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

321–330 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#321

Post by mdoms »

ajross wrote: post #14
blakesterz wrote: post #2

I had to go look to see what this was: "DroidScript is an easy to use, portable coding tool which simplifies mobile App development. It dramatically improves productivity by speeding up development by as much as 10x compared with using the standard development tools. It’s also an ideal tool for learning JavaScript, you can literally code anywhere with DroidScript, it’s not cloud based and doesn’t require an internet…

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…

> 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.

When did we collectively decide that programmable computers were a Bad Thing?

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#322

Post by tobyjsullivan »

I have no prior knowledge of Droidscript or even android development. I did, however, manage to find this page https://symdstools.github.io/Docs/docs/app/CreateAdView.htm

This presents a component which Droidscript developers can use to display AdMob ads in their apps. AdMob appears to be a Google property.

Some interesting quotes:

> The AdView shows advertisement banners from the popular AdMob platform.

> Ads are not touchable when running in the DroidScript IDE.

So there's a confirmed experience where actual ads are displayed in a non-standard way? Any guesses if this violates Google's ad fraud policy?

> Warning: Don't repeatedly click on your own ads unless you are using a valid testId, or Google may suspend your Admob account!

So it's the responsibility of individual users to correctly configure their ads to avoid committing click fraud (accidental or otherwise).

I can see how Google might come to the conclusion that Droidscript has built a platform for committing click fraud, whether that's their intention or not.

This seems incongruent with the wording in the original post:

> they ask you for a "complete analysis of your traffic or other reasons that may have led to invalid activity in your appeal". Well, we had no idea what could have caused this and couldn't think of anything we could do

Really? No idea?

Edit to add: I get that there's a larger debate here around the general fight over device ownership and access to general purpose computing. I'm side-stepping that because I don't have much to add. What I do believe is that this particular piece is hardly concrete enough to bolster the case against Google.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#323

Post by joemi »

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.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#324

Post by arp242 »

ta9999 wrote: post #282
arp242 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so how can I chat to my friends or companies with WhatsApp on Linux? How can I order food similar to Grab or Gojek on Linux? How can I get a date on Linux like Tinder? You can't. Sure, there are technological solutions to all of those, but in the real world that alone is pretty much useless.

Tinder does have a web interface, so does doordash (I've never head of Gojek but I'd imagine it does too.) I thought WhatsApp also had a web interface but I wouldn't use it anyway and there are similar chat apps that do so why would you?

> I've never head of Gojek but I'd imagine it does too.

You imagine wrong.

> I thought WhatsApp also had a web interface but I wouldn't use it anyway and there are similar chat apps that do so why would you?

The web interface is just a proxy to the phone app. The other "similar apps" don't have all my contacts on it.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#325

Post by stjohnswarts »

ben509 wrote: post #19

The writing style of the piece looks like a political mailer. > The Google Play system has declared DroidScript is Malware and accused us of committing Ad Fraud! Needless to say, we are extremely upset and totally flabbergasted at this shocking allegation! That kind of hyperbole sets off all my BS detectors. As I go through the back and forth, DroidScript speculates this: > Our main guess was that one of our users wa…

If someone came along and pulled the rug out from under your ability to earn a paycheck you might be a bit excited and hyperbolic as well especially if all they told you was "you hurt our feelings" but wouldn't tell you why. The situation is ludicrous.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#326

Post by franga2000 »

easton wrote: post #116
wzdd wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is the kind of app that would never have been legal at all on any version of iOS. Pythonista is a complete Python programming environment which provides access to camera, music, contacts, the network, and so on, and has been available for iOS since 2016. What specifically distinguishes Droidscript from Pythonista such that you think Apple would reject Droidscript? https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pythonista-3/id1…

Droidscript has support for writing custom intents, which Pythonista (and Scriptable, a JavaScript version of the same thing) do not have. A malicious Droidscript application could access other applications on the device. https://symdstools.github.io/Docs/docs/app/SendIntent.htm

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.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#327

Post by JeremyBanks »

amelius wrote: post #309
easton wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Droidscript has support for writing custom intents, which Pythonista (and Scriptable, a JavaScript version of the same thing) do not have. A malicious Droidscript application could access other applications on the device. https://symdstools.github.io/Docs/docs/app/SendIntent.htm

Are Play Store regulations the only defense against this kind of attack? If so, then yikes!

Android's fine-grained permissions system isn't a good fit for something like Droidscript; one script could use a permission for valid reasons, then another could do something bad.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#328

Post by ribosometronome »

Vrondi wrote: post #304
arp242 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so how can I chat to my friends or companies with WhatsApp on Linux? How can I order food similar to Grab or Gojek on Linux? How can I get a date on Linux like Tinder? You can't. Sure, there are technological solutions to all of those, but in the real world that alone is pretty much useless.

You can use Watshapp multiple ways on Linux, including the web browser version [ https://itsfoss.com/whatsapp-linux-desktop/ ]. Although, if you're using Whatsapp at all you're either massively ignorant or stupid. I mean, giving Facebook your phone number is just not wise.

I think many would argue that thinking Facebook doesn't have your phone number is either massively ignorant or stupid. After all, it only takes one person you know signing up and allowing access to contacts.

That said, I am considerably less concerned about Facebook having my phone number versus Facebook being able to mine all my conversations to create a pretty complete profile of who I am and what I do.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#329

Post by mdoms »

Vrondi wrote: post #296
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,…

If you're using Whatsapp, you've got zero interest in privacy anyhow, and so you're never going to consider these issues in the first place.

Well first of all that's just total BS, but secondly this thread isn't even about privacy. None of this is. In fact your comment is the very first mention of that word in this thread.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#330

Post by horsawlarway »

kube-system wrote: post #180
salawat wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are still "yours" in a sense, so don't fall into the feature set the poster you are replying to is talking about. Though the immobilizer somewhat skirts the line. (Or at least from my personal view). Think John Deere implementing software lockouts in the tractor ECU. That is nothing more than forcing their business model onto the end user through digital logic.

They're just as much "mine" as an iPhone is. It is extremely common for digital authentication of physical keys to be protected by encryption or signing by the manufacturer.

Sure, but to be as blunt as possible - You don't own your iPhone. Full stop.

You are renting it from Apple. They control what you run, when you run it, what you can install, what you can remove.

By default, they're shipping you a device where you're literally not the root user. I can't possibly think of a clearer argument that you're renting, and entirely at the whim of Apple (which does have root access, and actually owns the device you happen to be using).

The issue to me is that ownership implies the right to modify and change a thing, especially in ways that the original manufacturer doesn't support or agree with.

If the manufacturer is still calling all the shots on your device, you don't own the device!

Post reply on HN