[lucideer]

> in the same way

This is an odd phrasing since a cryptographic hardware key does allow tracking (in a different way), so the fact it's different seems hardly relevant. For example a compromised Titan M could open you up completely to MITM of any network connections your device makes.

It could also allow any entities that already have some limited access to your device (i.e. an app restricted via OS perms) to gain broader access to sensitive data on your device.

[grey-area]

There are levels of security -

If you need protection against malicious states or corporations specifically targeting you, this isn't good enough for the reasons you point out.

If you just want to avoid google tracking you via their various services to show you ads, this is probably sufficient.

[lucideer]

Oh I agree; everything is a matter of making informed compromises.

I just thought the phrasing was a bit odd and absolutist, and somewhat misleading. I'd generally put a reasonable amount of trust in a Titan M personally - the risk factor compared to Play Services is minuscule - but I still want to be aware of the mechanisms of risk. Implying it's non-existent doesn't help anyone.

[javajosh]

Well, I mean, they are talking about customizing a Pixel 4a, which is made by Google. So I while I think it's reasonable to question the meaning of "No Google", it's clear that Google cannot and will not be taken out of the picture entirely, since they make the hardware.

[joemazerino]

Pixels can run without Google involvement. Instead of a phone, think of a Pixel as an empty Pepsi bottle filled with delicious Jolt cola instead.

[imwillofficial]

It’s obvious nobody said risks didn’t exist.

[fsflover]

> Privacy Protection: No Tracking, No Google

[imwillofficial]

So you think they meant no Google at all on or in the device? Because to be clear, we are talking about a Google Phone running a GoogleOS. I fail to see how you can interpret their ad in the way you did while having that context.