this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
66 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

71502 readers
4768 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gronjo45@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If you ever had IG natively installed on a device, is it possible for that meta pixel script to still be used on your device?

Don’t have an IG account anymore, but makes me wonder what “services” are running in the background on my mobile.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

If you uninstalled the app or disabled it, then it can't run in the background.

makes me wonder what “services” are running in the background on my mobile.

A lot unless it's a degoogled ROM, especially on non-Pixel phones like Samsung, they add a massive amount of background processes.

Not if you're a journalist investigating Sundar Pichai and his anti-competitive and monopolist behaviors

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 8 points 8 hours ago

I’ve been checking out the localhost tracking vulnerability and there’s something I can’t work out: it’s not even a terribly obscure or convoluted exploit, especially Yandex’s implementation that’s been chugging for more than 8 years over basic HTTP. It’s just a glaring sandboxing workaround that’s been exclusive to this OS for more than a decade.

No matter how many ways I look at it, I haven’t come up with a reasonable explanation for how it was ignored, by demonstrably capable engineers, unless Google itself had use for it in the first place. And that fits a pattern of selective competence in information security that they just can’t seem to quit.

In short it’s the data collection backdoors they leave themselves that defeat the otherwise top-tier security of their consumer offerings, and it’s why I’ll probably never trust anything they’ve touched until I’ve taken it apart and put it back together again.

So no, you probably shouldn’t use it. Trusting the privacy or security claims of any adtech company will always be a mistake.

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Most features here let Google scan and evaluate what you do on the web, messages, and apps.

They say it helps security, but of course it assures those features are on letting them suck in more data about the person.

A company like Google doesn't do something out of the kindness of their hearts, they do it for profit

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Some smaller ones can take a hit for doing good. Weird, how greedier you get the more assets you have.

[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I meant that literally every other company is after the money, not only Google or big ones.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Depends on the form of the company. German space, we have GmbH, there's nonprofit too. And some "normal" ones with a social vein.

But as soon as they get trade market, they get money only, usually.

[–] sykaster 2 points 8 hours ago

It's not weird. When a small company does something like this they lose users and it could damage them. Google doesn't care because they know people will use them no matter what.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 59 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

and since Advanced Protection blocks unknown apps, you won’t be able to side-load

Ah, there it is. It's a good decision while they're being repeatedly investigated for being anti-competitive.

[–] seven_phone@lemmy.world 62 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

'Advanced Protection also prevents you from disabling ... Google Play Protect', I feel safer already.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 32 points 20 hours ago

Google Play is the part of Android that is most threatening. On many devices, you can't disable it without ADB trickery. And it delegates permissions to apps in total subversion of the permission system we were allegedly being kept "safe" by.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 27 points 19 hours ago

If it’s made by google, I’m going to go with “probably not.”