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

391–400 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#391

Post by matoro »

ehsankia wrote: post #237
kbelder wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my primary hacking tool for throwing little scripts together on Android. You can bring up an IDE in chrome on your PC and interactively execute it on your phone. I hope this gets fixed. I wouldn't really be surprised if EVERY scripting/programming app in the play store technically violates some play store rules, though.

> I hope this gets fixed. Define "fixed", it was removed from Play Store but anyone can still install from APK or F-Droid, right?

It's closed-source and paid. Not allowed on F-Droid.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#392

Post by unexaminedlife »

Here's a thought. One of the most frustrating things to me about this kind of thing is that Google (or any other major tech company) could just ignore me and just tell me "you're malware". I get it. Technology people cost a lot of money, so I would propose that companies who the public depend on MUST offer consulting out-of-band at an hourly (or daily?) rate. This way the real issues are squashed.

Now I know that I can get the guidance I need to fix the problems my product is having. Also this helps reassure the public about the big companies intentions in that these FUD stories will become instantly irrelevant. You want your stuff fixed? Pay for the guidance. You don't want to spend the time fixing the issues? So be it. But don't expect anyone to listen to your problems.

On top of this, if it's a small open-source project, create a way to streamline funding for the guidance. If a lot of people depend on your project they'll almost certainly chip in a small sum per person for the guidance you need.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#393

Post by antonvs »

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.

This all depends on having free will. Otherwise, those statements could all be literally true.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#394

Post by kube-system »

horsawlarway wrote: post #330
kube-system wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're just as much "mine" as an iPhone is. It is extremely common for digital authentication of physical keys to be protected by encryption or signing by the manufacturer.

Sure, but to be as blunt as possible - You don't own your iPhone. Full stop. You are renting it from Apple. They control what you run, when you run it, what you can install, what you can remove. By default, they're shipping you a device where you're literally not the root user. I can't possibly think of a clearer argument that you're renting, and entirely at the whim of Apple (which does have root access, and actuall…

Sure. No matter what your definition of "own" is -- I am saying, my car is already the same thing.

The question is, do we have a good solution to enable the average user to own their device while also ensuring security and availability?

We have two options with cars, either intentionally implement a security hole, or let the manufacturer "own" it. Because the other option -- tell the customer they're SOL when they lose their private key, is not a solution that is practical (grandma will lose hers) or possibly even legal (manufacturers' obligation under lemon law).

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#397

Post by specialist »

richardfey wrote: post #352
kentonv wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them it would mean a ton of additional work – which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale. You describe a situation where Google was going to put a whole company out of business -- probably ending your friend's job, as well as that of many other hon…

I liked all of your comment, but this passage in particular: > No, we need a Habeas Corpus for tech companies. If you are banned, you have to be told why. Make it a law. I don't care if it results in more spam. The whole ordeal seems like an attempt to educate app developers by whipping, where the victims have to guess what they did wrong.

Yes, and: Efficient markets require fair & impartial courts, tort, transparency, accountability. Etc.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#398

Post by javajosh »

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.

"People will criticize no matter what you do" is a great line. It gets used a lot - not so much here, I've noticed. Probably because it doesn't address the particulars of any criticism, and instead provides a nihilistic view of the world where "real improvement" is impossible.

"We're unable to" shifts responsibility to something vague, unspecific. It's like the "run around" only with this phrase you've been redirected to /dev/null. I'm glad the OP said something.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#399

Post by vaer-k »

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…

As a cashier, I am certainly "able to" just hand you the goods and let you leave without paying, but in reality due to laws, regulations and good morals I am unable to do that.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#400

Post by necovek »

danans wrote: post #106
Aperocky wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pocket computers with a legacy voice call functionality I don't necessarily agree with this, because this is the direction that everything is moving towards. It is so much cheaper to embed an SOC into everything that needs some form of automated/assisted control. Not necessarily a good thing, but that's what is going to happen regardless. Your fridge can become a pocket computer with refrigerating capability - but…

> Your fridge can become a pocket computer with refrigerating capability - Only if you have huge pockets ;)

Or a tiny fridge! :)
Post reply on HN