News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Massachusetts health notifications app installed without ... by mnw21cam on Saturday June 19, 2021 @05:39AM (#27559155)
Everyone trusts Google, whether they like it or not. This is the definition of trust that security operations use: A trusts B if B is capable of doing something nasty to A.

Google has a heck-load of money. They could pay a disreputable aggregate company to deliver a load of tonne-bags of gravel to my front garden, blocking my car in, and generally destroying the landscaping. I trust them not to do this, and the reason this is true is because I haven't taken 100%-effective steps that would prevent them from doing so, and therefore they are capable of it. This example may seem a little ridiculous (there are no 100%-effective steps I could take, and I think they're trustworthy on this particular score), but it is a technically correct example of how everyone trusts Google.

Re:Massachusetts health notifications app installed without ... by saagarjha on Saturday June 19, 2021 @05:48AM (#27559196)
In this case you also probably trust the legal system to let you sue Google when they do this.
Re:Massachusetts health notifications app installed without ... by throwaway2048 on Saturday June 19, 2021 @06:36AM (#27559395)
That is a pedantic and useless definition of trust.
Re:Massachusetts health notifications app installed without ... by jjgreen on Saturday June 19, 2021 @06:49AM (#27559460)
To be fair, that's trust in the security sense, fairy widely used in those circles.
Re:Massachusetts health notifications app installed without ... by bigiain on Saturday June 19, 2021 @08:29AM (#27559899)
This is a bad example.

Putin or Kim Jong Il or Brad Pitt could also pay to get gravel delivered to your address. You have not taken any specific 100% effective steps to prevent them, any more than you’ve done with Google, right?