Google Pulls 'Stalkerware' Ads That Promoted Phone Spying Apps

Google has pulled several "stalkerware" ads that violated its policies by promoting apps that encouraged prospective users to spy on their spouses' phone. From a report: These consumer-grade spyware apps are often marketed to parents wishing to monitor their child's calls, messages, apps, photos and location, often under the guise of protecting against predators. But these apps, which are often designed to be installed surreptitiously and without the device owner's consent, have been repurposed by abusers to spy on the phones of their spouses.

[...] Last August, Google banned ads in users' search results that promoted apps that are designed "with the express purpose of tracking or monitoring another person or their activities without their authorization." But TechCrunch found five app makers were still advertising their stalkerware apps as recently as last week. "We do not allow ads promoting spyware for partner surveillance. We immediately removed the ads that violated this policy and will continue to track emerging behaviors to prevent bad actors from trying to evade our detection systems," a Google spokesperson told TechCrunch.

And so

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is, of course, the exact same problem with pro spyware governments use.

Warrant, ok.

Using it to monitor political opponents because logging is crap and there's little more than a check box [ ] You got a warrant, right?

Not so much.

The warrant doesn't even apply for things like phone metadata, which would have been used by the Tyrant King George III to quickly round up the Founding Fathers.

Re:And so [the vacuum]

[shanen]

This is not the vacuous Subject I was waiting for, though the substance of your FP is interesting. My focus was elsewhere, though I sort of touched your central theme...

Care to expand on your theme now that the FP pressure is removed? In particular, the government approach to stalkerware is quite different and the companies that are producing such software for governments don't even use ads or promotions. I think their "marketing" is via webs of dark and clandestine personal contacts and they even seek gag

Re:

[shanen]

Anyone hear a brain fart? Me neither. (And I don't care what motivates AC. I think there was a point when I was curious, but I guess I can't remember why.)

Let me be clear that I am not referring to fermion's comment, though it's kind of tangential and unclear to me. Perhaps you care to clarify, fermion?

But in general I think Apple is less obscure in its payment policies than the google. But also Apple seems greedier to me. (Perhaps that isn't even a problem insofar as Apple is more in the luxury market, whi

Re:

[fermion]

Google is pulling a app because it might be used to collect evidence against a spouse. Not because it might be used in a criminal purpose. Not because it is malware designed to trick users or be remotely installed without consent, which is Googles speciality. I suppose they still advertise home security cameras that could be secretly used to check on if the spouse has company during the day. It sounds like they are using an edge case to justify a personal vendetta.

Re:

[shanen]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, but it sort of sounds like your analysis is an edge case?

Or perhaps "my problem" is an inability to stay focused on either the details or the big picture?

Where's the line and where's the money?

[shanen]

How long do I have to think to make sure I don't get FPed again? Terrible accidents do occur... Or maybe I should predict ways this discussion could go wrong? With tales of exploits accomplished and houses burgled?

Anyway I'm mostly confused about the borders defining the key term "stalkerware". Or should I ask about which uses are legitimate versus which not? I think the "legal" boundaries are going to be totally muddled. Then you add the dimension of consent, especially faked consent or even faked acquiesc