Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th May 2017 23:08 UTC
Google

Google already monitors online shopping - but now it's also keeping an eye on what people buy in physical stores as it tries to sell more digital advertising.

The Internet giant said Tuesday that a new tool will track how much money people spend in merchants' bricks-and-mortar stores after clicking on their digital ads.

The analysis will be done by matching the combined ad clicks of people who are logged into Google services with their collective purchases on credit and debit cards. Google says it won't be able to examine the specific items bought or how much a specific individual spent.

Well, this seems like something our politicians should prevent. This is such a terrible idea.

Order by: Score:
Comment by tidux
by tidux on Wed 24th May 2017 23:43 UTC
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

Google really needs to be broken up and have every storage device in its possession physically destroyed. They've got too much data about too many people.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by tidux
by Sauron on Thu 25th May 2017 00:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by tidux"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Google really needs to be broken up and have every storage device in its possession physically destroyed. They've got too much data about too many people.


And where they're concerned, still not enough.
It really makes me wonder why people continue to use them!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by tidux
by Kochise on Thu 25th May 2017 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tidux"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Convenience ? Free ? Effective ? American ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by tidux
by Sauron on Thu 25th May 2017 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tidux"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Convenience ? Free ? Effective ? American ?


No more convenient than anyone else, and there is other free sources out there which are also effective. As for American, nothing to be proud of lately with the NSA and other agencies.
We have Adblock, now we could really do with a Googleblock browser addon that blocks all tracking and requests from Google.
I'd even pay for that!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by tidux
by Kochise on Thu 25th May 2017 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tidux"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Is there any non American company that performs as good as, or even better, than American companies ? If American companies are found with dirty hands face to foreign companies, will they be trialed and could they fail ? In American courts ?

About convenience, why people do use Siri, OK Google, Cortana, Amazon Echo or Dash buttons ? Because of the hype or because of the services ? That the NSA, CIA, FBI, whatever is behind and listen, to protect American interests ?

After all they even listened to "friendly foreign countries president's phone". They condemn foreign banks but American banks caused the subprime crisis. Goldman and Sachs helped Greece to forge their accounts. Have American banks been worried ?

Are my questions transgressive ?

Edited 2017-05-25 11:55 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by tidux
by Sauron on Thu 25th May 2017 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tidux"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

What are you harping on about?
There seems to be some reality distortion field in your area it seems. I don't particularly care if a company's American, Chinese or bloody Klingon as long as the software/service is usable. I still won't use that company if they use dubious tactics period!

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by tidux
by Kochise on Thu 25th May 2017 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by tidux"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

You perhaps have standards, obviously you are not the majority that allows such companies to flourish. If you live in a society that pretend valuing freedom and democracy, yet allows these kind of behaviors, one have to question its society.

This is no reality distortion field, this is just pragmatism. I know that at their level, Chinese or these bloody Klingon are no choir children, but at least they don't shove down peoples' throat their "public values" like a miracle pill.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by tidux
by Soulbender on Fri 26th May 2017 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tidux"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Is there any non American company that performs as good as, or even better, than American companies


Spotify. Skype. Alibaba. TSMC. Samsung. Sony. Nintendo. etc etc etc,

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by tidux
by Kochise on Fri 26th May 2017 04:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by tidux"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Skype is Microsoft.

But I meant in America. Alibaba vs Amazon, Samsung vs Apple, ... Do the patent trials in America favors American companies, or if not, only ask for a symbolic fee ?

Reply Score: 2

Privacy rights
by Alfman on Thu 25th May 2017 00:20 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Mining credit card data

Google says it has access to roughly 70% of U.S. credit and debit card transactions through partnerships with companies that track that data. By matching ad clicks with this data, Google says it can automatically inform merchants when their digital ads translate into sales at a physical store.



Google has access to 70% of US credit and debit card transactions?!?

Damn, that is a lot worse than I realized. I blame google, credit card companies, but especially the corrupt politicians that keep allowing them to screw us over.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Privacy rights
by Brendan on Thu 25th May 2017 00:59 UTC in reply to "Privacy rights"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Google has access to 70% of US credit and debit card transactions?!?

Damn, that is a lot worse than I realized. I blame google, credit card companies, but especially the corrupt politicians that keep allowing them to screw us over.


I blame "society's acceptance of advertising", which is a phenomenon that dates back to early newspapers if not even earlier. It should all be considered spam or graffiti or pollution, but over time society has been trained to accept it as "normal".

I'd create laws that make advertising illegal, and then find alternative solutions to the problems that these laws would cause. This would include some kind of micro-payment system on the Internet so that web sites that had to resort to "advertiser funded" have a cleaner, more efficient and more ethical alternative. It would also include some kind of product comparison web site/service where consumers can go to search for products they want and compare unbiased characteristics (e.g. weight, size, mean time between failures, speed, power consumption, etc) that were measured by scientific testing by neutral third parties.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Privacy rights
by WorknMan on Thu 25th May 2017 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Privacy rights"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I'd create laws that make advertising illegal


I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but I wouldn't go THAT far. I mean, if I run a private business and want to run ads there, why should the government interfere?

But yeah, I would ban all direct forms of advertising (snail mail, phone, etc) without explicit opt-in permission. As much as I hate advertising (and I hate it more than most people), there are times when even I want to receive ads in certain circumstances.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Privacy rights
by Alfman on Thu 25th May 2017 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Privacy rights"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

But yeah, I would ban all direct forms of advertising (snail mail, phone, etc) without explicit opt-in permission. As much as I hate advertising (and I hate it more than most people), there are times when even I want to receive ads in certain circumstances.


You are right, it's even worse than the usual advertising. Unsolicited mail is bad, unsolicited calls too. The thing is there are laws in place to outlaw these calls I get all day, but the FTC's own numbers confirm that there's virtually no chance of being stopped. They've only taken a hundred or so unsolicited callers to court since they started the national do not call list, it's just pathetic and much like "CAN SPAN" act, there's no disincentive at all.

Congress needs to pass much harsher criminal sentences.


If unwanted calls originate from some overseas and/or VOIP operators that refuse to prosecute unwanted callers, then so be it, just let us block those phone companies in their entirety. With enough people blocking them, maybe then they'd get the message. The problem is that today this call origination information gets scrubbed from callerid for privacy so subscribers have no way to determine where the call is actually coming from.

I for one would be willing to give up telephone privacy so that the source of calls could actually be traced and blocked by the recipient. CallerId is absolutely useless today since unsolicited callers just fake it.


My understanding is that caller origination does get sent to 800 numbers, because obviously businesses have more rights to identify callers than we do. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Privacy rights
by Brendan on Thu 25th May 2017 05:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Privacy rights"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

You are right, it's even worse than the usual advertising. Unsolicited mail is bad, unsolicited calls too.


It's bad (and much harsher penalties are needed, and much more funding to police existing laws are needed), but that's just scratching the surface.

For an example, how long do you think it's going to take before someone like Google starts launching "spam satellites", so that everywhere in the world you can look up at the night sky and see adverts?

- Brendan

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Privacy rights
by Brendan on Thu 25th May 2017 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Privacy rights"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but I wouldn't go THAT far. I mean, if I run a private business and want to run ads there, why should the government interfere?


There would be extremely minor exemptions. For "bricks and mortar" shops (including your own business) I'd allow people to display the same "unbiased characteristics from neutral third party" information (that is available on the "product comparison web site/service") in plain black and white print (with no decorations) and in Braille (with no decorations), as long as it's accompanied with the URL for the information on the "product comparison web site/service" and a QR code containing that URL.

But yeah, I would ban all direct forms of advertising (snail mail, phone, etc) without explicit opt-in permission. As much as I hate advertising (and I hate it more than most people), there are times when even I want to receive ads in certain circumstances.


For "opt-in" it'd just end up being a whole pile of scams to convince you to opt-in; like "discounts" (pay higher prices if you don't want to opt-in), lotteries (1 chance in 50 million to win a free thing if you opt-in), indirection (get a free thing if you convince 5 of your friends to opt-in), etc.

Far better would be for the "product comparison web site/service" to support notifications (e.g. "notify me if there's any changes for this category of products").

- Brendan

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Privacy rights
by kurkosdr on Thu 25th May 2017 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Privacy rights"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

Hi,

I blame "society's acceptance of advertising", which is a phenomenon that dates back to early newspapers if not even earlier. It should all be considered spam or graffiti or pollution, but over time society has been trained to accept it as "normal".


Advertising is fine, don't be a commie. The real issue here is "society's acceptance of tracking and data mining of their private lives". It all started when Gmail started offering tons of storage in return of data mining your email subjects in order to sell personalized ads. Other webmail services of the time like Hotmail did not do that, but you had to pay if you wanted decent storage. People legitimized the practice of tracking and data mining of their private lives by flocking to Gmail to save a small amount of bucks. This created a business model: Offer a product worth a small amount of bucks and find a way to make up the value you gave away plus profit by tracking and data mining the users. If you manage to do that successfully, offer the product at scale and make lots of money. Again, the majority of people legitimized the business model by flocking to the product offered for zero bucks.

Edited 2017-05-25 12:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Privacy rights
by Lennie on Fri 26th May 2017 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Privacy rights"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It's kind of like a 'tragedy of the commons' problem. The general public is OK with it, because they have no idea how it works/what is going on.

I wonder if some journalists don't report more on it because they think it will hurt the ad-revenue ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Privacy rights
by Morgan on Thu 25th May 2017 01:27 UTC in reply to "Privacy rights"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That 70% figure tells me they probably have agreements with Visa/MasterCard but not Amex or Discover. I can't imagine Amex going for this since their clientele is largely SMB and corporate card users; their clients' satisfaction is more lucrative than any offer Google could make. Discover is probably too small for Google to bother with (for now).

Still, I'd love to have this theory confirmed; if it's true then pretty much every debit card in the US is being snooped on by Google. I'll be damned if I can't escape their reach even after dropping 99% of their products from my own use.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Privacy rights
by Sidux on Thu 25th May 2017 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Privacy rights"
Sidux Member since:
2015-03-10

I likely believe third parties that access your credit card information to get and send money more easily.
Even Paypal was discussing using Google Cloud service for this.
Google doesn't need to store all data about you. They just need a better way to correlate all information they have about you in order to better server advertising business.
This will just keep improving from technical perspective.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Privacy rights
by Morgan on Thu 25th May 2017 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Privacy rights"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Yep, I was reading in the relevant thread on Hacker News that it's likely a Diffie-Hellman style data exchange. I'm not a big math geek, but what that person posted made sense:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14407958

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Privacy rights
by Lennie on Fri 26th May 2017 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Privacy rights"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Some companies like Facebook have done this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14410113

Reply Score: 2

RE: Privacy rights
by kurkosdr on Thu 25th May 2017 12:44 UTC in reply to "Privacy rights"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

Google has access to 70% of US credit and debit card transactions?!?

Damn, that is a lot worse than I realized. I blame google, credit card companies, but especially the corrupt politicians that keep allowing them to screw us over.


B.. b... but the politicians told us that a cashless society would result in a perfect utopian society with less crime and with rainbows on every corner. This is the reason our politicians are slowly making cash transactions and cash withdrawals exceeding 1000 euros/dollars illegal, right?

Always pay cash when you can. And don't vote for politicians pushing "cashless society" laws after receiving hefty bribes from data collection companies.

Also, this is the reason I refuse to use Android Pay and despite Google peskering me about it on every other YouTube ad.

Edited 2017-05-25 12:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Online advertising sucks
by Darkmage on Thu 25th May 2017 07:22 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

And yet still these cretins can't target ads properly. For all the ad data crap they still haven't actually figured out people's shopping patterns. When I search for something on google usually it's just to get a spec and I place the order through work/wholesaler networks. Google decide ooh he still wants to buy those two LCD monitors I already ordered 3 months ago... good job guys. Meanwhile my ad feed still doesn't contain Linux space flight games. Despite me posting about Linux, Wing Commander and Star Citizen a lot. Seriously online advertising is a load of bullshit. But yeah, keep on trying to sell me those Windows only titles I have 0 interest in...

Edited 2017-05-25 07:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Online advertising sucks
by Lennie on Fri 26th May 2017 09:22 UTC in reply to "Online advertising sucks"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Maybe the companies of those Linux game makers don't pay (enough) for ads ?

Reply Score: 2

codifies
Member since:
2014-02-14

This data should be strictly private, no company even the bank or card company itself should be allowed to use these *details* for any purpose. period.

Reply Score: 1

shepherdr Member since:
2006-01-19

I assume you don't mean they can't use your details for "any purpose, period" such as sending you a bill!
They can use these details for whatever purpose you authorise them to do within the limits of the law. There is a balance struck between you and the company - they want to use your details and you want their product enough to sign the dotted line (or you haven't bothered reading the agreement).
kurkosdr above gave a good example about why so many signed up for Gmail. It was free and people were prepared to give up enough of their privacy to save a few pounds/dollars etc.
Lots of people make that choice. I have bought the "Ad supported" Kindles to save a few quid. Nearly all my kids games have Ads because the other option is to pay money to get rid of them. Sometimes I choose to do so and sometimes I choose not to.
Osnews is always full of rants from tech liberals who want everything for free and who also want total protection of their privacy from both corporations and government.
I choose to sell my privacy in some circumstances. I have the right to choose NOT to get a credit card or use electronic payment methods. I don't feel I have the right to have my cake and eat it.

Edited 2017-05-25 15:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shepherdr,

Osnews is always full of rants from tech liberals who want everything for free and who also want total protection of their privacy from both corporations and government.
Lots of people make that choice. I have bought the "Ad supported" Kindles to save a few quid. Nearly all my kids games have Ads because the other option is to pay money to get rid of them. Sometimes I choose to do so and sometimes I choose not to.


If you are tired of tech liberals complaining, consider that advertisers really are getting worse! I don't know if you noticed, but we're loosing more and more of our privacy rights for services that we pay for anyways. More and more tech and entertainment companies are turning to ads to increasing profits rather than decreasing prices.

Consider that in our lifetimes, we've gone from paying pocket change for an ad-free movie experience, to a minimum wage earner having to work several hours to pay for themselves and a date for an ad infested experience.

Television are squeezing more commercials in per hour by editing out content and even speeding up the footage:

https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/cable-tv-is-speeding-up-its...

All the while, we're actually paying much more for those cable services than we used to.


I choose to sell my privacy in some circumstances. I have the right to choose NOT to get a credit card or use electronic payment methods. I don't feel I have the right to have my cake and eat it.


That's fine, but we should be the only one allowed to sell our personal details. Companies we do business with should not be allowed to sell our private data, certainly not by default.

Advertising companies that want our private data should be legally required to negotiate with us, the only legitimate owners of said data. If they want to pay us and we accept, then great, but otherwise corporate entitlements over our private data should be explicitly bared. Opt out isn't good enough, the only ethical way to do it is to get our explicit permission.

This could raise the cost of private information, which is good. It was always too easy for companies to sell private user data that wasn't theirs to begin with. If users don't agree to sell their private information, then tough luck, an ad company like google should either pay the fair market value for users to give up their own privacy or they shouldn't be entitled to our data at all.

Edited 2017-05-25 16:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

shepherdr Member since:
2006-01-19

https://www.gov.uk/data-protection/the-data-protection-act

The UK has legislation to ensure computer data is not used in the way described. I don't know about other countries but I suspect there are similar frameworks in many. However like any legislation protecting private data it allows for the distribution of the data with the individuals permission. Once you agree to giving up your data (without coersion) how is it anything but an agreement rather than an imposition? If you are coerced then you have the right to be annoyed. In the UK if a body shares your data without your permission it is a criminal act. I just don't believe I should get annoyed at Google for sharing my data after I have clicked on a button to allow them to do that very thing!

The bit about speeding up TV shows to fit more commercials in per hour isn't really an issue about privacy which I think is what the jist of this thread started with. Showing me things I don't want to see isn't a violation of my privacy because my information is not outgoing.

Reply Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shepherdr,

The UK has legislation to ensure computer data is not used in the way described. I don't know about other countries but I suspect there are similar frameworks in many.


That's a good point, just because the US doesn't require companies to respect personal privacy by default doesn't necessarily mean other countries don't.


In the UK if a body shares your data without your permission it is a criminal act. I just don't believe I should get annoyed at Google for sharing my data after I have clicked on a button to allow them to do that very thing!


Haha, I wouldn't mind making what google's doing a criminal act, they should be required to ask every single user for the right to access our personal information from other sources! No one other than the users themselves can legitimately give consent to google having their personal data. Having it any other way is a disregard for user privacy.

Reply Score: 2

shepherdr Member since:
2006-01-19

After a tiny bit of digging it turns out that the UK data protection act is the UKs implementation of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. This must therefore have been implemented in law by every EU member.

https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com gives an overview of data protection laws around the world. Apparently the US has "Heavy" legislation just like the EU.

Maybe people in the US are just as equally protected as I am? Perhaps a US lawyer reading this could tell us whether this thread is just paranoia????

Reply Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shepherdr,

https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com gives an overview of data protection laws around the world. Apparently the US has "Heavy" legislation just like the EU.

Maybe people in the US are just as equally protected as I am? Perhaps a US lawyer reading this could tell us whether this thread is just paranoia????


Ideally you'd be right, the laws are supposed to protect us, but with politics becoming more corrupt every year, we really are loosing our privacy rights in order to advance corporate interests. And it's not just paranoia either, just this year the very person who litigated the cases for verizon against the FCC, is now the head of the FCC and has closed investigations into practices of Verizon (his former employer) as well as other companies. He's already dismantled the pro-consumer net neutrality rules that were designed to protect equality and privacy.

It sucks, but here in the US, on of our biggest social problems is that laws and regulations get written to serve the wealthy. This is obviously not how it's supposed to work, but that's how it's been working and the constituents of both parties see that. This is a large reason why so many voted for Trump, he was supposed to be an "outsider" who couldn't be bought, but unfortunately for the country he's even more corrupt and self-serving than the "insiders" were. We desperately need someone to stand up against corporations.

Reply Score: 2

shepherdr Member since:
2006-01-19

If the laws are "strict" for data protection (or any other matter) but the politicians and the judiciary bow down or are influenced by lobbyists in their implementation of the laws then that is called corruption.

Is the US a corrupt country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Transpareny International rates the US as the 18th least corrupted country. The UK is the 10th equal with Germany and Luxenburg (1st is Denmark). Between the UK and the US are Australia, Iceland, Belgium, Hong Kong and Austria.

176th is North Korea!!!

I doubt the posters on this site from the US are, infact, in the bubble of uniqueness that they often portray themselves to be in.

Reply Score: 1

LOL
by birdie on Thu 25th May 2017 18:35 UTC
birdie
Member since:
2014-07-15

> This is such a terrible idea.

Last time I check Visa and your bank have had this data for tens of years. What would you do about that?

This is why I strictly prefer to use cash whenever possible.

Reply Score: 2

And they call you paranoid...
by whartung on Thu 25th May 2017 20:41 UTC
whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

I try to have things like location services turned off on my machines (both mobile and home). Some things just have them on, maps is pretty pointless without them being on. That being said, I don't use Google maps, I use Apples. I'll enable it selectively for specific apps when necessary, then turn it off.

I have a single browser dedicated to Google, Firefox. Mostly for Gmail, mostly because its corporate. I'll use other browsers, but it's log in, check it, log out. I strive to ensure I'm not logged in to any large provider (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.) while "surfing" the internet. It's imperfect, but it's the best I can practically do.

When I learned about Wifi tracking, I disabled it on my iPhone. Don't join networks, don't look for networks, if I want a network, I'll ask for one. The only Wifi network I'm joined with is the one at the house (which is questionable simply because my phone's wireless connection is vastly better than my DSL, but...at least I can see my machine at home).

Apple has been kind in that they're now sending out random Mac IDs when the phone goes out to sniff around. I still leave it as "off" as possible.

Of course, the phone companies know everything -- you can only take this so far.

I think Apple goes through pretty good efforts to help empower you to lock your devices down, and frustrate stuff like this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And they call you paranoid...
by Alfman on Thu 25th May 2017 21:34 UTC in reply to "And they call you paranoid..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

whartung,

When I learned about Wifi tracking, I disabled it on my iPhone. Don't join networks, don't look for networks, if I want a network, I'll ask for one. The only Wifi network I'm joined with is the one at the house (which is questionable simply because my phone's wireless connection is vastly better than my DSL, but...at least I can see my machine at home).



I can't even disable this permanently on android. I hit "disagree" to the enhanced tracking every single time I use the GPS. It's such a pain. I've searched for a permanent solution but google insists on continually nagging users who don't want to participate in google's Wifi locaction service.

Edited 2017-05-25 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

blame
by nicubunu on Fri 26th May 2017 06:28 UTC
nicubunu
Member since:
2014-01-08

I would not put as much blame on Google for this but on the card companies, they are the ones who sell customer data.

Reply Score: 2

RE: blame
by Lennie on Fri 26th May 2017 09:28 UTC in reply to "blame"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Wouldn't it be nice if Google had morals ?

I know they used to have more of them, but after Facebook became popular with it's shady dealings, Google got a lot worse to maintain their market share.

Google thought I might want to work for them, I never even responded. Google is a privacy problem waiting to happen I always said. I never wanted to be right about that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: blame
by nicubunu on Fri 26th May 2017 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE: blame"
nicubunu Member since:
2014-01-08

If the information is available, someone will use it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: blame
by Lennie on Fri 26th May 2017 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: blame"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Google had such a lead at some point, they didn't have to.

Reply Score: 2

Root your phone?
by leech on Fri 26th May 2017 08:22 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

Guess if you root your phone, then all the 'Pay' services don't work. I don't get why people would put such things on their phones anyhow...

Reply Score: 2