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

481–490 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#481

Post by zmmmmm »

spinny wrote: post #444
stickfigure wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem to be a problem in this case? Telling spammers they are blocked due to copyrighted images trains them not to upload copyrighted images. Win-win.

picking up copyrighted images is another indicator that user X is a spammer, providing that info would eliminate the signal

Well, this is the essence of discrimination and we wouldn't tolerate it for a whole range of indicators (you're black, gay, if a particular race, etc etc). My guess is the real reason they won't tell people is that they would end up in court pretty quick.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#482

Post by Jordrok »

sofixa wrote: post #310
dtx1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your thoughts on this are plausible, if not likely. However, the usual complete lack of communication by google is the actual problem. Perhaps droidscripts could mitigate googles concerns, if they had the decency to explain them.

But if they do, a malicious actor can use that information to circumvent their restrictions, and its their walled garden, so they have very little incentive to tell everyone exactly what they don't like.

I know this is standard practice for most big companies moderating lots of content, but it has always seemed like such an insane policy to me.

Imagine if this were applied to actual laws enforced by the police. "You're under arrest but we won't tell you what law you've broken, because then other criminals might use that knowledge of the law to avoid being arrested. And by the way, a secret court has sentenced you to life imprisonment and all of your appeals have been denied."

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#483

Post by tremon »

easton wrote: post #440
franga2000 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done some, although not a lot of, native Android development and I'm not quite sure what's so bad about sending intents. "Could access other applications" sounds dangerous, but as far as I know that "access" is limited to things those apps have explicitly decided to allow external apps to access.

Applications could be exposing intents they assume will be used by trustworthy applications (i.e. apps in the Play Store). A user could download a Droidscript (which as I understand doesn't trigger the unknown sources policy) which then tries to use intents it shouldn't need without asking the user for permission. If Droidscript required unknown sources to do anything (not just APK exports), then other apps could che…

trustworthy applications (i.e. apps in the Play Store)

Please don't equate trust with any app store like that. Firstly, many incidents have shown that this blanket trust isn't warranted, and second, the final arbiter of trust is the owner of the device, not the owner of the app store.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#484

Post by mleonhard »

blacklight wrote: post #472

This is the same story that HN readers have read hundreds of times over the past couple of years, just with different subjects. Independent developer/small organization gets their app/YouTube channel/Google account shut down overnight because of false positives triggered by their system. It takes weeks and insistence with bots to just get to speak to a human. When you get to speak to a human, they usually respond wit…

Google is 1/2 of the mobile duopoly. No app developer can avoid Google Play Store (for publishing their apps) and Firebase Cloud Messaging (for sending push notifications to their apps).

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#485

Post by TheDong »

random5634 wrote: post #433
akiselev wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We do not issue refunds for items with expired warranties" Notice that the policy is clearly stated in the rejection and there is no ambiguity.

You would be lying - and people will call you out on this, because they will find out that you have in fact issued refunds for products with expired warranties.

This level of semantics is pointless.

They could write "We generally do not issue refunds for items outside of warranty" and they're back to the statement being just one level more vague, and thus more true.

But in reality, both of those mean the same thing. Writing "We don't issue refunds outside of warranty periods" has an understood "excluding exceptional circumstances". Everyone knows it's there. Only people who are pedantic to the point of uselessness will argue about this, and you'll find out that the courts generally have little sympathy for that.

All human languages so far are inexact. Math is probably the most exact language we've invented for communicating ideas, but languages that the general public knows are all inexact.

If the correct thing is communicated unambiguously, that's already a success, even if a pedantic person can say "I know you mean that you don't 'generally' do it, so the absolute there is a lie", the fact that the pedant can point it out means they absolutely understood what was being conveyed correctly.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#486

Post by 7952 »

fuyu wrote: post #361
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…

If I were to ask you if I could get a refund for an item out of warranty, what language would you use to refuse me? I'm struggling to come up with a response that doesn't use the terms "unable" or "can't" that wouldn't come across as fairly rude.

You are not eligible for a refund under our warranty. Let us know if you have any more questions.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#487

Post by yomansat »

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…

Reminds me of KBB.com who were "unable" to remove my personal data after they determined I'm not in California.

They share your phone/email with lots of dealers if you request a quote and don't read the fine print like I didn't...

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#488

Post by mike_d »

danudey wrote: post #427
coffeecat wrote: post #368

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account (Publisher Code: pub-********) and as a result it has been disabled. Because of this, the ability to serve and monetise through all products which depend on AdSense will also be disabled (for example, AdMob and YouTube). > We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be use…

"We've noticed that you're violating our policies." "Which policies?" "That's none of your business." "How are we violating them?" "I'm not going to tell you." "What can we do?" "Fix the issues, and then appeal." "Which issues?" "I've said too much already."

I used to work detecting ad fraud. Publishers would do bad things, call in, and try to get their account rep to get details.

Obviously I can't say "of the last 2500 ad clicks zero of them had any mouse movement over the ad before the click event" because then the publisher obviously just fixes their fraud software.

This isn't specific to Google or even advertising. Every company has figured out when dealing with abuse and fraud sharing the minimum amount of information is beneficial to the health of the ecosystem as a whole.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#489

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

coffeecat wrote: post #368

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account (Publisher Code: pub-********) and as a result it has been disabled. Because of this, the ability to serve and monetise through all products which depend on AdSense will also be disabled (for example, AdMob and YouTube). > We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be use…

PSA: "Der Process", English "The Trial", is old enough so you can read it for free on the internet, e.g. on Project Gutenberg:

https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849

It's a really entertaining read.

And yes, it perfectly matches this situation - right in the very first sentence already.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#490

Post by caconym_ »

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 aren’t wrong, but (taking the corporate entity in question as a monolith, which is fair from the outside) “unwilling” is a much more honest word choice in cases like this since it clearly communicates that there was a real practical decision that could feasibly have gone either way. “Unable” lines up better with things that are infeasible, e.g. Apple can’t recover the data on an encrypted hard drive without the password or recovery key because it’s literally impossible or would at least require nation-state level computing resources to have a realistic shot at cracking even a weak password.

“Unable” is dishonest because it passes responsibility beyond the veil of the typical user’s ignorance. We’re so used to this sort of language that we’re conditioned to allow it even when we know it’s bullshit. It shuts down discussion and allows its wielder (inevitably a corporation) to avoid explaining itself. In the developed Western world we have a big problem with letting corporations do whatever the hell they want without explaining themselves, so I don’t think we should let them get away with this sort of thing anymore, and not being satisfied with mealy-mouthed evasion is one of the first steps down that road.

Post reply on HN