Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Jul 2013 22:02 UTC
Google "In June of 2013, I made an interesting discovery about the Android phone (a Motorola Droid X2) which I was using at the time: it was silently sending a considerable amount of sensitive information to Motorola, and to compound the problem, a great deal of it was over an unencrypted HTTP channel."
Thread beginning with comment 566001
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 2nd Jul 2013 02:15 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:

this isn't new info. this is how moto blur worked. Only idiots thought otherwise.

Reply Score: 3

RE: duh
by Pro-Competition on Tue 2nd Jul 2013 15:06 in reply to "duh"
Pro-Competition Member since:


A clarification I'd like to make (because there seems to be a lot of confusion about this) is that the Droid X2 does not use Motorola's "Blur"/"MotoBlur" user interface. That's one of the reasons I picked that model specifically back in 2011 - it seemed to be running something very close to the stock version of Android.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: duh
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 2nd Jul 2013 17:36 in reply to "RE: duh"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

I read that late at night, but I don't think that disclaimer was there.

I also don't know how accurate it is to say that it doesn't have blur. Its true there is no blur sign on, but motorola at that time was just phasing out the ui. They still had hopes for using it for marshaling background updates and other data for their use.

IMHO, its bad, but you'd have to have been pretty oblivious ( which is probably 99.99 % of people) to what blur was to think it was working otherwise.

The situation reminds me of stupid options I've had to put in software by customer demand that will knowingly cause problems for them, labeled "WARNING THIS OPTION WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN", then getting complaints from customers that "IT ATE MY CHILDREN!!!".

Reply Parent Score: 4