3 ms·
[Edit: the comment originally said their question wasn't implying anything] Of course you're implying something. If nothing else, you're implying the one might
by GavinMcG 5y ago
[Edit: the comment originally said their question wasn't implying anything] Of course you're implying something. If nothing else, you're implying the one might imply the other, and that the implication is worth attention.
The governing law that would protect people is a lot of things, and ToS is the least of it. The Wiretap Act applies, for example.
- sohei 5y ago> ToS is the least of it I'm afraid I disagree. Google running code on your phone implies it believes you have consented to that. That consent was not given in the app store, so it must have come from the ToS. Consent is an exception to virtually every protection that exists: Wiretap Act, state wiretapping laws, the CFAA, and state computer trespass laws. Remember, consent is the difference between a home invasion and a dinner party. So it seems that Google would have to cook up a pretty implausible stopping principle to argue that whatever allows them to do this does not also enable the hypothetical I described above.
- GavinMcG 5y agoIf you've got a stock Android device you've obviously consented to Google running some code, and even updating to add new code after you bought it. On the other hand, apps are restricted based on permissions, and Google bypassing that would belie a consent theory. You're making out like code is code and there aren't already existing lines and stopping principles, which just isn't true on its face.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]