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

661–665 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#661

Post by munificent »

salawat wrote: post #245
munificent wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caveat: I work at Google but know nothing about this area and my opinion here is entirely personal. > which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale. Financial sustainability may have something to do with it, but I suspect the larger issue is that providing too much detail essentially trains malware authors to route around the company's defenses. Imagine the Play Store as a castle which has both good tow…

Say it with me now: >"Rough consensus, and running code. We are not the Protocol Police." Half the problems we have nowadays is because we have manufacturers playing "the Program Police", which leads inevitably to the point you just made. You are now, like it or not, adversarial to any User looking to do anything you find unconformant with your bottom line. You cannot solve these issues by whitelisting, just like you…

> >"Rough consensus, and running code. We are not the Protocol Police."

This model absolutely does not work when it comes to creating spaces where humans interact. There are bad actors and someone has to police them or they will abuse other users.

If you run a bar, you have to hire bouncers. It's simply part of the cost of hosting a safe venue.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#662

Post by lilfatbitch »

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…

wow, you are an asshole

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#663

Post by franga2000 »

meltedcapacitor wrote: post #417
franga2000 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditching Android is not a good solution - see the application support problem on Linux for why. What we need is a serious and well-funded Android "distro" that lifts Google's dumb restrictions and reimplements Google's proprietary APIs for compatibility. MicroG is doing very well on that second part, but due to lack of funding still has far too many holes.

No amount of funding can fix this, at least for all use cases where apps communicate via google services between phone and app HQ. The average bank is not going to send data between bank and user via microg-operated pipes instead of google-operated pipes because 0.1% of their users don't like google.

The average banking app doesn't communicate via google-operated pipes. Basically the only thing I've seen baking apps do via Google (and I've reverse-engineered quite a few) is the SafetyNet check to ensure their bullshit policy about modified devices. Well, that and notifications, but microG already emulates that library and uses Google's servers afaik.

If a phone manufacturer started shipping Android phones without GApps and they got popular enough, developers would start being more careful with relying on Google Services. We saw this with Huawei - their phones are reall popular where I live and after tons of complaints from huawei users, a bunch of companies fixed their apps to gracefully handle the lack of Google Play Services.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#664

Post by pas »

raverbashing wrote: post #616
dfabulich wrote: post #546

This article is big news, because it shows that Google will permanently yank your Android app if your website violates AdSense's secret fraud detector! If you're running Google AdSense ads and you have an Android app that you care about, take down the ads immediately and switch to another vendor. AdSense is the product where Google pays you for running banner ads; they can and frequently do kick people off of it for…

Yeah I think claiming Ad Fraud is pretty much on the libel side of things, also I'm not sure why hasn't any developer taken legal action against outlandish Google practices yet.

There was at least one small claims case (exactly about the unexplainedness of the termination), where in the end Google produced logs that showed that the ToS was violated.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2...

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#665

Post by robaato »

zepto wrote: post #359
bipson wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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’.

"Computer says no" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
Post reply on HN