Collecting telemetry is not the same thing as surveillance. Using such vocabulary to describe what a phone does is both misleading and manipulating, playing into the angle of scaremongering people who do not want to be survived.

It really doesn't matter. When you power on an android smartphone with google play installed for the first time you are presented with a gate screen that asks you to consent to google's privacy policy. You can't use the phone without accepting. (for example https://forum.fairphone.com/t/finalising-the-setup-wizard-wi...)

Using smartphones with such a setup should not become required by a European government on a fundamental level.

It really does. Just calling everything racism makes racism acceptable to a lot of people.

Telemetry/tracking feels a more appropriate wording than “surveillance”. Exaggeration (in case it was one, not sure) also does not make an argument more compelling – quite the apposite with me at least.

And I use AdGuardHome, uBlock, VPNs, etc. I HATE tracking. But it’s not what the Chinese government does to their citizens for example, it’s not comparable.

So please tell us what the difference is.

With surveillance a person gets surveilled with telemetry a person doesn't. Telemetry is collecting information about the operation of the device. The goal of telemetry is to understand how the device is operating where with surveillance it is about seeing what a person is doing.

The types of data that's collected for these two purposes have a significant overlap.

Sufficiently detailed telemetry is indistinguishable from surveillance because even if the goal isn't to target you right now, they will still have the secondary option of going back and inspecting all that data you sent them if they ever are interested in you. Another secondary use of telemetry is selling it to someone else to squeeze out a bit more money. There's no downside to doing this, so any business that collects a lot of varied telemetry and likes making money might as well do it. And once the data is in the hands of adtech businesses, it becomes a whole lot more like tracking you personally than just collecting some data for development. In Google's case, you don't even need to hand it over to anyone else, everything stays in-house.

Do you imply that it's not possible for the US intelligence agencies to request this data from google per person of interest and deliver some information from the metadata?

I heavily doubt that.

What does it matter in practice? Do you seriously think Google, the targeted advertisement company, does not use that Telemetry for targeted advertisements?

Yes, I do seriously think that Google does not use anonymous telemetry for ad targeting.

Do you have any reason to think this? Why would Google refuse to earn more money?

Are you a lobbyist for Google, Apple, Meta, or the adtech industry? Because if you aren't, you are parroting their bullshit.

[delayed]

The pro consumer standpoint is overly represented on this platform so often I can simply upvote points I agree with.

I am not a lobbyist, but I do recognize the great value the adtech industry provides to society and I am familiar with the common arguments and strategies people try and use to undermine it and sow distrust.

> I do recognize the great value the adtech industry provides to society

good one, very funny.

Any articles highlighting the great value?

Genuinely curious to hear what great value you think is being delivered to society by adtech.

>but I do recognize the great value the adtech industry provides to society

Ok, so you're trolling then.