Bloke robbed of $800,000 in cryptocurrency by fake wallet app wants payback from Google Last October, California resident Jacob Pearlman downloaded an Android version of a cryptocurrency wallet app called Phantom from the Google Play app store. That was four months before San Francisco-based Phantom Technologies actually released an Android version of its digital wallet. The free Phantom Wallet app that Pearlman …
Yeah, but at sovereign currencies are backed by the economy of the country who they belong to. Yes, that economy can tank and take the value right down, but it's still many orders of magnitude safer than crypto-currencies which are backed by nothing more than what a sufficient number of people currently believe they are worth!
This post has been deleted by its author
I hope google has to cough up. Why, I hear you cry!
Well, google (and Apple) make a big deal out of how they offer such a great service with their app store, and how their 30% cut of all moneys going through their ecosystem is just fair, because it pays for that service. You know, them makeing sure we don't fall victim to fake apps, apps with malware, trojans, the stuff.
So, yeah, I'm all for Google being held responsible for allowing a f'ing fake app, delaying the removal process, dragging their feet, and not offering this great service they keep gushing about.
It isn't that clear what the reporter is talking about but I have to disagree based on the comment
and notwithstanding Google’s obvious notice that it was offering fraudulent 'Phantom Wallet' apps for download
To be fair to Google ti sounds like they identified a problem and were dealing with it (arguably ineffectively) but whilst getting the filters, systems or whatever sorted they put up a warning. If you choose to ignore that warning is it really their fault?
As an example you go to the zoo and they have signs up saying do not feed the lions. You put your arm through the bars to give the lion a <food item> and the lion bites your arm off. Is it the zoo's fault that you ignored the warnings because the bars are wide enough you can get your arm through?
Generally Google are no saints but at some point people may start to realise again there is such a thing as personal responsibility.
"whilst getting the filters, systems or whatever sorted they put up a warning"
So it's a scheduling problem. Does this look loke a better schedule:
1. Get "filters, systems or whatever sorted"
2. Open app store for uploads
3. Publish filtered apps checked by whatever was put in place in 1.
"Generally Google are no saints but at some point people may start to realise again there is such a thing as personal responsibility."
Anyone using anything to do with Google has advertised they have abandoned personal responsibility so whilst I despise Google, caveat emptor
Your zoo comparison reminds me of an experience at Chester Zoo in 59 when I was a trainee considering zookeeper as job.. It was polar bears.
I'd have to say that Google are responsible for admiring apps to their online bazaar. How they do that is up to them, if they decide that quantity is better than quality then that's their problem.
If someone dies of food poisoning after buying food at Tesco it's not a reasonable defence for Tesco to say "Well we knew there was a problem with some of our chickens but we were still adapting our filters"
They can't even say "we did warn you some chickens might kill you" because they're legally obliged not to sell diseased food.
Just my tuppence worth......
"To be fair to Google ti sounds like they identified a problem and were dealing with it (arguably ineffectively) but whilst getting the filters, systems or whatever sorted they put up a warning."
No, there was no warning. That's in the claims as why it's Google's fault. The only warning came from a third party on a different communication system. There are also no filters or the like; they get a request to take something down, investigate to whatever extent they want, then take it down. They already have all the systems to do it. The problems taking down this particular fake app were not technical.
At the beginning, I don't support the argument. The internet has dangerous things on it, and it's not automatically someone's responsibility to prevent you from getting one of them. Had this been about Google search results, I would be firmly on Google's side. However, I also have to support the original argument of this thread that, since Google likes to claim it charges a massive fee and has a dominant position on Android app distribution for the safety and security of its users, it would be nice to have this as proof that their claims are overblown.
Nothing is completely safe about internet-based communications and/or apps downloaded therein. Yes, Google (and others), probably do take some measures to try and reduce such instances, but I would argue that the end user must always conduct their own due diligence in such matters. Your device/phone/laptop already contains so much information about you and your finances etc. these days - are you just going to allow anything that takes your fancy to have access to all of that data! Fakery has already been around for thousands of years and it thrives in this digital age!
.... I hope Google lose.
They claim they need to control the eco system, take their huge cut of revenue and say what goes and what stays.
So they must take responsibility. The play store is rammed full of fake apps.
If this was a bricks and mortar shop, selling known counterfeit and shoddy goods, and as a result someone ended up out of pocket, they would 100% be liable.
Yes, crypto a glorified pyramid scheme, but Google is no innocent party. Remember Google are notorious for running ads for dodgy websites. They don't give a shit, so long as they get paid.
For those that are blissfully unaware how corrupt the Play store is, just search for a well known store. I chose Primark, a store that has no online sales options, so easy to spot.
An example.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.primarkwshop.primarkappstr
Look at all the other fake shops they run, and look at the contact details.
Primark is a well established, extremely well known, trademarked company, and yet they let this shit through.
Hope they lose and the floodgates are opened.
Like everyone else here, I have no sympathy for the fools who play around in craptoworld and lose all their pretend money as they cluelessly move it around from place to place, for reasons usually to do with wanting even more, before they stumble into a huge scam and lose it all.
But Google has decided to make money from crypto too, by allowing crypto apps on its platform, and if you get into this game you should also accept that you're into the liability game too, especially when you advertise yourself as a safe and secure platform that checks for malicious code.
Google had the choice to keep crypto shit off their platform, as the all seeing eye they in particular should know it's a world of scams and thievery, but they still chose to make money from it, and therefore I hope they lose this case, especially as it might make them wake up and ban all this shit from their store, and result in fewer people getting casually involved and then scammed.
"Google had the choice to keep crypto shit off their platform"
wallets are really just fancy password holders with added cryptomath chain bollocks so not sure how they would be able to ban them without rabid right wing nutters complaining about freepeachs.
Putting or keeping keys to $800,000 in any "hot wallet" (any device with net access) is just asking for trouble.
It wouldn't need any malicious code, as far as it looks he just put his keys into it voluntarily.
Seems like blaming the internet for putting your card details into a website without doing anything to make sure the website is legitimate.
You need to realise that a fake app or website has been very carefully contrived to appear genuine. It doesn't have FAKE stamped all over it. The greater issue is putting money into this crap in the first place, followed rapidly by relying on something as easily lost or stolen as a phone.
If I had $800,000 to put into a wallet app I'd spend time making damn sure it was a legitimate wallet app from a major provider of such services. Someone with a name I recognise and trust, most definitely not something called Phantom:
a : something apparent to sense but with no substantial existence : apparition.
b : something elusive or visionary.
c : an object of continual dread or abhorrence the phantom of disease and want.
Although that does sound like the app he downloaded.
technically he didn't put $800,000 in a wallet, he put they keys to $800,000 in a wallet.
As the magic numbers representing the $800,000 only exist on the blockchain.
technically if all nodes stopped storing the blockchain it all vanishes, so at all times someone somewhere needs to have the whole blockchain stored as it's a forward only record, which is always going to get larger and larger.
Not sure if I want my money stored on a system that relies apon crypto bros to be bothered to buy enough harddisks forever.
You can buy hardware keys. If you've got more than a few hundred quid's worth, it's worth buying a hardware key.
If you've got hundreds of thousands of pounds of crypto, it's probably worth buying a few hardware keys and distributing it.
I'm not going to say that he deserves to lose all that money, but he is to blame.
He did his research, and decided that Phantom was a trustworthy supplier.
Google claimed that this wallet came from Phantom when it did not, and the fact that it didn't come from Phantom was the reason why he had a problem with it.
I agree that crypto is a scam, but my opinion is not relevant here. This is a scam based on top of another scam. A scam² if you like.
Play Store checked the signatures and jumped through some unnecessary hoops (that just incidentally generate some interesting telemetry data) to make absolutely positively sure that the Fake Wallet App[TM] you downloaded is the Real Fake Wallet App[TM] and not some other piece of software.
Play Store's got your back!
If there's one thing Google has been good at, it's legally covering their own ass from every angle. Especially where money is concerned. If you ever use GooglePay to send money to someone, that money is GONE as soon as you click "Send", there is no "protection" for you in any way, shape, or form, and Google will not refund your money, nor allow you to contest, in case of fraud. You're just fucked. That's why I removed all of my card info from Google (even GooglePlay). Fuck them.
It takes a LOT to make Paypal look good, but somehow Google managed to do just that...
Why did this person have a burning need to buy and store $800,000 of real money in a manner to obfuscate its comings and goings? Was it some belief that digital Leprechauns would wave their willies at it and it would grow? Did this person want to make some dodgy purchases? Being on the cutting edge can often mean getting bits sliced off.
There is no way that Google can completely test every app that gets posted to the App Store. The most they can do is conduct some minimal checks that what's being posted looks like it comes from an identified source. If somebody complains, perhaps they can have a look to see if there's something untoward going on, but too many times reports are just malicious attacks from competitors. Just look at YouTube. If Google took down everything that had a complaint lodged against it, there would be little point in having the marketplace at all. Not that I get anything through them and I'm dismayed by the lack of being able to directly download software from the manufacturer. iOS is even worse.
"I'm willing to bet that at no point would he have been able to convert it to $800,000 of money or legal goods."
I'd bet that if the investment in magic pixies was instead used to purchase a very nice home in a good area for the same amount, in a few years it would be worth a bunch more and would still be there (the land will at least still be there). If you worry about The Man coming and taking away your home, you could have it held by a company that's part of a company someplace else that you own. Aside from takings due to unpaid taxes, I hear more about virtual groats going bye bye more often.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
