Linked by David Adams on Thu 24th Jun 2010 16:22 UTC, submitted by Governa
Thread beginning with comment 431436
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
From the original quoted article, Google's response was this:
"This report falsely suggests that Android users don't have control over which apps access their data," the Google spokesman said on Wednesday morning. "Not only must each Android app get users' permission to access sensitive information, but developers must also go through billing background checks to confirm their real identities, and we will disable any apps that are found to be malicious."
Google apparently really meant it when they said they would disable any apps that are found to be malicious.
Googles in-built provision to remotely zap malicious Android apps destroys the original article's criticism of Android, but to my mind it opens up a whole plethora of utterly different potential criticisms for Google to answer to. The self-same zapper can presumably, at Google's say-so, zap anything at all on people's phones.