Slashdot Mirror
Apple Can Remotely Disable iPhone Apps
mikesd81 writes "Engadget reports Apple has readied a blacklisting system which allows the company to remotely disable applications on your device. It seems the new 2.x firmware contains a URL which points to a page containing a list of 'unauthorized' apps — a move which suggests that the device makes occasional contact with Apple's servers to see if anything is amiss on your phone. Jonathan Zdziarski, the man who discovered this, explains, 'This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while to find out what applications it should turn off. At the moment, no apps have been blacklisted, but by all appearances, this has been added to disable applications that the user has already downloaded and paid for, if Apple so chooses to shut them down. I discovered this doing a forensic examination of an iPhone 3G. It appears to be tucked away in a configuration file deep inside CoreLocation.'" Update: 08/11 13:07 GMT by T : Reader gadgetopia writes with a small story at IT Wire, citing an interview in the Wall Street Journal, in which this remote kill-switch is "confirmed by Steve Jobs himself."
It's better than having a lot of malicious programs out there, using data or sending personal information, with no way of recalling them.
Shouldn't be used unless it's deemed "dangerous".
"I am rich" for instance is a legitimate app, although without much purpose. But let's be honest, a lot of apps in the app store has little or no purpose. A 12$ flash light, anyone?
I still don't get why it was pulled.
Let rich idiots throw their money away on tat.
How about we stop pretending that philosophical issues are the most important things when someone buys a product? Yeah, Apple products are more closed and restrictive, but they work for me. And until I get burnt by them bad enough to consider switching, I have no problem with them. I mean, they do behave pretty well for a Corporation. No need to spread FUD at the first sight of something that may not be ideal.
This sort of problem is now years past the place where it can be solved by "voting with your dollars," or hoping that exposing the problem will create bad PR and shame the company into correcting it.
I don't know what parts of our constitution are still operative today, but if we can't get the public interested in privacy rights, get Congress interested in passing appropriate legislation, making "phoning home" against the law--and getting those laws enforced--then Apple and Microsoft and Sony and everyone else will continue to do whatever is technologically feasible, convenient, and supportive of their corporate goals.
It's naive to think that there are Good Companies and Evil Companies and that the answer is to put your faith in the Good Companies.
Of course, I do hope that exposing the problem creates bad PR and shames Apple into fixing it.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
More and more it feels like every iPhone belongs to Steve - people are just leasing it from him. There's just *no way* a phone should contact another server without the user knowing it or expressly permitting it, and there's absolutely no way in hell it should disable an application which the user deliberately installed, period. The end.
It's probably in the terms and conditions of ownership, and thus every owner has given permission already.
It's not like Apple is collecting user information here. It's a HTTP GET as far as I can tell, with no information being supplied to Apple, just a list of applications that are bad and that the user shouldn't run for their own protection.
Going beyond this into the realm of assuming that apple are collecting user data, disabling applications they just don't like, etc, is stupidity on the level of people who believe in conspiracy theories.
I always enjoy old adages being proved right. In this case "A fool and his money are soon parted."
I just wish I'd been the one to think of marketing an app to the terminally stupid.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Apple really does have an incredible buisness model. Lesser companies work out what people want then try to provide that to them at the lowest cost. Apple tells it's fans what they should want and then sells it to them for a remarkably high price. I never would have thought such a system would work.
That business model is called religion.
Gosh, there are some patronising people around today aren't they. My wife gave me an iPod Touch as a gift and as an atheist I can tell you that it is a really rather splendid device. It has flaws (the biggest being a very low-level, volume independent hiss on audio - a pretty big problem for a music player) but other than that, I love it.
I paid for the 2.0 software update and yes, I've downloaded a heap of apps (and paid for one). It works very well, it has a pleasing form factor and yes it is expensive, but not outrageously so.
So a little less of the old high-horse.
... that as soon as someone dares to post something other than the usual expressions of paranoia and criticism, other less free-minded individuals accuse him of sheep mentality, or drinking the kool aid? Someone else has to see the irony in that!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
[quote]you are taking advantage of other's stupidity, and benefitting at their expense (very different from benefitting while benefitting others).[/quote]
How is this wrong as long as you don't mislead them.
If I try to sell a shiny piece of rock for a stupidly high price and even put up a big sign saying "THIS DOES NOTHING USEFUL, ALL IT DOES IS SHOW YOU CAN AFFORD IT!"
How am I doing anything at all wrong?
I haven't lied, I haven't cheated, I haven't climed my shiny rock will keep tigers away.
I'm basicly saying "if you give me $1000 I will give you something to show you're so wealthy that you could give me $1000 for the hell of it."
If someone chooses of their own free will to hand me money then who are you to say they shouldn't be allowed to spend their money how they wish.
"you encourage a culture of overconsumption, which, in the long term, is not sustainable for the projected populations we are looking at, and is not necessary."
Ya cause making a copy of a piece of useless software puts such a strain on our natural environment.
If you follow that argument then every industry based on selling status symbols is evil and immoral.
If I try to sell a shiny piece of rock for a stupidly high price and even put up a big sign saying "THIS DOES NOTHING USEFUL, ALL IT DOES IS SHOW YOU CAN AFFORD IT!"
...a nice, subtle reference to the diamond industry.
Nice.
malicious app kill switch
"For your security."
"For your own good."
"For the children."
I've got a message for Apple, quite simple - I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want on my iPhone, or any other computing device I own.
If you can't understand that, and continue down this road, then the chances of my buying an iPhone (of any generation) are most definitely going to diminish to nothingness.
I already kicked Verizon to the curb for locking down the phone and trying to force me into their own ridiculous $/month ringtone service when I have perfectly good midi, wav, and mp3 files to make ringtones of myself. Don't think I won't go to a provider that has the sense to let me work with things MY way.
All fine and good, but I'd counter-argue that if YOU can't comprehend why it's potentially very BENEFICIAL for a carrier to be able to globally "kill off" some new app that turns out to be a trojan horse, leaking out your private information everywhere ... then I don't know what to tell you, really?
It's one thing to claim you're "perfectly capable of deciding for yourself what you want on your phone" ... but another for that statement to be truly 100% accurate.
Working in I.T. as long as I have, I, too, like to feel "in control" of the devices I use. Most of the time, I know what I'm *trying* to install and leave out on the computers I use. But the problem comes in because none of us have time (or even the ability) to audit the source code for each program we install. We have to go on faith that apps do what they say, most of the time. We can pay other people to act as "watchdogs" for us, which is essentially what paid subscriptions for anti-virus/anti-spyware software really are. But ultimately, we still have to trust SOMEONE, or else we'd never install ANY new software on a computer, a phone, or other electronic device, out of fear it might destroy our data or send it where it's not supposed to go!
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want on my iPhone, or any other computing device I own.
I'm sure you are, but it is an iPhone, for crissakes. If you want complete control over devices, why are you even looking at apple's products?
semantics are everything!