Hacker News Reader

Comment by Confiks | Hacker News Reader

> secretly install a COVID-19 tracing app

The Register's article is a complete shitshow in emulating the confusing language from the lawsuit. Luckily the complaint itself [1] refers to an Ars Technica article from 2021 which finally explains a bit more [2].

[1] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Complaint_W...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/even-creepier-covid-...

View on HN

Thanks for finding that. The Ars Technica article is actually informative journalism. The The Register article just leaves you confused about what's real and seems to focus more on who's involved than what's happened.

Really creepy that Google is willing to work with governments to force install apps like that. Makes me think nobody should run stock Android.

Stock Android has nothing to do with it, the same Play Services exist on every Android phone on the (western) market.

Ah good point. I didn't realise that. I need to look into MicroG again. Any Android running Play Services basically has a massive backdoor.

Google controls the entire operating system, and in some cases the hardware, so it's a backdoor into the house they already own

Stock android has everything to do with it. Non-stock options allow you to remove Google Apps which include Play services.

Funny how the post without “Koch-funded” in the headline had such a different discussion when it was posted here last year.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27558500

edit: I think it’s also worth pointing out that they are not suing for money (only lawyers fees and $1 nominal fee), they are just asking the government to stop working with google to install covid tracking apps that users cannot uninstall.

I've taken that bit out of the title—its polarizing effect on discussion is so dramatic as to count as linkbait. (Yes, it would be the same the other way).

"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, they're just asking Google to stop installing apps that include the configuration for where to report COVID cases and where to get COVID cases that you were close to from. Users can uninstall the app, and the tracking happens outside the app.

Why is that surprising. What Massachusetts and Google did is bad. This awful Koch funded group filing a class action lawsuit is also bad. Both are bad.

edit: you ought to read the actual lawsuit - https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Complaint_W... before you make mistaken claims like "they are just asking the government to stop working with google to install covid tracking apps that users cannot uninstall". They have other goals.

Why is filing the lawsuit bad? Isn’t that exactly what should happen here?

Don’t you ever roll your eyes when you see a headline with “Soros-funded group does X” in it?

Don’t you ever roll your eyes when you see a headline with “Soros-funded group does X” in it?

No. I try to ignore headlines because they are a waste of my limited time and intentionally provocative. I read the articles sometimes, though. In this case, it is a strategic lawsuit, leveraging a popular and reasonable cause (what Massachusetts and Google did was wrong) in order to incrementally weaken precedents towards other, mostly unrelated, goals (also wrong).

edit: The way groups like the NCLA operate is by weakening protections in a quiet way under the guise of populist and popular causes. I won't defend Mass or Google, because I don't agree with them here, but it does not follow that I should support the NCLA suit.

Which precedents? Governments getting to install arbitrary apps for "people’s own good"? Or making it difficult for gov/big tech to exploit an emergency to expand surveillance, that conveniently sticks around after the emergency ends?

Thank you for linking the actual lawsuit earlier, I found it informative. That said, I'm trying but I'm not seeing what 'precedents' they're weakening, other than that the government can't force install tracking apps on one's phone without consent.

Seems like they ask for a lot of declarations that this was unlawful and they shouldn't do it again, $1 in nominal damages, and attorney's fees.

What sinister plans am I missing here?

Just for reference, I voluntarily installed a Covid tracking app on my phone.

You can agree that something is wrong, but disagree strongly about why it's wrong. To show standing, you have to have injury, causation, and remedy. You might hear about people bring civil cases for violating civil rights instead of wrongful death. This is a legal tactic to get the best changes of a desired outcome. You can see the nature of what NCLA is after in the claims for relief on page 25 and relief requested on page 33. The claims of violations of 4th and 5th amendments and CFAA (counts I, III, and VII) and relief Requested c-g are what I think you're missing. Privacy violation? Fine. Injunctions? Declaration it violated MA common law? Costs, expenses, and fees? Fine. The rest is seeking strategic precedents. It's a part of why they only seeking nominal damages of $1.

You may have to clarify a bit more about what's wrong with the precedent they seek. Stating that it's bad to force install apps on one's phone that track them doesn't seem very abuse-able to me offhand.

Not sure what you're saying about standing, either. Seems like they've at least plead to a reasonable injury that the state should have jurisdiction over based on acts caused by the state & Google and they list various remedies. Now the other side can argue with all of that, but the pleadings don't seem obviously defective to me.

FYI the comment replying to this one is a different person than the one this one is replying to, also you didn't actually answer the first, more pertinent question you're replying to.

The register isn't a news site but a news aggregator. They are a bit like the IT version of Zero Hedge, where they dig up interesting factoids and then add their own short editorial, often inflammatory/sarcastic/humorous. IIRC, they have only editors on staff, not reporters. The little entertaining summaries and story selection is their value add, as they don't write the stories so they aren't going to give you the details.

If YOU think that's ok, why does it need to be secret?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com