Google Also Includes 'Kill Switch' for Apps in Android

[AppleMojo]

I am well aware that these measures are not foolproof. What you are missing is that given that I am taking such measures to protect my data and that I made no agreement for them to take such important data, they would be circumventing a technological measure taken to secure access to private data and be civily and criminally liable for such an act. If caught I would have the option then to seek prosecution and compensation for punitive damages.

...

I do not need a killswitch for a possible malicious program. I am not in the habit of simply clicking and downloading a program. Before downloading and installing any software I read about it and decide whether I find the company trustworthy or not and if I will be able to easily remove the program if I do not like it. In the many years of both Mac and Windows ownership I have not had any malicious software take over my system nor installed software that could not be removed.

Then mean what you say.

Earlier you said that because of your "router firewall" MS or Apple would have to hack past them in order to accomplish this task, therefor committing a criminal offense in which you would seek prosecution and compensation.

Now you are saying that it is based on intent, that because you take these security precautions (which I highly doubt, based on your use of terminology) that "they would be circumventing a technological measure taken to secure access to private data and be civily and criminally liable for such an act" ... huh?

That "technological measure" isn't securing what you think it is.

So what about the guy who doesn't use the "technological measure" known as a "car door lock" to secure his vehicle? Are you saying that the thief is less civilly or criminally liable because he didn't circumvent any security measures? So ultimately, if you don't use a firewall -- well then, its a free-for-all!

Have you ever installed a Windows update? Ever read the license agreement which accompanies them? When you click update, you are 'authorizing' the actions which are about to take place, and if this was to remove software -- well then, they can do it. If you don't like it, then don't type in your administrator password and don't update.

Pay attention next time there is an update to your operating system and I think you will be surprised by what is added and removed and what results in being broken when the update has completed. It's happened many, many times over the last 20 years that software updates break certain components (effectively the same as uninstalling), just another method to accomplish the same end.

I believe you might just be confused here. I understand your frustration and point, but ultimately this is not what you think it is.

This "kill switch" is not to protect you, this switch is to protect the vendor and network from damage caused by competing or malicious software.

Truthfully, they (Apple, AT&T, Google, etc) don't really care if you install some software that kills your phone -- thats your problem, just like MS doesn't care if you kill your PC.

What they care about is ensuring the integrity of their market share and stability of their network remain as high as possible. If this means building in an infrastructure to remove these applications, then yes they will do it and it will be documented in your end-user license agreement.

lol -- was just thinking... If Apple had an "iPhone Integrity" product for $10.00/year that could guarantee the automated removal of any malicious software that may have been installed, I think you'd be surprised at how many people would actually sign up.

It's all about perception... just have to figure out the right way to tell people.

 

[BillyShears]

Are the phone networks really that vulnerable?

Even for a small personal disaster, your phone is your best friend. Get in a car crash, dial 911, but can't talk? It'll help them locate you through triangulation and/or GPS. I think this is the major liability above and beyond identity theft. Which do you think carries a larger financial reward in a tort: loss of money or loss of life (the most valuable thing anybody possesses)?

It depends on how much money and who's life.

I don't know how you will establish damages from the Internet going down compared to the value of a phone network going down. I think both are "worth" a lot, and I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere arguing which is worth more.

What I am more interested in, and I think this precedes any discussion of the "value" of either network, is how vulnerable these networks are. The Internet isn't exactly vulnerable to attack. You might get the occasional DDoS, but I haven't heard of any instance where the Internet has gone offline.

I'd be interested to know if the phone networks are somehow more vulnerable. Can a malicious app really take down the network? This is what Jobs has said, but I've never seen anything supporting this. It seems like a rather poorly-designed network if that's the case, and I would imagine a crafty hacker could take it down by disabling Apple's killswitch or creating a new device. I think the solution to such a poor network should be fixing the network, not restricting the clients. That is just bad practice, unless there is something I am missing about phone networks (admittedly I do not know much about the subject).

 

[elppa]

To people defending the killswitches, I guess you would have to say you would want one on your Mac too, or explain why mobile phones are different from personal computers.

Due to the good stewardship of phone operators, people expect their phones software to work each time every time.

Due to the bad stewardship of Microsoft, the vast majority of people have very different expectations for their PC.

It's just a case of consumer expectation.

I imagine this idea of the vendor taking proper responsibility for the products they ship (not just passing it off onto their customers as their problem ala Microsoft) will be a emerging theme in the smart phone area.

Analogous to when a parent takes proper responsibility for their child, a vendor that might not always make popular decisions. But the decisions will nearly always be made for the right reasons — to keep their customers safe and happy.

I don't see how these 'kill switches' are worthy of press. It's a simple concept. If an application happens to skip the radar and it has some sort of malicious tendency, then yes, I don't think anyone would disagree, it should be removed from all devices immediately in order to save the users of the device from a mass of trouble.

It puzzles why did Microsoft never think of this earlier. It would have saved a lot of people a lot of time and hassle.

Especially as before XP got patched up was basically a free for all on the net (without third party help).

Truthfully, they (Apple, AT&T, Google, etc) don't really care if you install some software that kills your phone

Actually Apple at least do, because each time it happens it is a lost hardware sale for them. And they make money on hardware. Not only that, they have to earn every sale from consumers who choose their products over their competitors.

This is why they have kill switches and tight controls on third party applications. This is also why OS X Leopard has moved to tigten controls (certificates, sandboxing etc.) even though OS X has never had the sort of problems with security other platforms have suffered from.

MS doesn't care if you kill your PC.

Yes, MS don't care. They still get the licensing fee regardless.

If you want to buy a PC you only get choice on hardware (only in a small number of cases do you get a software choice and this has been recent breakthrough).

This is why their platform has been exploited many times in the real world with malware, spyware and viruses.

 

[farmboy]

Chill.

I am well aware that these measures are not foolproof. What you are missing is that given that I am taking such measures to protect my data and that I made no agreement for them to take such important data, they would be circumventing a technological measure taken to secure access to private data and be civily and criminally liable for such an act. If caught I would have the option then to seek prosecution and compensation for punitive damages.

I have no reason to speculate on that. I never stated that these killswitches absolutely mean that Apple, Google or anyone else will absolutely use them. My argument is that they have the option and I just want the option to opt out and block their potential use of the killswitch.

I do not need a killswitch for a possible malicious program. I am not in the habit of simply clicking and downloading a program. Before downloading and installing any software I read about it and decide whether I find the company trustworthy or not and if I will be able to easily remove the program if I do not like it. In the many years of both Mac and Windows ownership I have not had any malicious software take over my system nor installed software that could not be removed.

You've used a lot of electrons here over "potential" abuses. Just so you're clear, everyone and every corporate entity has the potential to do anything---good or evil---at any time, so I don't understand your fear, especially in the TOTAL ABSENCE of any evidence of the exercise of this supposedly abusive power. Relax.

 

[solmaker]

Heresy dept: There are a lot of advantages to the wide-open Windows Mobile (WinCE) platform compared to the closed iPhone and Android platforms. I'm a longtime Windows and Macintosh programmer who is a big Apple fan with nothing but Mac laptops at home and an iPod Touch in my knapsack. But for cell phone purposes, I'm a happy user of a loaded overclocked 2-year-old Cingular 8125 Windows Mobile 5 PocketC, which has performed flawlessly for me for many purposes. I even have DOS running on it! Despite its outmoded hardware (the HTC Touch Pro would be the latest equivalent), from the start it has been able to do just about everything and more that the iPhone is just beginning to touch with the introduction of the AppStore. Its 2-year-old graphics and interface are not as good out of the box as the well-designed iPhone - but it is OPEN, and I can put whatever software I want on it, and none of it will be killed from afar by the mother ship. As an example, a really good tethering solution exists on the WinCE platform (http://wmwifirouter.com) - it's not practical for my old Cing 8125, but should work fine on later models such as the Touch Pro. I'm no fan of much of anything Microsoft has produced since WinXP, but I really LIKE what's possible with these Windows Mobile PocketPCs. They're not for everybody, and the iPhone is obviously a better choice for many/most - but for some of us, PocketPC phones can be pretty great.

 

[BillyShears]

Due to the good stewardship of phone operators, people expect their phones software to work each time every time.

Due to the bad stewardship of Microsoft, the vast majority of people have very different expectations for their PC.

...

Analogous to when a parent takes proper responsibility for their child, a vendor that might not always make popular decisions. But the decisions will nearly always be made for the right reasons — to keep their customers safe and happy.

So then, you would be in favour of Apple having a killswitch for your Mac's apps? Personally I do not want Apple to have a "parent-child" relationship with me; I would like to think I have control of my Mac, and I trust myself more than I trust Apple to know which apps I want to remove. But if that's your position, I'm not sure I can say anything to dissuade you, except that people like me should be able to opt out of the killswitch. If this is only a matter of expectations, I should be able to opt out because I would then expect my apps to act up from time to time.

 

[jayducharme]

Mossberg not so thrilled

There's been a focus on Mossberg's positive review of the G1, but both in his video and his written article he's much more critical of it -- and in fact gives the nod for superiority to the iPhone. He spends the first part of his review praising Android and the physical phone, but in the second part pretty much admits that the device leaves a lot to be desired. Some of his points:

-- Users are tied to Google for synching data

-- There's no ability to off-load data to a PC or Mac (yet)

-- Multimedia support is poor at this point

-- The physical keyboard isn't very comfortable to use

-- The device has limited memory, and would cost quite a bit more to upgrade to the level of the basic iPhone (using an 8 gb SD card)

-- The G1 is a "touch" device, but not a "multi-touch" device, which adds steps to procedures (like resizing an image) and is more clunky to use

-- T-Mobile's 3G rollout is pathetic

All these negatives don't quite add up to a stunning success. Plus, IMO from watching the video, the interface looks rather crude, with lots of drop down menus. Note how selections just sort of pop on and off the screen, leaving you unsure whether you've just done what you think you did. Mossberg says you can customize the home screen, but dropping blocky icons there doesn't seem very appealing to me.

With some serious tweaking, Android could present some competition for the iPhone. But for now, it's just a poor man's imitation.

 

[elppa]

So then, you would be in favour of Apple having a killswitch for your Mac's apps?

I wouldn't be completely opposed to it, because just like the iPhone they'd probably never need to use it, but it would be sensible to have just in case.

If I went sky diving I'd like to have two parachutes. I wouldn't expect to need to use the second one but it would be sensible to have just in case.

Personally I do not want Apple to have a "parent-child" relationship with me; I would like to think I have control of my Mac, and I trust myself more than I trust Apple to know which apps I want to remove.

The idea I was trying to convey was that some decisions whilst not popular with everyone may be for the right reasons in the long run. This was why I was using the parent child relationship.

Apple's relationship with their customers is nothing like this, for a start the customer chooses Apple. Children don't get to choose their (biological) parents.

But if that's your position, I'm not sure I can say anything to dissuade you, except that people like me should be able to opt out of the killswitch.

I'm not in one position or the other. It's not really a black and white issue. It depends how a “kill switch” would be used. If it is only used in worst case scenarios then sure, why not, cause it's likely you wouldn't want those apps on you computer/phone anyway if they are malicious.

The problem is we are discussing here is that on the one hand consumers can't expect everything to be fully open, free and able to be tinkered with and on the other hand expect everything to be secure and reliable. There is a compromise somewhere between the two, but they are fundamentally conflicting ideas.

If this is only a matter of expectations, I should be able to opt out because I would then expect my apps to act up from time to time.

Of course you have choice. You can go buy products without a kill switch.

No one forces you to buy Apple's products.

 

[elppa]

-- Users are tied to Google for synching data

-- There's no ability to off-load data to a PC or Mac (yet)

-- Multimedia support is poor at this point

-- The physical keyboard isn't very comfortable to use

-- The device has limited memory, and would cost quite a bit more to upgrade to the level of the basic iPhone (using an 8 gb SD card)

-- The G1 is a "touch" device, but not a "multi-touch" device, which adds steps to procedures (like resizing an image) and is more clunky to use

-- T-Mobile's 3G rollout is pathetic

All these negatives don't quite add up to a stunning success.

These flaws are obvious to most people of sound and sensible mind. As you say, these flaws are arguably not going to result in the stunning success of the G1.

Arguably some of these flaws are bigger than the flaws on the original iPhone.

Still the usual suspects will still hail this phone as the iPhone killer. Six months later, when it hasn't killed anything, they will write another article attributing Apple's success to or some other reason other than the reason the iPhone sells well (i.e. it's a good product that people want to buy).

 

[HiRez]

It's ridiculous for people to be complaining about this. Of course you would want that protection, I know I would build that in if I were building phone software. When Apple or Google actually uses that to start eliminating apps that they just don't like, then people can legitimately complain. Google needs this even more than iPhone does because Google apps are not prescreened.

If you find a wooden baseball bat in someone's house, do you immediately assume they like to go out and club baby seals? Sure, they could be clubbing baby seals with it, but it's far more likely the bat is sitting there to play baseball with or protect themselves in case someone breaks into their home.

 

[megfilmworks]

With the obvious flaws and lousy 3G from Tmobile
(if you think at&t is bad, you should try the T)
An ugly form factor, and no real buzz, the G phone has major problems.
Add the weakest consumer spending in decades and I see only one outcome:
The G phone will follow the Kindle to the tarpits of history.
EPIC FAIL!

 

[NJPitcher]

First of all:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603110.html

Good to see that apparently this is "different" than Apple's kill-switch, because of the way it was disclosed? Absurdity, but anyways.

You bought the phone from Apple. Apple did not impose this phone upon you. If you do not like the idea of a phone-maker being able to kill apps, then don't buy the phone. Buy another phone. I would just like to point out that seeing as no phone has been made that allows you to download user-made apps without the phone-maker having a kill-switch, then MAYBE there's a legitimate reason for this switch.

Follow it further - if there's no actual benefit to a kill-switch, why would it be implemented? What would Apple or Google gain from the ability to kill whichever apps they want, if they only want to use it to kill non-malicious apps? I think they could care less about playing god with meaningless apps. This is for your protection, open your eyes.

But if that's your position, I'm not sure I can say anything to dissuade you, except that people like me should be able to opt out of the killswitch. If this is only a matter of expectations, I should be able to opt out because I would then expect my apps to act up from time to time.

Unfortunately, your apps "acting up" has the ability to affect my phone, because we're constantly connected to the carrier. If you had the ability to opt out, downloaded an app that killed the carrier or became malicious through the carrier, then you better believe I'm gonna kick your ass for being so stupid as to opt out of the kill-switch. Your opting out would not only affect you, but potentially everyone on the carrier, and THAT'S why you don't have the right to opt out.

 

[BillyShears]

Consolidating discussion

I'm going to try to consolidate my points here, because I am replying to a lot of people and some have similar arguments.

Anyway, for me it boils down to:

(1) If the killswitch is designed to protect the user from himself, then there should be an opt out mechanism.

(2) If the killswitch is designed to protect the network from malicious apps (as Jobs said), then I would like to see some proof that mobile phone networks are this insecure. If they are, then the networks should secure themselves, because it will only be a matter of time before someone hacks their iPhone to disable the killswitch, or they use a different device altogether to take down the network. It doesn't seem like blacklisting apps is any way to secure a network. There may be something I don't understand here, but it seems implausible to me that a rogue app can take down an entire network.

A lot of people are saying:

"If you don't like it, don't buy it"
That's obviously true. If I don't like a feature enough, I won't buy the product. But I don't see why that should stop criticism ("whining") about the product's design. People like talking about product design, finding out what works and what doesn't.

"Wait until they actually use it before complaining!"
I agree they haven't misused it, and I think that's good. But I still think it's bad design. It doesn't instil confidence in the platform that an app can be disabled at any given moment.

 

[X38]

Admittedly I skipped the whole text message & pre-iphone smart-phone era. (I was probably the last analog cell phone user and went straight from an old Moto Vader to the iphone.)
That being said, I really do not understand the hang-up on having a physical keyboard on a phone. The virtual keyboard on the iphone works amazingly well and took me only a matter of minutes to get comfortable with. I can't imagine how a phone sized chiclet keyboard would be any better, or even as good. All that a physical keyboard does is add extra weight and thickness to burden your pocket, mess up the operating form factor to make it harder to use as a handheld, and add extra parts to break.
The paranoia over not having a physical keyboard reminds me of the paranoia of giving up command line interfaces when the Mac came out. In another 5 to 10 years all hand held devices will have virtual keyboards only, nobody will even imagine that it could be otherwise, and 99% will forget that it was Apple that lead the way.

 

[X38]

Doesn't matter. I trust Google more than Apple [...].

That seems a bit naive. Remember, Apple makes all their money by selling products & services directly to you. You give them money, they give you a product or service, end of transaction. On the other hand, Google gives you stuff for free because somebody else pays them to help them gain access to your thoughts. Either to inject advertising for other people's products into your thoughts or to do research on your thoughts to sell to other people interested in what you think.

I prefer the Apple model a LOT more. I understand and trust the clear and limited purpose of the transaction of paying cash for a specific product or service. I am VERY careful about my dealings with Google. 'Free' searches for information on the internet are nice, but I will never trust them for anything else and even that sparingly. Google doesn't have half the money in the world because they are a bunch of altruists who give stuff away for free. They are just very clever about hiding the methods of payment, which is what makes them more scary than Apple.

I'm not saying don't use Google at all; just don't be so naive about the relationship.

Remember;
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!

 

[kdarling]

Google's kill switch is only for apps downloaded from the Android Market, which they apparently feel as responsible for as Apple does for their store.

However, Android apps loaded from elsewhere are not affected.

PS. Someone mentioned what you agree to with software updates. Quite true. Ever read the iPhone / touch update agreement when we got Google location services? It allows them to, even in realtime, log and display every phone's search requests by location.

I wonder what would happen if a group of iPhones in one location should make simultaneous searches for "terrorism" or "IEDs" ?

 

[Konstanty]

Because the national phone network is a hell of a lot more important than your home gaming machine? Because spysweeper and antivirus programs are commmon and well-understood in most computers systems but non-existant and difficult to push on consumers for their ipod/phone? Because carriers are opening themselves up like never before and need to make sure nothing pops up out there that disables their entire business?

So then...how does any of this apply to the iPod Touch?

 

[MillieWales]

....
"Wait until they actually use it before complaining!"
I agree they haven't misused it, and I think that's good. But I still think it's bad design. It doesn't instil confidence in the platform that an app can be disabled at any given moment.

It does instil confidence for others though. Personally I don't believe Apple will use it to annoy me, I like many others spend far too much with them to have Apple make me go elsewhere, they only make money if people buy their stuff. So why would they simply delete apps for the fun if it? I believe they will use it if an app is genuinely malicious, and I'm glad of that. They of course might use it to simply delete an app that they no longer want around, maybe they are going to bring out a competing app themselves, but I doubt that, its too dangerous and would give them so much bad press it would be one of the worst choices they ever made.

Again, just because they have the tools doesn't mean they will use them in a bad way. Plenty of Americans legally own guns, and a gun can very easily kill, does that make every American gun owner a killer or even a potential killer?

 

[BillyShears]

It does instil confidence for others though. Personally I don't believe Apple will use it to annoy me, I like many others spend far too much with them to have Apple make me go elsewhere, they only make money if people buy their stuff.

It's not a matter of why they delete the apps, it's that they could. Maybe a couple years down the road they have new management, and they decide to adopt a different policy. Maybe they do it by accident. Who knows. I just don't like that they can.

More importantly, I have yet to see a good reason that they should be able to disable apps on people's phones. These are points (1) and (2) I outlined above. If there's no good reason for the killswitch, it doesn't matter how minimal their usage of it is: it's still a bad thing.