Don't send your Google phone in for warranty repair/replacement(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Don't send your Google phone in for warranty repair/replacement
https://twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467192779973398531
153 comments
She said her phone would not turn on or she would've reset the phone before sending it in.
PSA:
You can de-authorize your phone from Google security settings on their website.
(Not that it should be needed. I hope they lock up the guy and his manager for this)
You can de-authorize your phone from Google security settings on their website.
(Not that it should be needed. I hope they lock up the guy and his manager for this)
She stated she tried the remote steps later in the thread.
yeah thread from 3 days ago with other complaint
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404954
Google has the private keys for all firmware, boot ROM, and OS binaries. So they can create a far wider array of “gain access” tools than I’ve seen any thread consider yet.
as of 2018 they claimed you can't use the root signing keys for 'inside attacks'
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/05/insider-at...
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2018/05/insider-at...
my understanding is that apple can't decrypt a user's iphone (though there are 3rd party products that can)
is this not true with google's encryption? how? is there a backdoor feature?
is this not true with google's encryption? how? is there a backdoor feature?
[deleted]
Some relevant information (https://twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467236223550779392):
> someone else reported the same thing happened to them on Reddit recently, using the same RMA for a similar phone at the same Texas facility.
Taking the story as true, it'd seem to be case 1.
Taking the story as not true (case 3.), she's in a professional position where publicity wouldn't hurt.
Her report looks questonable (not necessarily false):
> They deleted Google security notifications in my backup email accounts.
If the accounts were backup, and she's a security-conscious person as she claims in the same post, how did they do that? They were backup, so they couldn't use the main account to reset them. I can think of the accounts being opened in different browsers, but it doesn't seem a very plausible scenario.
> someone else reported the same thing happened to them on Reddit recently, using the same RMA for a similar phone at the same Texas facility.
Taking the story as true, it'd seem to be case 1.
Taking the story as not true (case 3.), she's in a professional position where publicity wouldn't hurt.
Her report looks questonable (not necessarily false):
> They deleted Google security notifications in my backup email accounts.
If the accounts were backup, and she's a security-conscious person as she claims in the same post, how did they do that? They were backup, so they couldn't use the main account to reset them. I can think of the accounts being opened in different browsers, but it doesn't seem a very plausible scenario.
Jane is famous already with two NYT bestsellers. Why should she make up lies for attention?
Really weird to immediately shoot/ad hominem the messenger
Really weird to immediately shoot/ad hominem the messenger
It’s pretty common in the United States for people to default to “is she lying / seeking attention / getting revenge” when women report mistreatment by others, especially when sexuality is involved (as it is here). It’s a rampant and unfortunate gender bias, that is not well understood by many US men or by anyone beyond our borders.
> not well understood by many US men or by anyone beyond our borders.
Is this satire, or did you actually mean to generalize _the entire world_ outside of the US with a statement that is still ostensibly politically controversial today (both in and out of the US)?
Is this satire, or did you actually mean to generalize _the entire world_ outside of the US with a statement that is still ostensibly politically controversial today (both in and out of the US)?
It’s a bit unclear, but I read it as that they thought not many people outside the US is aware of the bias inside the US.
Yep, this, sorry for poor phrasing!
Ahh, as the GP commenter I appreciate your clarification. Sorry for jumping to a less-than-ideal conclusion from your initial comment!
Or, you know, her story just makes absolutely no sense and is clearly non-factual. And if it were real she should be telling her story to a judge, not to Twitter.
The assumption that anything a(n attractive) woman says is true is the real "rampant and unfortunate gender bias", to be honest. And yet somehow they never seem to be penalized even when they admit filing false reports, defamation, etc.
The assumption that anything a(n attractive) woman says is true is the real "rampant and unfortunate gender bias", to be honest. And yet somehow they never seem to be penalized even when they admit filing false reports, defamation, etc.
Lots of people go into permanent irrelevance after a NYT bestseller.
lol. Because people aren't always rational. And what does the NYT or her fame have to do with it? Anyone can lie at any time. And accusing someone of lying isn't ad hominem.
believe the victim until there is proof they made it up.
victims making up stories in which they are the victim are exceedingly rare, in reality.
victims making up stories in which they are the victim are exceedingly rare, in reality.
> victims making up stories in which they are the victim are exceedingly rare, in reality.
Not in my experience working retail/hospitality jobs. And lots of people crave attention. I see no reason to give either party more credence than the other absent evidence.
Not in my experience working retail/hospitality jobs. And lots of people crave attention. I see no reason to give either party more credence than the other absent evidence.
But consider how many people shop. It's pretty likely that the number of people running retail scams is a small percentage. Doesn't make them any less soul-sucking to deal with, but that's not really the same thing.
Why is it relevant how many people shop?
It seems to me the relevant metric is false positives and false negatives.
It seems to me the relevant metric is false positives and false negatives.
Eh, ok fair. I was thinking like, percentage of consumers with legitimate complaints vs those with scams. I think that's relevant to the overarching discussion of "believe victims", but I agree at the complaint department the common denominator doesn't matter.
It's clear you have never heard of "innocent until proven guilty", so I'll explain it to you. You're actually supposed to believe the person accused until they've been proven guilty.
Victims making up stories in which they are the victim is INCREDIBLY COMMON.
Victims making up stories in which they are the victim is INCREDIBLY COMMON.
>Really weird to immediately shoot/ad hominem the messenger
They said "If true, it's probably reason 1. If not true, here's a reasonable motivation." Hardly immediately shooting the messenger, more answering questions asked
They said "If true, it's probably reason 1. If not true, here's a reasonable motivation." Hardly immediately shooting the messenger, more answering questions asked
Maybe she had multiple email accounts setup on the phone?
I know I do!
I know I do!
Yup, the only place my backup account is logged into is.. my phone. Whoops.
Yeah I've got three, one for family/friends, one for work/contracts, one for everything else (mostly signups)
"backup" could mean the main account...where the phone data is "backed up".
Off topic: is it just me or is Twitter becoming much more hostile to users who aren’t logged in? I can’t click anything (mobile safari) without being nagged by a modal to sign up/log in.
[deleted]
I lost my Google account because of this and no one at Google wants to take accountability for it.
Even as a Google One client.
I'm afraid of what's going to happen to it because it has my social security attached to it's payment profile (business Profile too)
You lost your Google account by sending your phone in for repairs?
As a Pixel user who has sent their device in for repair, how does the repair tech get past the device authentication and into the device? (I'm assuming the user had a device password/passcode set). If possible, this seems like a glaring security issue for Pixel users.
Has Google at any time ever asked a user for their password to do a repair? I remember a physical Apple Store (real, Apple Inc., in California) asking me for my password for a laptop hardware repair. They were OK with my declining to do so.
When I sent my pixel in for repair, I was required to remove my PIN.
"somehow" they turned off the lock screen requirement. I'm thinking they guessed the lockscreen gesture, perhaps it was weak or there were finger marks on the screen.
[deleted]
They don't have a password.
Her phone was protected with a passcode. Please do not spread misinformation https://twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467222753799393281
According to the Google support site, all Pixels are encrypted by default. So, this shouldn't even be possible...unless perhaps there was no lock code on the device?
Google has the keys to the kingdom.
Do you have a source for that? I didn't think the phone's encryption key or password was backed up to Google. The help pages say that if you forgot your PIN, you should reset your phone.[1][2]
Of course Drive and Photos files are in Google servers and aren't E2E encrypted, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
Full disclosure I work at Google but on nothing related to this.
[1] https://support.google.com/android/answer/7663172?hl=en
[2] https://www.techlicious.com/tip/what-to-do-if-you-forget-you...
Of course Drive and Photos files are in Google servers and aren't E2E encrypted, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
Full disclosure I work at Google but on nothing related to this.
[1] https://support.google.com/android/answer/7663172?hl=en
[2] https://www.techlicious.com/tip/what-to-do-if-you-forget-you...
Maybe, but they don’t give them for average repairman.
No they don't. The encryption keys are stored on the Titan M. It has tamper protection.
The Twitter user most likely has an easy to guess password.
The Twitter user most likely has an easy to guess password.
If a tech tries a random 4 digit passphrase on every device they work on, they are bound to get it right occasionally.
If something common/unimaginative like 4444 or 1111, I bet it would be something like 1 in 10.
Pattern unlock. Incredibly insecure.
I think out in the real world they are insecure because it's easy to shoulder-surf and get a peek at the pattern being input. Overall they are probably similar to pin codes... some people just have 0000 as their pins, or draw an L for a pattern.
Sending a phone in for repair negates the shoulder-surf issue but yeah.
Perhaps Google just has a backdoor.
Sending a phone in for repair negates the shoulder-surf issue but yeah.
Perhaps Google just has a backdoor.
I think it's easy to guess patterns because people all use one of a small number of simple patterns. Everyone uses the geometrical equivalent of hunter2 or 123456, but they irrationally think it's more secure because it's a pattern.
Why?
1. Easy to view & remember.
2. The oil smear is visible in reflected light, and that pattern is not quickly overwritten by using the device.
3. Typical gesture patterns mean gestures start from similar positions (high) and are frequently unoriginal.
4. Gestures are simpler than the equivalent code (e.g. the passcodes 1397 and 1235987 are gesturally identical)
5. In practice the reality of finger sizes mean that join-the-dots encourages users to draw a gesture using only adjacent dots (e.g. connecting dot 1 to 2, 4 or 5, rather than 1 to 6 or 8.)
probably because there are a few "popular" patterns that many people use.
How do you get a notification for what picture was viewed?
I don't see any Google account setting for that.
That kind of makes me doubt this report, at the very least part of it.
That kind of makes me doubt this report, at the very least part of it.
Did she say she got a notification for what picture she viewed? She said "activity logs", which I'm not sure exactly what she means, but it might mean [1] which shows files that have been recently viewed.
Full disclosure, I work at Google but not on anything related to this.
[1] https://drive.google.com/drive/recent
Full disclosure, I work at Google but not on anything related to this.
[1] https://drive.google.com/drive/recent
IIRC you get a notification the first time someone views a photo (or maybe for any specific photo?) in a shared album. Maybe the Googler or Googlercontractor was dumb enough to share the album with himself for later perusal?
Hmm. I wonder how this person got notifications even though their phone was offline to avoid being wiped. I also wonder why this person got notifications. Most services don't send you notifications just because you used a device which is already logged in.
Complete and total duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404954 and again with absolutely no evidence even though there are apparently tons of evidence left by this person doing this with absolutely no cuation (security notifications left in trash etc).
Complete and total duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404954 and again with absolutely no evidence even though there are apparently tons of evidence left by this person doing this with absolutely no cuation (security notifications left in trash etc).
> The hacker changed my gmail settings to mark all security messages from Google as spam
The fact that this is possible is a weakness in itself.
Google security messages should be signed and treated differently by the client & server
The fact that this is possible is a weakness in itself.
Google security messages should be signed and treated differently by the client & server
Although I have no love for Google, claims like this that lack proof or evidence ought to be viewed with great skepticism.
I see no reason to doubt her story. When someone says "something bad happened to me" then "I don't think it did, prove it" is quite rude in my opinion.
On the other hand, I also see no direct connection to Google. The victim also said in the comment chain:
> also to be clear I have been on Google support and Pixel support dozens of time all week BEFORE the hack happened, asking them to investigate why my phone marked delivered by FedEx 'disappeared' at the warehouse. At any time someone could have offered me any security advice?!
This could just as easily be a delivery driver or warehouse worker stealing the phone and putting fake info on the website. I don't think Google's workers would be dumb enough to do this to their customers' phones, my suspicion is that it went wrong somewhere in the supply chain.
Either way, Google is responsible for their warranty and return policy. If the delivery driver stole her phone or if someone broke into the delivery warehouse, that's on Google picking bad logistics partners. If the repair company Google partners with is doing this, the problem is with Google. If someone over at Google itself is doing this than that's an even bigger problem.
Either way, I hope the victim can get the help she needs and that Google finds the problem and prevents it from happening to anyone else. Not that I have high hopes for Google's support team taking this seriously…
On the other hand, I also see no direct connection to Google. The victim also said in the comment chain:
> also to be clear I have been on Google support and Pixel support dozens of time all week BEFORE the hack happened, asking them to investigate why my phone marked delivered by FedEx 'disappeared' at the warehouse. At any time someone could have offered me any security advice?!
This could just as easily be a delivery driver or warehouse worker stealing the phone and putting fake info on the website. I don't think Google's workers would be dumb enough to do this to their customers' phones, my suspicion is that it went wrong somewhere in the supply chain.
Either way, Google is responsible for their warranty and return policy. If the delivery driver stole her phone or if someone broke into the delivery warehouse, that's on Google picking bad logistics partners. If the repair company Google partners with is doing this, the problem is with Google. If someone over at Google itself is doing this than that's an even bigger problem.
Either way, I hope the victim can get the help she needs and that Google finds the problem and prevents it from happening to anyone else. Not that I have high hopes for Google's support team taking this seriously…
To be clear, I'm not accusing the poster of being a liar. But remember that companies are made of people, and it's not fair to accuse them of doing something nefarious, or perhaps even criminal, without at least a modicum of evidence. Social media is a powerful tool for generating both influence and motivation; we are not well-served by stirring up angry mobs over naked accusations, especially over something that might even be a misunderstanding.
I'm willing to disambiguate between a company and its employees provided that the company identifies the employee by name, gives an appropriate punishment, and puts into place practices to mitigate damage in the future.
Until they do, the company is represented by its employee. The 'corporate veil' works both ways after all.
Until they do, the company is represented by its employee. The 'corporate veil' works both ways after all.
Even after identification the company still bears responsibility, given individuals act within processes and controls established by the company. If these are not sufficient (and that’s a very small if in the presence of faults) then the company is as culpable as the employee and is definitely the one who is culpable as far as the customer is concerned. The employee responsibility is for the company itself to pursue in a different process to making its customer whole.
Companies tries to do many thing to hide crimes and its not the first time. Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook. And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues?
Source? All I could find was:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/06/apple-pays-m...
> The tech giant agreed a settlement with the 21-year-old after two employees at a repair facility uploaded the images from a phone she had sent to Apple to be fixed, resulting in “severe emotional distress”.
> The incident emerged during a legal dispute between Pegatron, which had reimbursed Apple for the settlement, and its insurers, which in turn refused to foot the bill. Apple was not directly named in the lawsuit, and was referred to simply as a “customer” throughout, in an effort to keep the matter confidential.
> And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues?
Because there is plenty of wrong information, whether misinformation or disinformation, flying around the internet.
Perhaps even in your comment, when you claimed
> Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/06/apple-pays-m...
> The tech giant agreed a settlement with the 21-year-old after two employees at a repair facility uploaded the images from a phone she had sent to Apple to be fixed, resulting in “severe emotional distress”.
> The incident emerged during a legal dispute between Pegatron, which had reimbursed Apple for the settlement, and its insurers, which in turn refused to foot the bill. Apple was not directly named in the lawsuit, and was referred to simply as a “customer” throughout, in an effort to keep the matter confidential.
> And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues?
Because there is plenty of wrong information, whether misinformation or disinformation, flying around the internet.
Perhaps even in your comment, when you claimed
> Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522560/apple-repair-mult...
> Apple paid an unknown multimillion-dollar sum to a woman after iPhone repair technicians uploaded nude photos from her phone to Facebook. The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name, and Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge.
I think this will suffice. I read it and the verge seems to be legit thing to trust.
> Apple paid an unknown multimillion-dollar sum to a woman after iPhone repair technicians uploaded nude photos from her phone to Facebook. The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name, and Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge.
I think this will suffice. I read it and the verge seems to be legit thing to trust.
Did you even read my comment? I linked directly to the telegraph article that the Verge sources from.
And you wrote that Apple paid the technicians who uploaded the woman’s media to Facebook, when that is not written anywhere.
To summarize
1: you ask otterley why they would need a modicum of evidence to believe something
2: in the same comment, you post misinformation or disinformation
3: you are presented with a request for the source of the erroneous information you posted. You are also presented with a source regarding the same incident that portrays a different sequence of events.
4: you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed.
5: this is why otterley says you need a modicum of evidence
And you wrote that Apple paid the technicians who uploaded the woman’s media to Facebook, when that is not written anywhere.
To summarize
1: you ask otterley why they would need a modicum of evidence to believe something
2: in the same comment, you post misinformation or disinformation
3: you are presented with a request for the source of the erroneous information you posted. You are also presented with a source regarding the same incident that portrays a different sequence of events.
4: you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed.
5: this is why otterley says you need a modicum of evidence
Ok, first of all you said its a misinformation and disinformation and I provided the verge link where they says exactly "Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge." And now you are saying "you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed." Yes it links back but it also mentions they have confirmed it with apple.
You are intentionally trying to summarize in a way that favors you tbh . Also i trust verge over some random people on internet trying to say its misinformation or disinformation. And regarding the first one I already mentioned the fedex thing.
You are intentionally trying to summarize in a way that favors you tbh . Also i trust verge over some random people on internet trying to say its misinformation or disinformation. And regarding the first one I already mentioned the fedex thing.
1. You claimed "Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook."
2. You are asked to substantiate above claim.
3. You could not (your verge link says no such thing), so you simply chose not to address the misinformation or disinformation that you posted.
A simple "I was incorrect about my recollection of this event" would have sufficed.
2. You are asked to substantiate above claim.
3. You could not (your verge link says no such thing), so you simply chose not to address the misinformation or disinformation that you posted.
A simple "I was incorrect about my recollection of this event" would have sufficed.
I am trying to be honest.
1. "Apple paid millions after iPhone repair techs posted a customer’s nude photos to Facebook"
2. "The incident became public because Pegatron reimbursed Apple for the settlement, then sued its own insurance provider for refusing to cover the payment."
3. " The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name"
4. Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge.
Doesn't this imply
Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
Ok, by 4 it is confirmed that the source (Telegraph) you have mentioned is correct right? Yes I am holding a premise that the verge is legit source. By 1 they paid millions and their tech posted a customer's nude photo on facebook. I said they hided the statement because of 2.
Where did I go wrong. I love to be corrected tho.
1. "Apple paid millions after iPhone repair techs posted a customer’s nude photos to Facebook"
2. "The incident became public because Pegatron reimbursed Apple for the settlement, then sued its own insurance provider for refusing to cover the payment."
3. " The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name"
4. Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge.
Doesn't this imply
Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
Ok, by 4 it is confirmed that the source (Telegraph) you have mentioned is correct right? Yes I am holding a premise that the verge is legit source. By 1 they paid millions and their tech posted a customer's nude photo on facebook. I said they hided the statement because of 2.
Where did I go wrong. I love to be corrected tho.
>Where did I go wrong.
You continue to keep claiming Apple paid millions to the technicians who uploaded someone's nude photos to Facebook.
Both the Telegraph and Verge articles state Apple paid millions to the woman whose photos were uploaded to Facebook.
You continue to keep claiming Apple paid millions to the technicians who uploaded someone's nude photos to Facebook.
Both the Telegraph and Verge articles state Apple paid millions to the woman whose photos were uploaded to Facebook.
Thanks. I am sorry and I take my words back but this is what I wanted to say:
Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions when their own tech posted a customer's nude on Facebook
And due to two 'when' I corrected second 'when' to 'to'. And I probably messed it up after that :).
The statement you mentioned on last line is what I wanted to say.
Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions when their own tech posted a customer's nude on Facebook
And due to two 'when' I corrected second 'when' to 'to'. And I probably messed it up after that :).
The statement you mentioned on last line is what I wanted to say.
If your phone disappears after being delivered to the warehouse, what evidence would you like to see? There’s precious little you can show/do. Maybe a screenshot of an online delivery receipt?
Google is reasonable for a break-in at a FedEx warehouse? you cannot be serious
Don’t forget the story of our previous cybersecurity lead of the nation, Rudy Giuliani, that posted a link by mistake by not having a space after a period and g-20.In became a link and someone bought the domain and Rudy blamed Twitter employees for sabotage.
If you follow the types of anecdotes posted on reddit of the trials and tribulations of Fi users seeking customer support for device replacement, empty phone shipments, etc., this report comes as absolutely no surprise. They are contracting out all these customer-facing services to the lowest bidder, in typical Google style.
But when you contract it out to the lowest bidder you get less careful background checking and less monitoring for abuse.
Sure, but that's not malfeasance or criminal trespass; that's just bad service.
The parent never said "criminal" charges against Google.
Thats not just bad service. If the third party is an official agent of Google, then Google can be liable (monetary penalties). Now, proving that in practice is a question for the civil courts.
Now, if I was looking for a new Android device and I saw all these reports, I would definitely think twice before purchasing a Google Pixel.
Thats not just bad service. If the third party is an official agent of Google, then Google can be liable (monetary penalties). Now, proving that in practice is a question for the civil courts.
Now, if I was looking for a new Android device and I saw all these reports, I would definitely think twice before purchasing a Google Pixel.
Generally clever people don't lie about this kind of stuff: they have too much to lose and do not want the notoriety and libel case that would follow.
All claims deserve to be followed up - and should this be false then the person will get what's coming to them.
This problem with repairs appears to happen frequently enough to not be discounted off the cuff.
All claims deserve to be followed up - and should this be false then the person will get what's coming to them.
This problem with repairs appears to happen frequently enough to not be discounted off the cuff.
People lie about this kind of stuff all the time. Every day. And no, there's usually no penalty for it because proving that something didn't happen is even more difficult than proving that something did happen. And even when the person freely admits that they lied there's still usually no penalty.
> and should this be false then the person will get what's coming to them.
How?
How?
If it’s a lie, it’s defamation (libel).
I cannot remember the last time someone got prosecuted or sued for libel for falsely accusing a business of something. It happens numerous times every day. I would be willing to bet nothing happens to this person if their claim turns out to be false.
You can't remember, therefore it doesn't happen.
Magical thinking there.
Magical thinking there.
I know that the US has a very high bar for defamation claims. It is common knowledge that you can make things up in yelp reviews or twitter or wherever with no big consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
Please provide evidence of it happening on a regular basis.
It's important to question the validity of it at the same time taking it seriously.
I found odd that the victim is talking about class action lawsuit and accussing a man of "mansplaining" her (it could just have been a woman saying it). This is just toxic twitter behavior that takes innocuous comments from people and putting it in the bin of sexism, racism, or something that is accusatory in nature to gain a false sense of moral superiority over others.
I found odd that the victim is talking about class action lawsuit and accussing a man of "mansplaining" her (it could just have been a woman saying it). This is just toxic twitter behavior that takes innocuous comments from people and putting it in the bin of sexism, racism, or something that is accusatory in nature to gain a false sense of moral superiority over others.
The exact comment was "Or maybe reset your phone before giving it to others (for any purpose)?"
If my phone was account was hacked and someone said this to me directly, I would take it as a personal shot.
Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
If my phone was account was hacked and someone said this to me directly, I would take it as a personal shot.
Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
> "Or maybe reset your phone before giving it to others (for any purpose)?"
Yeah that's not a nice thing to say as well. But I don't sense any sexist aspect in there. Personal shots can be ignored instead of adding more fuel to the fire.
> Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
I don't think I was, just pointing out a couple of odd aspects of people going off on Twitter without proof. I did say we should take this seriously but also expect hard proof to back up their claims.
Yeah that's not a nice thing to say as well. But I don't sense any sexist aspect in there. Personal shots can be ignored instead of adding more fuel to the fire.
> Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
I don't think I was, just pointing out a couple of odd aspects of people going off on Twitter without proof. I did say we should take this seriously but also expect hard proof to back up their claims.
I believe tweets like this gets put on Twitter for several reasons:
1) Victim receives unsatisfactory response from Google (or no meaningful response from Google which I have personally experienced). They seek public attention to get Google to acknowledge the issue.
ie. The victim followed the official steps for remotely wiping the phone (as it would not turn on) but appears that didn't work. https://mobile.twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467242719273631...
2) They are seeking public attention/support. They may be looking for others with similar experiences that might help.
Helpful responses include steps they can take to protect themselves right now.
3) Smear Google - We can wait and see but I do not see an indication of this at this time.
1) Victim receives unsatisfactory response from Google (or no meaningful response from Google which I have personally experienced). They seek public attention to get Google to acknowledge the issue.
ie. The victim followed the official steps for remotely wiping the phone (as it would not turn on) but appears that didn't work. https://mobile.twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467242719273631...
2) They are seeking public attention/support. They may be looking for others with similar experiences that might help.
Helpful responses include steps they can take to protect themselves right now.
3) Smear Google - We can wait and see but I do not see an indication of this at this time.
I did notice some victim-blaming, which isn't right. But I do think that if you're going to accuse someone of serious malfeasance that might be a criminal act, a little more than a naked accusatory Tweet thread is needed.
[deleted]
Yeah, I'm kind of tired of the “mansplaining” cop out. I've been "mansplained" before many times, and I'm a man. It's usually just someone who likes to bloviate to other humans regardless of their sex.
Mansplaining is still a useful term, and no longer just refers to the original man-explaining-to-woman scenario. A woman can also mansplain, but that’s often called “womensplaining”. The truth is that most of the time it’s still a man doing it, and their target is most often a woman, so it’s still worth calling out in those situations.
How about abandoning the toxic word all together. It's insane to me that we are so fixated on our identities.
The word isn’t toxic, the behaviour is toxic. It’s easy to say “let’s not fixate on identities” when your particular identity doesn’t lead to other people treating you worse.
If you're offended by someone on Twitter, I recommend getting some help. There might be mental health problems regarding low self-esteem.
It sounds to me like the real story here is how someone was able to access a Pixel that was turned off.
Buried in the thread if it was Google Inc.:
> yes it was the official Pixel warehouse, arranged directly by Google support.
> yes it was the official Pixel warehouse, arranged directly by Google support.
Unless someone wants to leak internal information, there is no such thing in either case, as far as we know. These services are almost certainly contracted to third parties.
So? If google arranged that on their behalf, its google's responsibility. Doesn't matter who they subcontract or delegate to.
That’s still offical google as far as I’m concerned. It’s under the control of google. The customer went through google.
I would think different if they took it to some mall phone repair stall.
I would think different if they took it to some mall phone repair stall.
More useful takeaway is to have a secure password on your phone. Repair techs aren't able to do anything that a pickpocket couldn't...
Doesn't Google allow devices to be de-authorised from an account via a web client? https://myaccount.google.com/device-activity
Given I don't have much experience with the Google ecosystem, how does one know which photos were accessed?
(Not calling her account into question, just curious)
(Not calling her account into question, just curious)
They tell you to factory reset the phone before you send it in.
She replied to someone saying this that the device wouldn't turn on. If that's true, how did they use her phone to break into her gmail?
She sent the phone in to be fixed. Obviously they fixed the phone?
Right but after a reboot, all the data is encrypted until you enter your password
Sure, and then they made sure it couldn't connect so that it didn't wipe itself, but somehow it still connected to send security alerts to her and manipulate her Gmail account.
Stop making excuses for her. Take a moment to think critically. It's a heaping steaming pile of obvious bullshit.
Stop making excuses for her. Take a moment to think critically. It's a heaping steaming pile of obvious bullshit.
She explains this very clearly: https://mobile.twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467242719273631...
This feels way too coincident with her recent book release.
Given her already public figure persona and proceeds from prior works, why EVER take the risk to ship such personal hardware to a 3rd party?!!
Just get a new phone and sync a back-up…unless it just might be beneficial PR to, apparently, do the “risky” thing and carp about it.
So far, I see ZERO corroborating evidence—even something as simple as a suitably redacted screenshot of an email to Google support.
Trust, but verify & extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Given her already public figure persona and proceeds from prior works, why EVER take the risk to ship such personal hardware to a 3rd party?!!
Just get a new phone and sync a back-up…unless it just might be beneficial PR to, apparently, do the “risky” thing and carp about it.
So far, I see ZERO corroborating evidence—even something as simple as a suitably redacted screenshot of an email to Google support.
Trust, but verify & extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Really? Your first reaction is that she must be making it up? This is hardly a far fetched scenario. I’m guessing she didn’t bother posting screenshots because most people wouldn’t automatically assume she is lying.
Yes. Given the timing of things (why even make this public?), the low likelihood of the event, and crucially the lack of any evidence, I see the preponderance of the probabilities weighing against her claims.
Why not make it public? That’s often what leads to action being taken. I don’t see any reason to believe there’s a low likelyhood of the event occuring. And she’s not making a legal case, it’s just a tweet. The lack of evidence in her tweets does not mean there’s an actual lack of evidence.
Please review the stated history of events—-it IS extremely unlikely.
She is making a case in the court of public opinion.
Granted she has more clout than the “average joe” (and the very fact that this is even being discussed is evidence for it) but ANY case without corroborating evidence is just hearsay.
She should “put up or shut-up” and the levels of “put” required are so minimal that her PR credibility before the “court” on this matter has a very short half-life.
She is making a case in the court of public opinion.
Granted she has more clout than the “average joe” (and the very fact that this is even being discussed is evidence for it) but ANY case without corroborating evidence is just hearsay.
She should “put up or shut-up” and the levels of “put” required are so minimal that her PR credibility before the “court” on this matter has a very short half-life.
> Granted she has more clout than the “average joe” (and the very fact that this is even being discussed is evidence for it) but ANY case without corroborating evidence is just hearsay.
An anonymous poster on reddit had a similar issue a few days ago [0]. Their comment got 331 points on HN while this one got 257 points so far. The anonymous one got more points.
Is it possible you're wrong about this aspect?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29443645
An anonymous poster on reddit had a similar issue a few days ago [0]. Their comment got 331 points on HN while this one got 257 points so far. The anonymous one got more points.
Is it possible you're wrong about this aspect?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29443645
Indeed, she did copy this story directly from an anonymous poster on Reddit, other than making up some details that don't even make sense given the rest of her story. And yet people still believe her.
If there's one thing Google has down-pat, it's their mobile device security. I know that might sound silly, but it's true. I don't trust Google as a company overall, but the Pixel devices outshine any other when it comes to device security, hardware keystores, etc.
Interesting to see you get the causality potentially wrong. I take it that because of the book perhaps the author felt emboldened to share their story -- which they otherwise might be pressured to hide. Do you see how that might be a possibility?
What if your thesis was "I expect to only see reports of sexism from people with clout because they're the only ones that can actually tell the truth without getting their lives ruined?"
Can you see that this thesis is a possibility?
What if your thesis was "I expect to only see reports of sexism from people with clout because they're the only ones that can actually tell the truth without getting their lives ruined?"
Can you see that this thesis is a possibility?
I dont have a phone because I have enough trouble keeping my life private from the govt, let alone anyone else in society. Its bad enough science stole my privacy!
I find phones amusing because of all the trouble and strife they bring.
There are pro's and cons for phones, I get it, but should I be that accessible to anyone who can dial the right number combination or use a war dialler?
I find phones amusing because of all the trouble and strife they bring.
There are pro's and cons for phones, I get it, but should I be that accessible to anyone who can dial the right number combination or use a war dialler?
This comment fits in just as well with a phone from the 1870s as a phone from the 2020s. I can just imagine someone saying this about the neighbors' party line.
Next time something bad happens to you, please post about it here so we can say how amusing it is that you exist. Do you see how condescending this is? Billions of people use smartphones.
Phones can be quite secure if you take the time to secure them.
I've had NSO like activity on my phone, I've had hacking on my phone since the 90's. So what I have learnt with the law is, firstly it generally needs evidence although there are some rare situations where accusations are enough. Even when you have evidence, this can still generally be removed or the police prevented from seeing it.
Another problem with phones is you cant control when they drop from 3G or 4G back to 2G which then makes it easy to capture the conversation from the air and do a replay attack. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/your-phone-vulnerable-...
External influences, control when your phone drops down to 2G and I have not seen any phone manufacturer put in an option to terminate calls and prevent calls being made on 2G. Things like the PinePhone and Librem are missing a trick.
The other problem with technology is the sheer number of options or inability to access and modify in order to make secure. Whether we like it or not, our lives are in the hands of others.
I gave up a long time ago when I realised how many legal ways there are to kill people. Its quite clever really but some institutions have had hundreds of years to perfect their dark arts.
Another problem with phones is you cant control when they drop from 3G or 4G back to 2G which then makes it easy to capture the conversation from the air and do a replay attack. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/your-phone-vulnerable-...
External influences, control when your phone drops down to 2G and I have not seen any phone manufacturer put in an option to terminate calls and prevent calls being made on 2G. Things like the PinePhone and Librem are missing a trick.
The other problem with technology is the sheer number of options or inability to access and modify in order to make secure. Whether we like it or not, our lives are in the hands of others.
I gave up a long time ago when I realised how many legal ways there are to kill people. Its quite clever really but some institutions have had hundreds of years to perfect their dark arts.
Well, this should be common knowlwdge: don' t keep personal data on devices.
I too remember using a rotary telephone.
loll yea we’ll all get right on that
This is actually a lot more sane than you might think, and quite doable. There's no reason any critical data needs to reside on your phone, you can have it all on a different computer or cloud or somewhere safe.
Seeing the fact that every government, company, and criminal seem(s) to be highly motivated to exfiltrate data from your phone, perhaps it's one of the less safe places to store PII/critical data in the first place. (And that's before considering that it's highly portable and can simply be lost. )
If the critical data isn't on your phone in the first place, then you can't lose it.
But since your phone has network access, and as long as you have a decent data plan, your data need only be one tap away anyway.
Seeing the fact that every government, company, and criminal seem(s) to be highly motivated to exfiltrate data from your phone, perhaps it's one of the less safe places to store PII/critical data in the first place. (And that's before considering that it's highly portable and can simply be lost. )
If the critical data isn't on your phone in the first place, then you can't lose it.
But since your phone has network access, and as long as you have a decent data plan, your data need only be one tap away anyway.
You don’t use email on your phone?
[deleted]
Not having personal data to begin with should be common knowledge.
are you serious? What do you think a phone is for, just phone calls?
Portable network access device. ;-)
But the article says that the cred from the phone were used to access dropbox, so the phone should only be used while logged out, clearly.
scrolling memes
- standard 'loveint' at support depts (many companies with personal data have stories about abusing system access to look at personal info of SO / randos)
- illicit group operating within or adjacent to goog doing some kind of espionage or ransom model
- google-haters inventing or amplifying a pattern of behavior? (but with what motivation)
- not obvious if the phones are passwordless, or if insiders are using a 'universal unlock' feature to decrypt pixel devices -- if the latter, is that a bigger story than the stalking?
if this is only happening to passwordless phones, still an abuse of trust, but I'm okay with 'don't send passwordless phone to support' as a consumer best practice.