google play – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Google Nixes ‘Downloader’ App From Store After DMCA Says Its Browser Can Get To Piracy Sites

from the bye-bye-browsers! dept

As anyone who reads this site regularly will know, DMCA abuse happens all the time. Typically you see this sort of thing resulting from clear attempts to hobble a competitor, or to silence content someone doesn’t want to see, or pure trolling for the purposes of producing mayhem. But we also see this kind of “abuse” stemming from entities, foreign and domestic, that simply don’t know the strictures under which DMCA and copyright law actually operate.

A potential example of this would be what just happened to an app called “Downloader,” which was bounced from the Google Play store after a DMCA notice from a law firm representing several Israeli television organizations. The app’s creator, Elias Saba, shared the details of the notice Google sent to him, as well as his confusion over why any of this is happening, given what his app actually is and does.

“You can see in the DMCA description portion that the only reason given is the app being able to load a website,” Saba told Ars. “My app is a utility app that combines a basic file manager and a basic web browser. There is no way to view content in the app other than to use the web browser to navigate to a website. The app also doesn’t present or direct users to any website, other than my blog at www.aftvnews.com, which loads as the default homepage in the web browser.”

Saba also detailed his frustrations with the takedown in a blog post and a series of tweets. “Any rational person would agree that you can’t possibly blame a web browser for the pirated content that exists on the Internet, but that is exactly what has happened to my app,” he wrote on his blog.

He follows up in a later comment with the exact question I would have: if “Downloader” is going to be nixed from the Play Store, then so should every other browser application in the store. Like, oh I don’t know, Google Chrome. After all, if Chrome can get to that site, and it can, then the same complaint can be lodged against Chrome.

And whether this is simple ignorance or true DMCA fraud, the fact is that none of this makes sense from a DMCA perspective. And, yet:

Saba said he filed appeals on Friday through the Google Play Console and Google’s DMCA counter notification form. Saba’s Google Play Console appeal was rejected within about an hour, but he’s still waiting for a response to the appeal filed via Google’s DMCA counter notification form, he told Ars today.

“We’ve reviewed your appeal request but we’re still unable to reinstate your app,” the Google Play appeal rejection notice said on Friday.

My wild guess is that once an actual conversation happens between Saba and Google so that he can explain what his app actually does, it will be reinstated. The app is still in a published state on other stores, such as for the Amazon FireTV. There is absolutely no reason it should have been delisted from the Play Store.

Filed Under: app store, copyright, dmca, downloader, elias saba, google play, play store
Companies: google

Belly Buttons And Napolean Poses: Google Play Flags Android Game For Inappropriate Content

from the inverted-nipple! dept

We’ve talked a great deal about the impossibility of getting AI or other automated systems to properly police content for moderation purposes. While all kinds of content fits into this generally, we can pick on the topic of nudity or sexual content to demonstrate the point. We have a slew of posts on the topic, almost all of which deal with a service provider, through automated systems or even IRL people, not being able to discern when content is inappropriate or not. For instance, Facebook has a ban on showing a picture of a penis. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, what about Neptune’s penis? You know, on a statue in Bologna? Now it seems kinda silly, right?

It’s not just Facebook and it’s not just automated systems. Take Hook Up: The Game, for instance. That is the name of a mobile game on iOS and Android that consists of a visual novel about a woman in her 20s that encounters a bully from her school days on a dating app. The game has some sexual themes, though it is apparently more about dealing with trauma and navigating the modern dating world more than anything else. No sex acts are depicted. It’s meant to be artistic. And Google has flagged it for inappropriate content.

Google Play does warn developers that content designed to be “sexually gratifying” is not allowed on the platform, but it can be tricky to know how exactly that’s being enforced. Take 7 Sexy Sins, for example, a game which has the player removing the armor from anime demon girls, only to “snap some pictures… for personal uses”. It’s got an age rating of 12+ and has been downloaded more than 10,000 times without being pulled from the platform. By contrast, Hook Up: The Game is a narrative game about dating, relationships and learning to deal with past trauma.

The developer, Artemigi, was very confused by the flag and appealed the decision. Google responded stating that the app “promoted sexual content” and also apparently indicated that the novel was about a sex worker. And then, helpfully in a way, it provided an image for the content that it deemed inappropriate.

Yes, the image on the right has boxes around the supposed naughty bits. Apparently pixelated bumps over a shirt constitute nudity, somehow. In addition, you may have noticed that there is a box around the woman’s navel. Now, perhaps I’ve been transported into an alternate universe where Google is run by a council of Puritans, but somehow I doubt it. Granted, some might want to argue that a belly button is really nothing but an inverted nipple, but you should probably run away from those people because they’re crazy-pants.

Oh, and the suggestive pose? That mirrors a statue of Napoleon’s sister, Pauline, on display in Rome.

“That pose was specifically based on classical statues because there’s a reference to Alex feeling like her bully was this Greek god,” said Artemigi. “It’s meant to be about objectifying yourself and finding beauty in one’s self.”

And so Artemigi continued the back and forth, before eventually asking that the appeal be escalated to someone that actually had a couple of braincells to rub together. Unfortunately, the response she received was… interesting.

The final response from her official Google contact once again pointed out that Hook Up was in violation of the platform’s policy, but this time ended with the following sentence:

“Regarding your concern about escalation, I am the highest form of escalation. Next to me is God. Do you wanna see God?”

In Google’s defense, the company has indicated that the person behind that particular message has been pulled off the support team.

And so the end result is that, while the game is still available for purchase on the Google Play Store, it remains flagged for inappropriate content. Because nipple-bumps and belly buttons. As a result, it is very difficult to find the game via the search function in the Play Store and Artemigi can’t push out updates to the game. The iOS version on the App Store, it should be noted, suffers from none of these issues.

Human or AI, content moderation is impossible. If we can’t even discern between a belly button and a nipple, we’re lost.

Filed Under: content moderation, google play, hook up: the game, sex
Companies: artemigi, google

Content Moderation Strikes Again: Google Won’t Approve Truth Social Android App Over Content Moderation Concerns

from the shut-up-and-sideload-whiners dept

Donald Trump has spent much of this week raging over on Truth Social and passing on nonsense QAnon conspiracy theory bullshit. And now it comes out that Google has so far refused to approve the Android app of Truth Social for the Google Play store, in large part over Truth Social’s failure to moderate violent content on its platform. Google is noting that the problem is Truth Social’s and the ball is in their court:

“On Aug. 19, we notified Truth Social of several violations of standard policies in their current app submission and reiterated that having effective systems for moderating user-generated content is a condition of our terms of service for any app to go live on Google Play.”

“Last week Truth Social wrote back acknowledging our feedback and saying that they are working on addressing these issues.”

NBC reports that Trump Media and Technology Group is pushing back on this saying that Truth Social was a “vibrant, family-friendly environment.” As I recall, TMTG’s CEO Devin Nunes had promised early on that his site would be heavily moderated to create a family friendly environment. However, studies that have looked at how Truth Social moderates have found that it appears to be somewhat arbitrary and capricious. The site is quick to remove criticism of the former president, but not great at banning violent content.

Anyway, this is somewhat reminiscent of Parler, which was removed from the Google Play store (and elsewhere) over its weak moderation efforts.

Of course, even as some are saying that this means Truth Social cannot be accessed on Android, that’s false. You can still sideload apps onto Android phones, even if they’re not in Google Play (this is in contrast to Apple where things need to go through the app store).

I know that some are up in arms about this, but again, this is just kind of basic stuff. If you want to be listed on someone else’s directory, you need to play by their rules. The fact that Android still allows sideloading should make this somewhat uncontroversial — but, of course, Trump’s fans are flipping out, because they’re nothing if they can’t play victim.

Filed Under: content moderation, devin nunes, donald trump, google play, violent content
Companies: tmtg, truth social

from the IPTV-freely dept

To a certain segment of the population, just mentioning IPTV is enough to get them frothing at the mouth and shouting “copyright infringement” at anyone who will listen. This isn’t entirely without cause, of course, as IPTV is a technology that can be used to infringe by streaming copyrighted TV shows and films. There are entire sites out there that list such infringing content, as well. But the fact remains that IPTV is a tool, not content that infringes copyright itself. As such, there are plenty of IPTV-related tools and uses out there that are perfectly legit.

Like Perfect Player, for instance. Perfect Player is an android app that allows the user to choose what IPTV playlists from 3rd party providers can be played. In other words, it’s essentially a media player for IPTV streams. Upon installation, it does not come with infringing playlists to stream. What is watched on the player is entirely the choice of the end user. Despite all of this, one unnamed major pay-TV company filed a copyright complaint against the app with Google, arguing that because end users can use Perfect Player to infringe on copyright, the app itself was infringing. Google, frustratingly, complied and has delisted the app from the Play Store.

This week, however, the software – which has in excess of a million downloads from Google Play – was removed by Google because of a copyright complaint. It was filed by a major pay-TV provider, the name of which we’ve agreed not to publish while the complaint is ongoing.

It states that the software allows users to watch channels from unauthorized sources and is therefore illegal. However, there appears to be a considerable flaw in the pay-TV company’s arguments.

In common with the developers behind various torrent clients, Perfect Player’s developer doesn’t dictate how the software is used because no control can be exercised over that. Just like Windows Media Player, uTorrent, or even VLC (which has similar capabilities), it can be used for entirely legal purposes – or not, depending on the choice of the user.

In other words, it’s a tool. Now, the entertainment industry has a long and storied history of pretending that tools that have perfectly legitimate uses are the world’s greatest devils and somehow themselves infringe copyright. This goes back to the Betamax, and likely before that. But this particular case is one that ought to have the attention of a great many software providers out there, if not hardware providers as well. As the TorrentFreak post notes, if Perfect Player is infringing, why isn’t Windows Media Player? They have the exact same capabilities. And, taken a step further, if Perfect Player is infringing because users can use it to infringe copyright, then why aren’t android phones themselves infringing?

Is that line of thought extreme and ridiculous? Of course it is, but it’s built off of the same ridiculous line of thinking as whoever complained about Perfect Player. TorrentFreak is rather charitable in positing that perhaps this TV company came across a version of Perfect Player that had already been loaded with pirate IPTV streams and is simply confused.

Giving the TV company the benefit of the doubt for a moment, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that it acquired a ready-configured copy of Perfect Player from a third-party that already contained a URL for a ‘pirate’ service. That could give the impression it’s a dedicated pirate app.

That being said, downloading a copy from Google Play would’ve highlighted the important differences between a non-configured player and one set up for piracy. That’s impossible now, of course, because Google has taken Perfect Player down.

The latest at the time of this writing is that Perfect Player will be filing a DMCA counternotice, having retained a lawyer. One hopes that some simple facts about what this app is and how it operates out of the box will be all that Google needs to get it relisted quickly. And maybe, just maybe, one TV industry player will learn a lesson about firing off DMCA notices without actually knowing what its talking about.

Filed Under: copyright, google play, iptv, perfect player, streaming
Companies: google

New Leak Shows NSA's Plans To Hijack App Store Traffic To Implant Malware And Spyware

from the a-spy-in-the-house-of-apps dept

Proving there’s nowhere spy agencies won’t go to achieve their aims, a new Snowden leak published jointly by The Intercept and Canada’s CBC News shows the NSA, GCHQ and other Five Eyes allies looking for ways to insert themselves between Google’s app store and end users’ phones.

The National Security Agency and its closest allies planned to hijack data links to Google and Samsung app stores to infect smartphones with spyware, a top-secret document reveals…

The main purpose of the workshops was to find new ways to exploit smartphone technology for surveillance. The agencies used the Internet spying system XKEYSCORE to identify smartphone traffic flowing across Internet cables and then to track down smartphone connections to app marketplace servers operated by Samsung and Google.

Branded “IRRITANT HORN” by the NSA’s all-caps random-name-generator, the pilot program looked to perform man-in-the-middle attacks on app store downloads in order to attach malware/spyware payloads — the same malicious implants detailed in an earlier Snowden leak.

While the document doesn’t go into too much detail about the pilot program’s successes, it does highlight several vulnerabilities it uncovered in UC Browser, a popular Android internet browser used across much of Asia. Citizen Lab performed an extensive examination of the browser for CBC News, finding a wealth of exploitable data leaks. [PDF link for full Citizen Lab report]

In addition to discovering that phone ID info, along with geolocation data and search queries, was being sent without encryption, the researchers also found that clearing the app cache failed to remove DNS information — which could allow others to reconstruct internet activity. Citizen Lab has informed the makers of UC Browser of its many vulnerabilities, something the Five Eyes intelligence agencies obviously had no interest in doing.

But IRRITANT HORN went beyond simply delivering malicious implants to unsuspecting users. The Five Eyes agencies also explored the idea of using compromised communication lines to deliver disinformation and counter-propaganda.

[The agencies] were also keen to find ways to hijack them as a way of sending “selective misinformation to the targets’ handsets” as part of so-called “effects” operations that are used to spread propaganda or confuse adversaries. Moreover, the agencies wanted to gain access to companies’ app store servers so they could secretly use them for “harvesting” information about phone users.

As is the case with each new leak, the involved agencies have either declined to comment or have offered the standard defensive talking points about “legal framework” and “oversight,” but it’s hard to believe any legal mandate or oversight directly OK’ed plans to hijack private companies’ servers for the purpose of spreading malware and disinformation. And, as is the case with many other spy programs, IRRITANT HORN involves a lot of data unrelated to these agencies’ directives being captured and sifted through in order to find suitable targets for backdoors and implants.

Filed Under: app stores, google play, irritant horn, man in the middle, nsa, surveillance
Companies: apple, google

from the and-fair-use-is-nowhere-to-be-found dept

With bots performing all sorts of intellectual property policing these days, fair use considerations are completely off the table. Nuances that can’t be handled by a bot should theoretically be turned over to a human being in disputed cases. Unfortunately, dispute processes are often handled in an automated fashion, leading to even more problems.

Tolriq Yatse, the developer of a popular Xbox Media Center (XMBC) remote control app for Android phones, ran into this very problem with Google’s Play Store, which suddenly dumped his app over “intellectual property violations” after more than 2 years of trouble-free listing. This might have been a quick fix if Google had been more forthcoming with details, but all Yatse received was a brief notice as his app was removed from the Play store.

Nothing was changed at all apart filling the new forced content rating form and suddenly lost all my revenues.

I hope someone human answer with details soon, but I’m joining the anger from all developers around about how #Google treat devs, take 30% share without problem but certainly do not do support or act as human when killing someone.?

His complaints reached his fans and customers, who then made their presence felt. This finally prompted a Google human to give Yatse the details he needed so he could fix his app and get it relisted.

Hi Tolriq,

Thank you for your additional comments.

As previously explained, your promotional images include content that you do not appear to have permission to distribute. For example, images related to films are most likely protected by the various studios that produced and released them. It is reasonable to assume that these would not be made legally available in public domain or via Creative Commons as most studios are extremely protective of their intellectual property. The same could be said of images from various TV series…

This part of Google’s response refers to screenshots used in the app’s listing. They used to look something like this…

The images used here are only indicative of the app’s capabilities. Even if (obviously) unlicensed, the app doesn’t promise anything more than control of XBMC content. It doesn’t promise access to studios’ offerings or otherwise act as a movie/TV show portal. In this context, the movie posters displayed in the screenshots would appear to fall under “fair use.” Google’s response to Yatse indicates that, even with a human now involved, the Play Store won’t tolerate the use of unlicensed images in “promotional” screenshots.

In fact, fair use isn’t even discussed. Instead, Google asked Yatse to prove ownership of the disputed artwork before the app could be relisted.

If you are able to prove otherwise, either via direct authorization from a studio representative or the location where you sourced these images (public domain and/or Creative Commons), we could review that information and reconsider the merits of this case.

The motivating factor for this non-consideration is potential litigation, according to the Google Play Team.

This may represent a change from two years ago in that most studios today will file complaints over use of their content unless someone has entered into an agreement with them on some level, and that should not come as a surprise to you.

Even with a direct response, there are still some gray areas the developer is left to address himself.

We are unable to provide specific guidance as to which images may be allowed, but we trust that you will use your best judgment based on what we have mentioned above and in previous communications.

As Yatse points out, this isn’t good news for developers.

The answer is very interesting for all Google Play developers :

– Google will remove your application on suspicions and not on real facts. – No human will check what you upload or say. – It’s nearly impossible to have a real contact and support. – You need to try to fix problem yourself without details and hope to have it fixed before ban. (Very hard when in fact there’s no problem)

Google Play has moved to preemptive takedowns, unprompted by studio complaints. This isn’t a good thing. It may protect Google (but only slightly, considering the studios’ ongoing antipathy towards the tech company) but it does nothing for developers whose sales it takes a portion of.

In response, Yatse has swapped out the offending artwork for CC-licensed and public domain works. But even that wasn’t enough for the Google bots. Those images had to be removed before his app was approved for relisting.

#Yatse is now back on Play Store, without any images until I can figure out what the Google bot does not like in open sources ones.

This understandably limits his options and makes it much harder to convey the app’s functionality. Here are the screenshots currently available at Google Play, which show that Yatse (the app) is probably some sort of remote control program and has some color options.

So, based on no complaints from studios or other rights holders, an app comes down. And even with the use of properly-licensed images, it fails to be reinstated. And throughout all of the discussions, fair use isn’t mentioned a single time. That’s the reality of preemptive IP policing, and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon.

Filed Under: android, apps, copyright, copyright police, google play, xmbc
Companies: google

Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store

from the not-doing-its-reputation-any-good dept

Another day in which Google makes a move that leaves me scratching my head about what it’s thinking. It has decided to remove Adblock Plus from the Google Play store arguing that it interferes “with another service or product in an unauthorized manner.” Obviously, some will argue that of course Google is doing this to protect its own ad revenue, but it still surprises me. Google’s entire premise was built on the idea of building advertising that was non-intrusive and non-annoying such that it created value for people. The whole reason that Adblock exists is to fight back against bad advertising. On top of that, Adblock is a very popular tool, in part because it helps stop annoying advertising. If anything Adblock represents a useful way of exposing information about when and why people find advertising annoying.

As we’ve argued before, even though things like Adblock directly mean less revenue for us, we don’t begrudge anyone for choosing to use it. To us, it’s just a sign that we’re not doing a good enough job delivering what our community wants in a manner they want it. That’s useful. It sometimes puts us in a difficult position, because we have to deal with advertisers who only seem to want banner ads that our audience doesn’t like. But we should never take that out on our community, but rather the responsibility is on us to seek out ways to convince advertisers and sponsors to work with us in ways that benefit everyone, rather than intrude or annoy our audience. On that front, we’ve always found Adblock to be a useful tool.

While Google may not view it totally that way, in the past, Google has generally taken the position that what’s best for the user is something that it will support, even if it’s not directly the most beneficial thing for Google. Instead, it took the longer term view that doing what’s right for the consumer would mean that consumers would stick with them and trust them. But blocking AdBlock goes against that very concept. It’s a short term move and one that the EFF (with whom we agree) sees as simply a bad move for Google.

Part of the appeal of the Google Play store is the lack of Apple iOS style walls and gates. Putting up those gates in a way that goes against user’s own interests just seems like a bad long term decision.

Filed Under: adblock, adblock plus, advertising, business model challenges, censorship, google play
Companies: adblock, google

Google Play Flaw Gives App Developers Purchaser's Information

from the uh,-why? dept

Google, being the undisputed search engine king, is no stranger to concerns over the privacy of its users. Everything from odd fears over their privacy policy to the images on Google maps has been hurled at them, with most of the intelligent analysis of said concerns amounting to indifferent shoulder shrugs. Privacy is important, of course, but there’s yet to be any sense of malicious intent or gross oversight in these cases. Rather, they tend to fall into the category of potentially yet unlikely dangers brought about by the very nature of expanded technology.

Perhaps that’s why it feels so strange to learn that Google’s Play store is so callous with user data, offering up names, street addresses, and email addresses to app developers when their products are purchased. This, according to developer Dan Nolan in Australia.

“Let me make this crystal clear, every App purchase you make on Google Play gives the developer your name, suburb and email address with no indication that this information is actually being transferred,” Nolan wrote on his blog. “With the information I have available to me through the checkout portal I could track down and harass users who left negative reviews or refunded the app purchase.”

If accurate, Google making that information available is at best stupid. As the selling platform, there’s simply no reason to do it. Why does the guy or girl who created the Fat Booth app that so delights my friends need to know where I sleep at night? It might be a case where there’s confusion about the roles each one is playing. If Google merely views itself as a platform for others to create a store, then you could kind of see where this made sense. App developers are then setting up their own “store” where there are advantages to them having a direct relationship with their customers. The problem, however, is that users don’t view it this way. They think of Google as “the store” and this looks like them handing over their private info to the suppliers. And that certainly feels like a pretty massive privacy breach.

More importantly, as the article notes, the implications on how malware creators could exploit this are even more worrisome.

With Google customers’ details just sitting in developers accounts, all it would take is a half decent piece of malware software for that information to be accessed. These personal details could then be used to access the users’ bank details. That’s also more than enough information to be able to access your other devices which could also be mined for more data – insurance information, other credit cards – which could then be used to access your banking credentials.

Due to these very concerns, Nolan expresses his displeasure and discomfort with having that information at all. Worse, if there’s any way to opt out of receiving it, he can’t seem to find it. Just as worrisome as the flaw is the fact that no one else bothered to report it. Whether this was laziness, ignorance, or the very real possibility that many developers were doing something underhanded with their customers’ information is unclear, but all three possibilities are damning to Google, which certainly should have known better. Worse yet, Google is quite clear in their TOS that it can store this information once you provide it, but there’s is no mention of their passing along that data to app developers in their privacy statement.

While there’s yet to be any response from Google as of the time of this writing, the original article did note that Google had already requested an amendment to the story, meaning what remains of it is likely accurate. The speed with which Google needs to fix this would be mach-infinity.

Filed Under: app developers, apps, google play, privacy, stores, user information
Companies: google