6 ms·

These bits of litigation are interesting, but my usual takeaway is a mild contempt for the whole thing. Whether it's something minor like this or a major antit

These bits of litigation are interesting, but my usual takeaway is a mild contempt for the whole thing. Whether it's something minor like this or a major antitrust cases (eg, the recent adwords EU case), what is and isn't legally actionable seems arbitrary from a non-legal perspective. Even legislation efforts like european "cookie laws" and such seem bumbling and naive. What's the legal fix to this, assuming google lose? An extra tick box? T&C update? The reality of interacting with large software companies as a consumer doesn't lend well to brick and mortar analogies. A T&C section is not analogous to a rental contract. Even residential or employment contracts are usually subject to legal filters... cultural norms at least. The "problem" here is one of structure. Google own android to (a)dominate the mobile phone market and (b) support the targeted ads business, the main business. Whether or not google are "stealing" data allowance from customers, or acquiring this right voluntarily/contractually from customers is interesting in the abstract, I guess. In is so peripheral to the actual problem though. I realize this case isn't supposed to be dealing with the wider problems of legal monopolies. The legal/legislative whole is. It seems that whatever the goal of the action (from litigation to legislation or regulation), they pick around the irrelevant edges. What, legally, should google be legally allowed to do given that it's leveraging the fact that they control your phone, own a lot of your data, etc. If the answer is whatever the T&Cs say, the answer is "everything."

aboringusername 6y ago
The answer here has been obvious for many years. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest in having an organization interested in selling ads to also make one of the worlds most widely used operating systems. So we break them up. We regulate their conduct, we interrogate their business and ensure there is no apparent conflicts of interest going on. Mobile OS solutions LTD would develop Android OS, wouldn't unduly favor any given party more than another. It's possible, but you'd need to essentially have complete and total access to the daily affairs and perform audits to ensure compliance. Legislation can fix this but it'd be a mammoth task to challenge Google.
- swiley 6y ago
  It doesn't really matter who's involved, the security model in android is extremely user hostile. Many organizations are given super user access on device and the end user isn't. Only one of these needs to be poorly behaved (not even selling ads) for the device to be full of unremovable malware. There's definitely a social problem here, but I think for once people HN are underestimating the importance of a technical problem.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Many organizations are given super user access on device and the end user isn't. That depends. Assuming an uncorrupted chain of delivery between you and the manufacturer, if you're running a vanilla AOSP, the only organization having root access is Google and you. Even with Samsung and other manufacturers, they are the only additional party whose packages have admin rights. The situation is more nasty with devices bought/leased from a carrier because these insist on preloading all kinds of crapware - which is why I would strictly recommend everyone to work out their own financing and buy a stock device independently from a carrier. Chances are it's gonna be cheaper in the long run anyway.
    - phh 6y ago
      > Even with Samsung and other manufacturers, they are the only additional party whose packages have admin rights. It depends on what you call "admin rights", but from my point of view you're wrong. On Samsung devices, DT Ignite (Israel-based ad company) is preinstalled, which has the rights to install new apps. Getting the right to install new apps means you can get any user permission. (like silently access camera, microphone, or screen capture to capture you typing your password)
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      > The situation is more nasty with devices bought/leased from a carrier because these insist on preloading all kinds of crapware Apple has their own issues, but at least the above carrier crapware issue isn’t one of them on iOS and never has been.
  - 6y ago
cstross 6y ago
Whether or not google are "stealing" data allowance from customers, or acquiring this right voluntarily/contractually from customers is interesting in the abstract Specific example of harm: international roaming data fees are outrageous and even a small use of data can stack up. If I visit Canada using my UK mobile phone, I have to be sure to keep data roaming turned off because I get dinged for £6/Mb (about US $7.50/Mb). Over a couple of weeks, google sipping a bit of bandwidth here or there can actually end up doubling or tripling my monthly bill, even when it's single-digit megabytes. (The real problem is of course the existence of the search/advertising hybrid business model, which needs to be addressed at a legislative level. But no, costing me a noticeable amount of money under unpredictable circumstances is not an abstract/trivial problem.)
- Angostura 6y ago
  You should sign up with three. In Europe + about 30 other countries I get to use my allowance as normal when overseas
  - martinald 6y ago
    3 doesn't have free roaming in Canada. They do in US but not Canada.
    - cstross 6y ago
      Canada is one huge hole in Three's roaming. As I learned the hard way, visiting Canada on Three is like taking an involuntary time trip 20 years back in time, cellphone-wise. Source: am a happy long-term Three customer (other than that one visit to Canada in 2018).
- blfr 6y ago
  The real problem in your example are absolutely abusive and exploitative roaming charges, not Android or search/advertising business model. Should the phone sit quiet when you're not using it? Sure. Is £6/Mb even close to a reasonable rate? Not unless you're on Mars.
peteradio 6y ago
It should be illegal to allow a consumer to click "terms and conditions" have been read in a super-human period of time.
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  Even if you actually forced a customer to read the T&C’s somehow (rather than just annoying them with a forced delay), do you think the average consumer would understand what it means and what trade offs they are making? The “solution” isn’t forced legaleze on customers, it’s more “do what’s in the customer’s best interest” not “do whatever you can legally get away with to make the most money off them”.
  - peteradio 6y ago
    No not really, but if there is a 1 hr delay because of onerous terms and conditions then perhaps a person would think twice about what they are getting in to. Or if there was a 5 minute delay to read a single paragraph perhaps people may actually read it.
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      > 1 hr delay > 5 minute delay I honestly feel that’s even more user hostile than the “onerous terms” in the first place. I stand behind my point, if one has such “onerous terms” that something is warranted like you suggested, then the company failed and the app/service shouldn’t exist.
      - dalbasal 6y ago
        I agree with your sentiment, but I think you've arrived at the wrong place. People are not going to read and understand a T&C, in most cases. Tactics like delays, or even forced scrolls to "ensure" they do are farcical and ritualistic. This is obvious to everyone. Actual "commercial relations" are based in custom, and law... not just contracts. Adam Smith talked a lot about custom, rarely about contracts. The T&C ritual is a bureaucratic farce, our version of medieval catholic indulgences. It can only be understood anthropologically.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
The device knows when it is on a metered connection and should send logs (which is a preference the user can decline during device setup) only when it is on a metered connection. If it doesn't, that's a bug. Google is pretty unresponsive to bugs filed via the external Android bug reporting tool, so if this is a bug, I hope they pay dearly and pay more attention. It's possible that the device they ran the test on had an unlimited data plan, in which case, this might not be a bug, and the judge will throw out the case. https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/core/net/ConnectivityManagerCompat#isActiveNetworkMetered(android.net.ConnectivityManager) https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/core/net/Co...
intricatedetail 6y ago
Google by being present and controlling every part of ecosystem has unfair advantage in the market. They need to be split and start paying the right tax. Any wealth achieved by creative accounting should be confiscated. Any data collected without legitimate business need should be ordered to be deleted. If company has a search engine, it should be illegal to use that data to feed ad serving business. If company produces phone hardware it should be illegal to sell it with closed operating system. Basically any kind of monopoly or cartel needs to be prevented. Companies should be banned from having offshore structures without legitimate business need.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
Legal remedies are almost always bad. They're really only good as a last resort. Who actually wants to spend years of their time and lots of money in court over company abuses? The true solution is technology. We need software that blocks all kinds of telemetry and advertising while also leaving all the other good functionality intact. We simply make it impossible for them to abuse our good will in any way, their business interests be damned.

aboringusername 6y ago

The answer here has been obvious for many years. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest in having an organization interested in selling ads to also make one of the worlds most widely used operating systems. So we break them up. We regulate their conduct, we interrogate their business and ensure there is no apparent conflicts of interest going on. Mobile OS solutions LTD would develop Android OS, wouldn't unduly favor any given party more than another. It's possible, but you'd need to essentially have complete and total access to the daily affairs and perform audits to ensure compliance. Legislation can fix this but it'd be a mammoth task to challenge Google.

swiley 6y ago
It doesn't really matter who's involved, the security model in android is extremely user hostile. Many organizations are given super user access on device and the end user isn't. Only one of these needs to be poorly behaved (not even selling ads) for the device to be full of unremovable malware. There's definitely a social problem here, but I think for once people HN are underestimating the importance of a technical problem.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > Many organizations are given super user access on device and the end user isn't. That depends. Assuming an uncorrupted chain of delivery between you and the manufacturer, if you're running a vanilla AOSP, the only organization having root access is Google and you. Even with Samsung and other manufacturers, they are the only additional party whose packages have admin rights. The situation is more nasty with devices bought/leased from a carrier because these insist on preloading all kinds of crapware - which is why I would strictly recommend everyone to work out their own financing and buy a stock device independently from a carrier. Chances are it's gonna be cheaper in the long run anyway.
  - phh 6y ago
    > Even with Samsung and other manufacturers, they are the only additional party whose packages have admin rights. It depends on what you call "admin rights", but from my point of view you're wrong. On Samsung devices, DT Ignite (Israel-based ad company) is preinstalled, which has the rights to install new apps. Getting the right to install new apps means you can get any user permission. (like silently access camera, microphone, or screen capture to capture you typing your password)
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > The situation is more nasty with devices bought/leased from a carrier because these insist on preloading all kinds of crapware Apple has their own issues, but at least the above carrier crapware issue isn’t one of them on iOS and never has been.
- 6y ago

cstross 6y ago

Whether or not google are "stealing" data allowance from customers, or acquiring this right voluntarily/contractually from customers is interesting in the abstract Specific example of harm: international roaming data fees are outrageous and even a small use of data can stack up. If I visit Canada using my UK mobile phone, I have to be sure to keep data roaming turned off because I get dinged for £6/Mb (about US $7.50/Mb). Over a couple of weeks, google sipping a bit of bandwidth here or there can actually end up doubling or tripling my monthly bill, even when it's single-digit megabytes. (The real problem is of course the existence of the search/advertising hybrid business model, which needs to be addressed at a legislative level. But no, costing me a noticeable amount of money under unpredictable circumstances is not an abstract/trivial problem.)

Angostura 6y ago
You should sign up with three. In Europe + about 30 other countries I get to use my allowance as normal when overseas
- martinald 6y ago
  3 doesn't have free roaming in Canada. They do in US but not Canada.
  - cstross 6y ago
    Canada is one huge hole in Three's roaming. As I learned the hard way, visiting Canada on Three is like taking an involuntary time trip 20 years back in time, cellphone-wise. Source: am a happy long-term Three customer (other than that one visit to Canada in 2018).
blfr 6y ago
The real problem in your example are absolutely abusive and exploitative roaming charges, not Android or search/advertising business model. Should the phone sit quiet when you're not using it? Sure. Is £6/Mb even close to a reasonable rate? Not unless you're on Mars.

peteradio 6y ago

It should be illegal to allow a consumer to click "terms and conditions" have been read in a super-human period of time.

jsjohnst 6y ago
Even if you actually forced a customer to read the T&C’s somehow (rather than just annoying them with a forced delay), do you think the average consumer would understand what it means and what trade offs they are making? The “solution” isn’t forced legaleze on customers, it’s more “do what’s in the customer’s best interest” not “do whatever you can legally get away with to make the most money off them”.
- peteradio 6y ago
  No not really, but if there is a 1 hr delay because of onerous terms and conditions then perhaps a person would think twice about what they are getting in to. Or if there was a 5 minute delay to read a single paragraph perhaps people may actually read it.
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > 1 hr delay > 5 minute delay I honestly feel that’s even more user hostile than the “onerous terms” in the first place. I stand behind my point, if one has such “onerous terms” that something is warranted like you suggested, then the company failed and the app/service shouldn’t exist.
    - dalbasal 6y ago
      I agree with your sentiment, but I think you've arrived at the wrong place. People are not going to read and understand a T&C, in most cases. Tactics like delays, or even forced scrolls to "ensure" they do are farcical and ritualistic. This is obvious to everyone. Actual "commercial relations" are based in custom, and law... not just contracts. Adam Smith talked a lot about custom, rarely about contracts. The T&C ritual is a bureaucratic farce, our version of medieval catholic indulgences. It can only be understood anthropologically.

lern_too_spel 6y ago

The device knows when it is on a metered connection and should send logs (which is a preference the user can decline during device setup) only when it is on a metered connection. If it doesn't, that's a bug. Google is pretty unresponsive to bugs filed via the external Android bug reporting tool, so if this is a bug, I hope they pay dearly and pay more attention. It's possible that the device they ran the test on had an unlimited data plan, in which case, this might not be a bug, and the judge will throw out the case. https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/core/net/ConnectivityManagerCompat#isActiveNetworkMetered(android.net.ConnectivityManager) https://developer.android.com/reference/androidx/core/net/Co...

intricatedetail 6y ago

Google by being present and controlling every part of ecosystem has unfair advantage in the market. They need to be split and start paying the right tax. Any wealth achieved by creative accounting should be confiscated. Any data collected without legitimate business need should be ordered to be deleted. If company has a search engine, it should be illegal to use that data to feed ad serving business. If company produces phone hardware it should be illegal to sell it with closed operating system. Basically any kind of monopoly or cartel needs to be prevented. Companies should be banned from having offshore structures without legitimate business need.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

Legal remedies are almost always bad. They're really only good as a last resort. Who actually wants to spend years of their time and lots of money in court over company abuses? The true solution is technology. We need software that blocks all kinds of telemetry and advertising while also leaving all the other good functionality intact. We simply make it impossible for them to abuse our good will in any way, their business interests be damned.