The Register reports that Google collects and transmits Android user data, including hardware identifiers and location, to its servers even before a user opens any apps or completes device setup. This pre-setup data collection involves several Google services and occurs during the initial boot process, transmitting information like IMEI, hardware serial number, SIM serial number, and nearby Wi-Fi access point details. While Google claims this data is crucial for essential services like fraud prevention and software updates, the article raises privacy concerns, particularly because users are not informed of this data collection nor given the opportunity to opt out. This behavior raises questions about the balance between user privacy and Google's data collection practices.
A March 4th, 2025 article published by The Register, titled "How Google tracks Android device users before they've even opened an app," details research revealing how Google collects and transmits significant amounts of user data from Android devices, even prior to any application usage or user interaction. This pre-app data collection, occurring during the device setup phase and before a user logs in with a Google account, involves the transmission of unique identifiers such as hardware IDs, including the device's IMEI, MAC addresses for Wi-Fi and Bluetooth components, and various other build characteristics.
The research, conducted by Douglas Leith at Trinity College Dublin, highlights that this initial data transmission allows Google to link the device and its associated identifiers to a specific user once they eventually log in with their Google account. This effectively creates a detailed pre-profile of the device and its potential user, associating hardware specifics with a later-provided Google identity.
Leith’s study also underscores the discrepancy in data collection practices between Android and iOS. While both operating systems transmit some telemetry data during setup, Android is found to send significantly more information to Google, approximately 10 times the volume transmitted by iOS to Apple. This difference is particularly notable given the pre-login context, raising concerns about the extent of data collection before explicit user consent via account login.
Furthermore, the research indicates that data transmission to Google occurs not just during the initial setup but also when a factory reset is performed, essentially resetting the data collection process. This continuous gathering of pre-login data emphasizes the pervasive nature of Google's tracking mechanisms within the Android ecosystem. The collected information, which can be used to build a comprehensive profile of the device and its user, raises privacy implications, especially considering the data transmission occurs before users actively engage with any applications or explicitly agree to data sharing through account creation.
The article concludes by noting that this pre-app data collection practice allows Google to establish a link between a device and its eventual user even before any explicit interaction with Google services or applications. This preemptive data gathering raises questions about the transparency and user control over data sharing within the Android operating system.
Summary of Comments ( 22 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43253167
HN commenters discuss the implications of Google's data collection on Android even before app usage. Some highlight the irony of Google's privacy claims contrasted with their extensive tracking. Several express resignation, suggesting this behavior is expected from Google and other large tech companies. One commenter mentions a study showing Google collecting data even when location services are disabled, and another points to the difficulty of truly opting out of this tracking without significant technical knowledge. The discussion also touches upon the limitations of using alternative Android ROMs or de-Googled phones, acknowledging their usability compromises. There's a general sense of pessimism about the ability of users to control their data in the Android ecosystem.
The Hacker News post discussing The Register's article about Google's Android tracking practices has generated a substantial discussion with various viewpoints and insights.
Several commenters express concerns about the extent of data collection occurring before users even interact with apps. They discuss the implications of pre-installed apps and system-level services sending data to Google, highlighting the potential privacy risks, especially for users unaware of this background activity. Some debate the necessity of this data collection for functionality versus Google's potential exploitation for advertising or other purposes. The discussion also touches upon the difficulty for users to opt out of this tracking, given its integration within the Android operating system itself.
One recurring theme is the comparison of Android's data collection practices to those of Apple's iOS. Commenters debate which operating system provides better privacy, with some arguing that Apple's approach is more transparent and user-centric. Others point out that both companies collect significant user data, albeit through different mechanisms.
A few commenters delve into the technical aspects of the data collection, discussing the role of Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) and other system-level components. They explain how these components facilitate communication between devices and Google servers, enabling features like push notifications but also potentially contributing to the pre-app usage data collection.
The discussion also extends to the broader issue of data privacy in the tech industry. Commenters express frustration with the lack of control users have over their data and the pervasive nature of tracking across various platforms and services. Some advocate for stronger regulations and greater transparency from tech companies regarding data collection practices.
There are also more skeptical comments questioning the novelty or significance of the findings in The Register's article. Some suggest that this type of background data transmission is inherent in modern mobile operating systems and necessary for basic functionality. They argue that the article might be overstating the privacy implications or presenting information already known within the tech community.
Finally, some commenters offer practical advice for users concerned about privacy, such as using alternative ROMs like LineageOS or exploring privacy-focused mobile operating systems like GrapheneOS. They discuss the trade-offs between functionality and privacy, acknowledging that more privacy-centric options may require technical expertise or involve sacrificing certain features.