No I’m not. He was talking about theirs nags once you’ve logged in but my original point was that you don’t have to log in in the first place.
You first responded to @agger_modspil , it’s his original point that matters. But, whatever… this is just a distraction and I shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place, I suppose.
You even quoted the bit where I agreed the phone number nag is annoying.
That’s beside my point. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this part.
I’ll agree it was silly to remove that feature but it’s partly a choice of usability.
It was an insidious move on Google’s part. You can polish that turd by saying it was partially a “usability” issue, but that doesn’t float.
Google should have made it an optional “advanced” feature with a warning that it may cause some application instability and should only be used by advanced users. That is, until Google gets its shit straight (more on this below).
Google currently has a similar option within its security settings where you can check “Unknown sources - Allow installations of app from sources other then the Play Store”. When you check the option, it displays a warning that says, “Your tablet and personal data are more vulnerable to attack … You agree that you are responsible for any damages… etc”
Google can and should do that in this case.
Then again, if Google really gave a shit about its user’s privacy and security they’d change the way apps work where you’re able to disable overreaching access without causing instability in the first place.
I have apps on my Mac that want to “phone home” and I can block them without any hinderance in stability whatsoever. For apps that require Internet access, I grant specifically what they can and can’t access. Once again, I do this without instability, crashes, etc. Google needs to get on the ball.
Did you not read what the EFF said in that link I provided in my previous post?
Here’s some of their suggestions:
• Android users should be able to disable all collection of trackable identifiers by an app with a single switch, including data like phone numbers, IMEIs, information about the user’s accounts.
• There should be a way to disable an app’s network access entirely. It is clear that a large fraction of apps (including flashlights, wallpapers, UI skins, many games) simply don’t need network access and, as we saw last week, are prone to abuse it.
• The App Ops interface needs to be smoothed out an properly integrated into the main OS user interface, including the Settings->Apps menus and the Play Store. There are numerous ways to make App Ops work for developers. Pick one, and deploy it.
In any case you can do this yourself if you care to using an app called Permissions Denied (requires root).
I’m well aware of those apps. Requiring people to root their devices (which has its own issues) in order to utlilize the previous functionality is ridiculous.
Your polished turd is still a turd. 
You know this isn’t a convincing argument.
You took one statement out of context and tried to convey that as my entire argument. There’s goes that desperate turd polishing again.
Go back and read the rest of the text in my posts in this thread and elsewhere for context.
You don’t even have to give an android device a google login if you don’t want to.
If you think that’s the only way that they track you (statistical analysis, anyone?), then you’re grossly misinformed.
Anyway, most average users are going to tie their email account to their Android tablet or phone for basic functionality and Google removes a lot of basic functionality if you don’t play ball (i.e., unlock pattern requires it, etc., etc.)
Speaking of Google logins. You reminded me of yet another privacy issue that Google has yet to address. The Google backup feature (which requires using a gmail/google+ account) in Android has a major issue. The backup data contains passwords, etc. for app settings you may use along with wifi passwords as well. While Google does claim the data is sent via encrypted packets, they do not store it encrypted. SCREW THAT.
more:
Update: Does NSA know your Wi-Fi password? Android backups may give it to them
The Google spokesperson could not speak to how the data is encrypted in transit, or how the data was secured at rest.
more:
Do you really obey EULAs?
Yes, I do depending on the situation. And, sometimes the EULA is enforced within the code and user options itself whether you like it or not. Also, by breaking the terms of a EULA, you can be at risk of losing data, etc. at the whim of a company.
Do you actually give anyone your real name when you don’t actually have to?
I’m not your average user. I’m not particularly concerned for security experts or other security conscious people who are knowledgeable and properly trained in best security and privacy practices. I’m mostly referring to average people that use Google’s products that aren’t informed experts, etc. - More on this below…
You should also be aware that it’s fairly trivial to determine a person’s real identity even if they don’t provide their name especially on a smartphone, etc.
IRT Picasa: It sounds very shitty but the main question is why are you using Picasa?
As I explained to @newliminted in this post here, that’s beside the point and far from “the main question” that you’re trying to reframe like you tried and failed to reframe @agger_modspil 's points.
No one has to use Picasa.
A poor argument. I already addressed that here within this thread.
You’re not wrong that their stuff is invasive but you are reading these things from the perspective of Google is evil.
I’m reading them at face value and from the perspective of Google’s actual poor track record as I’ve documented repeatedly within this thread and this thread.
Confirmation bias is an amazing thing.
Please stop projecting. Once again, I implore you to actually read my multiple sources within this thread and this thread that show a wealth of evidence that Google is a well-documented, repeated bad actor in regards to user privacy, etc.
I think if you were to read through the EULA of flickr (a yahoo property) you’d find very similar legalese.
Yahoo/flickr isn’t the same, but that’s beside the point.
More Google turd polishing. Please don’t resort to the “other guy’s do it” false argument. That’s a common tactic of right wing conservatives who embrace distracting false equivalencies instead dealing with specific issues. I respect you and I would’ve hoped that sort of tactic was beneath you.
The EULA was just one example of many that’s a part of a distinct pattern for Google.
