23 ms·

> This attack vector requires both that the user enabled developer settings and that they have remote adb enabled. Not just that. A non-development Android bui

by m132 2mo ago

> This attack vector requires both that the user enabled developer settings and that they have remote adb enabled. Not just that. A non-development Android build will also prompt the user when a connection is made to authorize the client's key. This once again isn't about security of users, this is about security of the company's interests.

sigmoid10 2mo ago
Google just got hit by yet another record antitrust fine by the EU [1]. But as long as they see these fines as cost of doing business, nothing will change. Especially if it always takes almost a decade to push this through the judicial system. Their net income last year alone was $130 Billion. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-top-court-dismisses-google-fight-against-record-41-billion-eu-antitrust-fine-2026-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-top-court-dismisses-google-...
- oblio 2mo ago
  The EU shouldn't be regulating Google like this. The US should.
  - 3form 2mo ago
    Why not both? Countries should be able to signal which business practices are undesirable.
    - _blk 2mo ago
      Yes, laws are laws but one affects a branch, the other a root.
      - froggit 2mo ago
        Cut off enough branches and the roots die.
    - oblio 2mo ago
      The EU can't realistically bring Google to its knees. The US could. I say that as a European that's very much in favor of government intervention to fix market distortions.
  - trollbridge 2mo ago
    The DOJ brought an antitrust case against Google… and won. Then the judge pretty much decided “no consequences”.
    - echelon 2mo ago
      It was the lamest excuse ever. Something like, "I'm worried about impairing Google's ability to compete in AI" or some nonsense. (Paraphrasing here.) Looks like all it takes to compete in AI is to issue stock or get a bunch of investors. I don't see how Google would struggle with that. It's completely orthogonal to antitrust enforcement.
  - lofaszvanitt 2mo ago
    Hopeless. US already lost against corps. And that will be their downfall.
  - sigmoid10 2mo ago
    Actually, the EU should very much crack down on any foreign company that abuses its market position to stifle local business competition. There's no good reason to allow them to break local laws and diminish the local economy just because they keep their headquarters outside the EU.
  - dotancohen 2mo ago
    The EU absolutely should be regulating companies that operate in her jurisdiction. Google is free to pursue other markets.
- ciefa 2mo ago
  Eh, that is if they pay. Trump already made threats for tariffs in regards to those fines.
  - Danox 2mo ago
    Which is a federal sales tax against the citizens of the United States countries abroad do not pay no matter how many times taco lies.
    - ffsm8 2mo ago
      You're splitting hairs in this case, while that's unquestionably true, it's irrelevant if there tariffs are only set on one party. That's why Trump's tariffs on everything was so ... Uh ... "Interesting". If only one party gets the tariffs, you end up with other parties selling the goods instead, which does cause meaningful damage to the tariffed party
      - Grombobulous 2mo ago
        Or the tariffing party just continues buying very nearly the same amount of things at higher prices in many categories because those items don’t have perfectly elastic supply and demand.
        ffsm8 2mo ago
        Technically true but highly misleading. The amount of good like that are few, less then 30% of the EU -> US trade.
        Grombobulous 2mo ago
        That’s actually kind of like not a good statistic though. For 30% of transactions with the EU it’s just the US shooting itself in the foot and passing on higher costs to average Americans. Imagine enacting a tax where 30% of the money collected was a net negative. I can’t think of many taxes that are that poorly constructed. For the 70% of transactions where US companies and individuals decide to buy less or use alternative sources, doesn’t that at some point harm US businesses? At the very least you’re now artificially lowering competition, which tends to drive overall prices up and quality down.

by m132 2mo ago

sigmoid10 2mo ago

Google just got hit by yet another record antitrust fine by the EU [1]. But as long as they see these fines as cost of doing business, nothing will change. Especially if it always takes almost a decade to push this through the judicial system. Their net income last year alone was $130 Billion. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-top-court-dismisses-google-fight-against-record-41-billion-eu-antitrust-fine-2026-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-top-court-dismisses-google-...

oblio 2mo ago
The EU shouldn't be regulating Google like this. The US should.
- 3form 2mo ago
  Why not both? Countries should be able to signal which business practices are undesirable.
  - _blk 2mo ago
    Yes, laws are laws but one affects a branch, the other a root.
    - froggit 2mo ago
      Cut off enough branches and the roots die.
  - oblio 2mo ago
    The EU can't realistically bring Google to its knees. The US could. I say that as a European that's very much in favor of government intervention to fix market distortions.
- trollbridge 2mo ago
  The DOJ brought an antitrust case against Google… and won. Then the judge pretty much decided “no consequences”.
  - echelon 2mo ago
    It was the lamest excuse ever. Something like, "I'm worried about impairing Google's ability to compete in AI" or some nonsense. (Paraphrasing here.) Looks like all it takes to compete in AI is to issue stock or get a bunch of investors. I don't see how Google would struggle with that. It's completely orthogonal to antitrust enforcement.
- lofaszvanitt 2mo ago
  Hopeless. US already lost against corps. And that will be their downfall.
- sigmoid10 2mo ago
  Actually, the EU should very much crack down on any foreign company that abuses its market position to stifle local business competition. There's no good reason to allow them to break local laws and diminish the local economy just because they keep their headquarters outside the EU.
- dotancohen 2mo ago
  The EU absolutely should be regulating companies that operate in her jurisdiction. Google is free to pursue other markets.
ciefa 2mo ago
Eh, that is if they pay. Trump already made threats for tariffs in regards to those fines.
- Danox 2mo ago
  Which is a federal sales tax against the citizens of the United States countries abroad do not pay no matter how many times taco lies.
  - ffsm8 2mo ago
    You're splitting hairs in this case, while that's unquestionably true, it's irrelevant if there tariffs are only set on one party. That's why Trump's tariffs on everything was so ... Uh ... "Interesting". If only one party gets the tariffs, you end up with other parties selling the goods instead, which does cause meaningful damage to the tariffed party
    - Grombobulous 2mo ago
      Or the tariffing party just continues buying very nearly the same amount of things at higher prices in many categories because those items don’t have perfectly elastic supply and demand.
      - ffsm8 2mo ago
        Technically true but highly misleading. The amount of good like that are few, less then 30% of the EU -> US trade.
        Grombobulous 2mo ago
        That’s actually kind of like not a good statistic though. For 30% of transactions with the EU it’s just the US shooting itself in the foot and passing on higher costs to average Americans. Imagine enacting a tax where 30% of the money collected was a net negative. I can’t think of many taxes that are that poorly constructed. For the 70% of transactions where US companies and individuals decide to buy less or use alternative sources, doesn’t that at some point harm US businesses? At the very least you’re now artificially lowering competition, which tends to drive overall prices up and quality down.