If Apple is collecting money on your behalf, then they know how much you made. And they already have that money in their account, held on your behalf. So such an agreement is not a big stretch to imagine.

Smart people are not going to ask Apple to handle in-app purchases for them, now that courts have told Apple to f*k off. I wouldn't even link the same bank account, at the same bank to Apple's payment system. Keep a small account linked to satisfy Apples automatic deduction systems and manage your revenue somewhere else. Bitcoin?

I don't think Apple has to make anything up. Since the purchase of the app, plus in-app sales have to be reported to Apple*, they know what you make. As it stands now, Apple is the IRS of their own walled garden.

*Barring an uncucessful challenge of recent court decisions.

At this point in time, I believe Google is pursuing power instead of just money. And they are willing to make some questionable (from a profit point of view) investments to accumulate it. Establishing legal standing to play Internet cop on behalf of their users is just one ploy. We already have a DoJ to take care of that sort of thing. They need to get off their ass before private business weasels their way into becomming the law of the land.

At some point, I expect Google to parlay ther power into profit. When it takes a Google Certificate of Authenticity to have an email address or host a website.

... Roger's Profanisaurus.

Time to put in a few reps before bedtime.

Only applicant that didn't have a problem with working the graveyard shift.

I hope this counts against Amazon's H1-B allotment.

All he has to do is to adopt the BOFH attitude. Nobody would dare get on his bad side by asking inane questions.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Wait! What? Never mind the free stuff. I don't think this sale pencils out.

"Gait recognition"

I have a rock in my shoe.

Less accessible, if being a YouTube TV subscriber is a prerequisite (US only). Gotta pump up those subscription numbers, I guess.

Well, your examples are phishing via email. There's a lot of that going on. Just look for "To: undisclosed-recipients:" in your mail headers.

SMS as well, I imagine. And "impersonating organizations like the IRS or the U.S. Postal Service" is pretty easy, given the weak security of our wireless infrastructure. And there are legitimate "mass SMS broadcasters", so that by itself isn't new either.

what bothers me is that Google is seeking grounds to go after these people extra-judicially. I just don't trust them not to abuse such powers.

Well, Google cares. Or should care, since they are (supposedly) selling them a secure environment. But probably the easiest solution is a bit of public service announcement user education:

Do not click on in-message links. Go to the official home page and log in from there.

Movie theater seats would be a better analogy. We can seat the entire town. But we will only show what our parent company has produced.

Good point. I left that out of my list.

We have also elected officials to be empowered with the responsibility for enforcing laws. Nobody elected Google. And 'we' have put the collective rope and tree approach to law enforcement behind us.

I hope so. The Chinese group doesn't appear to be using any of Google's resources for their scams*. They aren't the Internet Police or the telecom police. If they want to play cop, I'll put a cap pistol and tin sheriffs badge under their Christmas tree.

*It seems to me that Google needs to keep their GMail users from emailing out scams first. John 8:7.