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

531–540 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#531

Post by zelon88 »

sequoia wrote: post #341
joemi wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

It isn't really lying from a personal perspective either. The "person" writing the response is unable to reinstate the account as a matter of policy, which is a valid reason forbidding something in a civilized society. Likewise, by matter of a different policy the author is unable to comment on the specifics of the suspension.

It could be as simple as "Google management reviewed this app and decided it cuts into the bottom line of some service offered by Google." If the low-level person writing emails is aware of this fact then it would be reasonable to understand why they are unable to share the true motivation for suspension. What is more likely is the low level email writer looks up the account and the reason for suspension listed is, verbatim "Ad fraud - <3 Mgmgt." Then the low-level person would not be stretching the truth at all when they say they are unable to reinstate the account and are unable to provide more information.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#532

Post by judge2020 »

javajosh wrote: post #398
CrendKing wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 redirecte…

It's shifting the blame to you - something in their policies prevents them from reinstating your account without allowing you to break the contract. There's no ulterior motive, it's simply the best wording for saying that you still violate some policy.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#533

Post by judge2020 »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #424
zepto wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement , which can be a problem, especially when contracts reference the policy.

To clarify your comment, this is exactly what OP was referring to with

> someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#534

Post by judge2020 »

TheDong wrote: post #485
random5634 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This level of semantics is indeed pointless - to clarify, your comment supports both what you wrote and Google's use of the "unable" wording in their response; they are unable to reinstate your account .

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#535

Post by judge2020 »

tolmasky wrote: post #401
joemi wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A pet peeve of mine is the deferral and personification of "policy". Policy is just your opinion that you happen to have written down in the past. It holds no power over you, you write the policy! It's not like the US law, which while also just words on paper, is enforced (and often chosen by) other people over you. Me deferring to the law (vs. my own opinion) has meaning because they can be different. The way we rea…

The "policy" is indeed the law, in the form of a contract - you or Google breaking that contract could mean you end up in a civil lawsuit that would cost you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars assuming it isn't frivolous. Instead of actually taking everyone to court and scaring off developers, they simply give themselves the option to terminate the contract if you break it instead of going to court.

The thing is that they can't bend the policy for certain players without being sued for unfair business practices/anti-competitive behavior, which is why Google has to enforce it on everyone if they want to enforce it on anyone.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#536

Post by judge2020 »

tremon wrote: post #483
easton wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

100% false. When a user buys iOS they willingly (maybe not stating 'I relinquish my control to Apple', but implicitly) give up a degree of freedom in determining who they trust to Apple. It's well-known that you can only get apps from the App Store when using iOS.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#537

Post by Quekid5 »

tshaddox wrote: post #523
ncmncm wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.

It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.

This is how corporations use language. It's about "optics".

I'd personally call it an 'absuse' or 'misuse' or... 'misleading use' of language, but you do you.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#538

Post by tolmasky »

judge2020 wrote: post #535
tolmasky wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pet peeve of mine is the deferral and personification of "policy". Policy is just your opinion that you happen to have written down in the past. It holds no power over you, you write the policy! It's not like the US law, which while also just words on paper, is enforced (and often chosen by) other people over you. Me deferring to the law (vs. my own opinion) has meaning because they can be different. The way we rea…

The "policy" is indeed the law, in the form of a contract - you or Google breaking that contract could mean you end up in a civil lawsuit that would cost you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars assuming it isn't frivolous. Instead of actually taking everyone to court and scaring off developers, they simply give themselves the option to terminate the contract if you break it instead of going to court. The thing i…

Plenty of companies get sweetheart deals from Google and Apple. Your contract has no bearing on another company’s. That’s why I can’t sue Apple for giving Netflix and Amazon a more favorable deal than 30%. It’s also why I can’t sue Target for making an exception and letting someone else return something one day later than their return policy explicitly allows but not doing that for me. Furthermore, most contracts you sign (click) with Google and such usually have a catch-all clause that says everything is up to their discretion and they can change their minds on most of these subjective judgement calls.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#539

Post by judge2020 »

antman wrote: post #124
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…

Vetting process is just excuse for rent seeking, a better client ui for us to approve permissions would cost nothing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26961550

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#540

Post by Quekid5 »

edoceo wrote: post #473
tannhaeuser wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave"?

computer says no

A better and more honest answer than so much of the apologetics spouted in this thread.

I'm amazed at the people defending this type of verbiage... like at all.

Post reply on HN