Study Shows How Android Phones Still Track Users, Even When 'Opted Out'

from the words-mean-nothing dept

We've frequently noted that what's often presented as "improved privacy" is usually privacy theater. For example researchers just got done showing how Apple's heavily hyped "do not track" button doesn't actually do what it claims to do, and numerous apps can still collect an parade of different data points on users who believe they've opted out of such collection. And Apple's considered among the better companies when it comes to privacy promises.

Android is notably worse. One of my favorite privacy and adtech reporters is Shoshana Wodinsky, because she'll genuinely focus on the actual reality, not the promises. This week she wrote about how researchers at Trinity College in Dublin took a closer look at Android privacy, only to find that the term "opting out" often means absolutely nothing:

"According to the researchers, “with little configuration” right out of the box and when left sitting idle, these devices would incessantly ping back device data to the OS’s developers and a slew of selected third parties. And what’s worse is that there’s often no way to opt out of this data-pinging, even if users want to."

So called "system" apps in many Android variants by the likes of Samsung, Xiaomi, and Huawei often come pre-installed, and can't be removed without rooting your device (which the majority of users can't or won't do). These apps are pretty constantly hoovering up handset data and sending it back not only to the parent company, but to third party data brokers. So even when you think you're "opting out" of data collection and sales, you're not really:

"On their own, none of these data points can identify your phone as uniquely yours, but taken together, they form a unique “fingerprint” that can be used to track your device, even if you try to opt out. The researchers point out that while Android’s advertising ID is technically resettable, the fact that apps are usually getting it bundled with more permanent identifiers means that these apps—and whatever third parties they’re working with—will know who you are anyway. The researchers found this was the case with some of the other resettable IDs offered by Samsung, Xiaomi, Realme, and Huawei."

Some of Google's developer rules prohibit the worst sorts of behavior, but they often only restrict how the data can be sold, not what can be collected. And it's also hard to think they're being effectively policed at any scale. Meanwhile, Google tried to brush aside the researchers' concerns over at Bleeping Computer by claiming this is just how phones work now:

"While we appreciate the work of the researchers, we disagree that this behavior is unexpected – this is how modern smartphones work. As explained in our Google Play Services Help Center article, this data is essential for core device services such as push notifications and software updates across a diverse ecosystem of devices and software builds."

Except it's not how cell phones have to work. Case in point: phones using /e/OS, a privacy-focused open-source operating system that promises users a "de-Googled" device, don't mindlessly and endlessly chirp back to the monitor mothership. You can make devices that actually don't phone home constantly, and genuinely opt users out of all tracking when asked. Companies just don't want to do it. Most usually because apathy and tap dancing is more profitable.

Again, much of this occurs because the U.S. still lacks a real privacy law for the internet era. While people often talk about how passing a good privacy law is just too damn hard to get right, a good first step is requiring absolute transparency into what's being collected and sold, and providing working opt out tools. And also we could probably actually fund and staff U.S. privacy regulators while we're at it, so there's somebody competent actually watching the henhouse. Meanwhile, the full study can be found here (pdf) for those interested.

Filed Under: android, do not track, opt-out, privacy
Companies: google

Google Has Been Paying Wireless Carriers Billions To Not Develop Competing App Stores

from the not-so-innovative-I-guess dept

To be clear, wireless carrier app stores have always kind of sucked. Verizon's efforts to create its own app store were shut down in 2012, after underwhelming consumers for years. At the time, the narrative was that Verizon just didn't find it worth the trouble in the face of Google domination and innovation. And while that's still largely true (wireless carriers are utterly unfamiliar with competition and therefore historically suck at innovation and adaptation), it turns out there was another reason.

Namely, that Google was paying Verizon and other major wireless companies a big chunk of money to not compete with the Android marketplace. And they were paying smartphone manufacturers to ship devices without competing app stores installed. Both nuggets were buried in a freshly unredacted copy of Epic's antitrust complaint (pdf) against Google, first spotted by Jeremy Owens:

This agreement to start paying wireless carriers 20-25% of app sales was occurring right around the time that Google brass was visibly starting to wimp out on consumer-centric issues like net neutrality. That involved working closely with Verizon to push the FCC toward flimsy, loophole-filled, "compromise" 2010 net neutrality rules that excluded wireless entirely. Verizon proceeded to then successfully sue the FCC to have those repealed anyway, leading to better rules in 2015 that were also dismantled a few years, later, albeit thanks to lobbying, not the courtroom.

Google's shift from hugely innovative disruptor to entrenched, elbow-swinging turf protector has been a fairly ugly and historically unsurprising transition. You can clearly see the line in the sand somewhere around 2010 to throw away many of the guiding principles that made them successful and popular. There was another executive leadership pivot sometime around 2016 that brought with it increased timidity at the company (see: the company's abrupt decision to largely give up on expanding Google Fiber and many other exciting moonshot projects). Then, more recently there's the whole AI ethics scandals, which speaks for itself.

To be clear Google still does a lot of interesting and popular stuff, but it's pretty damn clear that the ethics and bravery that guided the company originally were obliterated some time back.

I have to think that revelations Google was paying wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers to not compete with it will likely fuel several different antitrust inquiries and court cases. Maybe wireless carriers would have always failed to develop compelling app stores of their own thanks to innate incompetence, but it's harder than ever for that to happen when Google is paying you billions of dollars to not even try. And then, should those competing app stores succeed, paying handset makers not to carry them anyway, even if they happen to become popular.

As a little side note, the fact Google has been paying wireless carriers billions of dollars to do nothing kind of puts an additional dent in FCC Commissioner's ongoing, dumb claim that "big tech" gets a "free ride" on telecom networks. Getting paid to do nothing is the exact kind of thing AT&T has been pushing for since 2003 or so. It's the kind of stupid demand that started the net neutrality debate. Whether the payoffs violated the law is for antitrust lawyers to decide, but the fact Google repeatedly thought nothing about ignoring its original founding principles continues to speak pretty loudly either way.

Filed Under: android, app stores, competition, fees, mobile app stores, mobile operators
Companies: google, verizon

MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy

from the one-born-every-minute dept

If you hadn't noticed, there's been no shortage of dodgy folks attempting to cash in on the MAGA craze. There's also been no shortage of folks eager to cash in on the generalized animosity against "big tech" driven by bogus claims of "Conservative censorship" (aka: people being held vaguely accountable for being racist assholes on the internet via clumsy Silicon Valley moderation practices that don't work well at scale).

Enter the $500 Freedom phone, a new device being targeted at MAGA devotees promising an "uncensorable App Store," all your favorite right-wing apps preloaded, and promises that users can take "back control" from big 'ole mean big tech.

Amusingly there's no real detail anywhere on the website in terms of specs or build, meaning users have no real idea what they're actually signing up for. But when The Daily Beast had somebody take a closer look at the device, they found it was likely a Chinese-made A9Pro (retail: $120) running a modified version of Google's Android OS dubbed "FreedomOS":

"Freedom Phone appears to be a simple rebranding of a budget phone called the “Umidigi A9 Pro,” made by the Chinese tech company Umidigi. In an interview with The Daily Beast, Finman confirmed that the Freedom Phone was manufactured by Umidigi, but couldn’t say immediately which Umidigi phone it was based on.

The Freedom Phone’s $500 price tag would represent a substantial markup on the Umidigi A9 Pro. That phone is available on Chinese retail giant AliExpress for $120 — less than one quarter of the price of a Freedom Phone."

The phone in question appears to be one of several discounted Android phones with insecure configurations that are vulnerable to a long list of trivial vulnerabilities. The low cost, high-customizability of such phones make them more vulnerable than more expensive options, and less likely to see consistent security updates. In short, the Freedom phone appears to not only be an overpriced version of a fairly underwhelming phone, it potentially makes its customers more vulnerable to the type of spying and government surveillance they're being told they're avoiding.

In a post to Twitter, the phone's creator proclaims the phone is "the first major pushback on the Big Tech companies that attacked us - for just thinking different." Though as several Twitter users were quick to point out, a completely unmoderated or managed app store means it's easy for any random idiot (or government) to launch a bevy of privacy-violating and malware-laden apps designed to hoover up your personal details:

As Gizmodo notes, the ironic part is there's ample resources for folks genuinely interested in freeing themselves from Google and Apple. There's massive online communities designed around letting you bypass the Android/iOS gatekeeper logjam, often for a fraction of the cost of the Freedomphone. The Linux-based Pine phone, for example, offers a significantly cheaper option with greater transparency into what you're actually buying. The /e/ Foundation also sells refurbished and "de-Googled" discount phones that are likely notably more secure at a lower price point (with caveats).

Of course this all assumes that you genuinely care about privacy and aren't just gesticulating wildly based on a bunch of bullshit fed to you by a NYC real estate conman with a terrible combover.

Filed Under: android, censorship, china, erik finman, freedom phone, maga

Google Facing Yet Another Antitrust Lawsuit Over Its App Store Practices, Even Though Android Is Quite Permissive

from the not-sure-I-get-this-one dept

Another day, another antitrust lawsuit against Google. This one, filed by 36 states and Washington DC, says that the company's practices regarding its Android app store violate antitrust law. This is now the fourth antitrust lawsuit filed by various governments in the US against Google. There's the DOJ lawsuit, one from nine state AGs, another from 10 state AGs, and now this new one. I get that everyone wants to hate on the big tech companies these days, and they also want to throw a bunch of things at the wall, but would it really have been that difficult to go through all of this in one single lawsuit?

As with the previous lawsuits, this one leaves me scratching my head. I kept expecting there to be some bombshell or some smoking gun. But, once again, this lawsuit seems to take things that were done for perfectly reasonable reasons and attack them as anti-competitive.

The oddest thing, of course, is that of any "app store" out there, Android is the most permissive around. Apple's iOS is much more restrictive. You can't get apps onto an iPhone without first getting them approved by Apple. Ditto for other proprietary platforms like video game consoles. Google, on the other hand, allows users to sideload apps and also to install alternative app stores entirely. For example, Amazon has long had its own Android app store (and, notably, in the new version of Windows, users will be able to install Android apps on their desktop machines via Amazon's app store). That's a lot more open than most similarly situated platforms.

The complaint makes a big deal about how Google "discourages" people from sideloading apps or using alternative app stores:

Although Google leaves open the technical possibility for Android consumers to acquire some apps without using the Play Store, this can only be accomplished through a competing app store installed on the device (either through preloading by an OEM or through the user sideloading the store), or through sideloading of individual apps. Google takes various steps to discourage OEMs from directly competing or sponsoring any app store competition. Google makes the sideloading process unnecessarily cumbersome and impractical by adding superfluous, misleading, and discouraging security warnings and by deterring users by requiring them to grant permission multiple times for a single app installation (discussed in more detail in Sections I.C. and I.D. below). The effect of Google’s conduct is to practically eliminate competition in Android app distribution.

But, uh, this kinda leaves out some of the details here -- which is that earlier, when Google was much more permissive about sideloading apps, there were lots of complaints about the dangers of sideloading and third party app stores. Indeed, some device makers used to refer to Android allowing sideloading as creating a "chaotic cesspool" of security problems and piracy.

In response, Google did get more serious about making sure users really understood the risks and really wanted to install 3rd party apps. But, again, it still does allow this -- much more readily than others. And yes, it's true that this probably makes it more difficult for third party app stores to survive, but if Google didn't do this it would also be slammed left, right, and center by everyone for not "policing" its phones and allowing security risks and piracy to run rampant. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I don't disagree that it would be nice if Google were more open to 3rd party app stores, and didn't necessarily make you jump through so many hoops, but is that seriously an antitrust violation? Even the market definition (the key to any antitrust case) is... weird. Obviously, how you define the market will show whether or not there's a monopoly -- and if you define the market as "the products that only this company makes" then of course that's a monopoly. But that's not really relevant for a question of whether or not there is anti-competitive behavior. But here, these states have come up with a market definition that is basically just Android. They're not even doing the "mobile operating system" market. Instead, they claim that the relevant market is specifically "the licensable mobile OS market" -- meaning that Apple iOS (which is not licensable from Apple) is excluded.

The licensable mobile OS market also excludes OSs that are unsuitable for mobile devices, such as OSs for simple cell phones, “flip phones,” or feature phones, or for other electronic devices (such as laptop computers, desktop computers, and gaming consoles, e.g., Nintendo DS, Xbox, PlayStation) that are not mobile devices.

If I'm reading this right, they're actually suggesting that if Google had decided not to license its OS, and not to let competing device manufacturers build their own competing phones, then they would have less of an antitrust case against Google. And that seems... weird? And kind of nonsensical.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like Apple's control of iOS is a lot more strict, ditto for Nintendo, Microsoft with Xbox, and Sony with the PlayStation. Google's decision to license its OS and enable much wider competition, as well as allowing some sideloading and 3rd party app stores, seems a hell of a lot more competitive than all those other services -- and yet that's all being used against Google, but not the others?

It also seems like this lawsuit may run into the same problem that resulted in various states' lawsuits against Facebook to get tossed: why now? Android has acted this way for years, and why are these state AGs suddenly deciding it's a problem?

I'm all for having more competition at every level of the stack, but I'm confused as to how this is a legitimate antitrust claim.

Filed Under: 3rd party app stores, android, antitrust, app store, competition, licensable mobile operating system, market definition, mobile operating systems, play store, sideloading
Companies: google

Google Finally Gets Around To Banning Ads For Stalkerware

from the i-spy dept

Stalkerware is one of those things that most people never would have considered when technologies were being developed, but which in hindsight come off as practically inevitable. These apps, often times named as if they would be chiefly marketed to parents trying to keep tabs on their kids, but which instead are also specifically advertised as ways to stalk current romantic partners and exes, are all different flavors of creepily allowing a person to snoop on the location and activities of an unsuspecting other person. The whole concept is so obviously evil that it's a wonder why any platform would allow these apps to be sold in the first place, and yet it was only in 2019 that Google managed to ban them from its app store.

Antivirus company Avast said Wednesday that it's found seven stalkerware apps available on Android's market. In all, they had been installed more than 130,000 times. Google removed four of the apps after Avast reported the privacy violations on Tuesday, and removed the last three on Wednesday.

Google said its policy prohibits commercial spyware apps and encourages people to report any apps that violate its standards.

Since then, Google has regularly had to purge new creepy entrants into the stalking marketplace, but it has done its best to keep up. Because, as Google stated in its policy above, such apps are prohibited on the app store.

But not in Google's advertisements, apparently, at least up until this past week.

In an ad policy update this week, Google said that beginning August 11 it will prohibit ads for products or services marketed for secretly tracking or monitoring someone. This includes, but is not limited to:

Spyware and technology used for intimate partner surveillance including but not limited to spyware/malware that can be used to monitor texts, phone calls, or browsing history; GPS trackers specifically marketed to spy or track someone without their consent; promotion of surveillance equipment (cameras, audio recorders, dash cams, nanny cams) marketed with the express purpose of spying.

Credit where it's due: Google's change in policy is good. And, given the massive ecosystem that is Google's advertising system, it's easy to imagine how the company might not have been initially prepared for the review and purges necessary to keep these sorts of ads off its platform.

But the truth is that's a massively weak caveat, given the nature of these ads. Reading Google's description of the types of ads that are newly banned, it practically yanks the follow up question out of your mouth: Wait, why did you ever allow ads for this sort of thing in the first place? As the Gizmodo post notes, Google has been aware of just how big a problem stalkerware has been on its platforms since at least 2018, and almost certainly before. How has this possibly taken this long?

Filed Under: ads, android, ban, stalkerware
Companies: google

Arizona AG Sues Google For Location Data Failures, After Telecom Got A Wrist Slap For Far Worse Behavior

from the somebody's-watching-me dept

Two years ago, an investigation by the Associated Press and Princeton computer scientists found that Google services on both Android and Apple routinely continued to track user location data, even when users opted out of such tracking. Even if users paused "Location History," the researchers found that some Google apps still automatically stored time-stamped location data without asking the consumer's consent.

Fast forward two years later, and Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has sued Google for violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act over the practice. The lawsuit (pdf), filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, is based off of an investigation begun by Brnovich's office back in 2018. Like the aforementioned AP report, the AG found that Google's settings didn't actually do what they claimed they did in regards to ceasing location data tracking:

"Google told users that "with Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored." But as the AP article revealed, this statement was blatantly false — even with Location History off, Google surreptitiously collects location information through other settings such as Web & App Activity and uses that information to sell ads. At the same time, Google’s disclosures regarding Web & App Activity misled users into believing that setting had nothing to do with tracking user location. Google’s account set-up disclosures made no mention of the fact that location information is collected though Web and App Activity, which is defaulted to “on," until early-to mid-2018."

To be very clear, that's bad. Companies (especially companies that have spent years under fire for privacy abuses) should be transparent about what they're collecting, clearly communicate that to end users, and not try to hide opting out under layers of confusing menus. This is, of course, the kind of stuff that would be thwarted by a very simple privacy law that required transparency, working opt out tools, and included penalties for companies that misled users. You know, the kind of basic rules that were passed by the FCC back in 2016, then immediately demolished by telecom lobbyists thanks to the GOP-controlled Senate one year later, just as they were about to take effect.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Brnovich insists he was eager to send a message that companies aren't "above the law":

"At some point, people or companies that have a lot of money think they can do whatever the hell they want to do, and feel like they are above the law,” Brnovich said. “I wanted Google to get the message that Arizona has a state consumer fraud act. They may be the most innovative company in the world, but that doesn’t mean they’re above the law."

While this is all well and good, and Google certainly deserves penalties for not being transparent about how basic privacy settings work, the lawsuit continues to highlight a bizarre asymmetry in policymakers' concerns about privacy. While Google's failure here was bad, it's a far cry from the location data scandals that recently rocked the telecom sector. There, carriers were found to have been selling access to huge swaths of location data to pretty much any nitwit with a nickel. This data was then repeatedly, aggressively abused, by everybody from law enforcement to folks pretending to be law enforcement, to stalkers.

The scope of those scandals were utterly monumental, yet the punishment was virtually nonexistent. The worst that happened was a performative FCC fine that will likely be litigated down to next to nothing over the next year, then forgotten entirely. Many AGs were utterly absent from that particular dance of dysfunction, despite claims to be eagerly cracking down on companies that are "above the law." There were no lawsuits filed against AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile. And while the FCC did finally act, it wound up being little more than a belated wrist slap.

We've noted this bizarre tech and privacy policy asymmetry more than a few times, yet it doesn't seem to really change, with "big tech" getting the lion's share of heat and attention, while adtech, telecom, and other equally problematic sectors routinely engage in the same or worse behaviors yet see far less scrutiny. If we are ever going to craft a meaningful privacy law in the United States (and I remain skeptical that's happening without first seeing an historic scandal well beyond what we've seen already), policymakers are going to need to take a far broader, bird's eye view of the modern privacy problem.

Filed Under: android, arizona, location data, mark brnovich, privacy
Companies: google

It's Impossible To Opt Out Of Android's Ad Tracking; Max Schrems Aims To Change That

from the another-reason-to-use-apple? dept

Most of the world has been under some form of lockdown for weeks, but that clearly hasn't stopped the indefatigable Austrian privacy expert Max Schrems from working on his next legal action under the EU's GDPR. Last year, he lodged a complaint with the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) over what he called the "fake consent" that people must give to "cookie banners" in order to access sites. Now he has set his sights on Google's Android Advertising ID, which is present on every Android phone. It builds on research carried out by the Norwegian Consumer Council, published in the report "Out of control".

Today noyb.eu filed a formal GDPR complaint against Google for tracking users through an "Android Advertising ID" without a valid legal basis. The data collected with this unique tracking ID is passed on to countless third parties in the advertising ecosystem. The user has no real control over it: Google does not allow to delete an ID, just to create a new one.

The Android Advertising ID (AAID) is central to Google's advertising system. It allows advertisers to track users as they move around the Internet, and to build profiles of their interests. Google claims that this "gives users better controls", which is true if people want to receive highly-targeted advertising. But if they wish to opt out of this constant tracking, there is a problem. Although Google allows you to change your AAID, it is not possible to do without it completely: the best you can manage is to get a new one. And as the detailed legal complaint to the Austrian Data Protection Authority (pdf) from Schrems points out, there are multiple ways to link old AAIDs with new ones:

Studies and official investigations have proved that the AAID is stored, shared and, where needed, linked with old values via countless other identifiers such as IP addresses, IMEI codes and GPS coordinates, social media handles, email addresses or phone number, de facto allowing a persistent tracking of Android users.

Schrems' organization None of Your Business (noyb.eu) claims that's unacceptable under the GDPR:

EU Law requires user choice. Under GDPR, the strict European privacy law, users must consent to being tracked. Google does not collect valid "opt-in" consent before generating the tracking ID, but seems to generate these IDs without user consent.

Google's position is weakened by the fact that Apple gives users of its smartphones the ability to opt out of targeted ads; for those using iOS 10 or later, the advertising identifier is replaced with an untrackable string of zeros:

If you choose to enable Limit Ad Tracking, Apple's advertising platform will opt your Apple ID out of receiving ads targeted to your interests, regardless of what device you are using. Apps or advertisers that do not use Apple’s advertising platform but do use Apple's Advertising Identifier are required to check the Limit Ad Tracking setting and are not permitted by Apple's guidelines to serve you targeted ads if you have Limit Ad Tracking enabled. When Limit Ad Tracking is enabled on iOS 10 or later, the Advertising Identifier is replaced with a non-unique value of all zeros to prevent the serving of targeted ads. It is automatically reset to a new random identifier if you disable Limit Ad Tracking.

The formal legal complaint was filed on behalf of an Austrian citizen, requesting that the AAID should be deleted permanently. If the action succeeds, that would allow anyone in the EU -- and probably elsewhere -- to do the same. In addition, the complaint points out that under the GDPR, the maximum possible fine, based on 4% of Google's worldwide revenue, would be about €5.94 billion. There's no chance such an unprecedented sum would be imposed, but the fact that every Android user in the EU is forced to use Google's AAID could lead to a fairly hefty fine if Schrems succeeds with his latest legal defense of privacy.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: android, android advertising id, eu, gdpr, max schrems
Companies: google, noyb

Researchers Say Kids' Android Apps Are Still Riddled With Malware

from the all-fun-and-games-until-somebody-gets-hurt dept

While numerous vendors and tech giants have cooked up lower-cost Android phones with marketing focused on helping the poor, a recent study by advocacy group Privacy International found that the privacy trade offs of these devices are... potent. Not only do they usually come with outdated OS' opening the door to hackers, the phones have locked down user control to such a degree they're unable to remove apps that may also pose security risks. In this way, the researchers argued, we've made privacy a luxury option that's only available to those who can actually afford it.

But the poor aren't the only ones harmed by our continually lax treatment of consumer privacy and security. In a new blog post, researchers from Checkpoint Software say that a huge number of kids-oriented Android apps are also privacy and security nightmares. The researchers recently identified a new malware family found in 56 applications that were collectively downloaded some 1 million times globally. Motivated by advertising fraud, the "Tekya" malware imitates the user’s actions in order to click ads and banners from agencies like Google’s AdMob, AppLovin’, Facebook, and Unity, Checkpoint found.

Most-malware infected apps compromise the end users' data, credentials, emails, text messages, and geographical location. Twenty four of those apps were aimed at children, the researchers noted:

"During this research, the Tekya malware family went undetected by VirusTotal and Google Play Protect. Ultimately, it was available for download in 56 applications downloadable on Google Play.

This campaign cloned legitimate popular applications to gain an audience, mostly with children, as most application covers for the Tekya malware are children’s games. The good news is, these infected applications have all been removed from Google Play."

While these apps have been removed and Google has ramped up its security practices in recent years, it's not a problem that's generally going away anytime soon:

"This highlights once again that the Google Play Store can still host malicious apps. There are nearly 3 million apps available from the store, with hundreds of new apps being uploaded daily – making it difficult to check that every single app is safe. Thus, users cannot rely on Google Play’s security measures alone to ensure their devices are protected."

In short, anybody trusting the integrity and safety of the Google Play store is making a significant error. And folks who aren't taking an active role in protecting their kids' privacy and security are being negligent. The Checkpoint blog has a good list of the latest apps you should be aware of.

Filed Under: android, apps, malware
Companies: google

Big News: Supreme Court To Hear Google v. Oracle Case About API And Copyright

from the this-is-important dept

Some big news out of the Supreme Court this morning, as it has agreed to hear the appeal in the never-ending Oracle v. Google lawsuit regarding whether or not copyright applies to APIs (the case is now captioned as Google v. Oracle, since it was Google asking the Supreme Court to hear the appeal). We've been covering the case and all its permutations for many years now, and it's notable that the Supreme Court is going to consider both of the questions that Google petitioned over. Specifically:

1. Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface.

2. Whether, as the jury found, petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.

As you may recall, the Supreme Court refused to hear Google's appeal back in 2015, which was just focused on the first question above, regarding whether or not an API was copyright-eligible. So it's quite interesting to see that it will now review that question. As you may recall, after the Supreme Court refused to review that point, the case went back to the district court where Google's use of some of the Java API was deemed to be fair use, which was a funky sort of way for the jury to recognize that there never should have been copyright on the API in the first place.

To me, as I always point out in this case, the key element will be getting the Supreme Court to recognize that an API is not software. Oracle and its supporters keep trying to insist that an API and executable code are one and the same, and I worry that the Supreme Court will not fully understand the differences, though I am sure that there will be compelling amici briefs trying to explain this point to them.

You never can tell how the Supreme Court will come down on these issues. The court has been tragically bad on copyright over the past few decades (with a few exceptions). But it's also repeatedly smacked down bad rulings from the Federal Circuit, which is where this case is coming from. So perhaps that additional skepticism over CAFC's nutty interpretation of the law will help them review this issue carefully.

Filed Under: android, api, copyright, fair use, java, supreme court
Companies: google, oracle

After All That, Sony Unceremoniously Rolls Out PS4 Remote Play To All Android Devices

from the too-late dept

Remote play capability for the Playstation 4 has been something of a twisted, never ending saga. One of the most useful features of the gaming console, Sony has jealously guarded the ability to play its flagship console remotely on all kinds of devices. Originally, the only way you could connect to your PS4 was if you bought a Playstation Vita, a product all but abandoned at this point, or a Sony Xperia Android phone, a line of products the public almost universally ignored. When tinkerers on the internet went about making their own remote play apps that would work with Android phones and PCs, Sony worked tirelessly to update the console firmware to break those homebrew apps. Then Sony came out with its own PC remote play app. Subsequently, some months ago, Sony released remote play functionality for iOS devices only. The explanation at the time was that Sony was likely still trying to push Xperia phones, despite the complete lack of traction.

And now, unceremoniously via yet another firmware update, Sony has given up the game and enabled remote play for all Android devices.

Fortunately, 7.0 expanded the feature, making it compatible with most Android devices. This means that anyone with an Android-compatible phone in their pocket can play PlayStation 4 games on the go. The new update also coincides with a small quality-of-life patch for iOS remote play, the game streaming app itself having been available since March of this year on the platform.

Now, the post goes on to note that there are some aspects of the remote play app that are janky, some of which weren't issues with the homebrew Android app. But the more frustrating aspect is just how long a walk Sony took in getting here. Again, enabling more remote play functionality for the PS 4 makes the console more valuable. It could have been used as a selling point for the PS4, an already immensely popular device, rather than remote play being used as selling points for the Vita and Xperia phones, which were barely adopted by the public. And what was with the odd steps in enabling all of this? Sony already had a working Android app when it decided to release remote play for iOS first, sitting on the Android version it already had for several months, seemingly for no reason.

The source post calls this what it was: a hostage situation.

That said, it’s nice to see Sony finally give up on the remote play first-party hostage situation they’ve kept up for most of the generation. With Apple Arcade, Xbox Game Pass, and Google Stadia all making moves, gaming is once again shifting away from the television, and Sony is smart to make an attempt to capitalize on this trend. This console generation may be swiftly coming to an end, but this may indicate that features of this sort will be available on day one when the PS5 drops next December.

You would really, really hope that Sony wouldn't have to learn this lesson all over again with the Playstation 5. On the other hand, it is Sony.

Filed Under: android, playstation 4, ps4, remote
Companies: sony