Apple is the latest company to distance itself from the Carrier IQ smartphone tracking software. Although references to Carrier IQ were found in iOS, Apple says "most" of its products don't support Carrier IQ as of iOS 5 and it'll completely remove it in a future update. Of course, that leaves us wondering which Apple products continue to support Carrier IQ — especially since the company just launched the iPhone 4 and 4S on Sprint, which called CIQ an "integral part of its service." Apple's full statement:
We stopped supporting CarrierIQ with iOS 5 in most of our products and will remove it completely in a future software update. With any diagnostic data sent to Apple, customers must actively opt-in to share this information, and if they do, the data is sent in an anonymous and encrypted form and does not include any personal information. We never recorded keystrokes, messages or any other personal information for diagnostic data and have no plans to ever do so.

There are 137 Comments. Add yours.
>using Android phones
>2011
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You can’t green text here.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just to make sure, I’ll test :]
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Nope, the html gets removed. only basic html :[
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
| You can’t green text here.
I’m sure we’ll think of something.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And why not? We know that Android phones don’t use Carrier IQ at all!
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, this is all just made up →
" Eckhart followed up with a 17-minute YouTube video showing how the software secretly runs on his HTC EVO 3D Android phone and logs every key press, every text, and the full URL of every website he visits. It recorded that data even from websites that use security encryption designed to prevent that kind of tracking."
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=android+carrier+iq#q=android+carrier+iq&hl=en&prmd=imvnsufd&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=BdLYTqnXFYPqtgeYnPDtAQ&ved=0CD0QqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=996804640f21a5f1&biw=1418&bih=740
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 8:34 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The key word being “HTC EVO 3D.” This phone doesn’t run Google’s Android OS. It runs a customized OS developed by HTC for their customer – Sprint.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 10:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The only way you can be sure is to run an open source OS from a known trusted source (ideally going though the code you self, then compiling and installing it on your phone.) Only Google Android (AOSP) gives you this ability.
You can “trust” Apple or HTC if you want, but when the code is hidden, even “opting out” may not mean what you think it means or what they tell you it means.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 2:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
By “most” do they mean Macs & iPods don’t collect data?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:31 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
When they start running iOS5 maybe we can add them to the list, until then i dont think thats what they meant.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
I’m guessing iPhones that don’t run iOS 5.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I’m guessing carrier specific iOS 5 phones.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:09 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, he meant phones not running iOS 5. iOS 5 does not support Carrier IQ, so it stands to reason that no iOS5 phone would support it.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Most of our iOS 5 products
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:05 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
We stopped supporting CarrierIQ, with iOS 5 in most of our products.
Meaning they stopped using CarrierIQ because its not part of iOS 5 and iOS 5 is now on most of their products.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 9:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And probably still on the AT&T iPhones… Since AT&T apparently loves this software a lot. You know, to keep that wonderful network they have in tip-top shape.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 9:33 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You mean Sprint. " that leaves us wondering which Apple products continue to support Carrier IQ — especially since the company just launched the iPhone 4 and 4S on Sprint, which called CIQ an “integral part of its service.”
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 8:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seems to me all anyone can do is guess what Apple’s weasel words really mean, but why would they be removing the software in future releases if it weren’t in iOS 5?
Either way, we should not accept this statement as a final statement .. it needs to be clarified .. even the part where they say it is “opt-in” … they “qualify” that statement with “diagnostic data” and “sent to Apple” … so in theory “security related data” sent to the NSA could be being sent out and Apple would still not technically be lying.
In situations like this, when corporations make statements, you really need to read those statements for EXACTLY what they say, and not let them get away with telling only partial truths getting you to make unfounded assumptions, filling in the details with information as you think, or wish, it might be.
Some might want to fill in the details with Apple positive assumptions .. others may want to fill it in with Apple negative assumptions .. but really, it should be the journalists that go out and ask the really tough questions and not let Apple (or any other manufacturer and carrier) get away with bafflegab.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 2:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m glad they’re doing this. I don’t mind sharing data for diagnostic purposes to improve the product but not to whore me out to advertisers and log every tap I make.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Exactly, its one thing to be sending this data to the company that designed your phone but a completely different when it is being sent to a 3rd party
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Not to mention it’s always been opt-in on iOS.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:01 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
I suspect you’re being serious, but it reads like it might be sarcasm, heh.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well Apple’s implementation never logged all the stuff that some of the other phones are doing. Even under iPhone 3G its under diagnostic purposes and you have to opt-in, not opt-out. But, I think when Apple removed the Ad network apps that were tracking all kinds of data, they made a pledge or at least a statement about requiring as minimal data as possible, anonymized, and something about relevancy (i.e. they started cracking down on apps that ask for your location, but don’t provide location based services, etc.).
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:41 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
what this indicates to me is that if it was on previous versions of iOS was that it most likely was on iphones on AT&T… unless it was only really on iOS 4 and not before that, even then if it was on iOS 4 built into all the iPhones that were put out including AT&T then AT&T either lied, or wasn’t telling the complete truth about not using it.
interesting…
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just what AT&T needs: more bad publicity.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You would think with all the “diagnostics” they were collecting that they would at least not suck as hard as they do, but nope, still sucking hard, if not harder.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
AT&T deserves everything they get. They are the ones that engineered the countries most crappy 3G network. AT&T engineers should take a trip to Seoul, Korea and learn how to operate a real high speed network. It is so sad for me (as a parent and a person in the IT industry) to watch other countries leapfrog us in technology.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 10:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
AT&T knows how to run a good network. They just don’t want to spend the money. This is the real reason US carriers are so bad: http://dslprime.com/a-wireless-cloud/61-w/4466-us-wireless-75-fewer-basestations-than-comparable-europe
Posted on Dec 04, 2011 | 2:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple is the only consumer electronics company that users can trust. Apple’s customer is the end user — you and me. Google’s customer are the advertisers, and the end user is the product being sold. Microsoft’s customers are businesses. Apple has shown time and again that they are committed to the end user experience. Thank you, Apple, for sticking up for us.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:40 PM EST reply Recommend (37) Flag actions
I generally agree with you. But find it funny when sprint said the same thing the haters were out in force in that article. Haters and fanboys smh…what are you going to do?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s vastly different because the proof is in the pudding here. Apple only recorded/collected diagnostic information that was entirely opt-in. Sprint, on the other hand, recorded/collected keystrokes, sms, web history, diagnostics, etc. without mentioning it to the user. That’s called wire tapping.
People stick up for Apple on this because they asked the user to take it and it’s only device info, whereas Sprint took private information secretly. If you can’t see that, then you might have to readjust your monitor.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
At no point did anyone prove Sprint collected key stokes or anything like it. No more has been proven about Sprint than Apple. And Sprint openly admitted pretty much right away what they use it for. Not to mention of all the carriers, Sprint has the best track record of being semi transparent with it’s customers. So thank you for proving exactly my point. Bias is slamming sprint but everyone praises apple for basically the same thing.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s a pretty delusional perspective. Looks like you have a problem with Google.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:44 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Not really. He’s right.
Google’s not giving away a free operating system out of the goodness of their harts. They are a business and their goal is to make money. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s best to remember that the advertisers are the customers. You are the content. I will say thought that Google is much more responsible than many companies would be with their level of information and power.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:58 PM EST reply Recommend (25) Flag actions
I would imagine that Android makes more money off of Market sales than ads on Android devices, though I don’t have any sources or anything.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That’s definitely incorrect. Ads are over 90% of Google’s total business (I’d link you, but I’m in the middle of a few things, but it’s freely available on a basic web search).
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yup, 96% to be precise.
Check it out (bottom page) http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q3_google_earnings.html
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:47 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Truth hurts.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:02 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
I know. It must come as a shock to discover Apple actually coded CarrierIQ support into their devices and Google did not.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:13 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Sigh, let’s not get into an Engadget-styled flame war here. Apple put CarrierIQ in their devices as an opt-in device log retriever. NOT to steal information. Please, put your distaste for other companies away for a minute and realize that the carriers are at fault here. It’s really sweet of you for defending Google over getting ad revenue, but it’s no secret that that’s true. They even came to my school and gave a seminar on how important ad revenue is to them and how they implement the best ads as possible.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
Well don’t blame Codenaut for that, he is just replying to the “You can only trust Apple” claim.
Does Google mostly make money of there ads, hell yeah! But that doesn’t mean we can’t trust them.
If you really think Apple is the only company who cares about there costumers you are indeed delusional.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Not really considering it’s in plain view, you can see exactly what is captured, it doesn’t do anything near as bad as the version carriers added to Android, and it’s OFF by default.
True, the carriers are to blame, not Google. Also true, Android’s Carrier IQ is MUCH WORSE than what’s on iOS.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
It’s no shock to learn that iOS includes software to record diagnostic information as allowing it or not is a step in activating any device.
Nor is it a shock that the fandroid patrol is out in force defending their corporate overlord.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Of course it’s all for diagnostic purposes. Why would Apple PR say otherwise. I mean, it’s not like Apple PR has ever been wrong, right?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Do you have anything else besides innuendo?
Some like proof?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, didn’t Apple PR also deny the iPhone 4 antenna problem?
Or the issue of tracking
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:56 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
In what way does a bar display indicate an antenna problem? Anandtech found that the iPhone 4’s antenna was the best one on the market? Why? Because it’s external. It’s called physics, look into it.
On the issue of tracking, no personal information was EVER sent to Apple. Only the locations of cell towers. So what exactly is your point? You completely failed to provide the proof adent was asking for.
Try harder. PROVIDE PROOF. Or stop being an Apple-hating jackass, one or the other.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:41 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
OK, a few things:
Anandtech says the iPhone 4 has a great antenna so all those people “holding it wrong” must be morons? If there was never a problem no-one would have complained, and they wouldn’t have changed the design to fix it.
If you read the blog posting by chpwn at http://blog.chpwn.com/post/13572216737 he says “despite … never enabling the above checks, I do see Carrier IQ log files stored on all of the devices I tested”, and the data being collected seems to include location (again), along with your phone number – which I guess is personal info?
Also the point of this article is a little skewed – it’s OK, Apple don’t do this any more. Like it was OK that they used to do it because now they don’t?
It’s not even Apple collecting your data – it’s someone else!
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 7:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You are conflating attenuation with reception. Attenuation is when the signal is reduced by holding the phone over the antenna so the signal has to go through your hand. Guess what? EVERY PHONE has that problem. Every single one of them. Reception is how well an antenna picks up signal, and guess what? The iPhone 4’s antenna does that the best. By far. Because it’s external.
You sound like Chicken Little. Are you so paranoid that you believe any personal data was ever sent to Apple via Carrier IQ at any point, ever? Apple stopped supporting CarrierIQ with iOS 5, long before this story broke. The guy in the article you linked can’t even verify that ANY data was EVER sent. Cry wolf some more and see how far that gets you.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 2:17 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The display bar statement by Apple PR was their response to the antenna problems. But, are you seriously denying the iPhone 4 antenna problem? Are you seriously that blind to all the criticism it’s received?
As for looking into physics, perhaps you should look into it also because when you place your finger between the two antenna bands signal strength can drop by up to 20 decibels and that’s enough to drop a call.
Isn’t physics fun?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What problem was that again? See my above post. You, like so many other people, are conflating attenuation with reception. EVERY phone has attenuation issues. EVERY PHONE. Want me to show you some youtube videos of tons of different phones (not iPhones) that drop signal when you “hold them wrong”? Or you think you can handle looking them up yourself?
The iPhone has the best RECEPTION because the antenna is on the outside of the phone. Read the Anandtech articles. The iPhone can hold onto signal at a lower decibel than any other phone on the market. Why? External antenna. So yes, physics is fun. You should learn more about it before trying to comment.
Posted on Dec 12, 2011 | 2:20 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yup. He is right.
Google makes their money off advertising. Zero from Android.
They have next to no incentive to create innovative hardware (let alone an integrated package) – which is why generally I dislike Android. They just want to get as many phones into peoples hands as possible. Their AdMonkeys, running around the web collecting mobile data for them to serve ads.
Apple actually cares, and it’s shown at all levels.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:05 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Well, wasn’t the whole purpose behind Android to provide a cheap, flexible OS for manufacturers. It was never really intended to be “for users” at its core. I mean, Google seems to have changed their approach with Ice Cream Sandwich, making it more user-friendly, but the existence of ICS isn’t going to suddenly remove the carrier and manufacturer specific skins and variants that were the main selling point of Android(again, to manufacturers)
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yes, but how can you not think of the end user? I personally hate the business strategy. Apple is making over 50% mobile hardware profits…that’s how business is done in my books.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Business being done by slave labor? That’s your kind of business?
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 3:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, you’re wrong. Google does make money from Android. They get a cut of all app store purchases as well as in-app purchases. And if Apple really did care if wouldn’t have taken them this long to admit that they use, and still continue to, CarrierIQ software which they themselves coded into their OS. There are no traces of CarrierIQ is any of Google’s Nexus phones.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
That’s a half-truth at best. They make a minute amount of money off applications and is not their business model. With the amount of high-priced man hours that Google puts into Android, they are likely still losing money on Android. This is not including the $12 billion dollar acquisition of MMI which is still reporting quarterly losses.
Google’s profits come from ads.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:22 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
No it’s not nor do you have any financials to prove that it’s a ‘minute’ amount of money.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:25 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Are you kidding me? Apple controls 90% of the paid app revenue and everyone knows that they make their money off hardware sales. Paid apps represent a minute share for Apple.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/11/21/piper-jaffray-android-app-revenue-is-7-of-iphones/
Apple makes its money off hardware.
MS makes its money off OS licenses.
Google makes its money off ads.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:32 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Possibly because you have no idea on what revenue Google makes from their app store, in-app purchases or the thousdands of businesses that use their Google Apps or Email for business. Google has multiple revenue streams besides advertising. How difficult is that to understand?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:50 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They barely make any money off apps. Their strategy is to arm people with devices powered by google search, and google mobile ads. They know mobile is the future – why else would they spend $14.5 billion in one day for patents (Motorla Mobility). The Android unit is technically losing money!
Their core strategy is advertising. They don’t care about making money on apps.
Futhermore, users are way more likely to pay for Apps on iOS than Android. I can’t imagine the revenue means anything to Google. http://allthingsd.com/20110527/android-users-like-apps-but-dont-like-paying-for-them/
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:00 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually, Google paid 12.5 Billion for Motorola and Motorola has about 3 Billion in cash reserves. They may not be making as much as Apple, but I don’t think they’re losing money.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:09 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They’re at a theoretical loss because they paid 12.5 billion, and are making nothing in hardware sales.
The ROI on the investment has to be attributed to their other revenue stream, online advertising.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well we do know what Google makes from their App store, it says so right in that link. $102m profit on $341m revenue(gross).
I’m not sure what you are referring to with “or the thousands of businesses that use their Google Apps or Email for Business” though. Do you mean if a business uses Google Web Services? because Google web services generate ad revenue.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:00 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Google has a product called Google Apps for business that it sells to small, medium and enterprise customers. They currently have 4 Million businesses that pay for the service and it’s growing at a pretty high rate:
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I can assure you that revenue stream is a joke compared to their advertising business.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:06 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
How can it be a joke when over 4 Million business pay for it? Sure, it pales in comparison to their advertising revenue, but I’d say it’s probably their second highest revenue stream behind advertising.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
97% of their revenue comes from advertising. I suggest you look at their financials.
Therefore, their other revenue streams are a joke.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I’m currently looking at their financials on Google finance. Is there a site that has a more details breakdown of their revenue streams?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html
“Total advertising revenues” – if you do the math it’s ~ 97%
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That is a pretty big discrepancy. But, even though other revenue is only 4% it is growing YOY.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Out of the last 3 quarters it shrunk YOY in one, it grew slower than other business in another, only in one out of three did it grow its share of Google’s business overall.
I acknowledge you are 1/3rd right. Look forward to you acknowledging that you are 2/3rds wrong.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:28 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Well, if you extrapolate based on 4m businesses and 40m users, you come up with $2b/year revenue, which would be about 6% of their over-all revenue. This is obviously a horrendously inaccurate estimate because there is no information to say whether 4m/40m accounts are actively paying for it today or if 4m/40m accounts have at one point paid for it, then stopped. I would guess the latter to be far more likely as Google’s own financial statements only leave room for about 3% of non-advertising revenue(67% from their sites and 30% from ad partner sites).
Not really sure why it matters so much. Google revolutionized the concept of paying for the internet through advertising, we should all be thankful that they did as it has enabled the internet to be largely free longer than it likely would be if no one had figured that out. In the long run, maybe it won’t be the best way to run a business, and I think Google is at least somewhat aware of this, but they are a very long way from charging for mainstream services.
Just to put in perspective. 4m/40m businesses/users might sound like a lot, but when you consider they have over 1 billion users of their search engine, and over 200m Android users you start to realize how comparatively small of a revenue stream it is.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I hope you realize the irony of saying, “You can’t have an opinion because you don’t know their revenue! It’s alright though, because even without knowing, I can have an opinion.”
The facts are in front of you; Google gets a 30% cut of app sales, but that also has to go towards hosting and advertising the apps. Not only that, but the Market doesn’t make a lot of money; it’s been proven time and time again that no one truly buys apps there. Sure, many people do, but the majority people don’t.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Why are you quoting “minute”?
It’s a word. It means very small. You can look it up on google dictionary by searching: define minute
which returns:
Adjective:
Extremely small: “a minute fraction of an inch”.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Because I disagree with his use of the word relative to what Google does make from the app market.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So, if they were the only one users can trust, how come iPhones have CarrierIQ and Nexus devices don’t? Praising a company for backpedalling in the face of a PR shitstorm seems hardly honorable.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:57 PM EST reply Recommend (16) Flag actions
1. The iPhone had very limited use of CarrierIQ. It wasn’t anything on the level of a keylogger.
2. The whole point of this data mining by CarrierIQ is for the carriers to sell you to advertisers. Google doesn’t need CarrierIQ to do this. They’ve been doing this already. It’s their business model and they don’t need a middleman.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:14 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
It was also opt-in and not opt-out (if at all like in other phones). Still, the CarrierIQ code is there no hiding around that.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:20 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Precisely. Apple coded support for CarrierIQ themselves into thier OS. Google did not.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:15 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Why does it matter who coded what into which phone? Does everything really need to be a Google vs. Apple argument all the time? It really is like arguing whether a douche is better than a turd.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s because the original comment Codenaut replied to claimed that Apple is the only company users can trust.
Ignoring that the Carier IQ on Android phones was put there by the carriers and without Google. While Apple coded it in iOS themselves!
Neither are evil in this case because Google didn’t do anything wrong and Apple made it an opt-in.
Only the carriers are evil!
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If a company goes out of their way to add support, into their OS, for a carrier wouldn’t you consider them complicit in the matter. HTC, Samsung and Apple have CarrierIQ code in their OS at the request of the carrier. HTC, Samsung and Apple issuing statements blaming the carrier is pretty ridiculous considering they performed the coding for them. Regardless of what it does or what it doesn’t do this type of software should not be baked into the OS by any phone manufacturer.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 8:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If we’re going to play the evil card, I’d say Apple’s less evil than HTC or Samsung in this case – yes, they baked support for it into their OS, but at least it was opt-in rather than opt-out. Plus, they’re being pretty open and honest about the whole thing rather than trying to sweep it under the rug. A company being honest with their customers is a rare occurrence – especially when it’s a company the size of Apple.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 4:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
100% right. I’d add one thing though, and that is I blame the carriers as much or more than HTC or Samsung. The carriers are their customers – not us. If they didn’t do what they were told by their customers, they might not have been able to sell any devices. I just wish that they used the Android AOSP code as a base and all modifications were transparent apps so that we as consumers could make an educated buying decision or easily uninstall their mods. Even the “Nexus” is installing Verizon bloatware under the system folder which is crappy.
The thing I love about Apple is that they have enough leverage to say no to the carriers and really do view the end user more as their customers than do Android OEMs.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 11:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That might make any sense at all if Google were the one implementing IQ Agent. They weren’t. It was the carriers and phone manufacturers that did it., whose customer base is NOT advertisers, but customers. Which completely invalidates your whole premise.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:00 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So why is Siri only available on the iPhone 4S, then?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google can be trusted precisely because its customers are advertisers. Let me put it another way. Google is not in fact in the software business, or even in the service business – it is in the trust business, If Google’s users ever believe that Google is nosing in places that it shouldn’t, Google’s entire operations could be devastated. As such Google probably spends more time thinking about privacy than any other major corporation.
I also trust Apple, for the same reasons that you give.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Google’s business is information, not advertisements entirely. They need information to keep their ads relevant, and as such, they need to gather as much information as they can about everyone and everything. Why do you think they collected everything they could from unencrypted WiFi connections when their Street View teams were taking pictures?
I wouldn’t trust them with anything if I were you.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:16 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That was by definition public data – and they have supplied an opt-out. They absolutely do want as much information as they can get, but they are very aware that if they cross the line into creepy they destroy their business.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re missing the point. Every data collection should be opt-in, not opt-out. It’s like allowing somebody with a camera take naked pictures of you in a locker room and then post them on the Internet, and only later offering you a page to remove them after a million people already saw them. That should not happen, period. If they want naked pictures of you they should ask for them first.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:30 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That’s not exactly a perfect analogy as a locker room has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whereas data being sent unencrypted through the air doesn’t. In that case, it’s like you built the locker room with glass walls. You might’ve WANTED it to be private, but you obviously didn’t MAKE it private.
It does suck that they grabbed unsecured data but it couldn’t have been much. It’s not like those street view vans stay still. Except at red lights. And at gas stations. Those are the only places I’ve seen them still.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Also, I always encrypt my wifi APs so it didn’t affect me. I don’t want to share my bandwidth with my neighbors! :D
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I can see 9 SSIDs from my living room, which aren’t mine, did I just invade their privacy? No. Please don’t be ridiculous.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s always a matter of opinion but I don’t get your logic. By that logic Facebook should also be trusted because they think heavily about privacy as well. It doesn’t explain this:
The Apologies of Zuckerberg: A Retrospective
Also Google has been constant trouble with privacy whether it be the wi-fi scandal or the Buzz fiasco.
There is also the infamous quotes of Eric Schmidt:
-Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it
-If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place
-People can just move if Google photographs their cars or businesses
-People should change their names if they don’t like everything about them to be stored online
-In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you
-Implementing the strictest safeguards (for privacy) .slows everything down. We’re not going to do anything that disadvantages speed.
-We know everything you’re doing and the government can track you.
Lastly, there is this bit of creepiness: GCreep: Google Engineer Stalked Teens, Spied on Chats
It may be a one time thing but it shows that, at least for me, that there is an extremely high level to be met when it comes to privacy and the protection of user data.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Facebook has its users tied down far tighter with netwoork effect, it’s far easier to switch your search provider than to move your entire social group onto a different platform.
Google also has revenue streams to protect, Facebook is still trying to build revenue. If facebook can’t find a way to monetize its users then it risks complete collapse, for them the risk/reward of privacy violation is totally different to Google’s.
As for the engineer story, c’mon – you’re better than that! It is impossible for any organization to completely protect its customers from its employees. All a company can do is make a best effort, and to be honest about the cases where an employee has breached rules.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Google can be trusted…”
Um…no, not really;
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia/
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 10:46 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Looks like Apple’s PR brainwash worked perfectly with you: “Thank you, Apple, for sticking up for us.”
You should word it right: “Thank you, Apple, for sticking it up to us.”
Apple is in it for the money too, just so you know.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
. With any diagnostic data sent to Apple, customers must actively opt-in to share this information, and if they do, the data is sent in an anonymous and encrypted form and does not include any personal information.
Are the words too long for you? Do we need to explain them?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:20 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
I was replying to this:
“Apple is the only consumer electronics company that users can trust. Apple’s customer is the end user — you and me. Google’s customer are the advertisers, and the end user is the product being sold. Microsoft’s customers are businesses. Apple has shown time and again that they are committed to the end user experience. Thank you, Apple, for sticking up for us.”
Apple is really committed to their shareholders, just as any other corporation. Saying they can be trusted because “they stick for us” is completely naive. Not too long ago they were also caught collecting data, and what about the iPhone 4 antenna mess? The only solution they could come up with was a lame case instead of admitting that they made a mistake and offer a refund or a replacement phone without issues.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And as a shareholder I would be appalled if Apple had included CarrierIQ’s software to the extend HTC has included it on their devices fro Sprint.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:33 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I’m sure you wouldn’t mind after they gave you a nice check with your share of the earnings.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple doesn’t pay dividends.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:37 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Sucks for the shareholders then
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, not really.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:40 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Yeah, they are crying all the way to the bank.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 11:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is most likely that the carrier has included this software, no HTC!
That’s because most of the Android phones in the EU, or at least all the phones from the Netherlands, don’t have CarrierIQ.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple has acknowledged that the software is present on their device but explained that it is opt-in and that it doesn’t get access to personal data – both statements bearing out what chpwn (who found the software on iPhone in the first place) had said.
HTC may not have put the software on their devices but they also did nothing to protect their consumers by ensuring that it was opt-in or limited in its access. As was demonstrated by Trevor Eckhart.
HTC probably didn’t have a choice in the matter, since it has less power in its negotiations with carriers, but nevertheless the facts that we currently have paint a very different picture. The fact is that compared to HTC and likely others, both Apple and Google have stuck up for their users, and they both deserve credit for that.
American consumers, who lack the strong regulatory protections that we enjoy in Europe should probably remember that going forward. That unless they are willing to ROM their phones they should either choose Nexus or choose iPhone – because those devices have the least carrier involvement.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:49 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I know what you were replying to. You were implying that Apple’s response concealed some wrong-doing. Oh and Apple were not caught collecting data, they were caught with a bug were data built up in a file on your phone – it didn’t get sent back to Apple. It was a bad bug because it had the potential to facilitate a loss of privacy if security of the device was breached, but it wasn’t an attempt to monetize user data.
Apple had a public policy document regarding how they handled user privacy. They promised that any data collection was opt-in and personal details were stripped out. They are saying that CarrierIQ was used, but that it was used under the terms of that policy. They did exactly what they told consumers that they would do, that seems like sticking up for consumers to me – especially when you compare it to the situation on the HTC phone that we saw break the whole Carrier IQ story.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Read the original article: http://blog.chpwn.com/post/13572216737
“…despite those restrictions and never enabling the above checks, I do see Carrier IQ log files stored on all of the devices I tested.”
He never opted in and the logs were there on the phones anyway – so did he only “actively opt-in to share this information”, but has no option to turn off recording it in the first place? That would make sense to me as the more diagnostic data you collect the better – so once you opt in it allows all of it to be sent, but that is a semantic difference in the above statement, and I suspect one not a lot of people would pick up on. You are authorising it to be shared, not collected?
I checked this on my phone: settings > general > about > diagnostics – it says “automatically send”, doesn’t say anything about not collecting it! It does say it will send it daily though. I am not sure if the ‘diagnostics and usage data’ button below shows what will actually be sent? It’s a moot point anyway, as this Carrier IQ stuff seems somehow separate from this, and according to Apple is gone from iOS5 (which I am running now).
Also according to chpwn the data recorded includes your phone number, I imagine some people might think that was kind of personal (considering the carrier could almost certainly just look all your other details up once they knew that).
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 7:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re ridiculous. At the end of the day, its all about making money. Google makes money from advertising. Apple makes money from selling hardware. You’re judging a company based on how they make money. Look at the tobacco industry. They make money harming people. This is morally bad. You can’t trust tobacco companies. That being said, Apple employs foxconn in China which basically treats their employees like slaves and drives them to suicide. Yet Apple still employees this company, thus condoning unethical treatment of employees. But they’re the only company you can trust. Give me a break. You think they care about you? They care about the mighty dollar and that’s it. Hell, they killed off all charitable donations under Steve Job’s leadership. Yeah, super awesome company there. Stop being delusional.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:20 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You forgot to note that not just Apple uses Foxconn. Amazon, Dell, Microsoft, HP, Cisco, Intel, Barnes & Noble, Motorola, Nokia, Acer, Nintendo, Vizio, and Sony Ericsson also use Foxconn.
Also, I don’t think it’s safe to say Apple doesn’t care about the employees of Foxconn. Back in February, Tim Cook and his team visited Foxconn. Here’s an excerpt from this WSJ article.
I’m sure each of the companies listed above care about Foxconn employees and have helped in some way.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 7:25 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well, I don’t know if it is necessarily a case for more trust exactly, but there is definitely something to be said about Apple’s business model. It is pretty straightforward, no-bullshit, “lemonade stand” sort of capitalism. They make a widget, they sell their widget, people buy it, and that’s about the end of it.
You don’t see Apple playing with their sticker prices to incentivize sales. Filling their computers with bloatware and stickers to subsidize prices(iPhone carrier subsidy notwithstanding) or having established ‘Loss Leader" product lines(the closest thing I can think of is iTunes itself). They don’t tend to do anything other than present their product, ask what they ask for it, and let the market do the rest. At the very least it is a pretty stark contrast to the established model of the dot-com bubble the likes of which Dell, HP, Gateway, Compaq, eMachines and others attempted, which was do everything possible to make the sticker price appealing and make up the difference on volume and high-end/enterprise pricing. Considering how many of those companies went bust and how even HP is having doubts about their place in the business, I think it is safe to say that was never a very good strategy for the long haul.
But, all that being said, they are still a business and just like Google or MS, if they burn some users in pursuit of expanding and sustaining their business they aren’t exactly going to shed any tears either. Also, with Apple especially they have a tendency to become very myopic about things that fall outside of their immediate concerns. They have let product lines languish and become essentially useless, they have completely ignored the professional community, they have pissed off more than a few independent developers with App Store policies and ultimately, with Apple, whenever you fall outside of the ecosystem/solutions they are trying to present, you basically stop existing to them, user or not.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Google is a fantastic company with a proven track record of protecting consumer data. If I were you I’d completely trust them with all of my private information (especially the demographically viable stuff).
- Your friendly neighborhood AdWords Account manager
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yet Windows Phone is the ONLY OS confirmed to not be using CarrierIQ at all. Why is it Apple is more trustworthy than Microsoft again?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:33 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
But if the best company for trust is the one where the customer is the end user, isn’t it even better to trust . . . the end user? Apple has shown time and again that they’re committed to backtracking once there’s an outcry, sure, but they still put Carrier IQ into iOS in the first place, they still had a secret log file keeping track of phone location before people discovered it and they released a patch, etc etc. And little things, less malicious but still unfriendly, like how it took them quite a long time to fix the alarm bug (during which it hit several more regions).
No, I think even if you’re right (and I actually do believe you are, to a degree) you haven’t taken it far enough. Apple isn’t always looking out for customer’s interests; their interests will never 100% align with ours, nor should we even expect them to. They aren’t sticking up for you, they’re sticking up for what’s best for them, and though that often means giving customers what they want, by no means does it always mean this. Remember, they lobbied against the DMCA exception that made it legal to jailbreak. If they’re sticking up for us, it’s all too often in a “we know better, shut up” kind of way.
But on the other hand you have community ROMs like CyanogenMod, made by the very people who most want to use the software, and developed in the open. Do you think CyanogenMod ever included CarrierIQ? If you ARE that paranoid, then go ahead and check the source code.
Carriers, advertisers, companies like Apple, they all have their own interests. You know who sticks up for “us”? Us.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I believe that you believe this.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 1:20 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
that’s one of the dumber comments iv’e ever read, especially the part that microsoft sells to businesses. businesses are customers too.
even if you’re trying to say that apple sells to individuals rather than larger businesses, do you think that the people that run IT departments would buy from a company that they knew sold shady stuff? so i guess apple using CIQ in previous iOS builds was sticking up for the consumer too?
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 2:22 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s incredible that your pathetic fanboy comment got so many recommends. Tells much about the general audience of this site.
Now on the subject, according to Ars’ coverage on this, only the iphone4 still has CarrierIQ software even with Ios5 installed, and it is not opt in/out as it functions separately from Ios5 diagnostics settings(which is off by default).
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 7:18 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Maybe Carrier IQ explains some of that phantom data usage….
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:41 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Verizon and Apple have both made very clear, unambiguous statements on the matter and should be applauded for that. Also, Apple clearly is doing this correctly, as an opt-in that can be toggled at any time.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:42 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
That’s a little ambiguous.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:04 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I am assuming they mean the ones sold everywhere else in the world other than with particular carriers in the US.
Also most is anything more than half, so 49% of them might still have it.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 7:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Clear and unambiguous would be saying which devices. Apple has not.
Posted on Dec 02, 2011 | 5:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So Apple was alright with Carrier IQ’s product on their devices prior to iOS5? Why does that not make me comfortable? What else is on their devices that we don’t know about?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And if CIQ is not part of IOS5 why would they state that it will be removed in future updates? Sounds to me like a lot of backpedeling on Apple’s part IMHO…
Also, if all these companies are distancing themselves from CIQ and most claiming to have no relationship and do not use CIQ, it begs the question; Who are these 141 million (cell phones) that CIQ claims to be installed on and active?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Reading between the lines I suspect that they found it had security weaknesses, and even used in a bone fide way – with users consent and without access to private data – it was still not something they wanted on their devices.
As for why to remove it so soon, well it has just become the PR equivalent of plutonium – so of course they’ll remove it.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you look at how Apple has transitioned from using Google location services to using their own, their move from using Carrier IQ’s service to (I suspect) their own makes sense. At the time, back with iOS versions 1-4, it was probably easiest to build in Carrier IQ’s software for tracking dropped calls, cell signal with location, etc.
Now Apple will probably do this with their own software as they completely remove the remaining aspects of Carrier IQ’s software from the OS in iOS 5.1 (I can’t imagine they wait longer).
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder what they mean by ‘most’ of their products.
Would ‘sold outside the US’ quantify as ‘most’? Or 51%?
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 3:58 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
I agree, I would have liked them to be specific as to which iOS devices with iOS5 still support this code.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
iPhone 4 still haven’t disabled Carrier IQ apparently. According to ArsTechnica.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:57 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Let’s not panic here:
Here’s what we don’t know: We don’t’ know if every event CarrierIQ observes is being logged. No one has shown any sort of log file on an Android phone that captures these events. We also don’t know where those logs (if any) are being sent and to whom. It could very well be that CarrierIQ isn’t logging anything (although that probably isn’t likely).
Imagine you’re a developer and you’re going to write a general purpose logging program for your customer (which in this case is either the manufacturer or the carrier). You want your logging program to be flexible to capture the data the customer needs. This could be crash reports, dropped calls, UI issues, etc. How would you write it? I’d write one that watches for as many “events” as possible, but only track the events the customer wants. This way, if a customer wants to change what information they want, I can simply modify the configuration of my program and not the code itself. One copy of the code for every one that’s flexible to match whatever their needs.
Using CarrierIQ isn’t necessarily evil. Apple uses it, and you can turn it on and off via the configuration. You can even see what CarrierIQ captures because you can actually view the logs right on your iPhone. We know these events are very general purpose and sent to Apple.
CarrierIQ on Android phones was somewhat hidden, but it’s no “root kit” because it’s not running underneath Android’s OS. You can see it in a list of system processes, and you can see its list of permissions. You can’t see “root kits” in a list of system processes because they load before the OS loads and modify the OS to remain hidden.
The big issue is that we simply don’t know who CarrierIQ’s customer is. Is it the carrier or the manufacturer, or maybe some nefarious organization? We don’t know. We know what it sees, but we don’t know what it logs. We also don’t know who sees those logs.
Right now, we have denials everywhere. Google claim’s they didn’t do it. The carriers are all claiming it’s not them. HTC is surprised, just surprised it’s there on their phones. All I’d like is for someone to say “It’s on this phone because I requested it. This is the information I get from CarrierIQ. You can see the CarrierIQ logs here on the phone, and you can see that all I’m gathering is what I say I’m gathering.”
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:38 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
just a thought for everyone to ponder, Carrier IQ rootkit is not the only software available that does ‘data’ collection. They just got caught. Lets not forget all the others… and remember there are many ways to skin a cat, or collect PII information. Follow the money…. directed advertising, marketing and other reasons that this data is used.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 4:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
If Apple released a statement this quickly then you know this shit is serious.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Seriously. It didn’t take weeks.
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Companies are distancing themselves from CIQ now faster than Penn State distanced themselves from Joe Pa’…
Posted on Dec 01, 2011 | 6:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.