Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Of course we already have a thread about this three news items down below on the frontpage for this: here.
"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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Yawn, yet another inflammatory Slashdot article.
The search giant is retaining the right to delete applications from Android handsets on a whim
Good use of 'whim', makes it seem utterly random rather than based on a particular criteria.
Yes, they can remove apps you buy at the App Store from your phone. Unlike Apple and the iPhone however, you can get applications from other places that aren't subject to the kill-switch.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I, for one, welcome a way to stop a potential robot uprising. But, I think robot's sufficiently intelligent to rebel, will also have figured out how to disable the switch.
I wonder if this was created as a concession to carriers? They have always been reluctant to relinquish control of handsets, and an open platform would seem very threatening to them.
For example, what if somebody writes an app to route SMS via voice channels and avoid the hefty charges? The carrier would want to know that they can pressure Google into killing that app.
There are probably valid arguments about malware, as well, but overall users will see this as unfriendly, and some of them will probably hack their devices to disable the kill switch.
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.
As I suggested in a previous thread, it sounds like the Android won't be an open smartphone like a Palm, Nokia, or Windows Mobile device. It's in the same almost-a-smartphone category as the iPhone.
Well, you lost my business Google. That's a major deal breaker. I don't like anyone having control over my stuff but me. The fact that they are so open about having it makes me think they won't be afraid to use it either.
... now, hands down if you're a malware writer.
Come on folks, how exactly this is news? One of the major advantages of a central repository for software is that you do have that central control, so you can require programs to be of a reasonable standard and can also disable malware or abusive software that makes it on there. It's a big advantage distributions like Ubuntu have over Windows.
*If* Google were to abuse this like Apple have done then yeah, it'll be bad. Until then it's just common sense.
"violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, ..." != "on a whim"
Whale
Is this measure not more about google being able to remove applications that weren't welcome in the first place? i.e. malware that the user isn't even aware is installed.
guess what i won't be buying...
If they delete an app you paid for, will they reimburse you?
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
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.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Data: If you had an off switch, Doctor, would you not keep it a secret?
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
It's at the "sole discretion" of Google. There's no provision for binding arbitration or litigation. So "whim" is correct.
If you want openness, get OpenMoko.
Everyone's complaining, but this is only the first phone ever released with Android. Any lockdown with the G1 is by T-Mobile. Nothing's stopping another carrier from getting a model built that doesn't have these problems, or HTC selling unlocked versions.
...someone will be able to distribute a patch that disables the kill switch. If no such patch is possible or violates the purchase contract then the "phone" is not Open Source.
If such a patch is possible but results in termination of service the system is technically Opne Source but useless as such.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So take the OS source, fork it, and update your phone. There, kill switch is gone.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
What, other than Palm and Windows Mobile?
"How did you...???" *Boooooooooooommmmmmmmm!!!!!!*
[citation needed]
I have never had any problems uploading crap to my phone on Sprint, but then again, it's not a smartphone, just an LG LX-150. Also, none of the features are disabled.
Google is doing everything in the Java environment precisely to put you in a sandbox they (and the cell networks) can control.
This is my problem with Android, you may as well go with Windows Mobile. They are just about as open. If you are concerned with freedom then you should get an OpenMoko FreeRunner. You can run whatever software you like on it in whatever language you want. There are plenty of other problem with OpenMoko, but software freedom is not one of them.
Don't you understand how John Connor was able to smash their security grid? Skynet's security was based on Windows Me.
Seemed like a good idea at the time. Skynet got tired of waiting for Windows 7, so they decided to concentrate on time travel instead.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
1) The US government signs net neutrality laws preserving the concept.
2) wireless providers continue selling and pushing their broadband wireless options
3) Investment into new wireless start up companies is some how encouraged and we get more competition in wireless access.
4) Everyone buys a network untethered wireless device that can connect to any broadband wireless service and they switch to VOIP for phone service.
It's a long shot, but it could happen. The government gave us the internet, they could work to try to preserve it as a tool for all people.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Well - good to know. No Android for me!
IANAL, but this could well be subject to legal challenge in the UK under a combination of the Computer Misuse Act and the Unfair Contract Terms Act. The first piece of legislation means that you're not allowed to run code, modify data or attempt to access a computer that doesn't belong to you without the owner's permission; the second places restrictions on the type of clauses that companies can place in contracts with consumers. If Google deleted an application that I'd previously paid for, they'd be skating on some very thin leagal ice.
LOL.
How many people sat here screaming how shitty the IPhone was, screaming they where waiting for Android and Google.
Sheesh, more of the same.
Thank GOD I had the forethought to actually purchase a working phone, with an OS I paid for that works (literally, 99.9 percent of the time). I can develop stuff for it, nobody can delete it, nobody can control it, etc.
Yup, I run Windows Mobile 6.0 and 6.1 (two different devices). They work, they work well, and I don't have many, if ANY, problems with them.
Of course, installing shitty apps causes battery life to deteriorate. I much prefer having control over my telephone, though, rather than having some socialistic company take control from me.
Linux based telephone, OSS, etc. Thank goodness my good old fashioned Win Mobile phones don't come with these problems. Oh yeah, and I can TETHER my phone to my laptop.
Gosh, MS is so evil. Thank GOD we have Google and Apple to show us the CORRECT way.
--Toll_Free
(sarcasm intentional. Yes, I have two WM 6.x phones. Yes, I like them. Yes, I have used an IPhone. Yes, I think the IPhone is overrated, overhyped, and nothing more than successful marketing (my phone does all the IPhone does, does it just as well, doesn't have the incumbrances, has a cheaper rate plan, etc), but that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place with (what we in the amateur radio community call) appliance operators. No, I haven't used an Android, nor do I see myself wasting money on something else someone else can control.)
YMMV, IANAL, insert other acronyms here. :)
Honestly why anyone is surprised at Google acting like a real company is a mystery. Since Google became a publicly traded company they only have one obligation.....
Making stockholders a profit
Few companies set out to do bad deeds but most won't rule them out. Google was supposed to be different. Regarding "Don't be evil"(tm), CEO Eric Schmidt recently clarified the policy saying that it was simply meant as a conversation starter.
Here's Google from good to bad...
+7.1 - Philanthropy
Creating a foundation to fight poverty.
+5.3 - Coddling staff
Establishing on-site day care as an employee perk.
-2.4 - Moral Triage
Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums on Orkut to assist an investigation into child pornography.The lesser of two evils is still pretty lame
-4.8 - Immaturity
Google's on going smear campaign against Privacy International for giving them a last place rank.
-6.7 - Screwing staff
Raising cost of on site day care to $57,000 per year.
-8.3 - Censorship
Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.
Source: Wired 16.10
One of the major advantages of a central repository for software is [...] It's a big advantage distributions like Ubuntu have over Windows.
Sure; that's fine. But Ubuntu doesn't come with a Canonical Remote Administration Account that lets Mark ssh into my box and delete my installed launchpad-competitor. What information I'm presented with says that Google will have that. How I installed the software Google deletes is pretty orthogonal to Google's ability to delete it.
P.S. We have entered into a distribution with Kraft, so don't even try to put in a competitor's product. Or even anything home-made that might resemble a Kraft product.
I know RTFA is out of fashion here... can't blame people if TFA isn't even the TFA but a F Blog Post -on- TFA, but all the same...
``In addition, Google says that if it does remotely remove an application, it will try to get users their money back, a question that iPhone users have wondered about in the case of an iPhone application recall. Google said that it will make "reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the product ... from the original developer on your behalf." If Google fails to get the full amount back, it will divide what it gets among affected users.`` - http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9117279&source=rss_news , AKA: TRealFA
I can only imagine how people would react if their homebuilders decided that they were allowed to come in and re-paint your walls if you changed them to a color they didn't like. Oh, don't worry, we'll only do it if you install REALLY UGLY colors!
If this were Microsoft there would be fiery brimstone falling on Redmond from every blog in the world, but since this is Google (and Apple) we get tepid little stories like this.
Where is the outrage?
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
There are no limitations in the OpenMoko's hardware. All the "doesn't work" parts in latest OpenMoko phones are only in the Software Stack. Unlike Apple and Google, OpenMoko doesn't prohibit you from booting your own custom kernel + custom userspace. So as developers make better software, you can get latest builds and boot them. OpenMoko may not be having all the features that you want but it's definitely the way to go.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
So Google isn't trying to hide the kill switch, yet it took people longer to find than the one in the iPhone.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
While M$ still ranks as the empire of evil in my mind, it seems that every day Google with its multitude of Googleplexes and googlers is about to overtake M$, and become one with the dark side.
I work tech for an insurance company and we have this ability for blackberrys, it has been extremely useful in the past to kill applications off a device when that devices security has been compromised.
In addition, wouldn't this give them the power to kill an app if it were virused?
What about an app that was designed with malicious intent to shut down the phone systems?
I mean I can see where we all have tinfoil hats, but sometimes this kind of legalize is necessary to give a company some headroom to protect its investment.
What really confuse me about those type of products is not that companies appears to get away with this. It that us, the consumer, actually support them.
"The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
I'm not buying anything where "the man" can kill something on it remotely. Screw that. Never going to happen, sorry!!!
the kill switch would be under user control. You'd be able to mark unkillable apps. Then, if you downloaded punch-the-monkey by stupidity, it wouldn't be marked, and it could be remotely killed.
The bit about "at Google's discretion" is the giveaway. I'll stay with openmoko, thanks.
Now I can't bring the Yahoo and MSN Live search to the Android platform :(
You know, I've found a kill switch to be particularly useful. I've installed one on all of my machines. It's even a third party switch that chooses which programs are good and bad for me. It's called AVG.
I'm curious how this affects the sort of safe harbour-ish thinking that says you're legally safe if you don't know what's happening and if anyone can use you for good purposes. But hanging out a kill-switch means you expect to review and approve (or, potentially, remove) apps which means Google would suddenly be liable for anything written with Android???
This situation reminds me of the pre-Carterfone phone system, in which the phone company (there was only one, which is a reminiscence for another day) prohibited attachment of "foreign" devices. If they didn't make it, you couldn't attach it. They'd even 'ping' your wiring to make sure you didn't have any unauthorized extras on the line. It took the Carterfone decision to get rid of that prohibition, leading to today's ability to attach anything we want, so long as it doesn't harm the system. I hope that we'll eventually get something like that for these new phones so that we're not subject to somebody else's ideas of what we're allowed to run on our own hardware.
i was waiting for android to come out, holding on purchasing another phone. for some godforsaken reason, i dont know why, i was thinking that since google was doing it, android would be better, since they have been sufficiently reliable on the web.
now i find out that an external company is going to control what i do on MY phone if i buy android, regardless of it is google or not.
the most polite thing i can say to google on it, after making me wait like this and popping that crap - shove it up your butt, where it belongs. also pay my respects to the brainless moron who thought that this kind of policy was a good idea.
Read radical news here
Well if it was not specifically stated, then they also would be faced with the possibility of lawsuits for exercising this "feature", thus discouraging them from using it in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I like being informed, but I also know that sometimes being informed can give other parties certain rights they would not necessarily have had otherwise.
I guess I'll have to stay with the open (as in playground) solution, Windows Mobile...
I almost have an aneurysm saying that, but hey, it works. M$ can't delete MY software and neither can AT&T =)
Sprint's the other US carrier that's a member of the "Open Handset Alliance" (the group behind Android devices, versus the platform) and they made it damned clear that no phone that allows people to place random applications would be allowed on THEIR network. Apparently that's hard to monetize.
Didn't stop them from selling Palm and Pocket PC based phones.
wonder what will happen if I say "laputan machine".
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
Ing. Hell.
Who the fuck do they think they are?
...the Enterprise crew won't need to confuse them with astonishing logical conundra?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Once you own something, it is yours to do anything you like with it. If someone remotely "damages" your stuff (and deleting an application from your personal device could certainly be considered damage) that someone would be held legally liable for such damage. Agreeing to a EULA does not and cannot get them around this -- the state law trumps EULAs and I am sure most state judges would agree with that.
But with all this said, this is why I don't trust Google any further than I can throw them. They are marketing and advertising company. They use the eyes and ears of their users to make profit. I don't trust Chrome and I don't trust Google's phone.
If a stranger gave you free candy to eat, you might be a fool to eat it. If Google gives you free software to use, you can bet there are strings attached.
A not-quite-smartphone? With a "kill switch?" I'll pass. Now that HTC's offerings are really beginning to provide an excellent smartphone experience there's no reason to put up with the limitations designed into Android. I'll stick with my 6800 with a custom ROM for the time being.
After all these showcases which a central control mechanism fail badly.
People still love these things?
Of course, such a law is not enforceable except through the courts (that is, after the offense has occurred). My bet is that Google will be more than reasonable in their use of the kill-switch and no one will ever challenge the feature.
"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."
And you know mate, we have metered internet down here. When I worked at an ISP we had a customer who had a stupid kid who left a pair to pair application running - it racked up a high bill; our response? tough shit. We had another lady who was hacked and her computer was being used as a spam relay - same response to her; tough shit.
Its time end users pulled their head out of their ass and made sure their computer isn't getting compromised. If they're installing shit from unknown sources, opening any damn mail that comes through, and is pathetic ignorant about computers as not to install updates - I say tough shit. If they can't be bothered even learning the basics - they shouldn't even own a fucking computer to begin with. Stick with a typewriter and snail mail; leave the internet to people who have a fucking clue.
Same can be applied to mobile phones or any other damn device.
You need one to enforce the first law in the case of a severe malfunction.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Technically, Android is more locked down, yes.
Effectively, it's less. You can actually write any local, offline app you want, and distribute it pretty much any way you want. You don't have to code it in Java, you only have to target their pseudo-JVM.
Contrast to the iPhone -- yes, you can write native apps, and technically, you can do anything you want. But Apple has a truly massive list of restrictions, plus their own unpredictable whim, which determines whether or not you can run them.
So, in every way that counts, Android is looking less restrictive. If the only restriction is that your app runs somewhat slower, I really don't care. If they are placing restrictions on how you use the network, that's still an order of magnitude less restrictive than the iPhone.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If you want another full-time job, get OpenMoko.