121–130 of 407 posts
Just the thought of Google being able to do something like this scares the $&@*#% out of me. How on earth can you trust a company that does something like this?
Next thing you know... they will change your Nest settings if they think you set your air conditioning too cold!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... you trust Google ?
Everyone running android play services on their phone has to trust Google, right?
1. Buy a standard android but spend ages trying to de-google it.
2. Buy an iphone, but then I just have to trust another trillion $ company, and pay much more too.
3. Live my life without a phone.
I choose 1 because that seems the least worse option right now.
Just the thought of Google being able to do something like this scares the $&@*#% out of me. How on earth can you trust a company that does something like this?
... you trust Google ?
Google has a heck-load of money. They could pay a disreputable aggregate company to deliver a load of tonne-bags of gravel to my front garden, blocking my car in, and generally destroying the landscaping. I trust them not to do this, and the reason this is true is because I haven't taken 100%-effective steps that would prevent them from doing so, and therefore they are capable of it. This example may seem a little ridiculous (there are no 100%-effective steps I could take, and I think they're trustworthy on this particular score), but it is a technically correct example of how everyone trusts Google.
It is obvious that we need better legislation to deal with all the new possibilities that technologies have opened. The installation of this app, even done with good intent, open a lot of questions on what should be possible or not to be done by government and corporations. When you get a device with pre-installed, uninstallable, or auto-installed apps. What are the rules? > "By enabling this service, you can be quic…
> It is obvious that we need better legislation to deal with all the new possibilities that technologies have opened. How about applying common sense?
I think the real question is what mechanism allows them to push a random app to some phones? google play services is actively listening for remote installation requests? that's essentially a remote-code-execution backdoor to all android phones?
A corollary of your question. If Google can lawfully install arbitrary apps on ordinary users' phones, can it also run arbitrary code on the personal devices of government officials investigating it for price fixing in the ad market?
This is very inconsiderate. For example, depending on your cell phone plan, data transfer may incur high costs, especially when roaming etc. Therefore, owners of cell phones may be interested in limiting it to the absolute minimum. As I see it, this consideration by itself already should have prevented this automatic installation.
It is obvious that we need better legislation to deal with all the new possibilities that technologies have opened. The installation of this app, even done with good intent, open a lot of questions on what should be possible or not to be done by government and corporations. When you get a device with pre-installed, uninstallable, or auto-installed apps. What are the rules? > "By enabling this service, you can be quic…
> instead of the silent install the government could have spend money in advertisement campaigns This absolutely does not work. Here, the NL gov tried this and almost nobody installed the app, despite it using the privacy-safe google/apple API.
From what I've read (I don't live in Massachusetts), the app is installed via the auto update channel, but it explicitly asks permission to activate. If you think this is bad, the commercial apps that have been auto-installing for years, without notifying the user , should have you throwing a conniption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A corollary of your question. If Google can lawfully install arbitrary apps on ordinary users' phones, can it also run arbitrary code on the personal devices of government officials investigating it for price fixing in the ad market?
"Arbitrary" is doing a lot of sneaky work here. You're implying that the law would somehow allow Google to manipulate investigators. But the law has broad allowances and exceptions in lots of areas, and competing permissions/denials that together weave specific allowances. There's little reason to think that the law couldn't allow app installation in general and also disallow either targeting of individuals or collec…
If Google is asserting non-contractual rights, I'd like to know what they are.
Edit: I edited this comment because it was rude, and that was not my intent.