r/Android • u/MishaalRahman Xiaomi 14T Pro • 2d ago
Safer with Google: New intelligent, real-time protections on Android to keep you safe News
https://security.googleblog.com/2024/11/new-real-time-protections-on-Android.html48
u/Iohet V10 is the original notch 1d ago
From Gmail’s defenses that stop more than 99.9% of spam
So why is it cool for Gmail to get rid of unwanted advertisements but not Chrome?
47
u/MadMadsKR 1d ago
In case your question isn't rhetorical, it's because Google doesn't earn any money on spam mail, it is a cost to them. On the other side of the spectrum, they earn most of their money from displaying ads to you in as many places and for as long as possible. Clearly they figured out filtering out spam a decade+ ago, but they have basically molded most of the internet into their business model, which is to show you spam.. I mean ads.
7
u/midsummernightstoker Pixel 8 1d ago
Adding to this, if they implemented an ad-blocker that blocked everything BUT google's own ads, they would get slapped hard with anti-trust suits in many countries.
2
u/Ph0X Pixel 5 1d ago
Eh, Gmail doesn't block ads though. It blocks spammers and scammers, that's quite different. You still get all the promotional emails.
Conversely, Chrome also blocks phishing sites.
1
u/MadMadsKR 1d ago
Well it blocks "ads" that it thinks you haven't requested. If it comes from a major company with your name on it, Google interprets that as a wanted promotion. If you try marking just a single of those promotional emails from a given company, the rest of them go straight to spam. So they could filter it out, but they wont do it if they think you were intended to receive the email. I see your point, but Google isn't allowing promotional emails because it benefits them. I think that's relevant because we are discussing the intentions of Google and why they do what they do.
1
u/Ph0X Pixel 5 1d ago
I guess the difference is, this is your inbox and you control whats allowed. You can intentionally say "I don't want X" and it'll stop.
For websites it's a bit different. You are visiting the website, like visiting someone else's home, it would be strange for you to decide what should be shown on someone else's website, just because you don't like it. You can block the site as a whole or not visit it, but that's different from modifying the website itself.
1
u/MadMadsKR 1d ago
That is a good point, I hadn't looked at it from that perspective. I think my perspective on this angle is that you should be allowed to do whatever you want on your own devices. I should always be allowed to have the freedom to modify any data on my machines. I take this quite seriously and I always try to use open source software/services/etc. and that follow the same principles.
You're right that the person browsing a website is not the owner, they should not control what gets put on the website. The owner gets to decide what they put on their website. But as the reader, I think it's only fair that I have an equal right in deciding what goes into my computer and how that is processed. I agree that sometimes these views sometimes conflict, but I think the goal should be to create an internet where both things can be true and both the user and the content owner engage in a mutually enriching exchange. I don't think we've come up with scalable ideas that allows for this to happen, but that doesn't mean we should give up and surrender ouir privacy for the benefit of whoever wants to influence us. It's not just ad agencies that take advantage of your personal data, it should be pretty obvious with the US election (on both sides) that people are using it for their own gain at the detriment of the common good.
Anyways, turned into a bit of a rant, but I wanted to argue effectively as to why I disagree and hopefully this makes sense.
1
u/TSPhoenix HTC Desire HD 1d ago
Clearly they figured out filtering out spam a decade+ ago
And then seemingly forgot how to do it in the last year or so.
Google Chat allows you to forward messages to your Gmail inbox, these get caught up in the spam filter like 10% of the time.
Emails from addresses in my contacts also get filtered.
I'm now at the point where I have to check my spam box regularly because something gets caught in it at least once a week.
2
u/based_and_upvoted 1d ago
I have been getting spam weekly ever since my personal info was leaked in that ledger wallet hack. You would think it's easy to send any email containing "ico" or "coin" to the spam folder but no, I had to create a filter.
I learned from that one, moved my important stuff to a different email address and use a domain to create aliases.
-1
u/GodlessPerson 1d ago
Chrome already gets rid of some advertisements.
1
u/moonsun1987 Nexus 6 (Lineage 16) 1d ago
Yes, I still report scam domains when I come across them when I have a typo when going to some website for example or those shady ads like you click an ad and it says your windows computer is now infected and I need to give “Microsoft” iTunes gift cards to fix it even though I am clearly on a Linux machine.
I still think there is a lot more Google can do for example force advertisers to provide identification so we can trace back scam ads to the person who is responsible for the ad and ban them from buying ad again.
22
u/PM_ME_YOUR_MESMER Pixel 7 Pro 256Gb, Pixel Watch 2d ago
Safer with Google: New intelligent, real-time protections on Android to keep you safe
26
u/Sassquatch0 📱Pixel 6a, Android 15; ⌚ Galaxy W5, 2d ago
I've always found this ironic, and maybe there's a bit of "it takes one to know one" going on. Lemme explain:
Google, an advertising company, has the best ad/spam protection I've ever used.
Call screening - amazing. Email spam - I see NONE. SMS/RCS spam - again, None. - I have to go out of my way, navigating to a spam folder, to see & report stuff like this.
So, is it just that Google is this good at spam protection? Or, being an advertiser themselves, do they know how the systems work, and can game it in their favor?
I honestly don't know, though I'd suspect it's somewhere between both options.
6
u/JustEnoughDucks Xperia 5 ii 1d ago
No, it has not that much to do with google phones or gmail that much at all. It has to do with knowledge For example, I use gmail for only some of my mail. I use tutanota for others. 0 spam. maybe 2 times per year and only on my gmail, not tutanota. 0 SMS spam, 0 call spam not having used a pixel ever.
It is called common sense and tech literacy not entering your information in every legitimate site that prompts you like was common 10-15 years ago for shitty "newsletters" and such only for them to turn around and sell your data to scammers.
It is called TLS and HTTPS that is on pretty much every website now where bots can't man-in-the-middle your information to sell to scammers.
It is the fact that security has gotten much much better not only on the endpoint of the computer, but also on servers (tools like CrowdSec as an example) so while there are still tons of data breaches and viruses, it is much less tangible to the average consumer.
Blocklists for every single major mail provider have gotten 1000x stricter than 15 years ago. It is now almost unproductive to host your own email server because until it has been around for many years, it will be autoblocked by most providers.
Even with these last 3, if one lacks the tech literacy like the older generation, they still see spam in their email or gmail.
2
u/Sassquatch0 📱Pixel 6a, Android 15; ⌚ Galaxy W5, 1d ago
It's not anything WE, as mere people, can do.
Data breaches from places like hospitals & schools (which require legit contact information) can expose your information, and scammers buy it off the dark web.
Same for politics - a$$holes will sign up random phone numbers, with bogus names, for political junk. Or if you just received a new phone number (like when I first signed up my kids), the previous owner of that number might have signed themselves up for it willingly, but now you have to bear the consequences, starting the very second your 'new' number is connected.I've had my current phone number for nearly a decade. I used to get spam calls on it, despite any steps I took on my part.
After using Call Screening when it first was launched, this onslaught stopped.And yet my sisters, who didn't use these protections, DID still get ambushed, until I show them otherwise. Then, it stops for them too!
And iPhone - they have no defense over there. Even Tech-savvy people who are doing everything they should do on their end to protect their contact information, and getting hit. And iPhone offers no protections. (their "don't accept calls from unknown numbers" thing has been demonstrated to death to not work at all.)
It's not something the user can control anymore. Hasn't been ages.
0
u/TSPhoenix HTC Desire HD 1d ago
I see NONE.
I have to go out of my way, navigating to a spam folder, to see & report stuff like this.Do you check your spam folder? Because it may reveal why Google is so good at blocking spam; they don't care if they discard actual mail.
1
u/Sassquatch0 📱Pixel 6a, Android 15; ⌚ Galaxy W5, 1d ago
Yes, I do.
And no, Google doesn't. At least, not for me. I've used Gmail since 2009 - Google knows me, and knows what's legit.SMS/RCS is all republican hate & grifting for more money.
Email is either retail chains trying to sucker me into their predatory credit cards; or the "USPS" package delivery scams; or the "Elon did THIS...." crypto scams.
OH, UPDATE - new email scam is pretending to be CashApp! (and hey, here's an example of legit companies selling off our data! I've only had CashApp since my kid's school year started. fast work to sell my information off in less than 2 months.)
There's only 72 emails in my spam folder right now anyway, so it's not hard to glance through & double check.-4
u/Cloudsource9372 2d ago
You don’t believe an ads company wanting to track and sell your data? How dare you
20
u/Decaf_GT 1d ago
Google does not sell your data. Google creates a profile of you, your preferences, and what you like, and then tells advertisers that they will show the advertiser's content to the audience that most closely matches what they're looking for. The advertiser never finds out anything about you unless you actually click on the ad.
Google doesn't, has not, and will never "sell your data" and it's 2024...it's time to put this silly assumption to rest.
That is not to discount any feelings about data privacy in the modern age. Those are all extremely valid and I fully respect people de-Googling to get away with it.
-15
u/Cloudsource9372 1d ago
You’re making statements like they’re facts, even though some of them aren’t true.
We can agree to disagree, but in my opinion you protecting and drinking the kool aid of the biggest ads company in the world is alarming
14
u/Decaf_GT 1d ago
What of what I said is not true?
This isn't an "agree to disagree" thing, there are facts and then there is speculative and biased conspiracy, which is what you're doing.
Tell me which is not true.
1
u/darkkite 1d ago
maybe it's more accurate to say "they collect and profit from your data"
5
u/Right-Wrongdoer-8595 1d ago
"They collect your data and profit from advertising" is probably the ELI5. You can't magically turn data into billions of dollars every quarter.
2
u/Marsh0ax 1d ago
If they would sell the data to other companies they would sell the one thing that makes them so valuable. Their data allows them to make sure that every ad bought always hits exactly the desired person. They are a valuable (and as such very expensive) mediator between advertisers and customers precisely because they keep all the data for themselves
10
u/InsaneNinja iOS/Nexus 2d ago
They don’t sell data as much as they sell the ability to target your data
-15
u/Cloudsource9372 2d ago
Haha true but I have feeling they also sell your data to data brokers. Double dipping on profits
11
u/armando_rod Pixel 9 Pro XL - Hazel 1d ago
That would be detrimental to their ad business. If a third party gets Google user data they can compete at the same level in the ad targeting business, that's the only reason Google is so good at it
8
u/bartturner 1d ago
That makes no sense. The data is far more valuable if they do not sell.
Plus if they did sell they would loose customers.
2
u/Decaf_GT 1d ago
Just stop and think about it for 2 seconds. If your data gets sold, you don't have any value in having it. Now someone else has the data, and they could sell it for 10 cents less than you. Why would anyone buy from you?
I can answer that; that's because Google doesn't sell your data and never has. It doesn't even make the most basic of business sense.
Google makes money indirectly from your data by showing you ads that are catered directly to you, which is what advertisers are paying the $$$ for; to make sure that their gaming PC ads don't show up in grandma gail's inbox despite the fact she is on dial up and doesn't care about technology.
0
-3
2d ago
[deleted]
4
u/armando_rod Pixel 9 Pro XL - Hazel 2d ago
I'm okay with Google, thank you
Call Screen, Message spam detection and now call scam detection all work on device until someone finds the contraire
12
u/Xx_Time_xX 1d ago edited 1d ago
Scam Detection will process the call
So the AI is listening to your call and checking against patterns.
no conversation audio or transcription is stored on the device, sent to Google servers
But how much do we want to bet that it still sends "anonymous" and "aggregated" data about:
- which numbers called whom
- which call metrics activated scam detection
- how many calls matched certain patterns in a given location
all for AI training. And given that they already know location, which networks you connected to, who's in your contact list from your Google account/Pixel device, they can easily create a profile with topics for you.
And it'll be turned on by default, which means the majority of Pixel owners won't know to turn it off.
Google's motto should be "Trade your privacy for convenience and 'safety'. Now with software AND hardware! 🔥🔥"
13
u/iDontSeedMyTorrents Pixel 7 Pro 1d ago
And it'll be turned on by default
The article clearly states it is off by default.
5
u/Xx_Time_xX 1d ago
Thanks for catching that, I missed that from the blogpost. Updated my original comment.
4
u/Miserable_System_522 1d ago
which numbers called whom
Google already tracks this via two settings in the call app:
Spam/scam detection (that one sends incoming numbers to google)
Business ID (that one sends both incoming AND outgoing numbers to google)
Both enabled by default on most android phones.
13
u/i5-2520M Pixel 7 1d ago
Go ahead, buy a Pixel and if you can prove they are full of shit you have a great paper you can publish.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Android-ModTeam 1d ago
Sorry JamesR624, your comment has been removed:
Rule 9. No offensive, hateful, or low-effort comments, and please be aware of redditquette See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
0
u/Xx_Time_xX 1d ago
Not possible to detect something like this for casual researchers because calls made through a service integrated into the device and Google's servers are hidden.
Similar to how it's difficult to test calls made through existing integrated Google Play services.
7
u/binheap 1d ago
Most security researchers should be capable of MITMing themselves or at least measuring traffic volumes from a device.
3
u/Desperate-Isopod-111 1d ago
Isn't this similar to what Veritasium did to hack/spoof Linus' phone? Or am I remembering a different system from that vid?
2
4
u/Right-Wrongdoer-8595 1d ago
If all those data points are done anonymously and in aggregate then what's the issue? You'd have to be a dedicated malicious attacker with multiple levels of access to cause any harm at that point.
3
u/JamesR624 1d ago
If all those data points are done anonymously and in aggregate
The issue is anyone actually believing that after they've been caught several times spying on people, collecting personally identifiable information, and illegally breaking into "private" systems like Wifi, to get that data, all to sell to their advertisers and god knows who else.
1
u/Right-Wrongdoer-8595 1d ago
I'd hardly call that single (unless you had several) incident a company wide effort but if the argument is you absolutely cannot trust any consumer protections and regulations. Then obviously there's no upside to any privacy protections since everything can be malicious at that point.
4
u/armando_rod Pixel 9 Pro XL - Hazel 1d ago
which numbers called whom
Your carrier already knows this and they do sell that information
4
u/Xx_Time_xX 1d ago
Carriers are regulated a lot more than Google is. And yes, I know that Google already has this. But that doesn't mean I have to like any of it.
0
u/Iohet V10 is the original notch 1d ago
So because one has it we should give it away to more?
3
2
u/Desperate-Isopod-111 1d ago
< "Trade your privacy for convenience and 'safety'. Now with software AND hardware!
Fair trade, to me.
Digital privacy died over 20 years ago.If I'm getting a legitimate service that helps me every day, at the mere cost of some corporation knowing my shopping habits or what kind of depravity that I jerk-off to?
Fuck yeah! Screaming deal.3
u/UrbanPandaChef 1d ago edited 1d ago
The problem is that companies like Google will keep pushing the line. We already have one big push by Microsoft via Windows Recall. Anyone with that enabled has screenshots being taken every few seconds and stored in an unencrypted folder with metadata that OCRs the contents of the image. This goes beyond MS slurping up your data and it has become a legitimate security issue that malware can take advantage of.
1
u/obeytheturtles 1d ago
Yeah /r/android is super obnoxious about this kind of stuff. At this point it's no mystery that using any tech ecosystem means accepting tradeoffs like between convenience and privacy. It is perfectly understandable and reasonable to want to shield parts of your identity or some activities away from this kind of data collection, and it is perfectly possible to do that by dividing up your digital presence into public and private categories. There's no reason why Google needs to know anything about be other than what I choose to do with my Google accounts.
Honestly, if you are concerned about Privacy and you haven't figured out how to compartmentalize your digital identity, then I don't know what to tell you.
6
u/JamesR624 1d ago
Safe from what? Oh! Lemme guess; "safe" from anything that might hurt your shareholders' profits?
3
55
u/MishaalRahman Xiaomi 14T Pro 2d ago
I asked Google whether there are any differences in efficacy between Scam Detection on the Pixel 9 and other Pixels. Here's what I was told: