5 ms·

LaLiga “Talks to Google” About Deleting Piracy Apps from a Million Phones

84 points by gslin 3y ago

dp-hackernews 3y ago
You do not own your phone, or your PC if others can control your access to it and prevent you from using it as you wish. When are people going to wake up and stop accepting this totalitarianism?!
- Alifatisk 3y ago
  Are there phones where Google can remotely remove content from their local storage? That’s unacceptable
  - mocmoc 3y ago
    did you live under a stone?
    - xcdzvyn 3y ago
      no
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      If you are knowledgeable, clarify the matter to us with a little history: when would this feature have started in Android (versions etc.), which are the most important events showing what they can do or not, etc.
    - Alifatisk 3y ago
      Not currently, no
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    I think that already with the first iPhone Apple spokesmen said "we built the feature in because we thought we would regret not doing it". It is not just «remov[ing]», it is also planting. (You should remember the case of remotely installing free music albums - which woke up a number of people about "they can plant files on my phone?!".)
  - Sayrus 3y ago
    Isn't that all Android phones with the Google Services or Play Store installed? You can remotely wipe them, install or uninstall applications from a browser logged into your Google Account and Google has already deleted apps from users phone since at least over a decade ago [1]. [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2010/06/exercising...
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    All major mobile operating systems (Android, iOS) and some desktop operating systems (macOS) have the ability to remotely kill a binary through communication with the mothership. Most other desktop computers run antivirus (Windows Defender, McAfee, etc.) which very much allow the same thing. This feature was built to kill malware and viruses. Not even all malware in case of mobile devices, only the particularly bad malware that a "this app is infected with a virus" popup isn't enough for to get rid of. It's not exactly a novel technique either. Most game cracks for Windows are part of one malware database or another, which is why every crack comes with instructions to disable your antivirus software for that particular binary. At some point only the actually infected cracks were being flagged, and in some cases the cracks employ malware-like mechanisms to redirect control flow, but many of these programs will be flagged by AV databases simply for being cracks. Most of the topics where people complain about these types of remote uninstalls are based on pirated games from sketchy sources. It's hard to say if there's actually a virus at play in those situations, but based on the symptoms described ("all APKs I install are marked as viruses") I would think there is some kind of malicious APK modification process going on in a few of these cases.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - no_time 3y ago
    Mozilla can also disable any of your extensions. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-cause-issues-are-on-blocklist https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-cause-issues-ar... There needs to be a law against this.
    - rysertio 3y ago
      You can disable the blocklist from about:config . extentions.blocklist.enabled
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > You do not own your phone, or your PC if others can control You are forgetting the car. With internal microphones cameras, locators and wireless connections to distribute collected data, a "spying system" is installed in your own property (which some do not really consider "property" anymore), and it is more difficult to remove it compared to mobile computers. They can also come with an embedded kill-switch (planned apparently so that rented vehicles can be disabled if the service is unpaid): so you may be driving a vehicle with a subsystem intended to remotely stop it from working, planned to be outside the control of the driver. Software, features and data - which could change outside the control of the owner - are a further step. This is not "ownership". (Further to the privacy and security issues.)
  - red_admiral 3y ago
    If you rent a vehicle, then by definition, you are not the owner though? EDIT: I also note that there was another topic on HN not too long ago about car manufacturers being accused of not doing enough about theft (apparently "smart" locks are easy enough to bypass). So a "locate my car/laptop if stolen" feature is a trade-off against privacy and other risks. Personally I think the choice should be with the device owner in the end, but obviously, a remote tracking feature that a thief can easily disable is not much use for end-users who do want the feature.
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      > If you rent a vehicle, then by definition, you are not the owner though? No, you misunderstood the point: the "kill-switch" feature was implemented in case the car is for rental, but the result is that bought cars also contain it. So you would be driving something with an embedded kill-switch - because the manufacturer saw it would be useful under some cases, so it just installed it as part of the bundle. For that matter - as you also point out -, it can also come useful in case the car is stolen. Unfortunately, it also represents a security issue, pretty clearly: it is there, accessible by those who can gain access to it... So, > the choice should be with the device owner in the end And apparently it is not. How would you remove that module, if you want to?
- jiofj 3y ago
  There is no worse totalitarianism than the one coming from the government itself. What are we going to do?
  - teddyh 3y ago
    Oh, there’s one that’s worse: The totalitarianism that’s coming from the general consensus of everybody around you.
    - jiofj 3y ago
      Which is basically the same as the government, because they are the ones voting for that totalitarianism.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        Well, it depends on the local demographics.
daft_pink 3y ago
Essentially exactly why Apple didn't add CSAM scanning to the iPhone. They start with something everyone agrees on like protecting children until they totally control your device and block whatever they want.
- thih9 3y ago
  > until they totally control your device and block whatever they want We don’t know for sure that they would do that. We know they would like to, i.e.: that there are people that would like to use a precedent of CSAM scanning for their purposes and who count that the general public would not resist much. Perhaps that lack of resistance is part of the issue.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    > We don’t know for sure that they would do that. No, they very much did that and were caught: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fined-over-app-that-spied-on-illegal-bar-screenings-of-matches https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fin... I'm pretty sure everyone would agree this is over the line.
  - vb-8448 3y ago
    > We don’t know for sure that they would do that. If they get the chance to do it, they'll do it. 100%. Guaranteed.
  - daft_pink 3y ago
    most big tech companies comply with all local laws.
- sneak 3y ago
  > Essentially exactly why Apple didn't add CSAM scanning to the iPhone. They don't need to. iCloud uploads plaintext content hashes of all files even when e2ee is turned on. They know all of the users that have certain files, even if each and every one of those users is using the opt-in e2ee of iCloud. Normal iCloud allows Apple to scan everything serverside, natch. This is 99%+ of all iCloud users today.
bilekas 3y ago
LaLiga are some of the most egregious group for privacy concerns, it was a few years ago their own app would record your position and the audio around to ensure you were watching at a licensed bar for example [1]. It's rich that they would be so concerned with other apps purposes. 1) https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/06/12/spains-la-liga-app-phones-detect-illegal/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/06/12/spains-la-liga-app...
- 4death4 3y ago
  [dead]
alexmolas 3y ago
A while back, LaLiga got fined for using their app to listen to microphones and catch bars that were illegally streaming football matches [1]. Apparently they continue on their crusade against freedom on how you use your devices. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fined-over-app-that-spied-on-illegal-bar-screenings-of-matches https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fin...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
chakintosh 3y ago
Javier Tebas should really look into making the league worth paying for rather than egregiously invading people's privacy. It's been on a downhill for 7 or 8 years now with comical VAR decisions, incompetent refs, incredibly tight FFP rules that ended up crippling the whole league and turning it into a free for all for rich EPL teams.
qwerty456127 3y ago
> If it can be done for child abuse images, then it can be done for piracy tools too, Tebas said. This! Then it can be done for privacy apps, then it can be done for whatever. It always begins with "child protection".
GuB-42 3y ago
> If it can be done for child abuse images, then it can be done for piracy tools too, Tebas said. But you have to work on it. "Think of the footballers's millions" is not as convincing as "Think of the children".
- mcv 3y ago
  It's step two of a process: 1. We really need this to fight child porn, but we promise it will never be used for anything else. 2. If it can be done for child porn, it can also be done for this other thing. 3. ...?
torcete 3y ago
In my city they tried a bus/taxi service where you could book a ride and the bus will adapt its route based on the demand. Well, it failed and they killed it without telling anybody. One day I needed a ride and I couldn't find the app on my device. It was quite unsettling to observe that somebody could remove software from a device that I own.
- mcv 3y ago
  I recently found some empty spots on a home screen that I'm sure used to be full. I have no idea what apps or widgets I had there, so I can probably do without, and I'm happy to have more space now for other stuff on that screen. I guess this is what blissful ignorance feels like.
  - torcete 3y ago
    I don't know if you are using android, but a common issue with it is when the developer changes some sort of app id. If you had a shortcut to your main screen, it will just disappear.
mercacona 3y ago
In the meanwhile, in Spain you ought to change your internet provider to watch LaLiga and pay for other football competitions you might not be interested in. As a result, many people prefer to watch LaLiga illegally.
- Condition1952 3y ago
  Which is the article of the código penal which says something like “those who watch an internet streaming without paying money to somebody will be punished with fine or prison”? If it’s not written down as illegal, it’s legal
  - mcv 3y ago
    In the article he says it's theft, but it's really just a monopoly violation. We should replace the words "theft" and "piracy" in this context with "monopoly violation". That would be a lot more honest.
    - Condition1952 3y ago
      There’s no such article. Downloading internet files for non commercial use, watching streaming videos is not illegal under any circumstances and implying otherwise is creating a misleading situation
  - mercacona 3y ago
    Not illegal for the spectator, but for the streamer, who btw is able provide a more convenient service for LaLiga customers than LaLiga’s partners.
Condition1952 3y ago
Football became popular because anybody with a TV set could watch the millionaires struggling in stadia funded with public taxes in a streaming funded with public taxes Now that they have a market of addicted followers, they’ve moved to a closed streaming system and they’re fighting against their former customers
- bibanez 3y ago
  As a casual football fan I find it hard to stream some matches. I don't want to pay for another streaming service that I know I'm not going to use, but more and more of the matches aren't streamed on live tv...
- mcv 3y ago
  I wouldn't mind if these attempts at total monopolistic control ended up demoting football to the status of a normal sport again, instead of a global religion.
- toyg 3y ago
  > Football became popular because anybody with a TV set could watch the millionaires Come on now. Football stadia were already full before the tv was even invented, and not all stadia were built with public money. Is it now just another exploitative market? Yes. But let's not throw away the working-man's sport with the monopolistic-capitalist bathwater.
piokoch 3y ago
I also feel that it is unfair that each LaLiga footballer does not have his private Boening 747, like Neymar. We need to do something with those pesky pirate apps to make sure footballers earn more money, as their torment of poverty is unacceptable. Maybe United Nations should step out to fight this clear violation of human rights?

84 points by gslin 3y ago

You do not own your phone, or your PC if others can control your access to it and prevent you from using it as you wish. When are people going to wake up and stop accepting this totalitarianism?!

Alifatisk 3y ago
Are there phones where Google can remotely remove content from their local storage? That’s unacceptable
- mocmoc 3y ago
  did you live under a stone?
  - xcdzvyn 3y ago
    no
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    If you are knowledgeable, clarify the matter to us with a little history: when would this feature have started in Android (versions etc.), which are the most important events showing what they can do or not, etc.
  - Alifatisk 3y ago
    Not currently, no
- mdp2021 3y ago
  I think that already with the first iPhone Apple spokesmen said "we built the feature in because we thought we would regret not doing it". It is not just «remov[ing]», it is also planting. (You should remember the case of remotely installing free music albums - which woke up a number of people about "they can plant files on my phone?!".)
- Sayrus 3y ago
  Isn't that all Android phones with the Google Services or Play Store installed? You can remotely wipe them, install or uninstall applications from a browser logged into your Google Account and Google has already deleted apps from users phone since at least over a decade ago [1]. [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2010/06/exercising...
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  All major mobile operating systems (Android, iOS) and some desktop operating systems (macOS) have the ability to remotely kill a binary through communication with the mothership. Most other desktop computers run antivirus (Windows Defender, McAfee, etc.) which very much allow the same thing. This feature was built to kill malware and viruses. Not even all malware in case of mobile devices, only the particularly bad malware that a "this app is infected with a virus" popup isn't enough for to get rid of. It's not exactly a novel technique either. Most game cracks for Windows are part of one malware database or another, which is why every crack comes with instructions to disable your antivirus software for that particular binary. At some point only the actually infected cracks were being flagged, and in some cases the cracks employ malware-like mechanisms to redirect control flow, but many of these programs will be flagged by AV databases simply for being cracks. Most of the topics where people complain about these types of remote uninstalls are based on pirated games from sketchy sources. It's hard to say if there's actually a virus at play in those situations, but based on the symptoms described ("all APKs I install are marked as viruses") I would think there is some kind of malicious APK modification process going on in a few of these cases.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- no_time 3y ago
  Mozilla can also disable any of your extensions. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-cause-issues-are-on-blocklist https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-cause-issues-ar... There needs to be a law against this.
  - rysertio 3y ago
    You can disable the blocklist from about:config . extentions.blocklist.enabled
mdp2021 3y ago
> You do not own your phone, or your PC if others can control You are forgetting the car. With internal microphones cameras, locators and wireless connections to distribute collected data, a "spying system" is installed in your own property (which some do not really consider "property" anymore), and it is more difficult to remove it compared to mobile computers. They can also come with an embedded kill-switch (planned apparently so that rented vehicles can be disabled if the service is unpaid): so you may be driving a vehicle with a subsystem intended to remotely stop it from working, planned to be outside the control of the driver. Software, features and data - which could change outside the control of the owner - are a further step. This is not "ownership". (Further to the privacy and security issues.)
- red_admiral 3y ago
  If you rent a vehicle, then by definition, you are not the owner though? EDIT: I also note that there was another topic on HN not too long ago about car manufacturers being accused of not doing enough about theft (apparently "smart" locks are easy enough to bypass). So a "locate my car/laptop if stolen" feature is a trade-off against privacy and other risks. Personally I think the choice should be with the device owner in the end, but obviously, a remote tracking feature that a thief can easily disable is not much use for end-users who do want the feature.
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    > If you rent a vehicle, then by definition, you are not the owner though? No, you misunderstood the point: the "kill-switch" feature was implemented in case the car is for rental, but the result is that bought cars also contain it. So you would be driving something with an embedded kill-switch - because the manufacturer saw it would be useful under some cases, so it just installed it as part of the bundle. For that matter - as you also point out -, it can also come useful in case the car is stolen. Unfortunately, it also represents a security issue, pretty clearly: it is there, accessible by those who can gain access to it... So, > the choice should be with the device owner in the end And apparently it is not. How would you remove that module, if you want to?
jiofj 3y ago
There is no worse totalitarianism than the one coming from the government itself. What are we going to do?
- teddyh 3y ago
  Oh, there’s one that’s worse: The totalitarianism that’s coming from the general consensus of everybody around you.
  - jiofj 3y ago
    Which is basically the same as the government, because they are the ones voting for that totalitarianism.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      Well, it depends on the local demographics.

daft_pink 3y ago

Essentially exactly why Apple didn't add CSAM scanning to the iPhone. They start with something everyone agrees on like protecting children until they totally control your device and block whatever they want.

thih9 3y ago
> until they totally control your device and block whatever they want We don’t know for sure that they would do that. We know they would like to, i.e.: that there are people that would like to use a precedent of CSAM scanning for their purposes and who count that the general public would not resist much. Perhaps that lack of resistance is part of the issue.
- candiodari 3y ago
  > We don’t know for sure that they would do that. No, they very much did that and were caught: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fined-over-app-that-spied-on-illegal-bar-screenings-of-matches https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fin... I'm pretty sure everyone would agree this is over the line.
- vb-8448 3y ago
  > We don’t know for sure that they would do that. If they get the chance to do it, they'll do it. 100%. Guaranteed.
- daft_pink 3y ago
  most big tech companies comply with all local laws.
sneak 3y ago
> Essentially exactly why Apple didn't add CSAM scanning to the iPhone. They don't need to. iCloud uploads plaintext content hashes of all files even when e2ee is turned on. They know all of the users that have certain files, even if each and every one of those users is using the opt-in e2ee of iCloud. Normal iCloud allows Apple to scan everything serverside, natch. This is 99%+ of all iCloud users today.

bilekas 3y ago

LaLiga are some of the most egregious group for privacy concerns, it was a few years ago their own app would record your position and the audio around to ensure you were watching at a licensed bar for example [1]. It's rich that they would be so concerned with other apps purposes. 1) https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/06/12/spains-la-liga-app-phones-detect-illegal/ https://www.welivesecurity.com/2018/06/12/spains-la-liga-app...

4death4 3y ago
[dead]

alexmolas 3y ago

A while back, LaLiga got fined for using their app to listen to microphones and catch bars that were illegally streaming football matches [1]. Apparently they continue on their crusade against freedom on how you use your devices. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fined-over-app-that-spied-on-illegal-bar-screenings-of-matches https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/12/la-liga-fin...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

chakintosh 3y ago

Javier Tebas should really look into making the league worth paying for rather than egregiously invading people's privacy. It's been on a downhill for 7 or 8 years now with comical VAR decisions, incompetent refs, incredibly tight FFP rules that ended up crippling the whole league and turning it into a free for all for rich EPL teams.

qwerty456127 3y ago

> If it can be done for child abuse images, then it can be done for piracy tools too, Tebas said. This! Then it can be done for privacy apps, then it can be done for whatever. It always begins with "child protection".

GuB-42 3y ago

> If it can be done for child abuse images, then it can be done for piracy tools too, Tebas said. But you have to work on it. "Think of the footballers's millions" is not as convincing as "Think of the children".

mcv 3y ago
It's step two of a process: 1. We really need this to fight child porn, but we promise it will never be used for anything else. 2. If it can be done for child porn, it can also be done for this other thing. 3. ...?

torcete 3y ago

In my city they tried a bus/taxi service where you could book a ride and the bus will adapt its route based on the demand. Well, it failed and they killed it without telling anybody. One day I needed a ride and I couldn't find the app on my device. It was quite unsettling to observe that somebody could remove software from a device that I own.

mcv 3y ago
I recently found some empty spots on a home screen that I'm sure used to be full. I have no idea what apps or widgets I had there, so I can probably do without, and I'm happy to have more space now for other stuff on that screen. I guess this is what blissful ignorance feels like.
- torcete 3y ago
  I don't know if you are using android, but a common issue with it is when the developer changes some sort of app id. If you had a shortcut to your main screen, it will just disappear.

mercacona 3y ago

In the meanwhile, in Spain you ought to change your internet provider to watch LaLiga and pay for other football competitions you might not be interested in. As a result, many people prefer to watch LaLiga illegally.

Condition1952 3y ago
Which is the article of the código penal which says something like “those who watch an internet streaming without paying money to somebody will be punished with fine or prison”? If it’s not written down as illegal, it’s legal
- mcv 3y ago
  In the article he says it's theft, but it's really just a monopoly violation. We should replace the words "theft" and "piracy" in this context with "monopoly violation". That would be a lot more honest.
  - Condition1952 3y ago
    There’s no such article. Downloading internet files for non commercial use, watching streaming videos is not illegal under any circumstances and implying otherwise is creating a misleading situation
- mercacona 3y ago
  Not illegal for the spectator, but for the streamer, who btw is able provide a more convenient service for LaLiga customers than LaLiga’s partners.

Condition1952 3y ago

Football became popular because anybody with a TV set could watch the millionaires struggling in stadia funded with public taxes in a streaming funded with public taxes Now that they have a market of addicted followers, they’ve moved to a closed streaming system and they’re fighting against their former customers

bibanez 3y ago
As a casual football fan I find it hard to stream some matches. I don't want to pay for another streaming service that I know I'm not going to use, but more and more of the matches aren't streamed on live tv...
mcv 3y ago
I wouldn't mind if these attempts at total monopolistic control ended up demoting football to the status of a normal sport again, instead of a global religion.
toyg 3y ago
> Football became popular because anybody with a TV set could watch the millionaires Come on now. Football stadia were already full before the tv was even invented, and not all stadia were built with public money. Is it now just another exploitative market? Yes. But let's not throw away the working-man's sport with the monopolistic-capitalist bathwater.

piokoch 3y ago

I also feel that it is unfair that each LaLiga footballer does not have his private Boening 747, like Neymar. We need to do something with those pesky pirate apps to make sure footballers earn more money, as their torment of poverty is unacceptable. Maybe United Nations should step out to fight this clear violation of human rights?