OSNews:

OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/23489/Google_Flicks_Remote_Kill_Switch_on_Two_Android_Applications Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sun, 26 May 2013 01:53:19 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Android is open. Market is not. http://www.osnews.com/thread?431525 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431525 The market is no open component, so once you buy into that, you essentially left the "open" Android space.

The different to iDevices is that with Android it's possible (though not convenient) to live without the vendor's distribution channel. Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (pgeorgi) Comments Probably good http://www.osnews.com/thread?431527 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431527 I'd say it's only a matter of time until someone disables that killswitch. Since the kind of people who would use that hack are also less likely to be fooled by some malicious app then we will end up with this:

- a small group of people with hacked Android; happy that Google can't mess with their property.
- a large group of people with vanilla systems; happy (or unaware) that Google protects them from bad apps because they don't know (and generally aren't interested in learning) how to distinguish a bad app from a good one.

In the end, you still have a relatively free; yet protected environment. At least until someone writes an Android virus that goes undetected by the killswitch feature; then hopefully Symantec will come up with an antivirus ;-) Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ventajou) Comments RE: Android is open. Market is not. http://www.osnews.com/thread?431528 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431528

The different to iDevices is that with Android it's possible (though not convenient) to live without the vendor's distribution channel.

It certainly is possible to live without the iPhone's vendor distribution channel, but very inconvenient. Check out the distribution options for iApps, apply a little math and think a bit outside the box and you'll understand what's possible. Again, not convenient, definitely even less so than the Android model, but certainly not impossible... Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mrhasbean) Comments The difference being.... http://www.osnews.com/thread?431529 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431529 As has already been alluded to, the difference is that if Google do this, one is perfectly free to go online and install the .apk without using the market.

With iOS, one has to either set up a private ( Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (woegjiub) Comments Ask first... http://www.osnews.com/thread?431531 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431531 I think it would've been better if Google, instead of a notification supplied a dialog, telling it's adviceable to remove the application, but leaving the ultimate choice too the user.Edited 2010-06-25 23:56 UTC Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (righard) Comments Comment by SnowBuddha http://www.osnews.com/thread?431532 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431532 Bleh, don't go answer the phone when adding a comment. woegjiub already said everything I did but much better.Edited 2010-06-26 00:00 UTC Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SnowBuddha) Comments This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431533 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431533 This conduct is unconstitutional in the US and should be challenged in court as soon as possible. It goes against several laws having to do with privacy and freedom.

Why isn't the ACLU all over this? Are they in bed with Apple or Google? Did they receive huge contributions from those criminals?

This shit must be stopped yesterday. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mapou) Comments RE: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431534 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431534

This conduct is unconstitutional in the US

Google is not the Government of the United States. Yet. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vanders) Comments RE[2]: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431535 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431535 They're acting like they own the country, that's for sure. This crap is like buying groceries with your hard earned cash and taking them home, only to have some asshole from the grocery store open your front door with a special key and grab your groceries from your fridge while you're sleeping. Leaving a note behind just doesn't cut it, I'm sorry.

Again, this shit must be stopped.Edited 2010-06-26 00:33 UTC Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Mapou) Comments RE[2]: Android is open. Market is not. http://www.osnews.com/thread?431536 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431536

It certainly is possible to live without the iPhone's vendor distribution channel, but very inconvenient.

can you also mention the legality of possibility? The one way i am aware of of mass distribution of apps outside apple channel involves jailbreaking the phone and that is against apple's terms of iphone usage Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mtzmtulivu) Comments RE[3]: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431538 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431538 Any user of google distribution channel must accepts the terms of use of the channel and one of the terms say google reserves the right to reach into people's devices and delete any application installed through their channel. Google here is not doing anything a user did not agree too.

Agreeing to an action and then complain when the action occurs doesnt reflect well on the agreer. If the grocery store has a policy of doing just what you have described then you only have yourself to blame if you buy your stuff from them and they come and take them back in the middle of the night.

You may claim ignorance of the policy and i will be with you if the grocery store has the policy in way that is hard to find but if it is right infront of you and you knew about it or you could have known about it with reasonable effort on your part then,you dont have a leg to stand on to complain. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mtzmtulivu) Comments RE[3]: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431540 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431540 In this case they went in and took some tainted milk. I personally would rather they notified me of the bad milk instead of taking action without me. This was not a evil act by Google, but it does Infantilize us. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 01:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Debaser) Comments Somebody help me out ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?431543 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431543 First, the blog post says:

Recently, we became aware of two free applications built by a security researcher for research purposes. These applications intentionally misrepresented their purpose in order to encourage user downloads, but they were not designed to be used maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data â" or system resources beyond permission.INTERNET.

Then it says:

The remote application removal feature is one of many security controls Android possesses to help protect users from malicious applications. In case of an emergency, a dangerous application could be removed from active circulation in a rapid and scalable manner to prevent further exposure to users.

So they say this 'feature' is to protect users from malicious applications, but they just said two paragraphs up that the apps they nuked were not malicious in nature.

So, what exactly am I missing here? Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments RE: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431544 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431544 Unconstitutional? Privacy? Freedom? I have to disagree with your rant. There's certainly a bad feeling tied to this matter but smart phones and their related issues can have only the most tenuous links to Constitutional law. And there's been no changes to our Bill of Rights that set clear policy on the privileges of owning a smart phone. (Note: Buying and owning a cell/smart phone is just that, a privilege, not a constitutional right.) If Google had made documented statements that they would never do something like this and then this happened, you'd have something to complain about. But the reality is, if you don't like it then sell your phone, deal with the any cancellation charges (as spelled out to you in the contract), and buy another product from a different manufacturer. That's often referred to as 'voting with your wallet'. If ALL the manufacturer's have policies you dislike, then there's no law you have to own a smart phone. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (edvim) Comments RE: Somebody help me out ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?431545 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431545 The paragraph you quoted said the applications misrepresented their purpose to encourage user download but did not abuse user's privacy. Google seem to take an issue at how they make their way to the distribution channel and to user's devices and not how they run.

dont you find their intentionally misrepresentation malicious? Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mtzmtulivu) Comments It's official http://www.osnews.com/thread?431549 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431549 Google diagnosed with megalomania Sat, 26 Jun 2010 03:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vai777) Comments RE: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431551 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431551

This conduct is unconstitutional in the US and should be challenged in court as soon as possible. It goes against several laws having to do with privacy and freedom.

Why isn't the ACLU all over this? Are they in bed with Apple or Google? Did they receive huge contributions from those criminals?

This shit must be stopped yesterday.

Where have you been living that you think the constitution applies to a legal agreement between two parties in any country?

Next, you're going to tell us that private forums cannot delete or edit your posts because it treads on your freedoms.

When people agree to contracts, they accept the consequences of the agreement, not just what they want to believe it entails. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 05:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bousozoku) Comments Just like Apple http://www.osnews.com/thread?431557 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431557 Apple has this ability too, except that with Apple there's no way of getting your app back, ever. Just for the record.... So while you're all complaining about Google just keep in mind this is the new "app store" world that Apple has set the precedent for, it's up to us to decide if we like it or not. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Moochman) Comments Article is missleading http://www.osnews.com/thread?431566 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431566 1. Market is not a feature of Android. It is installed by oems/operators if they have an agreement with Google. So you're totally responsible for using device with Market - no one forces you.
2. Even if you have Market you can freely opt-out by not agreeing to its terms.
3. Market is only operating while synchronization is turned on.

These points mean that you have TOTAL CONTROL over your Android device. If you choose Market up and running - it is you concise choice.

So stop blaming Google an start reading eulas BEFORE using products and features. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Auxx) Comments ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?431588 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431588 How come nobody noted this from reading the license? oh, you were all to busy attacking apple. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Hiev) Comments RE[3]: Android is open. Market is not. http://www.osnews.com/thread?431592 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431592

and that is against apple's terms of iphone usage

Oh noes D: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments RE[4]: Android is open. Market is not. http://www.osnews.com/thread?431594 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431594

"and that is against apple's terms of iphone usage

Oh noes D: "
Well, actually, it's a big deal, since it voids the warranty of a â¬650 device...

(Such manufacturer abilities and abusive terms of use is the kind of thing which made me wipe Chromium out of my computer and go back to Firefox and Opera. Better rely on many small companies that one big corp... Though I still rely on Nokia for my phone...) Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Neolander) Comments RE: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431643 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431643

Right... they didn't ask.. like when your antivirus didn't ask to remove that malicious software that you installed like an idiot when you hit "YES I'M 18" in that Porn site!!!

The software was malicious, I don't see any problem. If the application was legit and it was removed, then it does deserve a legal complaint. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (daedalus8) Comments EULA http://www.osnews.com/thread?431652 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431652 Why is it acceptable for Google to have a license agreement that limits user control over a device, but wrong for Apple's Mac OS X to have one? Explain. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fraterf93) Comments RE: EULA http://www.osnews.com/thread?431704 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431704

Why is it acceptable for Google to have a license agreement that limits user control over a device, but wrong for Apple's Mac OS X to have one? Explain.

It's the nature of EULAs to be not acceptable, even though you're forced to agree / accept it. All the EULAs that I have ever seen basically say;

"You are only licensing this software, you don't own it, if we feel like breaking it so it no longer works, tough crap for you. Thank you for paying us."

That's also why EULAs aren't generally considered legally binding, especially since the majority of them pop up as soon as you start to install the software, and because of the way software authenticates nowadays (mostly CD KEY based) as soon as you open the box, you can't return it. So even if you don't agree to the EULA, you have already spent the money on it and can't return it. So you would be stuck with software that you couldn't use.

Retarded is really the term for it. Gone are the days when you can buy software and actually have it 'belong' to you.

At least in the closed source world. At least with open source projects, even if they want you to pay for them, they will provide source code so you can make your own modifications. Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (leech) Comments RE: The difference being.... - warning http://www.osnews.com/thread?431728 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431728 Did Google deliver a message "application blah installed on your device has been found to do A and B. Google will now remove this program as it has been removed from the app market for being unsafe; allow or deny?"

I'd be ok with that; gives clear explanation why the app is going away and the potential for a user to decline. Now, if Google did it a-la-Amazon secret delete; that's a problem. Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jabbotts) Comments Less of the same http://www.osnews.com/thread?431748 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431748 I think the worse about Apple, considering both the frequency and damage of the act, is when they deny certain applications because "there are already other applications that so the same thing". Until Google avoid doing this, they will be lots of steps below in the evil staircase... Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (divide_by_zero) Comments surprised http://www.osnews.com/thread?431756 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431756 The only thing that surprises me in this case is that something like this hasn't happened sooner.

Android platform has been here for quite some time, and only now an app comes along that does something kinda naughty?
Hmmm...

Those Android app devs must be the most honest folks around. Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DhulKarnain) Comments RE[2]: This Crap Should Be Declared Illegal http://www.osnews.com/thread?431759 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431759 Violates US Federal Wiretapping laws, I have won cases like this against other vendors. The phone is your property, and terms associated with the Google store are unenforceable if they seek to circumvent the law. Mon, 28 Jun 2010 07:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lorin) Comments RE: EULA http://www.osnews.com/thread?431762 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431762 With Android you can choose to go to another "App Store" and even start your own. With iPhone you're stuck with Apple's one. Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Tuxie) Comments Comment by stanbr http://www.osnews.com/thread?431778 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431778 1-) Nobody said you must use android market. You can install applications using some other way. I guess you could even create your own store
2-) It works very similar to apt-get. They can install any new version, change all my configurations, remove softwares, on a simple apt-get dist-upgrade. And nobody says it's a bad thing (because it's not!). So I see no problems with it. Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stanbr) Comments RE: Comment by stanbr http://www.osnews.com/thread?431781 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431781

2-) It works very similar to apt-get. They can install any new version, change all my configurations, remove softwares, on a simple apt-get dist-upgrade. And nobody says it's a bad thing (because it's not!). So I see no problems with it.

Except that with an apt-get, you can look over what is going to happen and choose whether you want it to or not. Sometimes I really believe people don't *think* before making comparisons like this. Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (darknexus) Comments The solution is ASKING the user http://www.osnews.com/thread?431808 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431808 I believe this story IS scary, and even more scary is the fact that too little is happening to take this power from the companies, at least with legislation. If Google/Amazon/Apple want to do a protective service for their users, they could advise them about potential dangers, offering the choice to have the apps deleted - but LEAVING the final decision to the user.

I believe that there is a fundamental question about property (of the device and of the copies of the products bought/downloaded) which poses itself here. More than one western democracy (the American among others!) is very much based on respect of property and of privacy. We can not let these things happen! We need to get out laws and rules limiting this kind of action. In my opinion.

Regards Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (man-in-the-middle) Comments Re:Google Android http://www.osnews.com/thread?431810 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431810 Well Google Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware, and key applications. The Android SDK provides the tools and libraries necessary to begin developing applications that run on Android-powered devices.It revollutionary.

All The Best!!!!! Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (angel.anderson01) Comments RE: Ask first... http://www.osnews.com/thread?431866 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431866 I agree with this. It would be nice if they included a detailed explanation for their intent to remove the application as well on that prompt.

I hope in the future they do they and also add a checkbox in the settings to completely disable the feature but default it to ON. Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JakeWharton) Comments RE[2]: Comment by stanbr http://www.osnews.com/thread?431867 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431867 Keep in mind this system was designed to kill iphone... it should be very user friendly and easy to use (eg. your mother should be able to use it with no problems). I don't know exactly how the system behavior is right now, and I agree it could give the user an alert, but it should be very straightforward. And if the app does not do what it should do in the first place (and as they say, it was pretty much useless) I see no problems here, well, unless you are a paranoid of course. Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stanbr) Comments RE[2]: Somebody help me out ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?431938 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431938 Just wait until some malicious hacker learns how to turn on the kill switch to brick all those phones.

Or a malevolent government........ Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ferrels) Comments Double standards http://www.osnews.com/thread?431946 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431946 Why do people defend Google in this situation?

If Apple did this, some of you would be all over it.

There should be a setting, defaulted to ON, that can be changed to PROMPT or OFF for any remote application uninstall.

Imagine if someone keys in the wrong command and wipes all purchased apps from your phone? Or accidentally flags all apps as malicious? Even if it isn't "evil", systems and the people operating them make mistakes. Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (moondino) Comments RE: Double standards http://www.osnews.com/thread?431980 http://www.osnews.com/thread?431980

If Apple did this, some of you would be all over it

And some would advocate it too, explaining how great it is for security with lots of buzzwords like "techie just can't understand" or "curated app distribution model".

I really don't think that there's a double standard. From an exterior point of view (I despise the entire current touchscreen smartphone market), both platforms have their unilateral-thinking advocates who will unconsciously find everything Google/Apple does marvelous, no matter how objectively horrible it is.

For Apple, this can be explained because the brand has traditionally pictured itself as thinking differently and knowing better than the other, and hence logically got the "I'm-a-genius-nobody-understands-me" kind of people among their supporters. For Google, the phenomenon is more difficult to analyze, but I think that's because they're generally doing great and display it prominently, while knowing to hide their bad actions pretty well.Edited 2010-06-30 09:18 UTC Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Neolander) Comments