Just blocking access to internet for this one app is not enough. It can use intents or a shared local storage with some other app to send the data out.
yes that and internet permission can be added later and pushed with an update. Unless you are checking permissions after every update you will not know.
ADs work via play services so even if you block internet for the app the ADs will continue to work.
The reason many apps stop showing ADs when their internet is blocked is because they need to make an API call to their own servers before running the AD. That is the common behavior but not mandatory
Lacking INTERNET permission today does not guarantee that the app will never have that permission. The internet permission is considered a "normal" permission by android so it will be auto granted without even a notification to the user.
Moreover an app without internet permission can still send data out using "INTENTS" for other apps in Android. This can make an app dangerous even without internet permission.
I was excited about the application and was dissapointed to see that it was closed source. I will absolutely not trust anyone that I cannot sue with this data. Big companies at least follow some standards that are enforced by multiple governments here we know nothing.
The silver lining is that they do fear the antitrust potential of their appstore and system(s), so this means there's definitely anti-competitive measures going on. If apple knows they dont have any anti-competitive features implemented, they won't have spent this lobby/propaganda money!
Therefore, as a consumer, you should be careful of buying apple products.
Reason is definitely some wild wild propaganda. They don't need Apple to pay them to make an unjust unreasonable bad case against humanity. They do it every day.
It's embarrassing that we have to keep rediscovering what terrible rotten no good ideas there are on that domain, naively reengaing with their trashfire submissions again and again.
Not paying a debt and walking away isn't a criminal offence.
Signing up again under a different name to continue using the service you have been banned from could be considered fraud by misrepresentation, which in most places is a fairly serious criminal offence (even though it is very unlikely to be prosecuted in this case).
Cybercrime aside, AWS is almost always not worthwhile for small business or individual use. Issues like opaque billing, devops complexity and vendor lock-in go away immediately if you switch to Digital Ocean or one of the many simpler and cheaper cloud providers. Unless you are building something that is specific to AWS, relying on AWS as individual/small company is like buying enterprise router from Cisco or Fortinet for your home network - technically nothing is stopping you from doing so, but it's an overkill.
