On the land we call Australia people in positions of authority
love data collection on the serfs.
Telecommunications ‘authorities’, road ‘authorities’,
financial ‘authorities’, health ‘authorities’, local government authorities oops
sorry they have no real authority where they are just a law making wannabe unconstitutional
business, but that’s another story.
After all living in a colony, penal colony policies apply,
where data collection is used to whip the serfs into place, e.g. limiting of
movement, denial of services and means to earn a living, etc etc.
In Canberra, in the ACT (Australian Criminal’s Territory),
they even want the serfs to wear specific devices chained around their wrists
so that apparently the ruling elite can remain ‘safe’, whatever that means.
In any event the institutions are really slow to act for
the benefit of the serfs.
The ACCC is next to useless on so many ‘lack of action’ scenarios
where the good people are getting screwed over by multinationals, as if it’s a
deliberate lack of action.
Over the seas, in a place that is advertised as the ‘land of
the free’ (that’s another false advertisement) Google has been taken to court
for steathfully using your data (i.e. your money) to spy on you.
See article by the register from 14 Nov 2020 of the title:
New lawsuit: Why do Android phones mysteriously exchange
260MB a month with Google via cellular data when they're not even in use?
Ad giant sued after mobile allowances eaten by hidden transfers
Google on Thursday was sued for allegedly stealing Android users'
cellular data allowances through unapproved, undisclosed transmissions
to the web giant's servers.
The lawsuit, Taylor et al v. Google [PDF],
was filed in a US federal district court in San Jose on behalf of four
plaintiffs based in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin in the hope the case
will be certified by a judge as a class action.
The complaint contends that Google is using
Android users' limited cellular data allowances without permission to
transmit information about those individuals that's unrelated to their
use of Google services.
Data sent over Wi-Fi is not at issue, nor is data
sent over a cellular connection in the absence of Wi-Fi when an Android
user has chosen to use a network-connected application. What concerns
the plaintiffs is data sent to Google's servers that isn't the result of
deliberate interaction with a mobile device – we're talking passive or
background data transfers via cell network, here.
"Google designed and implemented its Android
operating system and apps to extract and transmit large volumes of
information between Plaintiffs’ cellular devices and Google using
Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances," the complaint claims. "Google’s
misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ cellular data allowances through passive
transfers occurs in the background, does not result from Plaintiffs’
direct engagement with Google’s apps and properties on their devices,
and happens without Plaintiffs’ consent."
Android users have to accept four agreements to participate in the
Google ecosystem: Terms of Service; the Privacy Policy; the Managed
Google Play Agreement; and the Google Play Terms of Service. None of
these, the court filing contends, disclose that Google spends users'
cellular data allowances for these background transfers.
To support the allegations, the plaintiff's
counsel tested a new Samsung Galaxy S7 phone running Android, with a
signed-in Google Account and default setting, and found that when left
idle, without a Wi-Fi connection, the phone "sent and received 8.88
MB/day of data, with 94 per cent of those communications occurring
between Google and the device."
The device, stationary, with all apps closed,
transferred data to Google about 16 times an hour, or about 389 times in
24 hours. Assuming even half of that data is outgoing, Google would
receive about 4.4MB per day or 130MB per month in this manner per device
subject to the same test conditions.
Putting worries of what could be in that data to one side, based on an average price of $8 per GB of data in the US,
that 130MB works out to about $1 lost to Google data gathering per
month – if the device is disconnected from Wi-Fi the entire time and
does all its passive transmission over a cellular connection.
An iPhone with Apple's Safari browser open in the
background transmits only about a tenth of that amount to Apple,
according to the complaint.
Much of the transmitted data, it's claimed, are
log files that record network availability, open apps, and operating
system metrics. Google could have delayed transmitting these files until
a Wi-Fi connection was available, but chose instead to spend users'
cell data so it could gather data at all hours.
Vanderbilt University Professor Douglas C. Schmidt performed a similar study in 2018 – except that the Chrome browser was open – and found that Android devices made 900 passive transfers in 24 hours.
Under active use, Android devices transfer about
11.6MB of data to Google servers daily, or 350MB per month, it's
claimed, which is about half the amount transferred by an iPhone.
The complaint charges that Google conducts these undisclosed data
transfers to further its advertising business, sending "tokens" that
identify users for targeted advertising and preload ads that generate revenue even if they're never displayed.
"Users often never view these pre-loaded ads,
even though their cellular data was already consumed to download the ads
from Google," the legal filing claims. "And because these pre-loads can
count as ad impressions, Google is paid for transmitting the ads."
The Register asked Google to respond to the lawsuit's allegations. It declined to comment.
We also asked Marc Goldberg, Chief Revenue Officer at ad analytics biz Method Media Intelligence whether preloaded ads ever get counted as billable events when not shown.
"Yes they could be," Goldberg said in an email to The Register.
"It is important for advertisers to understand their billable event.
What are they paying for? Auction won? Ads Served? Ads rendered? These
simple questions need to be asked and understood."
The lawsuit seeks to recover the fair market
value of the co-opted cellular data and the "reasonable value of the
cellular data used by Google to extract and deliver information that
benefited Google," dating back years to whenever this practice began. ®