Linked by David Adams on Thu 24th Jun 2010 16:22 UTC, submitted by Governa
Privacy, Security, Encryption About 20 percent of third-party apps available through the Android marketplace allow third-party access to sensitive data, and can do things like make calls and send texts without the owners' knowledge, according to a recent security report from security firm SMobile Systems. There's no indication that any of the highlighted apps is malicious, but the report does underscore the inherent risks of a more open ecosystem as opposed to Apple's oppressive yet more controlled environment, with every app being vetted before availability.
Thread beginning with comment 431471
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: From a security firm
by kaiwai on Fri 25th Jun 2010 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: From a security firm"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What if the user doesn't want to learn how to ride a bike? To break from your analogy, a user doesn't want to "use a phone". He wants to share his photos, send an email or whatever.

This situation is primarily our fault ("our" in a very broad way; as in our industry). Some point in the past, we decided that computers aren't going to stay on the server rooms, but there is going to be one in every home. Since this is the direction we've taken, we have to actively support it by providing "training wheels" to everyone who needs them. Since you could say that generally a mobile app's audience needs these training wheels, you can't just shout RTFM to anyone who is confused and expect to be successful.


Then your analogy breaks down when one considers "I don't want to learn how to drive a car, I just want to get from A to B" to which one could say, "well, use public transport". Analogous to public transport would be devices like iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch - and with that comes restrictions, the very restrictions that people here decry as draconian. Apple has taken it upon themselves to be the benevolent 'provider' in lieu of individuals making such choices. What has been delivered to end users is an environment where they're taken care of - but we have people decry what Apple is providing. You either have security and less freedom, or freedom and all of the responsibility in your own hands - you can't have both.

Edited 2010-06-25 12:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: From a security firm
by Stratoukos on Fri 25th Jun 2010 12:20 in reply to "RE[4]: From a security firm"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

Then your analogy breaks down when one considers "I don't want to learn how to drive a car, I just want to get from A to B" to which one could say, "well, use public transport".


That's what the rest of my comment was about. At some point in the past we decided that they wouldn't need a landline or snail mail to stay in touch, that they wouldn't need to go to the store for their shopping, etc, but they could do all those things from a computer. So we advertised that fact and sold a computer (in some form) to everyone under the sun.

Or, to return to your analogy, the car companies promised that everyone could use a car for anything. "Use public transport" is not an answer any more.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: From a security firm
by Neolander on Fri 25th Jun 2010 13:57 in reply to "RE[4]: From a security firm"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Then your analogy breaks down when one considers "I don't want to learn how to drive a car, I just want to get from A to B" to which one could say, "well, use public transport". Analogous to public transport would be devices like iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch - and with that comes restrictions, the very restrictions that people here decry as draconian. Apple has taken it upon themselves to be the benevolent 'provider' in lieu of individuals making such choices. What has been delivered to end users is an environment where they're taken care of - but we have people decry what Apple is providing. You either have security and less freedom, or freedom and all of the responsibility in your own hands - you can't have both.

Wrong. You can. It's just about two things : a file explorer which allows to access his own files, and the ability to download and install packages from other sources than the App Store.
You don't have to use them, as a beginner. And it'll help experienced user to get things done. Exactly like Mac OS X's terminal. Does somebody think that said terminal is a security flaw, when put in a simpler form in iDevices ? Except Apple, who want to make more money, I mean...

Edited 2010-06-25 14:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: From a security firm
by steogede2 on Sat 26th Jun 2010 09:07 in reply to "RE[4]: From a security firm"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

Then your analogy breaks down when one considers "I don't want to learn how to drive a car, I just want to get from A to B" to which one could say, "well, use public transport". Analogous to public transport would be devices like iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch - and with that comes restrictions, the very restrictions that people here decry as draconian.


"Apple - The public transport of high-tech", has a ring to it.

What does that make Linux and FOSS, a push bike? e.g. you can go where ever you want, doesn't cost you anything and it will be more work - but the exercise will do you good.

Reply Parent Score: 1