> Spamming the thread will only cause Google developers to lock the issue, ignore valuable community feedback, or stop sharing public updates about this change entirely.

So nothing would change (they can also lock away your "valuable community feedback" because what bothers them is the criticism itself), thus feel free to express your approval

▲

AussieWog93 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> because what bothers them is the criticism itself

I think there's a difference between criticism of a policy and being brigaded by a reddit mob.

	▲	zetanor 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Google pushes a new feature to Android where phones wake up at 2:22 AM every night to play a blood-curdling scream at maximum volume, regardless of settings. An issue is created and gets assigned, into which Google employees regularly butt in to explain the feature exists to keep users safe from night break-ins. Nothing changes. People have to start modifying their lives around this problem—most have to shut off their phones during the night, many had to buy a separate alarm clock—and masses of disappointed customers eventually make their way to the bug tracker to voice their concern. The issue gets locked as "too heated". Apple has had this feature for three years on iOS. What else should they have done?

▲

jeroenhd 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The moment an article like this hits HN or Reddit or any other such forum, any hope of changing anyone's mind is lost. The same happens to Github issues too. I haven't checked the isue myself, but seeing it here means it's probably already too late at this point, it'll probably get flooded.

Google does take feedback from app developers every now and then, but obviously their own teams' feelings on the subject are more important to them than some open source developers relying on a hack like in this article.

I think it should be quite obvious that the ADB daemon wasn't designed to enable call recording from an app initiating an adb session over a loopback address. https://xkcd.com/1172/ strikes again.

That doesn't mean the developer who wrote this is wrong to dislike the change: Google themselves have added call recording to their dialer a while ago so it's clearly a feature they stand behind. That doesn't mean the adb team shouldn't do a little security hardening, though.

▲

p-e-w 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The implication in the blog post that Google developers somehow “overlooked” or “misunderstood” important use cases here, and if only they were informed about them they would reconsider, is frankly insulting.

▲

light_hue_1 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Every single time any story has the words "Google developers" in it, they're behaving like arrogant, disconnected, anti-consumer jerks. From constant GCP breakage, to not acknowledging obvious Android bugs, to intentionally braking Chrome. It's a stark contrast to behind the scenes interactions with them.

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, my favorite one is how Chrome users are not smart enough to handle case-aware web-page search toggle. Although to be fair their Chrome team is very arrogant even by Google standards.

▲

izacus 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

lII1lIlI11ll 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You keep spamming variations of this comment without explaining how could apps actually bypass security without several steps that the user needs to take in order for it to work. Are you just farming down votes for some weird reason or will you finally get to the technical details instead of one-sentence snarks?

	▲	izacus 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The linked bug explains exactly how. The fact that you angrily slam downvotes when you hear something doesn't like doesn't make it "farming", just like rage and rants and bizarre accusations of conspiracy in this comment thread won't change the underlying issues that this is going to fix.

▲

TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You forgot to ask yourself whose interests are being secured, and who/what is the threat being secured from.

Security is not an unqualified good. It's just mechanism of control.

	▲	izacus 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The users.

▲

userbinator 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm sure Google considers users having freedom to be a "severe security issue." /s