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

411–420 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#411

Post by arp242 »

necovek wrote: post #358
arp242 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not being on the web" doesn't seem like a huge footgun. There are probably more people with a mobile phone and no traditional computer than the other way around, especially if you go outside of the US and Europe. Revolut, Grab, Gojek, Tinder, WhatsApp, and many more are all successful that offer a mobile-first solution, with either no web/desktop client or just as a an additional client (usually with fewer features,…

> Unless they somehow hacked the encryption, you're still going to need a connection to the phone's WhatsApp client. Apologies if I sound a bit naive, but what would be there to "hack"? WhatsApp clients are available for many platforms, whatever encryption they might be using can easily be figured out by decompiling the code, and if they are using a key on the client side to do any encryption, that key is available f…

Yes, technically I'm sure there are ways around it if you try hard enough. No one does that though AFAIK.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#412

Post by zepto »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #382
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 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 throug…

They can always either change or make an exception to the policy.

A policy is just their way of doing things, written down.

It’s not magic.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#413

Post by TrianguloY »

I don't like the tone of the comment (feels like a tantrum) but unfortunately this happens more often that people think.

What I find interesting is the little information they give you after a ban. Apparently if they explained the reasons of the banning then other people could use that information to find flaws and 'game the system'.

This means that, if you deliberately made something against the rules and were banned, you can then 'explain your mistake and the measures to not do it again'. But if you don't do anything unusual and simply break one of the crazy rules they have by mistake, it's game over.

P.S. If you have a blog and practically all of your visits come from a single source (perhaps a link in something popular) don't EVER use admob on that blog. You will be banned.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#414

Post by dalbasal »

joemi wrote: post #323
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…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

You're right, but I think you're not doing justice to the OP's complaint.

You're right that this isn't solely a faceless corporate thing. People say "I can't" when "I won't" for the same reasons Google did. We even ask "can you watch my kids?" Again, the same reasons drive the language. It lets a false but face-saving implication stand: You will pick up my kids if you can and if you won't than I'll assume you couldn't.

We also "ask" our employees or waitresses to do things, even though it's technically an order.

All this is good and fine. Language is supposed to embed cultural niceties that speak to our values and smooth relations between people.

The Orwellian shit comes in when it comes in. These cross from figures of speech into euphemization and the Orwellian point is that these things run deep. A bank manager is literally unaware of where her own prerogatives, organisational norms, hard corporate policies and regulatory rules begin and end. They are constantly implying (and thinking) that whatever is annoying/abusing their customers is not because of them. Usually it is.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#415

Post by danans »

necovek wrote: post #400
danans wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or a tiny fridge! :)

Indeed! Half seriously, we just need thermoelectric generators to get efficient enough, and then our phones can be powered directly from our body heat, and also refrigerate us on a hot day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#416

Post by frombody »

ericol wrote: post #16

TL;DR: They are being accused of ad fraud, without any evidence provided, and they are asked to reply with an analysis of why they think their traffic ?? is legit (when they have no idea what is it that Google considered "not legitimate"). The biggest issue here I don't think is the malware tag, but the ad fraud accusation. Even thought as somebody pointed out the page linked can be biased, based only on what they st…

the ad-fraud accusation is my biggest concern as well.

they provide no information or clues leaving the author to guess.

the author guesses that somehow someone extracted their identifiers from the apk.

google comes back and says more clearly that it's something to do with how the ads are positioned, essentially accusing them of trying to trick people to accidentally click.

this information should have been provided before the appeal, and google gains literally nothing from hiding this information from the author.

the malware claims have more validity, but the way they handled the ad-fraud claim is inexcusable.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#417

Post by meltedcapacitor »

franga2000 wrote: post #347
eplanit wrote: post #25

It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

Ditching Android is not a good solution - see the application support problem on Linux for why. What we need is a serious and well-funded Android "distro" that lifts Google's dumb restrictions and reimplements Google's proprietary APIs for compatibility. MicroG is doing very well on that second part, but due to lack of funding still has far too many holes.

No amount of funding can fix this, at least for all use cases where apps communicate via google services between phone and app HQ. The average bank is not going to send data between bank and user via microg-operated pipes instead of google-operated pipes because 0.1% of their users don't like google.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#418

Post by Oddskar »

glsdfgkjsklfj wrote: post #148
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitrary code isn't banned on iOS, there isn't anything (yet) that can create fully fledged apps like Droidscript, but a few cool apps are: - iSH: an Alpine Linux shell environment, powered by an x86 to ARM JIT emulator - Scriptable: an iOS automation tool using Javascript, it can even integrate with native iOS APIs like photos and calendars, create native UIs, etc. - Pythonista: a Python IDE, you can create 2D game…

> Arbitrary code isn't banned on iOS It is. Even mozilla firefox is banned on the premise that it can run arbitrary code and yes, that is the official apple instance. The fact that they apply it when they see fit and allow other times, and that it is totally arbitrary and opaque based on their own private interests , is exactly what everyone with common sense tried to explain when criticizing the walled garden.

Firefox is in the AppStore.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#419

Post by pushrax »

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…

Seems like an extremely minor gripe (as you mention, it’s all just bullshit) to be the top comment.

Though FWIW I’m unable to disagree.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#420

Post by arp242 »

TrianguloY wrote: post #413

I don't like the tone of the comment (feels like a tantrum) but unfortunately this happens more often that people think. What I find interesting is the little information they give you after a ban. Apparently if they explained the reasons of the banning then other people could use that information to find flaws and 'game the system'. This means that, if you deliberately made something against the rules and were banne…

You're not wrong that it's a bit of a tantrum, but after spending years working on a app and then being banned out of the blue without any recourse or even information, I think the author is entitled to a bit of a tantrum.

It's true that giving all details might lead to people gaming the system, but c'mon, a bit of details wouldn't be so bad.

This isn't some sort of fairly inconsequential website like HN or Reddit we're talking about, but literally people's livelihoods. This is like the cops walking in to your house to arrest you for theft, but they won't tell you what you stole, where you stole it, or how they know it was you. You now go to prison, have a nice day.

Perhaps they're right 95% of the cases. But in 5% of cases they're wrong, and bye-bye livelihood and many years of work down the drain.

Post reply on HN