Are There Any Smartphones That Respect Privacy?

An anonymous reader writes "After many years I am finally considering entering the smartphone era. Within the mainstream, there seem to be four OS choices: Windows, Android, Blackberry, or iOS: Android comes out as clear winner to me. However, all of the choices in one way or another require sharing a lot of personal information in the Cloud run by their respective corporations. Let alone Blackberry's centralized mail servers; there is no way to have an Android smartphone working decently without sharing all of your contacts, calendar appointments, and other stuff with Google. While Android is less intrusive than iOS, the lack of privacy remains quite annoying no matter how comfortable it is to have your own calendar and contacts centralized. In 2011 is there any option, other than living in a cave, to keep one's own life private while enjoying the wonders of modern smartphone apps?"

Re:Windows Phone 7 is a good solution

[Anonymous Coward]

As is running CyanogenMod on a rooted Android phone.

then dont flash gapps

[trschober]

just flash CM7 and don't flash gapps, use an alternative market to get your apps, was that so hard to find out? CM7 is fully usable without google propietary apps, you just have to make some compromises (no gmail app, no google navigation, no official market, etc..)

Want Privacy? Get your own BES

[RedLeg]

RIM solved this problem. If you don't want your data on somebody else's server, set up your own BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) with YOUR security policies.

Taint cheap, but you gets what you pays for.......

The consumer blackberries connect to BESs operated by the carriers. My corporate owned one connects to OURS, and the company has all kinds of flexibility to impose policy, remote wipe, etc.

Red

Re:Windows Phone 7 is a good solution

[hawguy]

And I'm serious. While not as versatile towards own-hosted solutions as the old Windows Mobiles, it's still light years beyond Android and iOS. You can easily use your own Exchange server to sync and share your contacts, calendar and other stuff, which gives you true privacy.

Is it really that easy to set up your own Exchange server? Does everyone around here keep a Windows server in a coloc somewhere so they can run Exchange?

The reason for this is simple too. Microsoft may be many things, but they have always respected privacy.

Really? Always?

http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/02/08/08/0923231.shtml [harvard.edu]
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/users-outraged-over-windows-live-privacy-violations [networkworld.com]
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/microsft-investigates-hotmail-privacy-breach.ars [arstechnica.com]

And that's just what I found in a quick google search.

You know you don't HAVE to use Sync right?

[atari2600a]

You can tell Android's built-in Sync to not touch your contacts, appointments, email & then use the generic (& built-in!) calender & email applications that do exactly the same things over standard protocols...

About BlackBerry's "centralized mail server"

[thirty-seven]

In spite of that, email communication and web communication is encrypted/decrypted on the BlackBerry smartphone itself, so RIM (the company that does BlackBerry) can't snoop into your data contents even if they wanted to. That's why some authoritarian countries around the world couldn't quite understand - they demanded RIM hand over the secret keys to let them read any message contents, which they just assumed RIM must have, even though they don't. Similarly, with the riots in Britain earlier this year, the authorities complained that the rioters were co-ordinating using BlackBerry phones, and they couldn't intercept those communications. To me, that's a strong recommendation for a BlackBerry if you want security and privacy.

Define "Working Decently"

[jrumney]

there is no way to have an Android smartphone working decently without sharing all of your contacts, calendar appointments, and other stuff with Google.

It is perfectly workable to plug in your old SIM with phone numbers stored on it and use them from an Android phone without ever setting up a Google account. It is also possible to add fully featured contacts and calendar appointments locally on your phone without sharing them with Google.

If by "working decently" you mean the phone should seamlessly sync with your other devices through the cloud, you have the option of setting up your own SyncML server, and most manufacturers also include MS Exchange ActiveSync as well.

Re:Want Privacy? Get your own BES

[Anonymous Coward]

We run BES Express for free....
http://us.blackberry.com/business/software/besx/

FDroid and friends

[Boltronics]

Install FDroid, K-9 Mail and Firefox (from the FDroid repositories of course). You can likely even use CyanogenMod without installing all the Android Marketplace if you want - I do this for my HP TouchPad. No need to sync anything with Google.

Re:Want Privacy? Get your own BES

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it is encrypted from the BlackBerry to the BES. All RIM sees is the encrypted data.

Re:Windows Phone 7 is a good solution

[PopeRatzo]

The only reason Windows phone 7 doesn't have the malware issues is that there are only like 2 people in north america that use them

Remember when that was the line everybody used about Apple computers?

"The only reason there's no malware for Macs (or Linux) is because nobody uses it! Yeah, that's the ticket..."

Re:Windows Phone 7 is a good solution

[tycoex]

Every single story I've read so far about malware on Android was people either installing apps off the internet or through a third-party app store. How is Google not doing a good job removing harmful apps from the market?

Re:Want Privacy? Get your own BES

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily expensive either.. BES Express is free, or you can go with MDaemon BlackBerry Edition..

Re:Smart phones are not private

[Anonymous Coward]

You could even carry an iPhone. To the best of my knowledge, Apple isn't scraping my contact list. Yet. I think.

They are as of iOS 5: your contacts are automatically copied to iCloud, unless you disable iCloud entirely. (Which, if you care about your privacy, you should do anyway. Then all that's shared with Apple is what apps you use, how long you use them, what calls are made and how long, and where your phone is. The last one being done explicitly for advertising reasons. The first two are for "diagnostic purposes." Read your terms of service, kids!)

Re:Smart phones are not private

[betterunixthanunix]

What horrible, authoritarian country do you live in where encrypting a phone call is illegal? In my country, we have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A5/1 [wikipedia.org]

Carrier IQ - a spy built into any phone.

[jimwelch]

Check them out at http://www.carrieriq.com/ [carrieriq.com]

Re:Windows Phone 7 is a good solution

[Fri13]

I find it funny that Microsoft fans now defends a Linux users old arguments, since beginning it has been taunted that "when Linux gains market share, you will find it has as much malware as Windows does".

The Microsoft fans (actually more Windows fans but they are related so well) defence was "Windows is so popular so it is targeted and that's why it has so many malware"

And now, when actually a Linux is more used than Windows in Internet Servers, super computers and even Smart phones, it still does not have such problems as Windows does.

And actually, even Microsoft has managed to drop amount of malware and epidemics since Windows Vista and now with Windows 7. Even that they are popular, they ain't at all so easy targets (unless user does again a error).

The Linux OS in Android does not get targeted by malware, neither does Android itself actually. But Google has problem with their Android Market security. So that they do not check the applications and users can download application what asks permissions to read contacts and then full internet and then sends every email address to spammer.

User is asked from permission and then user gives it.
It is same situation that I do not count it Windows problem if user downloads, gives execution permission and launch a malware. Neither I count it for OS X fault. That is fault of the user.
BUT (and this is HUGE BUT) when a software system gets infected automatic, without user interaction, then we have a problem.
Like when user simply opens a PDF file and it suddenly can install something to system side outside of user permissions or directory. THEN we have a problem.

What Google should do, is start signing those applications (so no one can steal it, fill with malware and repack)
  Permit user to disallow permissions per se and per application.
  Disallow per application update checking by default and only allow to use a Market Place update notification.

As right now one of the biggest risks is that user install secure and safe application from Android Market and then week later application notifies a own update notification and user gives a permission and application downloads it somewhere else and phone is infected.
Openess needs that third party stores and apps can have own update, but still that needs to be fixed. IF application is from Android Market, then only from there are updates. If user downloads somewhere else, then they can have what they want.

Re:Windows Phone 7 is a good solution

[wvmarle]

Most of the security bashing is related to drive-by installs and related security holes, where software gets installed without user interaction. And the ease of which installed software can escalate its own permissions, and the hardness of running Windows as non-privileged user.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Windows Phone 7 is a good solution

[Runaway1956]

Different lines of products. Mmmmm. How about, same products, aimed at different markets? Or, we could decide that Windows Home Edition is a different product than Windows Pro.

Automotive analogy would be the old Chevy Nova, Buick Skylark, and Oldsmobile Omega. The vehicles came down the same assembly line, bolted and welded together by the same people and same robots, had the same paint applied, used the same motors and transmissions, rearends, everything. The only differences were really cosmetic. A Nova got some thin carpeting, cheaper vinyl seats, and a bad bowtie. Buick got thicker carpeting, choices of better seats and stereo, and a Buick decal. Olds got even thicker carpeting, I think tinted windows were standard, a nicer speaker system for the stereo, and of course the Olds markings inside and out.

Now, for MARKETING PURPOSES, we can agree that all three vehicles were different products. But, when the car started making weird noises, and the mechanic told you that your discombobulator was percolating nanobots through the wazoo, you were equally fucked, and you bought your repair parts from the same manufacturer, at the same retail store.

The biggest difference between server editions and consumer editions are the rules put into place, in observance of security needs.

Re:A 2-year old phone might be your answer...

[quixote9]

I have an N900, mainly because I wanted a handheld computer, not a smartphone. If your requirements are light on the phone-iness of it all, then I recommend the N900 highly. I have all my work, music, etc, synced via bluetooth from my laptop. If I'm stuck for a few hours at an airport or somewhere, it's never a problem. It hops onto wifi networks seamlessly. I use it mainly as a voip phone over wifi, but it switches seamlessly to your cell carrier when wifi is out of range. So my phone bill is about $8 per month. And, afaik, no tracking, marketing, harvesting garbage at all. As somebody else said about Win phones, two or three people have N900s in the US, so no malware problems either.

Re:Sure it is ......

[Alunral]

Last I checked, Cyanogenmod was made by Cyanogen and his crew. Cyanogen is employed by Samsung. All of them are well known in multiple places. They are most certainly not "anonymous hackers", you tool.