to never follow strangers. Take generously offered information and go your own way. Be careful of anyone being -too- friendly. The more time you spend interacting with strangers the sooner you start to learn how to spot a hustle from a mile away.
Most people are happy to help point someone in the right direction and maybe offer a tip or two. Tips from locals often reveal great chill spots to explore in a city that the tourist sites have not directed the masses at yet.
You misunderstood. I never said I'm unable to do those things without proprietary apps, or a smartphone. I meant mainly if I'm traveling away from home base (esp. in a city I don't know), and/or not at a desk (e.g. in subway/bus/train/walking). I'm perfectly aware how to research stuff on desktop/laptop and in advance. If I was traveling by myself, or everyone I planned to meet was like you (had a deterministic workday and schedule, and always planned days/weeks in advance), then yes (most people stopped behaving like that in the early 2000s, IME; people are flaky, people have unpredictable workloads). Otherwise, I am saying if the challenge is "find a decent [Vietnamese] restaurant in [price category] near [some subway stop/intersection in NYC, a city I'm not familiar with], text me the location and I'll meet you there in 45 minutes", and you're not seated at a computer, then you'll find a phone indispensable. Yes, I could choose to not associate with 80% of people I know, or try to get them to fit in with my schedule.
- you're touching on underlying cultural expectations: fluidity of people's schedules and movements, which in turn is governed by work-life fluidity, unpredictable work, stuff coming up etc.
- I never said I can't navigate without a smartphone or GPS, or offline map. (I actually navigate very well without GPS and I do that most of the time).
- rideshare companies have made it near-impossible to use them without a smartphone (yes I'm aware there are very heavily restricted ways to use them without).
- 2021 was particularly bad for unpredictability; many businesses temporarily closed, almost all had changed their opening hours and days or indoor/outdoor seating hours/arrangements, some refuse to take reservations esp. for outdoor seating, almost all of them changed their menus and many jacked up the prices invalidating existing reviews, etc. etc. Most of my friends are temporarily/permanently WFH, which means they don't know these local changes, esp. the ones with kids hardly ever emerge from their house. For example, evening maintenance and service changes on the NYC MTA meant it became seriously non-deterministic starting 7pm and worse after 9pm. Also, it became seriously dangerous after 11pm, esp. in unmonitored stations. (Carrying around a laptop in this situation would be risky.) Rideshare prices surged even in low volume hours due to driver shortages.
- as you know during Covid there was an accelerated push towards e-ticketing, boarding passes etc. Covid certs on phone, too. Yes you can partially opt out of that and carry paper versions. But when you need to have a 3-day recent Covid test for airplane, it can be helpful.
Yes, "those actions are usually much more intentional when done on a computer"*, but in order to make this modus operandi work, I'd need to change the habits of the people I meet. The middle-ground is if I'm dealing with a particularly flaky friend I'll say "I'll be at [place] at [time], I have to leave by [time], if you can't make it let me know in advance". If people flake out several times, I communicate my displeasure.
If you haven't tried navigating using a GPS-enabled smartphone, you should. It's super-convenient compared to trying to do that with a website on your computer.
If you have not tried navigating by simply learning your environment or jotting down some notes in advance, you should. Being able to walk confidently knowing where you are going wards off predators.
Besides GPS units literally atrophy cognitive functions which is probably not healthy...
I do carry a GPS enabled smartphone with OSMand~. I use maps, but I hardly ever turn on GPS. It just feels like cheating and crippling my skills to navigate. No difference whether in nature or in cities.
Actually I prefer paper maps, they have better usability for many use cases.
These specifically I will go out of my way to not do on my phone. It feels claustrophobic not having a full-size screen and multiple windows open to compare.
I'm a frequent traveler, and for all of these tasks my laptop is 100x better. Why would I want to do anything serious on my phone?
vs:
large screen (so you can see more info, have more windows open to compare)
keyboard/mouse interface instead of tapping (faster, doesn't take screen space)
easy to save documents in a common folder which
super-convenient tools for creating my own consistent file-names and directory structure
auto-back-ups for compliance/filing.
The phone has only one advantage-- you usually have it with you.
Which government do you mean, or for what purpose?
The examples I can think of are:
- Covid apps, which makes sense because you can't quite do contact tracing using a website and people would trust some corporation less than a government. They're completely optional and it's temporary. The download count is less than a third of the population where I live (and I got it on both of my mobile devices so... extrapolate from there).
- Germany uses a proprietary app that requires Google/Apple services as replacement for emergency broadcasts. (In NL this is also being moved to mobile, but using broadcast SMS so not a special app.) Not sure if there are any official goals in terms of install rate, but nobody expects near 100% and it's not compulsory in any way. I'm honestly not quite sure what their goal is because I'd guess the install rate so far is a few percent and it's not being promoted at all.
A lot has to be done digitally, ask any grandma in the Netherlands what hoops she jumps through or has her kids do for her, but every time something new comes up, there is a lot of talk about keeping things accessible. Very few things are mobile-only (these "requires time-sensitive notifications" type apps mentioned above are the only ones I can think of), and only slightly more things don't have an offline fallback. So far, of course. I expect that we'll move more towards digital with (by 2050) a few help stations for the people stuck in the 2010s, but (de facto) compulsory closed source software that needs to be running on a body-worn device? Given the amount of discussion already surrounding the optional open source covid apps... I don't see that happening too soon in democratic countries.
There are hopes, especially in the wake of system overloads and the recent floods demanding very good reach for evacuation orders (beyond what could ever be expected without cell broadcast), that Germany will move to cell broadcast as the medium for critical warning message distribution. It's the only one that has no sclability issues and reaches basically every mobile phone with reception.
The warning app had been dreamed up because it didn't require going to cellular network providers and demanding a way to trigger cell broadcasts.
At worst, it's software-license-gated on the currently-deployed base stations.
> There is a fair number of companies that I trust more than the US government.
Assuming a US jurisdiction and companies with US presence, the trust you can place in a company is a strict subset of the trust you can place in the government.
Remember companies only exist as enabled by various laws and the government can and will use court orders or even NSLs to extract whatever information it wants from the companies.
That’s not entirely true: They cannot extract information that the company doesn’t have, which would often come up if the company was careful to not capture it in the first place.
Sure, but how big is the overlap of that set of companies and the set of companies the US government would pick? It's not really a matter of which you trust more if you're being asked to trust both anyway.
Most Covid certificates can be printed or accessed via a web browser - just screenshot/save that and you're good to go. I did this in the UK though I believe I've only ever had to use it once.
Please see the first sentence of my comment again. Which country, which government? If I may say so, I doubt your word that this is an actual requirement anywhere in the world (let alone commonplace), considering the smartphone incidence among the elderly.
Any decent government allowed you to print the qrcode.
By the way were I live almost everybody has a smartphone but a lot of people just don't even knew where to find the correct app or how to get access to the covid euro passport from the app as a lot of people have been waiting for hours in front of the medical center to get their cert in paper. Many took a picture of it to present it from their smartphone later.
Just because many privately owned apps are bad, does not mean the concept of apps is bad. If the government in theory can offer a "secure" open source channel for me to do my business with them without having to go there or pay for postage, why not use it?
And why do we still believe that paper docs are secure? Someone needs to look at them and can just as easily "lose" them, too.
The problem here is the smartphone ecosystem. If there were merely an "app standard" which I could run even if I did not have a Google or Apple device, that would be fine. But, requiring that I give at least some information to Apple, or even more information to Google in order to use a government service is what I take issue with.
The bigger problem is that this issue is almost entirely artificial. Most apps are merely glorified web pages. Functionally, they could (in most cases) just be websites and function exactly as well.
You almost certainly have the right to mail a paper check for most things. While I tend to have my bank do it for most things it’s absolutely an option in general. I certainly still use check for a lot of purposes in the US.
im not living on the grid, yet i havnt installed a single covid app yet. I do live like i am off the grid, while on it. Have my cake, and eat it to.
Ahh the churn of Investor money. HN likes to have go's at crypto about "Adding value" but im yet to see a long term sustainable unicorn that comes out of its bloodthirsty VC flush stage to long term sustainable numbers, and product...
HINT: Users will GET RID of YOUR PLATFORM as soon as humanly possible the moment you flick the switch and try and make a profit. ATTENTION is CHEAP! there are a thousand other unicorns and VCs looking for pie. You will go out of fashion, you will be replaced.
It's always funny reading the different discussions kicked off by articles here; the privacy/confidentiality-oriented folks are in here talking about the relentless pressure to install apps which rummage around your private life inappropriately.
On the threads kicked off by someone whining about Apple protecting customer privacy from app authors, people rage that Apple should have no power to stop people loading terrible applications just like this.
I am one of those that share both sentiments so I am happy to explain.
It is better all software be democratized or decentralized which makes the responsibility to filter and ignore bad content fall on the individual or community who can maintain block lists all can override or can opt in or out of.
In a dictatorship or centralized technology however the responsibility falls to a central entity that removes all choice from you and even removes the ability to review the code they expect you to agree to run. Almost like making people sign legal agreements without reading them. By design a dictator implies they can and will always make better choices than anyone else. Dictators by design must be -perfect- to evade the due criticism for taking away free choice.
In a world run by software the method of governance for that software is of a similar level of importance as the governance of our countries.
I'm saying that people in general are bad at filtering and ignoring bad content. I have no experience with corporations doing it - I don't have a Facebook account - but I certainly am not pleased with the way journalistic bodies filter for content. I package them separately from general "corporations" because supposedly that would be their specialty. Rather, all I see is agendas being peddled.
Plus if you use DNS ad-blocking you'll find a fair number of apps will not work due to the excessive tracking implemented in a blocking way with key functionality.
The websites though, they work perfectly. What tracking is on them is implemented in a non-blocking way.
I've ditched most apps for shortcuts to Firefox which also has no script installed
Good advice. I recently deleted a lot of apps from my iPhone when I realized that I only used some of them once a year (or less). If they're just local frameworks for account-based services such as AirBnB, keeping the app is like keeping the web page open for 12-18 months in case you need it again soon. Reinstall when needed, log in, and then delete when the need has gone.
My personal strategy is to keep an old phone around that I load up with apps I need. When I’m not using it (which is 99% of the time), it stays powered off (usually with an empty battery) in my closet.
Well, that's a good goal, but even the government expects you to install their apps nowadays. It's impossible to live without a recent smartphone with enough free space.
