“Google denied wrongdoing but settled to avoid the risk, cost and uncertainty of litigation, court papers show.”

I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

The payout was not pennies and this case had been around since 2019, surviving multiple dismissal attempts.

While not an "admission of wrongdoing," it points to some non-zero merit in the plaintiff's case.

Google makes over $1bn/day. $68mm is literally an hour's worth of revenue to them - so yes pennies.

Revenue != Making

And I'm delighted to be surrounded by ultra high net worth individuals here on HN where $68 million is "pennies."

No corporate body ever admits wrongdoing and that's part of the problem. Even when a company loses its appeals, it's virtually unheard of for them to apologize, usually you just get a mealy mouthed 'we respect the court's decision although it did not go the way we hoped.' Accordingly, I don't give denials of wrongdoing any weight at all. I don't assume random accusations are true, but even when they are corporations and their officers/spokespersons are incentivized to lie.

>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

It absolutely is.

If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?

It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory.

Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.

That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation.

Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?

I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios:

(1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict

(2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it

and the parent using either to claim lack of

> some admission of wrongdoing

The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.

> I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

The money is the admission of guilt in modern parlance.

Copilot in the streets, Claude in the sheets.

I understand that language evolves and meanings change but we need a word that means “literally”! If we let this one go, the battle is lost.

Do you know if this supports multiple users? Can’t find mention of it in the site.

I am not a huge fan of joke-y replies like this, but bravo. Perfect.

They could still be impeached by the legislative branch.

The thing authorizing that -- the constitution. So unless the legislative can ignore the "interpretation" for the purposes of impeachment, the court can simply "interpret" the part that you think authorizes impeachment to just mean something like "the meaning of life is 54."

To be honest I am not sure if you are even discussing this in good faith anymore. The idea that the Supreme Court could render impeachment of them null and void and the legislative and executive branches would just be :shrugging-emoji: is a little silly.

Yes, the court’s job is to interpret the law. But the Constitution is not code and the judges are not the CPU. Ultimately, the rule of law will always be dependent on people.

The problem is that I don't believe that the court is arguing in good faith any more. In which case silly interpretations don't seem beyond the realm of possibility.

I'm assured by lawyers of both parties that this is not the case. And since I am not a lawyer their understanding is worth a lot more than mine. But as someone who does have significant credentials in philosophical and scientific reasoning, I can say that legal reasoning is not at all what I am familiar with.

The justices would be jailed by the executive, swiftly, if they refused to acknowledge impeachment.

Yes, exactly, the executive can ignore the court's interpretation, including an incorrect interpretation of impeachment (perhaps interpreted in such a way that impeachment as you know it would be impossible), if it violates the constitution.

The executive cannot ignore the court's interpretation on their own.

Christ, are you in high school? This shit is covered in like sophomore year social studies.

OK so the court can then simply declare an "interpretation" of impeachment that makes it impossible, or meaningless then, or perhaps also interprets any such jailing by the executive as illegal. Since they are the ones that get to decide what the text written in the constitution actually is interpreted to mean and apparently their "interpretation" cannot be ignored.

The court can say whatever they want, but they'd be saying it from jail.

Highly recommend the podcast “Advisory Opinions” if you are interested in Supreme Court analysis.

I also recommend that podcast but I would suggest balancing it with '5-4' podcast or 'strict scrutiny'. Sara and David do a very good job explaining both sides and the law but there are times I think advisory opinions could spend more time on the arguments made by the other side or the weaker portions of their supported view.

Strict scrutiny is fantastic

Oof, I couldn't stand to make it through one episode of Strict Scrutiny. It was a political podcast dressed up as if it were a legal podcast. Not interested.

You can’t talk about the Supreme Court/US legal system and just omit politics. They also don’t make any sort of promise to be neutral or objective top to bottom.

They aren’t judges making decisions, they’re talking about the law on a podcast.

Apple is allowed to share data among its apps. Third-party app developers are allowed to share data within their apps. If third-party developers want to share data with _other_ third-party developers (aka the advertising ID), then they need the explicitly request permission. It is fairly straightforward.

I dont think this answered my question, but fun anyways!

Because they directly negotiate deals with those companies that other smaller players can’t negotiate. The App Store is largely a “these are the rules for everyone” minus a few small exceptions.