portrait

Quirks in Tech

An informal space where I think about the oddities of technology, politics, and privacy. Also some other stuff.

Showing 31 posts tagged mobiles

Cellular contract competition in Canada. It’s incredible that the major cellcos all raised their rates over the same weekend. 

Source.

Mar 17, 2014

"At its core, respecting the user means that, when designing or deploying an information system, the individual’s privacy rights and interests are accommodated right from the outset. User-centricity means putting the interests, needs, and expectations of people first, not those of the organization or its staff. This is key to delivering the next generation of retail experience because empowering people to play active roles in the management of their personal data helps to mitigate abuses and misuses. To this end, Aislelabs provides an opt out site that allows individuals to choose not to have their retail traffic data included in any anonymous analytics."

Quotation from “Building Privacy into Mobile Location Analytics (MLS) Through Privacy by Design" (.pdf)

It’s incredibly that any company - let alone a Canadian Privacy Commissioner - would claim that an opt-out mechanism for hidden and secretive tracking technologies (i.e. monitoring your mobile devices as you walk through the world so retailers can better sell you things) constitutes “putting the interests, needs, and expectations of people first, not those of the organization or its staff.” For such an assertion to be valid the ‘people’ should be given the opportunity to opt-in, not out, of a surveillance system that few will know about and fewer will understand. There are vast bodies of academic and industry literatures which show opt-out mechanisms generally do not work; they’re not effectively centralized and they add considerable levels of friction that hinder consumers’ abilities to express their actual interests. And that’s just fine for many retailers and analytics companies because they’re concerned with turning people into walking piggy banks, not with thinking of individuals as deserving any semblance of a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Mar 14, 2014

The Painful Process of Updating Android

Android fragmentation is a very real problem; not only does it hinder software developers’ abilities to build and sell apps but, also, raises security issues. In a recent report from Open Signal, we learn that 34.1% of Android users are using the 2.3.3–2.3.7 version of Android, whereas just 37.9% of users using 4.x versions of the operating system, most of whom are themselves using a years-old version of Android. In effect, an incredibly large number of Android users are using very outdated versions of their mobile phone’s operating systems.

It’s easy to blame this versioning problem on the carriers. It’s even easier to blame the issue on the manufacturers. And both parties deserve blame. But perhaps not just for the reasons that they’re (rightly!) often crucified for: I want to suggest that the prevalence of 2.3.x devices in consumers’ hands might have as much to do with consumers not knowing how to update their devices, as it does with updates simply not being provided by carriers and manufacturers in the first place.

Earlier this month I spent some time with ‘normal’ gadget users: my family. One family member had a Samsung Galaxy S2…which was still using version 2.x of the Android operating system. Since February 2013, an operating system update has been available for the phone that would bring it up to Android version 4.1.2, but my family member neither knew or cared that it was available.

They didn’t know about the update because they had received no explicit notice that an update was available, or at least didn’t recall being notified. To be clear, they hadn’t updated the phone even once since purchasing the device about two years ago, and there have been a series of updates to the operating system since purchase time.

The family member also didn’t care about there being an update, because they only used the phone for basic functions (e.g. texting, voice calls, the odd game, social networking). They’re not a gadget monkey and so didn’t know about any of the new functions incorporated into the updated Android operating system. And, while they appreciate some of the new functionality (e.g. Google Now) they wouldn’t have updated the device unless I had been there.

A key reason for having not updated their phone was the absolute non-clarity in how they were supposed to engage in this task: special software had to be downloaded from Samsung to be installed on their computer,[1] and then wouldn’t run because the phone’s battery had possess at least a 50% charge,[2] and then it took about 3 hours because the phone couldn’t be updated to the most recent version of Android in one fell swoop. Oh, and there were a series of times when it wasn’t clear that the phone was even updating because the update notices were so challenging to understand that they could have been written in cipher-text.

Regardless of whether it was Rogers’, Samsung’s, Google’s, or the tooth fairy’s fault, it was incredibly painful to update the Android device. Painful to the point that there’s no reason why most people would know about the update process, and little reason for non-devoted Android users to bother with the hassle of updating if they knew what a pain in the ass it was going to be.

The current state of the Android OS ecosystem is depressing from a security perspective. But in addition to manufacturers and carriers often simply not providing updates, there is a further problem that Android’s OS update mechanisms are incredibly painful to use. Only after the significant security SNAFUs of Windows XP did Microsoft really begin to care about desktop OS security, and Google presently has a decent update mechanism for their own line of Nexus devices. What, exactly, is it going to take for mobile phone manufacturers (e.g. Samsung, HTC) and mobile phone carriers (e.g. Rogers, TELUS) to get their acts together and aggressively start pushing out updates to their subscribers? When are these parties going to ‘get’ that they have a long-term duties and commitments to protect their subscribers and consumers?[3]


  1. In theory there is an over the air update system that should have facilitated a system update in a relatively painless way. Unfortunately, that system didn’t work at all and so Samsung’s software had to be used to receive the updates.  ↩

  2. Really, this made no sense. To update the device it had to be plugged into a computer; why, then, did the phone (which was charging because it was plugged into the computer) need to have a 50%+ charge?  ↩

  3. I actually have a few ideas on this that will, hopefully, start coming to fruition in the coming months, but I’m open to suggestions from the community.  ↩

Jul 30, 2013

Why No Big Wireless Carriers Protect Journalist Phone Records ∞

I love just how direct Chris is these days when speaking with the press about the telcos and their utterly abhorrent practices.

May 16, 2013

Copyright © 2014