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

351–360 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#351

Post by r00fus »

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.

Using a less accurate phrase instead of a more accurate one because it benefits/shields you is a dark pattern.

Were the implied statement made explicit, then yes it'd be accurate.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#352

Post by richardfey »

kentonv wrote: post #298
szopa wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at Google, and a friend reached out to me for help – his company's app was in a similar situation, with similar communication from Google. This was a good friend from high school, so I pressed the issue using internal channels. The person handling it on Google's side was very assertive about them violating a policy, and after some back and forth I received a _vague hint_ about what was the supposed vio…

> However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them it would mean a ton of additional work – which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale. You describe a situation where Google was going to put a whole company out of business -- probably ending your friend's job, as well as that of many other hon…

I liked all of your comment, but this passage in particular:

> No, we need a Habeas Corpus for tech companies. If you are banned, you have to be told why. Make it a law. I don't care if it results in more spam.

The whole ordeal seems like an attempt to educate app developers by whipping, where the victims have to guess what they did wrong.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#353

Post by melff »

ur-whale wrote: post #266

Here's a prediction: Within 20 years, you will need the equivalent of a concealed carry permit to run Linux on a computer connected to the internet.

nah, you don't need a permit for that... you'd just need a computer without a boot chain of trust, too bad those things exist only in museums and landfills nowadays, have fun digging through trash to find your slow-ass 5 year old 18-core RISC-V 256G RAM SoC for witch there is an exploit to break it's chain of trust. Oh and make sure nobody notices, breaking the chain of trust is obviously illegal, and for good reason you could try to break the DRM of a Neuralink-Entertainment-Stream, we can't have that.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#354

Post by segfaultbuserr »

NiceWayToDoIT wrote: post #46

It seems this is not a rare case, I know that my friend lost great portion of his investment in the app at the point when number of users on his app was enough to start getting braking even, Google just decided that some of his users are deliberately clicking on ads. I guess that is way when you deal with company with too much power, there is no way to appall, complain, or do anything that will save your business. So…

The keyword here is had. Google wasn't that evil when it hasn't acquired today's power yet.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#355

Post by bipson »

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…

"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.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#356

Post by thaumasiotes »

StavrosK wrote: post #350
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.

Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it. Google can do it, they just don't want to. Hell, they can even change their policies if they want, so they aren't really "unable".

> Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it.

If you tried hard enough, you could probably manage this.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#357

Post by quotemstr »

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

If you don't want another process sending you an intent, don't export your entry point. This isn't hard. Security through obscurity is no security at all.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#358

Post by necovek »

arp242 wrote: post #258
megous wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a "vendor lock-in" ecosystem that's worse than the Windows lock-in of yesteryear IMO. For regular companies, if they want to shoot themselves in the foot by not being on the web, they're welcome. It's not such a huge issue as it would be with government for example. Also "any chance of any form of adoption" is a bit overstatment. I still use a dumbphone, and if I migrated to pinephone, lack of the kind of apps…

"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,…

> Unless they somehow hacked the encryption, you're still going to need a connection to the phone's WhatsApp client.

Apologies if I sound a bit naive, but what would be there to "hack"?

WhatsApp clients are available for many platforms, whatever encryption they might be using can easily be figured out by decompiling the code, and if they are using a key on the client side to do any encryption, that key is available for extraction from the distributed client too.

Basically, my question is what can a closed source downloadable client do to protect the encryption it uses to connect to a public network?

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#359

Post by zepto »

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.

Technically you are right.

However the key here is exploiting the ambiguity.

‘We are unable to’ is a cowardly way of saying ‘we choose not to’, or ‘our policy dictates’.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#360

Post by jccalhoun »

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…

I am not a programmer so I have no idea of the validity of anything they wrote. However, the style absolutely grates on me. It sounds like PR. and the random bold sentences seems like a calculated PR move.
Post reply on HN