Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google have declared Droidscript is malware

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#381

Post by BoorishBears »

passivate wrote: post #269
ajross wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time for one of these again. So... having read through their marketing material, this is an on-device tool that opens up what appears to be most of the Android application API to at least the user of the device, and potentially to any Droidscript applications they grab from other sources, and... maybe to other apps on the device? It's not clear from a quick read how extensive the runtime control is. So just right out…

> My guess is that when details come out it will turn out that at-least-plausibly harmful Droidscript garbage was being pushed to users and Google decided to kill it. Yes, I'm sure Google will carefully release details that paint them as the good guy. Certainly, we don't want to be needlessly unfair to them, but there is zero reason to give them free trust them at this point.

Google will not release details because Google doesn't care if they look like the good guy (otherwise they wouldn't do stuff like this in the first place!)

Best case is the right person sees this social media outcry, silently gets it fixed and Google moves onto destroying the next developer.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#382

Post by TheRealPomax »

zepto wrote: post #359
bipson wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can't agree with you" "I cannot continue this relationship" "I can't kill this guy" "I just can't eat meat anymore" "I cannot continue like this" These are all examples where someone clearly could for physical reasons, but they can't for other reasons they are bound to, whatever these reasons are.

Technically you are right. However the key here is exploiting the ambiguity. ‘We are unable to’ is a cowardly way of saying ‘we choose not to’, or ‘our policy dictates’.

If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. "We reviewed your case, and based on our policy, we cannot reinstate your account. Because if we did, we'd be the ones violating our policy, and someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices, rather than merely complaining about overly restrictive policies that are blindly enforced through a system that is hard to penetrate".

No lying, no ambiguity. They can't reinstate this account.

Should they change their policy so that after that change, they can? Maybe, but good luck getting them to.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#383

Post by zepto »

CrendKing wrote: post #380
zepto wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically you are right. However the key here is exploiting the ambiguity. ‘We are unable to’ is a cowardly way of saying ‘we choose not to’, or ‘our policy dictates’.

If Google chose to use the "uncowardly" wording, I'm sure someone would just post saying Google is arrogant and cocky bastard. No matter what someone will find some point to complain. Human nature.

That seems like a dismissal that could be applied to any criticism of any corporation.

Can you explain what value it adds in this specific case?

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#384

Post by munk-a »

sdenton4 wrote: post #374
munk-a wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that this has but a fat chance of being taken seriously by Google but... Isn't this a good chunk of the reason why people here on HN and elsewhere have been arguing for much more granular intent management on Android like they had in the early days? When we get permissions boiled down to one or two popups we end up with issues providing accurate privileges to applications (and might be forced to allow WhatsApp…

Alas, granularity very quickly turns into users clicking through piles of crap without thinking about it. With great power comes great user error.

I disagree - it turns into users clicking through piles of crap if you've got a crap UX. If the UX is well tuned to display this information and let the user break out to greater levels of detail or keep things simple then you can find a good middle ground.

Given the amazing strides in usability we've seen in nearly every other field it baffles me why everyone isn't onboard with the fact that we can take the learnings from elsewhere and bring them to the domain of permissions.

Permissions are almost always hierarchical and grouped into classifications that make it easier to present the user with fewer more meaningful choices than asking the user to approve whether an app can see each contact on their phone one-by-one.

I'm honestly a bit cynical (puts on tinfoil hat) that marketers have held us back here since a lack of granular permissions aligns quite well with their effort to grab as much personal data as possible.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#385

Post by nxpnsv »

bipson wrote: post #355
sequoia wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If you buy a product from me with 30 day warranty and it breaks on day 31 and you contact me, I will not give you a refund because: a) I haven't agreed to do so b) I'm not bound to do so c) I don't think it's warranted in this case. But I'm not "unable" to issue a refund. In another case I may say "hm it's out of warranty but you know what, it really shouldn't have broken like that and you're a good custo…

"I can't agree with you" "I cannot continue this relationship" "I can't kill this guy" "I just can't eat meat anymore" "I cannot continue like this" These are all examples where someone clearly could for physical reasons, but they can't for other reasons they are bound to, whatever these reasons are.

Yep they are all lies. I _almost_ can't agree with you more.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#386

Post by zaphirplane »

sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

Yes the wording is intended to soften the interaction. They use “we” to refer to the team you are interacting with emphasis on bound by the company policy/process

You may see “we” as the company itself setting its own policy/ process

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#387

Post by BoorishBears »

JeromeLon wrote: post #306
troyvit wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has the scale to do this, but they also have a large enough monopoly where they don't have to, so they won't. It's not that it's unsustainable, it's that it is entirely sustainable to continue doing things this way.

Can you elaborate? I can see how Google can scale this automatically. But I don't see how Google can terminate, say, one million apps a day, if each termination entitles the spammer a one hour conversation with a technical representative.

Why does it need to cost them an hour conversation?!

Look at the tone-deaf example this employee just shared. All they had to do was say in the same email that they used to ban someone "you have copyrighted images".

The moment they find an infraction they could literally take a screenshot, say "the problem is X" and email it, which would incur the 5 seconds it takes to add a screenshot and say the problem you already identifies, but make a world of difference for developers.

This nonsense about "it's to stop spammers" isn't about the cost, the laughably bad logic Google uses is that by identifying what rules you broke, spammers will get better at not doing stuff Google catches...

As if the spammers don't already know what they did to get caught!

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#388

Post by Loughla »

sdenton4 wrote: post #275
Loughla wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had my same fridge for 10 years, with no signs of failure. Unless the monthly payment was $3.00 or less, I would be paying more than I should starting in June. The rental/do not own anything model is just awful, in my opinion.

For appliances, the vulture capitalists are building things to break sooner to get you to buy more often.

White goods are relatively easy to repair, though, and the parts tend to be relatively easy to find as well.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#389

Post by qyi »

We live in a world where people unironically put comments on top of every file in their projects (but only the ones they can easily insert a meaningless string into) like "you cannot disclose this file blah blah blah" and call themselves "grown ups". What's this Android nonsense, can't it just run programs like a normal computer? At the very least if it purports to not be a general purpose computer, then there should be no excuse for security vulnerabilities.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#390

Post by CivBase »

Part of me is amazed that so many apps continue to rely exclusively on the Google Play Store for distribution and monetization. With Google's track record, it's practically negligent to build a business which is completely dependent on their proprietary services.

That said, there's also probably no money in Android apps it isn't on the Google Play Store. I doubt most Android users know how to install apps from anywhere else, much less search other app catalogs. So I guess I really shouldn't be amazed at all.

Post reply on HN