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

551–560 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#551

Post by tempestn »

unexaminedlife wrote: post #392

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 c…

The eBay developer program does this. Premium support tickets are $75/hour iirc, refunded if it turns out to be a legitimate issue on their end. It can be a bit irksome, but it's a lot better than being stuck with no avenue to talk to a real person when something's gone wrong.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#552

Post by exikyut »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #257
exikyut wrote: post #21

I can't find it now, but I read a story that's been repeatedly posted here about someone who got an idea, dropped everything, built an MVP, showed it to potential customers who loved it ... and was told "I definitely need this, but I wouldn't pay for it." And then the person realized that the customer was right (the worst kind of right), and that the idea was both awesome and unmonetizable. In the same vein... questi…

The signal to noise ratio would still be terrible. The company would have no mechanism to work out who was actually being honest. For every story that trends on HN, 9 times out of 10, it turns out Apple/Google/Microsoft/Facebook were right, and the company was doing something dodgy.

Facepalm. I forgot to mention the stipulation part that I mentioned last time I mused about this.

The platform would require HN profile info, GitHub account details, maybe a keybase identity or two, perhaps a project website, etc, demonstrating years of organic ongoing activity, to be submitted with cases in order for them to be lodged. Basically any and every type of dev-oriented signal that would be extremely difficult for a scammer to fake.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#553

Post by TheRealSteel »

narwally wrote: post #17
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.

Well damn, now I want to download it. I've never gotten into mobile development because getting started always seemed like a chore, but this sounds like it would be fun to play around with.

Try making a React Native app using Expo. You write JavaScript on your PC (but you can access native functions) and the app will automatically refresh on your phone near instantly.

You can later eject it to an Android Studio/Xcode project if you want.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#554

Post by Aperocky »

dcow wrote: post #264
Aperocky wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ratio of amount and significance of action it takes over my trust in it is too high.

You don't need to use any of the driver assistance features. It’s not doing any of that if you don’t explicitly engage it and sometimes even requires enabling settings toggles.

Here's the deal though, when I press the brake pedal in my truck the force is mechanically applied via a hydraulic system to brake pads in the wheels.

I've read that Tesla abstracted all that with electric signals coming from a computer, now a proprietary software system sits between my legs input and the brake pads.

What if it goes wrong? You can try to convince me that it is an RTOS where signals from the brake pedal have the highest priority. And it seems to be that way, but I'd rather not.

I've dealt with enough computer problem to trust some onboard computer that can receive updates from the internet over how I brake.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#555

Post by themacguffinman »

Jordrok wrote: post #482
sofixa wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Putting aside that law enforcement has very different risks & pressures from corporate moderation, you don't really have to imagine: US law enforcement have a tool called civil forfeiture which lets them seize assets suspected of being involved in a crime without charging the asset owners of any specific crime. The owners have to prove to the police that the assets were not involved in a crime to restore their property. The US also has FISA courts for sensitive matters, FISA hearings are secret and only involve the judge & government representatives without the presence of all relevant parties.

I'm not endorsing these US policies, but it's worth noting that even in democratic law enforcement it's accepted that the system isn't always bound by transparent policy and process. There are usually justifications for keeping some things secret and discretionary to enhance law enforcement effectiveness.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#557

Post by antasvara »

Mistri wrote: post #515
antasvara wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you then run into the issue of companies trying to sneak fraudulent clicks past Google. If I knew there was little to no chance of repercussions, I would absolutely try a bunch of programs to try and sneak fraudulent clicks past. It's like if you told a student that there was no punishment for cheating, the questions they cheated on just wouldn't count. This doesn't hurt that bad, because if you were cheating…

Sure, but in this analogy, if other students cheat off your test, you're punished for it.

It's not a perfect analogy because advertising doesn't have a limited number of "questions." If someone adds fraudulent clicks to your site, there's no downside to your business. Worst case, these clicks are ignored. Best case, these clicks are actually counted. Either way, your business is unaffected.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#558

Post by unreal37 »

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…

We don't know that this is a false positive.

There's a good chance this app was being used as a vector for hacking, spamming or ad fraud. Not by the developers of this app, but by others who found this app being a useful way around the security of the Google Play store approval process.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#559

Post by KMag »

zelon88 wrote: post #531
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…

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…

> It isn't really lying from a personal perspective either. The "person" writing the response

I agree that the person writing isn't lying, but the language is deflecting responsibility away from management choices. The clearest wording from the prospective of the writer would be "I am unable because we are unwilling...".

I agree with those who feel it's important to keep a distinction between externally imposed limitations and internally imposed limitations.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#560

Post by KMag »

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.

There's an important distinction between externally and internally imposed restrictions. (In the case of killing, hopefully both restrictions are in play.)

The language is intentionally deflecting responsibility by obscuring the source of the restriction. They're trying to reduce argument by giving the impression responsibility exists in some other unidentified channel.

Post reply on HN