Apple Stopped Supporting Carrier IQ in iOS 5, Complete Removal Coming in Future

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41D) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

Another reason why aftermarket Android ROMS are a major benefit.

They shouldn't be a necessity tho.

No one should have to root and install a custom ROM onto a handset (thus voiding any warranty) to have a clean phone, free from CIQ (especially as users were never made aware it was even on their handsets).

 

[Oletros]

Again?

Google can do what they already considered in the past:

http://www.businessinsider.com/goog...separate-issue-some-software-called-logmein-9

Simply add that requirement to the agreement. The CDD mentioned in that e-mail is the:

"Compatibility Definition Document (CDD)
For each release of the Android platform, a detailed Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) will be provided. The CDD represents the "policy" aspect of Android compatibility."

So a new agreement is made for every new Android release.

http://source.android.com/compatibility/overview.html

Oohhh, they can try to prevent thing by DCC and be sued like they has been sued by Skyhook

Thanks for proving my point about Android.

Do you really read the things you post or only blindly post the first thing you find searching the web?

----------

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41D) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)



They shouldn't be a necessity tho.

No one should have to root and install a custom ROM onto a handset (thus voiding any warranty) to have a clean phone, free from CIQ (especially as users were never made aware it was even on their handsets).

Exactly

----------

A guess? I clearly described that Google can impose licensing restrictions on manufacturers who choose to use Google apps and the Android trademark. What part is a guess?

Another time? They can't impose restrictions on Android trademark, the thing I was answering.

 

[BaldiMac]

Oohhh, they can try to prevent thing by DCC and be sued like they has been sued by Skyhook

Thanks for proving my point about Android.

Do you really read the things you post or only blindly post the first thing you find searching the web?

Again, being sued is not evidence of illegality. Besides there is no need to ban specific apps. As I've said before, they can just impose a minimum privacy policy. Or an opt-in requirement for pre-installed spyware. Your antitrust claims are just a smokescreen.

----------

Another time? They can't impose restrictions on Android trademark, the thing I was answering.

Source?

They own the trademark. You don't think they can impose restrictions on its use? They already do. See the Compatibility Definition Document (CDD).

 

[gkpm]

Oohhh, they can try to prevent thing by DCC and be sued like they has been sued by Skyhook

Why would they sue Google over a clause limiting software like Carrier IQ?

"We're suing Google because they won't let us install our spyware on the phones"

They would be the laughing stock of the world.

ps - That e-mail was about LogMeIn, not Skyhook btw. Did you read it?

 

[Thunderhawks]

I appreciate the stance and the proposed removal. My big question though is why it took "...wake of significant publicity" to get to this point, and, what else is being done without our knowledge, on our devices, for which we pay a premium sum of money? Like I said, it's a start, but hopefully not an end.

Why?

Al Franken didn't know about it

 

[a.gomez]

1. AT&T/Sprint said they used them - VERIZON does not in the US (most android phones in the US anyway)

2. HTC said it is required by some US carriers to use it (see above)


I guess now some in the Apple community can not read
iOS dumbing down of Apple continues

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.1; en-gb; Galaxy Nexus Build/ITL41D) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

And how can they prevent it?

Again?

Google can do what they already considered in the past:

http://www.businessinsider.com/goog...separate-issue-some-software-called-logmein-9

Simply add that requirement to the agreement. The CDD mentioned in that e-mail is the:

"Compatibility Definition Document (CDD)
For each release of the Android platform, a detailed Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) will be provided. The CDD represents the "policy" aspect of Android compatibility."

So a new agreement is made for every new Android release.

http://source.android.com/compatibility/overview.html

Just had a quick browse of the supporting document for Android 2.3 and this caught my eye:

"Alternate runtimes MUST NOT be launched with, be granted, or grant to other applications any privileges of the superuser (root), or of any other user ID."

I'm wondering if CIQ cotravines this rule in any way as the CIQ agent must have superuser privileges to collect all of the information that it does.

 

[Oletros]

They already do. See the Compatibility Definition Document (CDD).

http://source.android.com/compatibility/2.3/android-2.3.3-cdd.pdf

Have you seen it? Can you show me any restriction that is not technical? Thanks

----------

"Alternate runtimes MUST NOT be launched with, be granted, or grant to other applications any privileges of the superuser (root), or of any other user ID."

Carrier IQ is not an alternate runtime:

Device implementations MAY include runtime environments that execute applications using some other virtual machine or native code. However, such alternate execution environments MUST NOT compromise the of installed Android applications, as described in this section.

 

[wovel]

We stopped supporting CarrierIQ with iOS 5

so you saying apple told you carrieriq was on your phone before then?

Who cares if they mentioned the mechanism. They did explicitly state what information was collected, it is an opt in system and their policy is available right on the device in the same place you opt in.

 

[a.gomez]

Wrong. It IS an iOS vs Android thing. Apple does NOT allow carriers to put any unauthorized crapware on their iPhones. It's a walled garden that works. Google does allow carriers to put additional software, skins and, apparently, CarrierIQ.

Basically the 2 years I had my Iphone 3GS (contract ended in August) I had CIQ running on my phone - so Apple DID allow it on their phones... they already said so.

 

[wovel]

1. AT&T/Sprint said they used them - VERIZON does not in the US (most android phones in the US anyway)

2. HTC said it is required by some US carriers to use it (see above)


I guess now some in the Apple community can not read
iOS dumbing down of Apple continues

Too bad Verizon was apparently not telling the whole truth...

 

[gkpm]

http://source.android.com/compatibility/2.3/android-2.3.3-cdd.pdf

Have you seen it? Can you show me any restriction that is not technical? Thanks

Sure, here's one:

"Device implementations MUST include a single, shared, system-wide search user interface capable of real-time suggestions in response to user input."

in other words "You must show a search box in all screens"

But then again that's Google's core business isn't it, privacy not so much.

 

[BaldiMac]

http://source.android.com/compatibility/2.3/android-2.3.3-cdd.pdf

Have you seen it? Can you show me any restriction that is not technical? Thanks:

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you trying to say that the only reason that Google could deny anyone use of the Android trademark is technical? The CDD is just a prerequisite for Android branding. It isn't the only requirement.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

This actually has a lot of truth to it.

Everyone who looked at their iPhones before iOS 5 new it collected data unless you turned it off. It is there plain as day. If you missed it, then thats on you since its right in the settings. Not to mention you have the option to turn it off, and it only collects unimportant things, not keystrokes and searches and such that the Android handsets were.

Google is a data mining company. Even though its the OEM's who put this software on there (they control the software to anyone who says the carriers do it), Google will take the heat for letting Android be modified in this fashion.

Another thing, Nokia claims this isn't on their phones, hence more evidence that its the OEM's not the carriers that require this.

I think it funny that you some how think Apple is not data mining you like crazy and doing just as much.

 

[rudigern]

In the original video the developer shows an non-carrier tied phone towards the end. He didn't explicitly say but I assume its with original manufacturer software too? Doesn't that meant the carriers are not the only ones to blame?

 

[gkpm]

I think it funny that you some how think Apple is not data mining you like crazy and doing just as much.

And doing what with it? iAds?

I don't even see them, none of the apps I have use them.

It's not iTunes Genius recommendations either because they're terrible!

Google on the other hand runs ads for almost the entire web.

 

[unicorn025]

Who cares if they mentioned the mechanism. They did explicitly state what information was collected, it is an opt in system and their policy is available right on the device in the same place you opt in.

apple had this thing happen to them before this is the secound time suchtracking has been done on apple/

 

[MattInOz]

"Apple has now issued a statement noting that the company stopped supporting Carrier IQ with iOS 5 on most of its products"

Out of curiosity, which ones still have it?

I suspect the real question is in which markets do iOS devices have Carrier IQ activated?

Reading between the lines "with iOS5 its only on some devices" makes me think that with delta updates they can leave it off devices that aren't required by carrier condition to have it, where previously with the overwrite updates it was installed but only activated where required.

 

[Rocketman]

I think Apple's only promise is they do not attach personally identifying info with the data packet. I simply ask, who has access to these packets and device ID's through traditional internet routers?

I suspect dozens of continuous capture entities do.

What they can or do do with it is another issue.

IP is very public.

Oh, BTW Franken is not on a need to know basis on any security committee.

 

[Lennholm]

This kind of thinking reminds me of the old Wintel era where users calling for support to Microsoft would be directed to the hardware maker who would direct them to the software maker who would direct them to Microsoft. The whole team gets the blame when there's a failure.

Nothing has changed in the world of call centers, the carriers referr to Apple for support with their iPhone, AppleCare referrs to the carrier, back and forth, it's still the same

 

[unicorn025]

well some android phone had carrier iq but all iphones had it till ios5, did apple say hey we tracking you, no they did not.

 

[powers74]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Why & how did it make it into iOS in the first place?

 

[inkswamp]

And how can they prevent it?

Google could exert control over their platform in some non-technical ways. The most obvious is that they could create some kind of "Google approved" logo/program and hype the crap out of it as the best way to experience Android, and only allow phone vendors and carriers to be part of it if they meet certain requirements imposed by Google. Those requirements would be designed with the best interests of the end user at heart.

That becomes a selling point for consumers when they know Google stands behind it and that there's no BS like CarrierIQ or crapware being added. It would give Google a way to control a reasonable subset of their platform and ensure quality on a number of phones while still allowing the free and open part of Android to persist.

Like I said, first Google has to give a rip about the user experience on Android. At this point, they don't seem to care.

 

[kalex]

Right now carrierIQ is done. Its a bastard child of phone industry and its going to be a scapegoat for others. It happens all the time now. Someone finds something out, bloggers pick it up, raise a stink and now companies are backpedalling and trying to find someone to blame. So saying that android is the only one doing it and that Apple is a saint and would never do this to their users is BS.

 

[gkpm]

well some android phone had carrier iq but all iphones had it till ios5, did apple say hey we tracking you, no they did not.

No, but that's because they weren't tracking.

Carrier IQ on iOS was always limited to essential disgnostic information only - no numbers, key presses, URLs - none of the information hoarding done by the Android version.

That's probably because the version on iOS was developed with Apple and not left in the hands of carriers.

The real lesson here is you can't leave things like this to the carriers. You can't even give them the chance to do it.