1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. alt.privacy

  • Re: What can't you do on Android WITHOUT a Google Account set up in the OS?

    From Andrew@andys@nospam.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.privacy on Thursday, January 02, 2025 18:25:31
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    Jeff Layman wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 08:47:14 +0000 :

    Android is said to have 12 million lines of code. Is it really
    known to anyone outside Google what all of them do?

    Hi Jeff,

    Happy New Year!

    We've worked together on plenty of things in the past, so it's good to see
    you back, where you must know that Rudy has an IQ no higher than about 50.

    Anyway, regarding Graphene OS, it's my understanding, as it is yours, that
    it's a de-googled Android, which, much like ungoogled chromium, starts with
    the base code and, one by one, removes the data collection, blocks
    tracking, and focuses on user control - all of which are good things.

    As for me, I can't install GrapheneOS because my bootloader is not known to
    be rootable - so the simplest alternative to Graphene OS is what I do now.

    1. I never set up Android to have a Google account integral in Settings.
    2. I delete every Google app and package that doesn't break the system.
    3. I replace each Google functionality I like, with its private equivalent.

    This works for me, but I'm more intelligent than most people on this ng
    are, so it won't work for the vast majority of posters to this newsgroup.

    But for those who own a modicum of knowledge, it's EASY to gain a huge leap
    in privacy simply by performing a few extremely logical very simple acts.

    A. Never allow the Google Account to become part of the Android settings.
    B. Log into Google GMail using any privacy-aware MUA (plenty exist).
    C. Log into the Google Play Store repo using a privacy-aware app finder.
    D. Log into the Google YouTube database using a privacy-aware replacement.
    E. Replace the Chrome browser with a privacy-aware replacement.
    etc.

    In my humblest of opinions, this is so logical and simple that anyone who "complains" that they can't have privacy is simply stating that their IQ is
    too low for them to understand the most basic simple components of privacy.

    Specifically, people like Rudy complain that they can't have privacy but
    what they're really telling us is their IQ is too low for them to
    understand it.

    So these low-IQ ignorant defeatists like Rudy claim, sans any evidence whatsoever, that GrapheneOS is riddled with privacy holes, when it's not.

    VanguardLH does the same thing. Their IQ is too low for them to understand. Yours is not, thank God.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andys@nospam.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.privacy on Thursday, January 02, 2025 18:31:34
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:55:39 +0100 :

    In the details, it shows the elevation graph of the walk, something that
    is missing in the Fitbit app.

    Luckily, we've solved the problem of replacing Google FitBit with
    equivalent privacy-aware functionality in this new companion thread.

    *For privacy, what is a suitable alternative to the Google FitBit app on Android?*
    <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=56645&group=comp.mobile.android#56645>

    All it takes is a modicum of intelligence to replace FitBit features with privacy-aware equivalent functionality (which doesn't involve the forfeit
    of privacy by setting up a Google Account integral to the Android system).

    For example, <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.secuso.privacyfriendlyactivitytracker>
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andys@nospam.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.privacy on Thursday, January 02, 2025 18:51:39
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    R.Wieser wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:26:02 +0100 :

    Although its ofcourse nice to have permalinks, even the ones that are ment as such can break given enough time (nothing is forever). As such I, when its looks worthwhile or even just interresting, have the habit of copying the offered information to my local machine.

    Hi Rudy & Carlos,

    Rest assured I'm well aware your entire lives you've been told you were stupid, which has never happened to me - so we're entirely different types.

    I'm intelligent. You're not.
    That's a BIG difference.

    I've added more value to the Android newsgroup tribal knowledge in just one
    of (oh, I can't count how many - hundreds for sure - thousands over my
    life) tutorials that I've posted to Usenet all found by search engines.

    In fact, you, Rudy & Carlos have *never* written even one tutorial.
    Not a single one.

    Which is to say I've added more value to people's knowledge in a single day than you both combined have added in your entire lives. Think about that.

    I'm caring.
    I'm helpful.
    I'm extremely intelligent.
    And rather detailed.

    My tutorials cover every single step.
    Such that I can do what only one out of a million people can do.

    You hate that you can't do *any* of that.
    So you judge knowledge by the number of words.

    For you, the fewer the better.
    Fancy that.

    Your IQ is so low that in a single day I've kind-heartedly purposefully helpfully contributed more to our overall knowledge than the both of you
    could possibly contribute in your entire sordid sorry lives.

    That's just a fact.
    You hate that fact.

    You spend all your time denying facts.
    I spend my time disseminating them.

    So you hate me.
    But your hatred of me stems solely from your own hatred of your low IQ.

    So be it.
    You can deny every fact you hate (which is pretty much every fact).

    But the fact is your IQ pales in comparison to that of mine.
    So you disparage my hundreds (if not thousands) of helpful tutorials.

    So be it.
    I'm not here to massage your ego.

    I'm here to teach people who have enough intelligence to learn.
    (i.e., not you)
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andys@nospam.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.privacy on Thursday, January 02, 2025 18:58:31
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    VanguardLH wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 02:08:37 -0600 :

    Reset the phone, and next time when an app wants a login then refuse to prevent having the account stored on the phone. If you're just
    protesting Google, don't login to any newly loaded app that wants you to specify a Google account, so it doesn't get stored on your phone. After
    a reset, there are no accounts stored on the phone. It is after *you* specify a login that either the app will store it locally to itself, or
    load it into Accounts in the Android OS.

    There are only 3 known Google apps which infest Android with a login.
    And each of those 3 Google apps has a privacy-aware replacement.

    Bear in mind that *plenty* of Google apps have a login that does *not*
    infest the Android device with an integral account, VanguardLH.

    I realize your IQ is so low you can't comprehend that basic fact.
    But Theo understood.

    Nobody else understood.
    Just Theo.

    And, rest assured, for those 3 apps which do infect Android with a
    system-wide Google Account, there are free privacy-aware equivalents.

    That's what we've learned this week.
    Not you. You can't learn anything.

    But we learned that.

    There is no Google functionality on Android that you can't get without a
    Google Account integrally set up inside the Android operating system.

    If there were, someone would have mentioned it by now.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andys@nospam.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.privacy on Friday, January 03, 2025 04:51:45
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    Carlos E.R. wrote on Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:17:46 +0100 :

    There you are with your insults.

    How many detailed tutorials have you posted to this newsgroup Carlos?



    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2