Android Also Comes With a Kill-Switch

Aviran writes "The search giant is retaining the right to delete applications from Android handsets on a whim. Unlike Apple, the company has made no attempt to hide its intentions, and includes the details in the Android Market terms and conditions, as spotted by Computer World: 'Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion.'"

Comments

oh well...

[Coraon]

and here I was looking forward to this phone for the reason I would be able to add whatever apps I wanted. Google please do not become apple.

Sounds like their marketplace only?

[AvitarX]

"Developer Distribution Agreement" Sounds like it applies to their marketplace.

We are still going to be allowed to install our own apps though right? I hope so, and from what I can tell from TFS it won't apply there.

Android is not Open

[Microlith]

People go on and on about how Android is Linux based and Open Source, but it's not. The Linux backend is all but invisible and likely just as locked down as the Linux installs on other embedded devices. You are not going to be able to easily replace it, assuming you can even get close enough to the system to have a hope of doing so. Tivo, all over again.

Google is doing everything in the Java environment precisely to put you in a sandbox they (and the cell networks) can control. Sure the developer agreement is not quite as onerous as the one Apple uses, but it's certainly just as controlling when necessary.

And, sadly, so long as the cell carriers are seen as the customers of these phones, we'll only get more user-hostile phones that implement every security measure they can to keep you from doing what you want with your hardware.

Re:Only for Google App Store applications

[Locklin]

Really, it makes sense. Imagine 2 million people download "punch a monkey" via the Google store. The malware, not surprisingly, racks up data access fees for customers. Who will get blamed by customers? Google. Seems like a good idea to have a way to kill it, particularly if customers are free to install from other, more "risky" repositories if they wish.

"On a whim"

[qoncept]

"violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, ..." != "on a whim"

Cell phone network is not Open

[itsdapead]

If someone really wants to produce a fully open, Four Freedoms-safe, Stallman-friendly cellphone, they'll have to set up a fully open, Four Freedoms-safe, Stallman-friendly network to run it on. Which probably means someone kindly donating a few squillion for the infrastructure.

The internet got close to that by starting off below the radar. The comms companies will not let that happen again.

Obligatory TNG reference...

[Etcetera]

Data: If you had an off switch, Doctor, would you not keep it a secret?

soforkit

[Gewalt]

So take the OS source, fork it, and update your phone. There, kill switch is gone.

Re:soforkit

[nmg196]

If HTC (or any hardware manufacturer) let you install completely bespoke firmware images on your phone, then they'd have no control over what code you ran on the phone. You could accidentally or intentionally create firmware images which crashed or disrupted the phone networks they were connected to. The network operators would then be very quick to block all Android phones and the handset makers wouldn't be able to sell them anymore - Androids name would turn to mud. I'm pretty sure the firmware images have to be signed by the hardware manufacturer or all hell would break loose.

Re:soforkit

[characterZer0]

Security rule #1: don't trust the client.

Re:soforkit

[Microlith]

There's a reason the baseband firmware and the application firmware (Android) tend to run on seperate CPUs with seperate RAM and flash storage. These then connect to the system via a serial or USB link.

There's no real good reason to not let users update their own user space firmware with whatever they want other than the simple reasons of DRM and user-control.

Re:soforkit

[Gewalt]

Your comment doesnt actually make any sense. If the network was so unstable, people would be crashing it for fun out of their own garages. You don't need a handset to cause the type of chaos you're worried about here. Disregarding your paranoia, why would HTC care what software a customer runs on their purchased hardware? Oh, right. Cause HTC doesnt sell to consumers, it sells to telcos. The telco doesnt want to lose control, so the telco is the one demanding these lockin capabilities.

Re:soforkit

[HansF]

They won't let you. This is the reason GPLv3 is important.

Re:Hands up if you don't like this...

[uberlinuxguy]

One of the 'control' mechanisms that central repositories like Ubuntu and other Linux OS'es have is that the software that is added to the repository is vetted. The repository admins and the community behind the repository 'audit' the programs before they are added to the repository. Once they are deemed safe, they are signed and added. This removes the need for remote deletion privileges. A simple QA process for incoming software would help instead of saying that they could delete software from your phone.

When was the last tiem your Ubuntu system deleted a piece of software because the admins said it should?