4 ms·

> 1. How did Mass install these apps in the first place if it was "clandestine" as the lawsuit alleges? Discovery will probably shed some light on this. How wo

> 1. How did Mass install these apps in the first place if it was "clandestine" as the lawsuit alleges? Discovery will probably shed some light on this. How would the plaintiff know the exact method used? > never mind that legal filings are by definition highly biased to the side being represented. Tell me you’ve never been a plaintiff in a lawsuit without telling me you’ve never been a plaintiff in a lawsuit. Why would the fillings _not_ be biased to the side being represented? Why would the side being represented be biased to the defense? That makes no sense at all.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> How would the plaintiff know the exact method used? This is not exactly difficult. They are alleging that this was installed on a million phones, I'm sure doing some straightforward technical forensics would make it clearly apparent what was going on. > Why would the fillings _not_ be biased to the side being represented? You've misunderstood my point, though I don't understand yours. Of course the filings are biased, that is exactly what I'm saying. I've just seen numerous cases (myself included) where people get out their pitchforks when they've only read one side's version of events, well before a complete picture emerges of what actually happened.
- factsarelolz 4y ago
  > They are alleging that this was installed on a million phones, This allegation is based up the number reported by Google that is available to the public. > I'm sure doing some straightforward technical forensics would make it clearly apparent what was going on. Why? Why spend the money to hire a forensics analyst or a team, when through discovery you can learn that information straight from the source. In my opinion it would be worth it to wait to see if the lawsuit actually progresses and is not immediately slapped down by a judge. If immediately slapped down then you just wasted money, by waiting to ensure it’s approved to move forward you can save some money. I will admit I have not read completely the actual filing, which probably will shed more light on it than an article.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> How would the plaintiff know the exact method used? This is not exactly difficult. They are alleging that this was installed on a million phones, I'm sure doing some straightforward technical forensics would make it clearly apparent what was going on. > Why would the fillings _not_ be biased to the side being represented? You've misunderstood my point, though I don't understand yours. Of course the filings are biased, that is exactly what I'm saying. I've just seen numerous cases (myself included) where people get out their pitchforks when they've only read one side's version of events, well before a complete picture emerges of what actually happened.

factsarelolz 4y ago
> They are alleging that this was installed on a million phones, This allegation is based up the number reported by Google that is available to the public. > I'm sure doing some straightforward technical forensics would make it clearly apparent what was going on. Why? Why spend the money to hire a forensics analyst or a team, when through discovery you can learn that information straight from the source. In my opinion it would be worth it to wait to see if the lawsuit actually progresses and is not immediately slapped down by a judge. If immediately slapped down then you just wasted money, by waiting to ensure it’s approved to move forward you can save some money. I will admit I have not read completely the actual filing, which probably will shed more light on it than an article.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]