[HN Gopher] Class-action lawsuit filed against US state agency o...
___________________________________________________________________
Class-action lawsuit filed against US state agency over mobile
'spyware'
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 120 points
Date : 2022-11-19 17:13 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Here is the lawsuit filing [1][PDF] I am curious if this would
| have occurred on rooted and de-googled phones using alternate
| operating systems.
|
| [1] - https://nclalegal.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/11/Complaint_W...
| oaththrowaway wrote:
| I would assume this was forced through the Play Store, so my
| best guess would be that a de-googled phone would be safe
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| do you consider an unrooted device with at least 1 goog
| account synced - but with goog play disabled - a safe de-
| googled phone?
| oaththrowaway wrote:
| In this case, it might not be effected. But in general I
| wouldn't consider it "De-Googled" unless it didn't have any
| Google services on it.
| slim wrote:
| you can't disable google play services
| btdmaster wrote:
| You can disable it, it's just a bit more difficult:
| https://android.stackexchange.com/a/219376 (use the
| builtin package manager pm over ADB debug permissions, pm
| uninstall --user 0 package)
| hammock wrote:
| >I am curious if this would have occurred on rooted and de-
| googled phones using alternate operating systems
|
| All 12 of them?
| account-5 wrote:
| Would this have happened on normal Google phones but without a
| Google account set up on it and with play services disabled?
|
| If Google were able to I stall this without user interaction
| then android phones are compromised bemy default!
| pessimizer wrote:
| If Charles Koch doesn't want state governments to secretly
| install surveillance apps on my cellphone, I don't even want any
| constitutional rights. That'll show him.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| Koch is to the left what Soros is to the right; a scary
| oligarch bent on world domination for the other team.
|
| In reality, the Koch brothers have an eclectic mixed bag of
| ideas, some of which are batshit crazy, some of which are good,
| most of which are meh.
| InTheArena wrote:
| The Koch's aspire to the level of financial destruction for
| personal gain that Soros pulled off.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Given how much they have fought against clean energy it
| isn't a given they are behind Soros in that metric.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| I think this falls under their 'batshit crazy' category.
|
| Libertarianism in general seems to filter/select for
| people that insist mankind can't possibly alter the
| climate and that it's just a huge leftist plot.
|
| It's the primary try reason I stopped identifying with
| the concept.
|
| Disappointing because there are a lot of good ideas /
| principles in the philosophy, but the degree of pedantic
| extremism exhibited by the community is weird.
| guelo wrote:
| But Soros is all the way evil
| jsmith99 wrote:
| Whatever you think of the Kochs, their views are generally more
| libertarian than Republican, eg pro marijuana, anti Trump,
| David Koch was (inconsistently) pro abortion. So this policy is
| pretty typical for him.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| I've read "Good Profits" by Charles. I wasn't a fan, just
| someone hearing it directly from the horse's mouth.
|
| I don't recall anything extreme or controversial. The gist
| was: gov regs too often have a winner and a loser. It all
| depends on who / what has the most influential on the
| legislature.
|
| I guess that's controversial is that's what truth and honesty
| is.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Ironic when they lobby many politicians themselves. If they
| really wanted to put their money where their mouth is,
| they'd support a public fund for campaign finances, no
| ability to fund politicians outside of that.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I in no shape form or fashion could be considered leaning right.
| But why the emphasis on Koch funding instead of being more
| concerned with giving more surveillance power to the state?
| mindslight wrote:
| The state did not gain more surveillance power. The state asked
| a surveillance company for help, and the company saw a common
| goal and exercised the surveillance power that it's been
| building for the past two decades. Power inevitably coalesces,
| and the only way to opt out of our brave new surveillance
| society is to be running software that represents your own
| interests.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So if the state asks random people to break into your house
| to find out information about you should you move to another
| country?
| jfengel wrote:
| Because the Kochs have a habit of using their wealth to
| suppress their political enemies. It would not be beyond them
| to file a lawsuit of no merit to harass Google.
|
| Not saying that's what happened here. I don't know. But it's a
| relevant bit of context.
| taolegal wrote:
| > using their wealth to suppress their political enemies
|
| You could say that about practically every Democrat. Usually
| they brag about it "we have the most donations under X
| amount."
| cercatrova wrote:
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Somebody had a bad experience with BOFH.
| jsmith99 wrote:
| Clickbait perhaps, but I don't think The Register is especially
| right wing and they did put spyware in inverted commas, just
| like you did. The case also alleges that the app uploads emails
| and contact databases and doesn't provide any notification,
| which if true hardly sounds like best practice.
| namdnay wrote:
| I thought the article was quite clear - it's obvious the Koch
| brothers are doing this because of the covid angle but it's
| still pretty shocking that the state thought it would be OK to
| force install an app
| oaththrowaway wrote:
| So you're okay with Google installing government tracking apps
| on your phone because the Koch brothers are against it? Weird
| flex
| factsarelolz wrote:
| Sounds like it, that's why the headline has Koch in it, by
| framing it this way the anti-Koch crowd grabs their pitch
| forks without reading past the headline.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Also, you probably wouldn't be making excuses for it if it
| weren't a covid app, so covid provided an excellent opportunity
| to set a precedent.
| orangecat wrote:
| _This "spyware" (which even the article title quotes as so) is
| just a CoViD contact tracing app._
|
| It's an app that collects personal information and that was
| installed without the knowledge or consent of users. How is
| that not spyware?
| guelo wrote:
| It does not collect private information
| pnw wrote:
| From the lawsuit: "The exchanged data, both random and non-
| random, are time-stamped and stored in each device
| alongside other personal identifiers, including the device
| owner's MAC address, wireless network IP addresses, phone
| numbers, and personal emails. When this stored data is
| written onto mobile devices' system logs, it becomes
| available to DPH, Google, application developers, device
| manufacturers, network providers, and other third parties
| with access to the logs. DPH and third parties can use the
| MAC address of a device owner and other personal
| identifiers to trace the logged data back to determine the
| individual identity of the owners."
| guelo wrote:
| This is the biggest bs in the lawsuit. We're supposed to
| be worried that the user will unknowingly transmit their
| data when the user files a bug report that requires them
| to send the system logcat. I've been an android user for
| over 10 years and have never sent logcat dump to anyone
| anonymousiam wrote:
| So, just to clarify your point, are you saying that your
| personal location information should not be private?
|
| Note: I'm not making any claims about the real world where
| dozens of apps are continuously feeding your location
| information to various databases.
| Confiks wrote:
| > 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-...
| colpabar wrote:
| 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.
| dang wrote:
| 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
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| 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.
| colpabar wrote:
| 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?
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| _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.
| Natsu wrote:
| 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.
| friend_and_foe wrote:
| 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.
| dmix wrote:
| 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?
| [deleted]
| Ptchd wrote:
| If YOU think that's ok, why does it need to be secret?
| tmsbrg wrote:
| 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.
| veeti wrote:
| Stock Android has nothing to do with it, the same Play
| Services exist on every Android phone on the (western)
| market.
| tmsbrg wrote:
| 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.
| ashwagary wrote:
| Stock android has everything to do with it. Non-stock
| options allow you to remove Google Apps which include Play
| services.
| guelo wrote:
| The contact tracing protocol for that app was developed in
| cooperation with Apple with encryption and privacy as top
| concern. Calling it spyware and a 4th amendment search doesn't
| make sense, the state can't centrally track people's location
| using this app
| kramerger wrote:
| I believe the protocol was specifically designed to prohibit
| identifying individuals, but then someone found a flaw in it.
|
| Don't remember what happened then, I guess Google+apple updated
| the protocol or killed the app.
| NickRandom wrote:
| I think you might have a misunderstanding of what is under
| discussion - to quote from the filed complaint
|
| "To increase adoption, starting on June 15, 2021, DPH worked
| with Google to secretly install the Contact Tracing App onto
| over one million Android mobile devices located in
| Massachusetts without the device owners' knowledge or
| permission" which is _very_ different from installing an app!
| binkHN wrote:
| From the article, because the title is purposefully vague:
|
| > The Massachusetts Department of Public Health conspired with
| Google to secretly install a COVID-19 tracing app onto more than
| 1 million Android users' devices without their knowledge and
| without obtaining warrants...
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| It reminds me of that time that Batman enabled echolocation on
| everyone's smartphones so he could catch the Joker.
| javajosh wrote:
| Yes, but this was a Big Ethical Deal in the movie, and a power
| so great that it was deleted after one use. It's a good
| cultural touch point about this issue; I wish it was better
| used.
| kramerger wrote:
| Wait, wasn't the covid19 contact tracing app (the "spyware" in
| question) installed as a part of the android (and also iOS)
| system and was disabled by default?
|
| Or did they turn it on by default in US?
| nyolfen wrote:
| it sounds like they turned it on by default in massachusetts
| joemazerino wrote:
| I don't trust Google so I don't allow Google on my device. Full
| stop.
| Ptchd wrote:
| Who do you trust?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Ugh, I hate it when articles leave out the most crucial
| information, namely:
|
| 1. How did Mass install these apps in the first place if it was
| "clandestine" as the lawsuit alleges?
|
| 2. Google is not in the business, generally, of just giving
| access to private data to government agencies just because they
| asked. Was there some sort of legal requirement or court order
| involved here?
|
| In other words, I'm taking this whole filing with a giant cup of
| salt until more details are available, never mind that legal
| filings are by definition highly biased to the side being
| represented.
| alistairSH wrote:
| If this is true, doesn't this mean Android is
| unsafe/compromised by default?
|
| The suit, as described, leaves a lot of questions.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > The suit, as described, leaves a lot of questions.
|
| Here's what the suit alleges:
|
| >To increase adoption, starting on June 15, 2021, DPH worked
| with Google to secretly install the Contact Tracing App onto
| over one million Android mobile devices located in
| Massachusetts without the device owners' knowledge or
| permission. When some Android device owners discovered and
| subsequently deleted the App, DPH would re-install it on to
| their devices.
|
| https://nclalegal.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/11/Complaint_W...
|
| Google made a statement confirming that the app was pushed by
| the Play Store at the time:
|
| >We have been working with the Massachusetts Department of
| Public Health to allow users to activate the Exposure
| Notifications System directly from their Android phone
| settings. This functionality is built into the device
| settings and is automatically distributed by the Google Play
| Store
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/even-creepier-
| covid-...
| lakomen wrote:
| So Google Play Store installs apps without consent. And one
| can't unistall Google Play Store. Ergo, we finally need to
| liberate our phones and tablets with an open alternative
| which isn't F-Droid.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Why not F-Droid? F-Droid is great.
| toast0 wrote:
| If you don't trust Google, commercial Android is not for you.
|
| Google can push apps onto your phone and the apps can run
| without interaction on the phone. Often that's useful and
| authorized by the user --- you can use the google play
| website to push things, but this case shows it's not limited
| to that. I don't think you can disable this through settings,
| you would have to disable play services or block the
| networking or not have gapps installed or something.
|
| Play services runs in a priviledged mode and generally
| updates itself, so there's a lot of trust needed.
|
| Afaik, all modern commercial OSes intended for end users have
| a similar level of trust required for the vendor. The
| capability to push code run in a privileged space enables
| rapid response to emergent malware, but also enables the
| vendor to take actions without explicit consent.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| If Google is involved and allows random apps like this, then
| yes
| simpss wrote:
| I'm pretty sure these submissions are related:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27558500#27558758
| anonymousiam wrote:
| You would be naive to believe that Android/iOS are secure in
| this respect. Pretty much every government in the world has a
| "need" to surveil their population, and have "insisted" upon
| this capability.
| andybak wrote:
| In this particular instance, color me naive.
|
| You're saying a State Government can request Google
| installs a 3rd party app on 1 million phones? If that's
| true then I'm genuinely astonished. And more so that it
| wasn't headline news at the time.
|
| Or maybe there's more to this than currently is apparent.
| [deleted]
| jesboat wrote:
| > You're saying a State Government can request Google
| installs a 3rd party app on 1 million phones? If that's
| true then I'm genuinely astonished. And more so that it
| wasn't headline news at the time.
|
| Yes. That's what happened. (I'm not sure if the 1E6
| phones claim is accurate, but it was a non-trivial chunk
| of people near MA).
| detaro wrote:
| It was reported at the time:
|
| https://9to5google.com/2021/06/19/massachusetts-
| massnotify-a...
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/even-creepier-
| covid-...
|
| https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-
| force-...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27558500
| jesboat wrote:
| 1. Some background process, probably part of Google Play
| services, installed the app. Users were not notified that the
| app was installed. Eventually the app, once already installed
| and running, would put up a notification asking if the user
| wanted to participate.
|
| The app was intentionally subtle, in that it had no application
| icon, which would presumably make it very difficult for user to
| disable contract tracing if they had enabled it. If you managed
| to uninstall the app, it would get reinstalled silently again.
|
| 2. The lawsuit alleges that there was no legal requirement or
| court order. Even if there had been, the lawsuit argues that
| the conduct would still have violated federal and state law and
| constitutions.
|
| It is really pretty shitty, and, IANAL, probably is/was
| illegal, with the caveats that (a) I'm not sure whether
| Massachusetts or Google or both should be considered
| responsible; and (b) they might try to argue that a user's
| acceptance of Google's ToS and privacy policy constitutes
| permission.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _2. The lawsuit alleges that there was no legal requirement
| or court order. Even if there had been, the lawsuit argues
| that the conduct would still have violated federal and state
| law and constitutions._
|
| I would think the lack of a legal requirement or court order
| would actually absolve Massachusetts, as it would leave the
| responsibility resting on Google. Surely within the terms of
| Play store etc, Google has the power to do anything they'd
| like to your device and personal information. And that power
| extends to Google's actions when working with other parties.
|
| I'm most definitely not a fan of mass surveillance or
| centralized control. But running an operating system
| developed by a surveillance company, to which they have
| multiple backdoors and frontdoors, is fundamentally a
| surrender to these terrible things.
|
| The main thing that makes this different than every other
| Google update is that the government of Massachusetts was
| also involved, for a "greater good" public health purpose
| rather than the usual lucre.
|
| Now, if we had real privacy protection (either legislative or
| common law) to the point that processing individuals' private
| information were illegal, even regardless of any contracts
| purporting the opposite, then there could be a claim. But
| something tells me this suit isn't looking to go that far.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| It seems just moderately shitty. They did it with good
| intentions and there is no indication they misused the data.
| Despite that, clearly a mistake and some form of lawsuit is
| warranted. I guess "disappointed and hope they learned their
| lesson, what a crazy time to live through, I am happy we can
| all move on" doesn't drive engagement.
|
| Nothing they did nears being as shitty as what the "Civil
| Liberties Alliance" represent. They are a bunch of bought and
| sold lawyers that trick us little people into believing they
| are pro-freedom with stunts like this, when their actual goal
| is deregulating in the context of worker safety,
| environmental, and food and drug safety to increase profits
| of industry. They get the votes they need for this from the
| evangelical movement, who they pay back by pushing for a
| radical reinterpretation the first amendment. Their end goal
| is a religious state with unregulated, unaccountable
| capitalism. To call them monsters is unfair to monsters.
|
| Not everything requires a good guy and a bad guy. "Everybody
| Sucks Here" applied here.
| IncRnd wrote:
| > They did it with good intentions and there is no
| indication they misused the data.
|
| There is a very old proverb from Abbot Bernard of
| Clairvauxin in the 1100s that is still applicable today,
| "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
| potatototoo99 wrote:
| Good intentions, good grief!
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _They did it with good intentions_
|
| That's how the road to hell is paved.
|
| _"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the
| good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be
| better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent
| moral busybodies. The robber baron 's cruelty may sometimes
| sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but
| those who torment us for our own good will torment us
| without end for they do so with the approval of their own
| conscience."_
|
| - C. S. Lewis
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| I've heard that somewhere before! And it's a good point,
| I'm glad you brought it up. I'm not defending the action,
| removed from context. However, intent does matter to me
| and is a well established legal consideration. Note the
| distinction between first, second, and third degree
| homicide for just one example. Just plain common sense
| application: I will feel differently if I am hit while
| crossing the street by 1) an ambulance speeding to save a
| mother and infant in preterm labor 2) a teen driver
| negligently text 3) someone speeding to get somewhere on
| time 4) a drunk driver 5) someone swerving to hit me
| because they don't like people like me for some reason. I
| am still mashed by a car and in rehab for a year,
| regardless, so is it unreasonable of me to feel
| differently which of those cases it is?
|
| edit: To reply to your late edit, _" It would be better
| to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral
| busybodies "_ is magnificent, because it correctly frames
| the NCLA lawsuit _" The robber baron's cruelty"_. I can
| recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing or trojan horse,
| whatever your preferred metaphor is.
|
| I would reply _" No thank you to either option, but
| thanks for the books, C.S. Lewis"_
|
| final edit: dmix, I am rate limited, so I can't reply to
| you, and I've written more than enough already. But you
| make a fair point, and it seems in good faith. I agree
| with you in general. I don't generally agree with
| something because someone claims, "it's for widows and
| orphans", which is the cliche. I just disagree with you
| in this particular set of circumstances. I would agree
| with a different lawsuit made in good faith meant to
| remediate the injury to the claimants.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| dmix wrote:
| People often use those good intentions to silence
| dissent. If anyone questions their actions you can just
| spin it to say "well then you obviously don't care about
| [good intention, ie "grandmas dying of COVID"]".
|
| So they are a very critical piece of the puzzle with this
| sort of abuse of power. They can very easily muddy the
| waters and obfuscate things.
|
| It's often the side effects of their actions anyway. In
| this case the access the app provides is the side effect.
| The side effects outweighing the alleged benefits is what
| matters. Easily the most often recurring problem is
| politics. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
| tigen wrote:
| A tyranny exercised with good intentions "may" be worse
| than all possible ones? Weak.
|
| So, that includes all possible versions of good
| intentions? All good intentions lead to torment? There
| are no sociopathic tyrants lacking conscience?
|
| Anyway, I doubt Yahweh considers it a sin to install
| tracking software onto people's phones.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _Anyway, I doubt Yahweh considers it a sin to_
|
| I don't give a damn what your god thinks. Or are you
| responding to C.S. Lewis's beliefs? Quoting a Christian
| doesn't make me a Christian, least of all when the quote
| doesn't even present a religious argument.
| jasmer wrote:
| Wait ... what (?) ... 'good intentions' are not very
| relevant here.
|
| I don't care what Koch's other objectives might be, this is
| an ugly transgression of people's rights.
|
| Arbitrary government surveillance is an incredibly bad
| thing and a very slippery slope.
|
| We're witnessing governments around the world establishing
| '360 Surveillance' for all sorts of 'socially positive!',
| but ultimately dubious reasons.
|
| If the government had specific reason to grab information
| about a specific person and a lawfully obtained warrant
| given a specific set of circumstances - then yes.
|
| Or if we're talking the government buying generalized
| anonymoized information that is publicly available
| otherwise - then yes.
|
| But slipping spyware onto phones is straight outrageous.
|
| I'm generally a communitarian type person who believes we
| ought to step up and do the right thing as citizens but
| even I recognize this as the slipperiest of all slopes
| irrespective of their reasoning, and I can't fathom the
| tone of the comments here given that this is HN with
| usually a distinctly more libertarian-ish leaning.
|
| "Not everything requires a good guy and a bad guy.
| "Everybody Sucks Here" applied here. "
|
| Sorry but the 'Government of Mass' are the 'Bad Guys' here
| and the 'Koch Brothers' (or whoever is paying for this, I
| don't care) are the 'Good Guys' for going after them.
| That's it.
|
| This will hopefully be resolved in the courts.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| > Google is not in the business, generally, of just giving
| access to private data to government agencies just because they
| asked. Was there some sort of legal requirement or court order
| involved here?
|
| That's called asking with more steps.
| newZWhoDis wrote:
| > Google is not in the business, generally, of just giving
| access to private data to government agencies just because they
| asked
|
| Since when?
| factsarelolz wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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]
| Zamicol wrote:
| What are the anticipated damages?
| jrm4 wrote:
| Ha. "Enemy of my enemy" I suppose, on this one.
|
| (It is interesting the extent to which people don't tend to think
| in these terms. Yeah, the Koch's are terrible. But they're 100%
| correct on this one)
| foostepsndpics wrote:
| It is embarrassing that this case had to be brought by a firm
| otherwise known for suing to let landlords evict tenants during
| a pandemic moratorium.
|
| Why was this not brought by an organization like the EFF or
| ACLU? I remember writing to my Senators at the time because of
| how unprecedented and troubling this action was.
|
| Here's an article from The Verge with more details from the
| time this was rolled out:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/21/22543486/massnotify-covid...
| ispo wrote:
| Freedom to not being observed while they burn the Climate.
| citilife wrote:
| I don't know why we have to start the article with "kock-funded"
| -- just to make it political?
|
| Here's a less political website:
|
| https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/11/18/massachusetts-dph-go...
|
| Ars Technica (from 2021!):
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/even-creepier-covid-...
| ajross wrote:
| The NCLA is absolutely a partisan organization. They're funded
| by republicans, they're run by republicans, they hire
| republicans (Jeffrey Clark couldn't get a job anywhere post-
| insurrection, so they picked him up) they file suits only
| against democratic states or the Biden-administered federal
| government.
|
| Frankly I think tagging them as a partisan group adds important
| context, though I agree that should be exposed in the article
| rather just left as code in the headline.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| Is the headline some weird example of "republicans pounce"? Is
| the story about the Koch brothers lawsuit or about the fact that
| the government installed spyware on citizen's phones without
| their knowledge or consent?
| namdnay wrote:
| It's kind of both? The fact that the previous litigation of
| this group was to allow landlords to evict tenants during
| lockdown is more than interesting. And the fact that the state
| thought it would be OK to force install the app is interesting
| too
| factsarelolz wrote:
| It's not kinda both. It's the equivalent of scary quotes. By
| framing this as Koch funded, anti Koch people already made
| their decision and grabbed their pitch forks without reading
| anything past the headline.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >was to allow landlords to evict tenants during lockdown
|
| Framing is everything, y'know? You could just as easily call
| it a lawsuit to stop a blatant and unconstitutional power
| grab by the CDC.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Indeed, ends vs the means. People who think one or the
| other is more important will talk right past each other,
| never see eye to eye.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-19 23:01 UTC)