Although I have no love for Google, claims like this that lack proof or evidence ought to be viewed with great skepticism.
On the other hand, I also see no direct connection to Google. The victim also said in the comment chain:
> also to be clear I have been on Google support and Pixel support dozens of time all week BEFORE the hack happened, asking them to investigate why my phone marked delivered by FedEx 'disappeared' at the warehouse. At any time someone could have offered me any security advice?!
This could just as easily be a delivery driver or warehouse worker stealing the phone and putting fake info on the website. I don't think Google's workers would be dumb enough to do this to their customers' phones, my suspicion is that it went wrong somewhere in the supply chain.
Either way, Google is responsible for their warranty and return policy. If the delivery driver stole her phone or if someone broke into the delivery warehouse, that's on Google picking bad logistics partners. If the repair company Google partners with is doing this, the problem is with Google. If someone over at Google itself is doing this than that's an even bigger problem.
Either way, I hope the victim can get the help she needs and that Google finds the problem and prevents it from happening to anyone else. Not that I have high hopes for Google's support team taking this seriously…
Until they do, the company is represented by its employee. The 'corporate veil' works both ways after all.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/06/apple-pays-m...
> The tech giant agreed a settlement with the 21-year-old after two employees at a repair facility uploaded the images from a phone she had sent to Apple to be fixed, resulting in “severe emotional distress”.
> The incident emerged during a legal dispute between Pegatron, which had reimbursed Apple for the settlement, and its insurers, which in turn refused to foot the bill. Apple was not directly named in the lawsuit, and was referred to simply as a “customer” throughout, in an effort to keep the matter confidential.
> And why do you need modicum when she has already mentioned fedex related thing and she is not the first one to find such issues?
Because there is plenty of wrong information, whether misinformation or disinformation, flying around the internet.
Perhaps even in your comment, when you claimed
> Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
> Apple paid an unknown multimillion-dollar sum to a woman after iPhone repair technicians uploaded nude photos from her phone to Facebook. The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name, and Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge.
I think this will suffice. I read it and the verge seems to be legit thing to trust.
And you wrote that Apple paid the technicians who uploaded the woman’s media to Facebook, when that is not written anywhere.
To summarize
1: you ask otterley why they would need a modicum of evidence to believe something
2: in the same comment, you post misinformation or disinformation
3: you are presented with a request for the source of the erroneous information you posted. You are also presented with a source regarding the same incident that portrays a different sequence of events.
4: you then post another article which links back to the original source that was already presented to you, but which still does not claim what you originally claimed.
5: this is why otterley says you need a modicum of evidence
You are intentionally trying to summarize in a way that favors you tbh . Also i trust verge over some random people on internet trying to say its misinformation or disinformation. And regarding the first one I already mentioned the fedex thing.
2. You are asked to substantiate above claim.
3. You could not (your verge link says no such thing), so you simply chose not to address the misinformation or disinformation that you posted.
A simple "I was incorrect about my recollection of this event" would have sufficed.
1. "Apple paid millions after iPhone repair techs posted a customer’s nude photos to Facebook"
2. "The incident became public because Pegatron reimbursed Apple for the settlement, then sued its own insurance provider for refusing to cover the payment."
3. " The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name"
4. Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge.
Doesn't this imply
Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.
Ok, by 4 it is confirmed that the source (Telegraph) you have mentioned is correct right? Yes I am holding a premise that the verge is legit source. By 1 they paid millions and their tech posted a customer's nude photo on facebook. I said they hided the statement because of 2.
Where did I go wrong. I love to be corrected tho.
You continue to keep claiming Apple paid millions to the technicians who uploaded someone's nude photos to Facebook.
Both the Telegraph and Verge articles state Apple paid millions to the woman whose photos were uploaded to Facebook.
Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions when their own tech posted a customer's nude on Facebook
And due to two 'when' I corrected second 'when' to 'to'. And I probably messed it up after that :).
The statement you mentioned on last line is what I wanted to say.
Thats not just bad service. If the third party is an official agent of Google, then Google can be liable (monetary penalties). Now, proving that in practice is a question for the civil courts.
Now, if I was looking for a new Android device and I saw all these reports, I would definitely think twice before purchasing a Google Pixel.
All claims deserve to be followed up - and should this be false then the person will get what's coming to them.
This problem with repairs appears to happen frequently enough to not be discounted off the cuff.
How?
Magical thinking there.
I found odd that the victim is talking about class action lawsuit and accussing a man of "mansplaining" her (it could just have been a woman saying it). This is just toxic twitter behavior that takes innocuous comments from people and putting it in the bin of sexism, racism, or something that is accusatory in nature to gain a false sense of moral superiority over others.
If my phone was account was hacked and someone said this to me directly, I would take it as a personal shot.
Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
Yeah that's not a nice thing to say as well. But I don't sense any sexist aspect in there. Personal shots can be ignored instead of adding more fuel to the fire.
> Not sure why you are trying to detract of the alleged incident by trying to claim the victim is being "toxic".
I don't think I was, just pointing out a couple of odd aspects of people going off on Twitter without proof. I did say we should take this seriously but also expect hard proof to back up their claims.
1) Victim receives unsatisfactory response from Google (or no meaningful response from Google which I have personally experienced). They seek public attention to get Google to acknowledge the issue.
ie. The victim followed the official steps for remotely wiping the phone (as it would not turn on) but appears that didn't work. https://mobile.twitter.com/avantgame/status/1467242719273631...
2) They are seeking public attention/support. They may be looking for others with similar experiences that might help.
Helpful responses include steps they can take to protect themselves right now.
3) Smear Google - We can wait and see but I do not see an indication of this at this time.