Faking an IMEI number (as Google tracks it!)

[libCivil]

I'm concerned about Google collecting users IMEI numbers. The last thing we need is another SSN number that can be sensitive, and personally identifiable for the length of time that you own a phone, making users vulnerable to identity and tracking abuses. Like U.S. SSN numbers, it appears IMEI numbers will be perverted beyond their original purpose.

I would like to find an app that can distribute a fake IMEI number to any app that asks for it.

Unfortunately changing the actual IMEI has legal issues in some countries, so the app would have to leave the original IMEI in tact, and simply intercept requests. Is there such a tool?

Has anyone attempted to make one?

 

[A.Nonymous]

How does Google track your IMEI? And why would they do so? Source please?

 

[lunatic59]

You cannot track IMEI numbers without unrestricted access to the network it is registered to. Besides, the IMEI is tied to the hardware, not the user or the phone number.

 

[libCivil]

How does Google track your IMEI? And why would they do so? Source please?

In a browser, login to your google account (the same account you registered your phone to). Go to Google Dashboard. From there, there will be a way to get to your settings, which will show you the make and model of your phone, all apps you've installed from the Android Market, and your IMEI number.

As for "why" they would do it, I don't have the answer to that yet. Google often collects data with no idea themselves how they will use it.. collect now, decide later how to exploit it. I'm not sure if they had anything in mind for IMEI numbers.

 

[libCivil]

You cannot track IMEI numbers without unrestricted access to the network it is registered to.

You're thinking track it from the GSM network. So I'll address that first. A stalker (for example) could track someone via GSM without network access by simply setting up their own masquerading tower. (It's been demonstrated in recent years with just a laptop and some cheap radio gear).

But it's not really GSM based tracking I was referring to. The IMEI number is evolving beyond that. As long as the number exists outside of the GSM network, then you can be tracked wherever that number is repeated, and aggregated with other data that uses the same number.

Besides, the IMEI is tied to the hardware, not the user or the phone number.

Mobile phones tend to be single user devices.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You're thinking track it from the GSM network. So I'll address that first. A stalker (for example) could track someone via GSM without network access by simply setting up their own masquerading tower. (It's been demonstrated in recent years with just a laptop and some cheap radio gear).

But it's not really GSM based tracking I was referring to. The IMEI number is evolving beyond that. As long as the number exists outside of the GSM network, then you can be tracked wherever that number is repeated, and aggregated with other data that uses the same number.

The likelihood of this hacker existing is extremely unlikely.

Mobile phones tend to be single user devices.

And they also tend to move around from person to person making tracking them about as useful as tracking cars only by their VIN numbers. The car changes hands and you have no idea. Tracking an owner by the VIN number on their car is fairly useless.

 

[lunatic59]

And they also tend to move around from person to person making tracking them about as useful as tracking cars only by their VIN numbers. The car changes hands and you have no idea. Tracking an owner by the VIN number on their car is fairly useless.

Of course some industrious person could come up with 'phonefax' similar to carfax where you could track the history of the device on used phones. At least to see if the previous owner ever dropped it in the toilet.

 

[gallandof]

Of course some industrious person could come up with 'phonefax' similar to carfax where you could track the history of the device on used phones. At least to see if the previous owner ever dropped it in the toilet.

runs off and steals idea.

 

[lunatic59]

runs off and steals idea.

That way you'd know if it was truly owned by a little old lady who only called church on Sunday

 

[John Redcorn]

I think I've heard it said the market uses your imei to determine which android phone of yours has which installed apps or which phone you want a new app (pushed from pc accessing market) to go to.

Use a rom like cyanogenmod without the proprietary google stuff built in if you don't like google seeing stuff. Google's completely up front about the fact they're tracking your location via gps, they don't need to track you by cell tower.

 

[A.Nonymous]

runs off and steals idea.

Too late. I already patented it. You'll be hearing from my lawyers.

 

[libCivil]

The likelihood of this hacker existing is extremely unlikely.

Nonsense. There are hundreds of these stalking variety of hackers in the UK alone. The numbers of stalkers (the hacking variety and low-tech aggregated) account for 4000 prosecutions annually - and that's just UK stalkers who are caught. There are enough hackers focused on telecom systems alone to support a printed magazine devoted to the topic and distributed internationally. Search on "2600 magazine". I read it 15 years ago.. It goes back to the 80s and it's still in print today. This is actually just the beginning.. as smartphones get into every purse and pocket, the interest and motivation in hacking them will continue to increase higher yet.

That's not to say hackers are the only threat. Hackers are the most damaging threat to an individual, but broadest threat affecting the largest portion of the masses is a product of corporate greed, which stimulates a huge market of trading information whenever profitable at the corporate level.

And they also tend to move around from person to person making tracking them about as useful as tracking cars only by their VIN numbers.

VIN numbers are linked to owners, so of course a VIN number gives traceability. When you say "only by their VIN numbers", that's obviously a senseless statement because no claims were made about a hypothetical world of only having one tracking mechanism. A VIN is a primary key in a database just like an IMEI. In isolation, these numbers would quite obviously be less damaging. And this supports my point. The isolation isn't there -- which is precisely why a shared key spanning multiple varieties of databases is damaging.

The car changes hands and you have no idea. Tracking an owner by the VIN number on their car is fairly useless.

At least in some countries, that's pure nonsense. Some (if not most, or all) countries maintain the VIN number and the current registered owner (as Google maintains the IMEI number). When the car changes hands, it is re-registered to the new owner. Indeed it would be pointless if the records were not maintained. But they are maintained. The state maintains VIN numbers, and Google maintains IMEI numbers. In the rare event that a mobile phone changes owners, the new owners google account will reflect the IMEI that has transferred.

And I do mean *rare*, as (unlike cars) I don't believe for a minute that the used market for smartphones is large enough to merit consideration to begin with. Most of them, if not accidentally destroyed, go to landfills and to storage. In fact you can say that the environment is polluted with so many wasted phones because of how IMEIs are implemented by carriers.

 

[jerofld]

Then root your phone and get LBE Privacy Guard. It can block IMEI requests from any app, including the Android Market.

I just think it's overly paranoid to block Google from such info.

 

[libCivil]

I think I've heard it said the market uses your imei to determine which android phone of yours has which installed apps or which phone you want a new app (pushed from pc accessing market) to go to.

Use a rom like cyanogenmod without the proprietary google stuff built in if you don't like google seeing stuff.

All good points.

Google's completely up front about the fact they're tracking your location via gps, they don't need to track you by cell tower.

Indeed, the IMEI is not for google to track your position. The IMEI creates a link that makes information trading more convenient. E.g. Verizon could approach Google and say "we would really like to know more about our customers.. if we supply you with a list of IMEI numbers of our clients, what interesting information would you sell us?"

 

[libCivil]

Then root your phone and get LBE Privacy Guard. It can block IMEI requests from any app, including the Android Market.

Indeed that is a good approach. But it doesn't exclude my main thesis here. Why not have both? Any app can require an IMEI, and refuse to operate when denied. Why not install a custom ROM, install LBE PG, and then also supply a bogus IMEI to apps that you would otherwise have to refuse to run? Instead of just having a "take it or leave it" option, you can have "take it, or leave it, or take it and lie to it".

I just think it's overly paranoid to block Google from such info.

I just think Google is collecting too much information and keeping too much information in one place, in an Orwellian total information awareness manner. You think it's paranoid to not want a single entity to know everything about you? I call it "street wise" to mitigate the intrusion.

 

[jerofld]

Indeed that is a good approach. But it doesn't exclude my main thesis here. Why not have both? Any app can require an IMEI, and refuse to operate when denied. Why not install a custom ROM, install LBE PG, and then also supply a bogus IMEI to apps that you would otherwise have to refuse to run? Instead of just having a "take it or leave it" option, you can have "take it, or leave it, or take it and lie to it".


I just think Google is collecting too much information and keeping too much information in one place, in an Orwellian total information awareness manner. You think it's paranoid to not want a single entity to know everything about you? I call it "street wise" to mitigate the intrusion.

For the first part: Everything that I've blocked IMEI on has functioned properly.

For the second: Honestly, I don't really care if Google has my IMEI or not. I don't have to fill out my IMEI on forms, job applications, insurance claims, and whatnot. So it's not nearly like a SSN. The comparison with a VIN is more applicable, and the VIN is open to anyone who walks by your car.

I block apps from my IMEI because I don't feel that they have any reason to know it. Like Angry Birds doesn't have a good reason for IMEI. The Market gets the IMEI when you log in to your Gmail account when you set up the phone. So, you would have to side load LBE before logging in on a brand new phone if you plan on making it so they don't have your IMEI.

And I use Google Voice, I imagine that really wouldn't work too well without the correct IMEI.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Nonsense. There are hundreds of these stalking variety of hackers in the UK alone. The numbers of stalkers (the hacking variety and low-tech aggregated) account for 4000 prosecutions annually - and that's just UK stalkers who are caught. There are enough hackers focused on telecom systems alone to support a printed magazine devoted to the topic and distributed internationally. Search on "2600 magazine". I read it 15 years ago.. It goes back to the 80s and it's still in print today. This is actually just the beginning.. as smartphones get into every purse and pocket, the interest and motivation in hacking them will continue to increase higher yet.

The number of stalkers yes. The number of sophisticated high tech stalkers? No. The number of stalkers who are willing to set up a fake cell tower every place you could possibly go so they could track you? Very few. Maybe they'll just follow you around with the cell tower, but then they're following you anyway, so why do they need the cell tower?

That's not to say hackers are the only threat. Hackers are the most damaging threat to an individual, but broadest threat affecting the largest portion of the masses is a product of corporate greed, which stimulates a huge market of trading information whenever profitable at the corporate level.

Damn that corporate greed!!

VIN numbers are linked to owners, so of course a VIN number gives traceability. When you say "only by their VIN numbers", that's obviously a senseless statement because no claims were made about a hypothetical world of only having one tracking mechanism. A VIN is a primary key in a database just like an IMEI. In isolation, these numbers would quite obviously be less damaging. And this supports my point. The isolation isn't there -- which is precisely why a shared key spanning multiple varieties of databases is damaging.

No. They're only linked to cars. The same way as IMEIs are linked to phones. Case in point - Kid gets his phone stolen. He doesn't report it. Thief sells it to another guy who doesn't try to activate it, but sets it up on wifi w/his Google account. He doesn't like/doesn't want the phone so he sells it to me. I can't get it activated, but I put my Google account on it while I try to straighten out the activation issues with VZW. Now, this same IMEI is tied to three different Google accounts. How does Google have any way of tracking that phone and knowing who is actually using it? They don't. I may know your VIN number and let's assume I can track your car by your VIN number. I still don't know where you are right now because someone could easily be borrowing your car.

At least in some countries, that's pure nonsense. Some (if not most, or all) countries maintain the VIN number and the current registered owner (as Google maintains the IMEI number). When the car changes hands, it is re-registered to the new owner. Indeed it would be pointless if the records were not maintained. But they are maintained. The state maintains VIN numbers, and Google maintains IMEI numbers. In the rare event that a mobile phone changes owners, the new owners google account will reflect the IMEI that has transferred.

It's not a rare event that a phone changes hands. It happens all the time. And just because you know what account a phone is associate with doesn't mean you know who's using it. Google has six devices associated with my account right now. I have two Android devices. That is 4 devices that someone else is using. Since you are opposed to Google tracking IMEIs can I assume you're also opposed to the DMV tracking VINs?

And I do mean *rare*, as (unlike cars) I don't believe for a minute that the used market for smartphones is large enough to merit consideration to begin with. Most of them, if not accidentally destroyed, go to landfills and to storage. In fact you can say that the environment is polluted with so many wasted phones because of how IMEIs are implemented by carriers.

Check the classifieds on here or XDA lately? Been on Craigslist recently? Gone to ebay? There are all kinds of used phones out there.

 

[Slug]

Nonsense. There are hundreds of these stalking variety of hackers in the UK alone

That article refers to harrassment in general and makes no reference to using IEMI numbers. In fact it appears to primarily focused on social networking sites.

You say that you think Google is collecting too much information. Then the answer is surely to have nothing to do with Google. No Chrome, no Google Search, and certainly no Android. It's not as if there are no alternatives.

 

[libCivil]

The number of stalkers yes. The number of sophisticated high tech stalkers? No. The number of stalkers who are willing to set up a fake cell tower every place you could possibly go so they could track you? Very few.

Nonsense. Stalkers are highly motivated. That's why they're stalking. Laptops are cheap. Radio gear that can fake a gsm tower is cheap enough ($2k). Sophistication? Not needed. It's public info, open to script kiddies, as well as anyone willing to pay the neighbor kid to do it.

No. They're only linked to cars.

And cars aren't linked to people? In which country do you not have to register your car with yourself linked to the registration?

A is linked to B, B linked to C, therefore A links to C.

The same way as IMEIs are linked to phones.

The same IMEI that's link to a google account, which is linked to your satnav disclosures, email, and google voice.

Where do you get this idea that only two nodes can be linked, which are not further linked? If this were correct, you could never crossreference records from two databases that have the same primary keys.

Case in point - Kid gets his phone stolen. He doesn't report it. Thief sells it to another guy who doesn't try to activate it, but sets it up on wifi w/his Google account. He doesn't like/doesn't want the phone so he sells it to me. I can't get it activated, but I put my Google account on it while I try to straighten out the activation issues with VZW. Now, this same IMEI is tied to three different Google accounts. How does Google have any way of tracking that phone and knowing who is actually using it? They don't.

So you believe that if one record in a database is corrupt or inaccurate, the whole database is unusable? Where do you get this information?

Of course databases have inaccuracies. This does not render the database useless. I have inaccuracies on my credit report that aren't worth correcting. Yet, credit bureaus are still doing business.

It's not a rare event that a phone changes hands. It happens all the time.

Of course it's rare. Most people are in possession of their mobile phones most of the time (or it's in no ones possession). You're talking fractions of a percentage to the contrary. That's rare. You could find 1000 such cases, but this is still rare if 10000000 cases are people with their original phone.

And just because you know what account a phone is associate with doesn't mean you know who's using it.

Exactly. You're supporting my case. Someone might use my SSN without the banks knowledge as well. But the bank presumes it's me. Hence why it's damaging.

Google has six devices associated with my account right now. I have two Android devices. That is 4 devices that someone else is using. Since you are opposed to Google tracking IMEIs can I assume you're also opposed to the DMV tracking VINs?

I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. Different entities.. different motives.. different incentives.

The DMV does not break rule of least privilege in this case. The DMV needs the VIN to regulate, and I need the DMV to have my VIN to mitigate crime on the streets I drive. So I can consciously decide whether I want the DMV to have my VIN. Google does not need my IMEI to supply the services I need. Nor are users given the conscious option to disclose - Google's spyware simply snatches the number without consent and without informing them.

Check the classifieds on here or XDA lately? Been on Craigslist recently? Gone to ebay? There are all kinds of used phones out there.

Just a drop in the ocean. I actually have never met someone in my whole life who bought a used mobile phone. This is certainly a statistical sampling with a sample size much greater than 30. Nor does it make sense when most of the world allows contract bundling tie-ins with "free" phones.

 

[lunatic59]

Nonsense. Stalkers are highly motivated. That's why they're stalking. Laptops are cheap. Radio gear that can fake a gsm tower is cheap enough ($2k). Sophistication? Not needed. It's public info, open to script kiddies, as well as anyone willing to pay the neighbor kid to do it.

Faulty faulty logic. You are also contradicting yourself with more faulty logic in your rationalization below where you trivialize the transfer of the relationship of IMEI number with the owner because you don't know anyone who has purchased a used handset. You here hypothesize that because something is technically possible, that people are in fact doing it it significant numbers. Even if there were actual instances beyond proof of concept experiments, it would not be random data collection but targeted surveillance.

And cars aren't linked to people? In which country do you not have to register your car with yourself linked to the registration?

A is linked to B, B linked to C, therefore A links to C.

Poor set theory. You are assuming that B is the primary key. As you know the primary key in any table must be unique. So if A were your phone number, B your IMEI and C was your name, B would only be relevant to A or C, not A AND C. The primary key is always independent of data and only links the rows.

Exactly. You're supporting my case. Someone might use my SSN without the banks knowledge as well. But the bank presumes it's me. Hence why it's damaging.

The problem lies not with the knowledge of your SSN (or IMEI) but in the practice of banks accepting the SSN as proof of identity. If the banks performed due diligence with identity checks it would eliminate many of the problems but increase the cost of doing business.

The DMV does not break rule of least privilege in this case. The DMV needs the VIN to regulate, and I need the DMV to have my VIN to mitigate crime on the streets I drive.

I fail to see how your VIN number in any way mitigates crime.

So I can consciously decide whether I want the DMV to have my VIN. Google does not need my IMEI to supply the services I need. Nor are users given the conscious option to disclose - Google's spyware simply snatches the number without consent and without informing them.

The mobile networks need the IMEI to manage and so does Google. Since you can have multiple devices registered to the same Google account and the IMEI is a readily available unique identifier for the device, it makes perfect sense to use it.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Nonsense. Stalkers are highly motivated. That's why they're stalking. Laptops are cheap. Radio gear that can fake a gsm tower is cheap enough ($2k). Sophistication? Not needed. It's public info, open to script kiddies, as well as anyone willing to pay the neighbor kid to do it.

Honest question. Why would you spend $2k on a radio tower another $1k on a laptop and spend several hours setting it up to track someone when you could either a) slap a $200 magnetic GPS unit on their car or b) follow them around yourself? Why would you do that?

And cars aren't linked to people? In which country do you not have to register your car with yourself linked to the registration?

A is linked to B, B linked to C, therefore A links to C.

VINs are not linked to people. That's what I said. There's a difference. If I know that a car with the VIN XYZ ran a red light I have no clue who the driver is. Driver could be anyone. Same thing with an IMEI. Just because a phone with XYZ IMEI is at a certain location doesn't mean I know who is using the phone.

The same IMEI that's link to a google account, which is linked to your satnav disclosures, email, and google voice.

None of this data is available publicly. None of it. If I'm wrong, please link me to a Google site where I plug in my IMEI and see all this data.

So you believe that if one record in a database is corrupt or inaccurate, the whole database is unusable? Where do you get this information?

I'm saying the entire database is unreliable at best because cell phones are such transient devices. They change hands frequently. Entire companies exist to buy and sell old technology. How many iPhone 4's and iPhone 3Gs changed hands this year do you think?

Of course it's rare. Most people are in possession of their mobile phones most of the time (or it's in no ones possession). You're talking fractions of a percentage to the contrary. That's rare. You could find 1000 such cases, but this is still rare if 10000000 cases are people with their original phone.

So you're saying that even though ebay and craigslist are flooded with used phones of every size and shape and even though millions of iOS users alone trade their phones in every time a new one comes out and even though Android users do the exact same thing and even though there are entire businesses built around buying and selling used smart phones (Gazelle jumps immediately to mind) that this is just a small fraction of a percentage? I call BS on that as well.

Exactly. You're supporting my case. Someone might use my SSN without the banks knowledge as well. But the bank presumes it's me. Hence why it's damaging.

The bank presumes it's you because SSNs are tied to one person unlike IMEIs which belong to phones, not people.

The DMV does not break rule of least privilege in this case. The DMV needs the VIN to regulate, and I need the DMV to have my VIN to mitigate crime on the streets I drive. So I can consciously decide whether I want the DMV to have my VIN. Google does not need my IMEI to supply the services I need. Nor are users given the conscious option to disclose - Google's spyware simply snatches the number without consent and without informing them.

How are they not informing them if the information is available on the dashboard? Also, Google's Mobile Privacy Policy clearly states that they collect your device ID. So yes, you are given the option of whether to disclose or not. If you don't want to disclose, don't participate. It's not spyware it if it flat out discloses what it's going to do before it does it.

Just a drop in the ocean. I actually have never met someone in my whole life who bought a used mobile phone. This is certainly a statistical sampling with a sample size much greater than 30. Nor does it make sense when most of the world allows contract bundling tie-ins with "free" phones.

I would bet there are several people who will see this thread who have bought a used mobile phone. Heck, a refurb would fall in that category as well. I know several guys in my office who have. I have several friends who either own or have owned a used smartphone. My every day phone I use now is a used device and the one I had before it was a refurb. It's extremely common.

 

[rui-no-onna]

I just think Google is collecting too much information and keeping too much information in one place, in an Orwellian total information awareness manner. You think it's paranoid to not want a single entity to know everything about you? I call it "street wise" to mitigate the intrusion.

Don't use Gmail or other Google services. Disable contact syncing and only store phone numbers on your phones. If you're concerned enough that Google has your information, then it's likely your fault for allowing Google access to it in the first place.

If you're using Gmail and someone knows your email address, you're already screwed if an enterprising stalker is determined to hack your account. Between IMEI and email address, the email address is certainly easier to find out.

By the way, I just bought a used Samsung Galaxy S 4G a couple weeks back as well sold an iPhone 3GS.

 

[libCivil]

Faulty faulty logic.

Any substance behind this claim? Your repetition of "faulty" here only emphasizes a deficit in rationale behind the claim. You merely evade to the next claim:

You are also contradicting yourself with more faulty logic in your rationalization below where you trivialize the transfer of the relationship of IMEI number with the owner because you don't know anyone who has purchased a used handset.

Again, you claim "faulty logic", but fail to call out a logical fallacy. "Trivializing" something is not a logical fallacy. I made more than one supporting statement in regards to what you're attempting to counter, and the best you've come up with is (at best) a lack of knowing people who buy used handsets. This is a cherry picking fallacy. Your claim also coupled with a red herring fallacy. It would not matter if you could effectively convince everyone here that used phones are more popular than I'm claiming, this does not obviate the relationship of IMEI number with the owner. The relationship is maintained regardless of whether the device changed hands.

You here hypothesize that because something is technically possible, that people are in fact doing it it significant numbers.

More broken logic. This is a straw man fallacy. I was disputing the absurd claim that no one is doing this. Technically, I would only need to support the idea that just one person is doing it, and that alone would be sufficient for my position that you're replying to.

Showing that there significant numbers of hackers and also significant numbers of stalkers is not to claim that there are significant numbers of the particular hacker-stalker that I'm talking about.

Even if there were actual instances beyond proof of concept experiments, it would not be random data collection but targeted surveillance.

Who's to say that targeted surveillance cannot make use of "random" pre-collected data? Any data collected for whatever purpose can later be used for another purpose, obviously.

Poor set theory. You are assuming that B is the primary key. As you know the primary key in any table must be unique. So if A were your phone number, B your IMEI and C was your name, B would only be relevant to A or C, not A AND C. The primary key is always independent of data and only links the rows.

Several flaws here. I said nothing about a primary key here. The link between the data need not be based on a primary key. "B" could even be something as loose as a GPS fix, because there is not necessarily any constraint on having irrefutable linkage. IOW, depending on the data being analyzed, inaccuracies may even be acceptable if their proportionately small with respect to the size of the dataset. Moreover, you've changed my premise to vary the conclusion. Of course if you unlink B to either A or C, you will lose the linkage from A to C -- this avoid my premise and conclusion -- and in fact it's consistent with it.

The problem lies not with the knowledge of your SSN (or IMEI) but in the practice of banks accepting the SSN as proof of identity. If the banks performed due diligence with identity checks it would eliminate many of the problems but increase the cost of doing business.

This is false dichotomy logic. You're correct about the usage of SSNs being a problem, but this does not mean knowledge of SSN ceases to be a problem. It's in fact a composition of circumstances that's a problem. If the banks did not have the SSN to begin with, the problem you point out could not have emerged.

When it comes to mitigating problems, users more readily have control over what data disclosed than how it will be used after disclosure. When users lose control over disclosure, it's a significant problem because it allows for the problem of misuse.

I fail to see how your VIN number in any way mitigates crime.

This is another cherry picking fallacy. I'll address it anyway. The VIN mitigates crime just as any security feature mitigates crime: by raising the bar. Criminals go for the low-hanging fruit. You make them go through more hoops (like making it more difficult to evade detection), and you've countered the most opportunistic among the set of purpetrators. Consider a fake CCD installation. Some opportunistic criminals will see the mock cam, and decide that because there's a detection mechanism, even though they could get around it, they just can't be bothered to stack on more risk. So they move on. Sure, some criminals will work around it.. they will scrub the VIN, and export the engine overseas, but the control is still effective against some criminals.

The mobile networks need the IMEI to manage

Perhaps. I'm not necessarily disputing that.

and so does Google. Since you can have multiple devices registered to the same Google account and the IMEI is a readily available unique identifier for the device, it makes perfect sense to use it.

Nonsense. Google does not need the IMEI to provide the services I'm using. I access google services from countless many unregistered devices on a regular basis -- devices that don't even have an IMEI, or anything that is actually being supplied in leiu of an IMEI for that matter. Google does not need to uniquely identify a device when they have a unique IP and port to send the packets to, in response to a unique cookie that was generated for that session.

 

[lunatic59]

I read your response and thank you for expressing your viewpoints. This is the point where the argument, at least for me, is a pointless exercise in semantics. Too many hypothetical, too many suppositions, and frankly, I don't really care enough about the issue. Enjoy the rest of the discussion with those willing to continue.

 

[rui-no-onna]

Nonsense. Google does not need the IMEI to provide the services I'm using. I access google services from countless many unregistered devices on a regular basis -- devices that don't even have an IMEI, or anything that is actually being supplied in leiu of an IMEI for that matter. Google does not need to uniquely identify a device when they have a unique IP and port to send the packets to, in response to a unique cookie that was generated for that session.

Yeah, the IP address. Google also stores a history of all the IP addresses you've used with your account. You're not concerned about that?

You seem to have enabled Location Services on Google. You're not concerned about that?

Do you use Gmail? If so, aren't you concerned about Google storing your emails?