Slashdot Mirror
Google Remotely Nukes Apps From Android Phones
itwbennett writes "Google disclosed in a blog post on Thursday that it remotely removed two applications from Android phones that ran contrary to the terms of the Android Market. From the post: 'Recently, we became aware of two free applications built by a security researcher for research purposes. These applications intentionally misrepresented their purpose in order to encourage user downloads, but they were not designed to be used maliciously, and did not have permission to access private data — or system resources beyond permission.INTERNET. As the applications were practically useless, most users uninstalled the applications shortly after downloading them. After the researcher voluntarily removed these applications from Android Market, we decided, per the Android Market Terms of Service, to exercise our remote application removal feature on the remaining installed copies to complete the cleanup.' The blog post comes a day after security vendor SMobile Systems published a report saying that 20% of Android apps provide access to sensitive information."
Update: 06/25 16:44 GMT by S : Clarified last sentence, which incorrectly suggested that 20% of Android apps were malicious. According to the report (PDF, which we discussed recently), "a majority of these applications were developed with the best of intentions and the user data will likely not be compromised.
They removed an app that violated the terms of service.
Seriously, stop with the fear mongering. Although I trust google as far as I can throw their data centers, citing false reports and spreading misinformation is just stupid.
Also, as pointed out in the previous article, those 'exposing' apps can only take what information you expressly give them. Thus it is not news.
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
security vendor SMobile Systems published a report saying that 20% of Android apps are malicious.
No, the report said that 20% of apps require access to sensitive data (ie your address book) or functionality to perform their job. You'd think people would have noticed by now if 1 in 5 Android apps were "malicious".
which is totally what she said
This raises again the question wherever we need to call murder and fire about privacy and "it's my phone don't touch it" kindof thing.
OTOH, the marketplace is a "trusted content provider" in control and under the responsability of google. In that regard, I think they have the right and obligation to "keep the market clean", for me it would become unacceptable if they start to remove applications who are "breaching vague copyright claims", and take a weak stance or remove applications on nonsene like that.
If the application would've advertized or mentioned it was "for research purposes", I don't think google should've removed it.
But it's my phone, and if I want to run malicious software on it, I feel I should be able to do so. But I cannot expect the "marketplace" to hold malicious software because I want that possibility.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Why do they have to have or at least exercise this feature of the ToS?
Why couldn't they just get a list of those who have it installed (surely they know that?) and then email them? Beats this draconian/big brother approach in my opinion...
ilovegeorgebush
I dunno, wasn't the hype that Android is all open and based on Linux, and _totally_ unlike the iron grip that Steve Jobs has on the iPhone?
And weren't most of us ranting about how even DRM and "Trusted Computing" are bad because someone else gets to decide what you can or can't run on your computer? When did _that_ become good if it's Google doing it?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Yes, and you'd think that "itwbennett," the submitter would know that, since he is affiliated with itworld (check his home page), the publisher of the linked articles.
Odd, that although he references a slashdot article from a few days ago, instead of linking to that article, or the article that links to (on CNET), or to the source of the report, or even to the report itself, he links to a rehash on itworld.
Tagged as a slashvertisement for self-promotion.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Just an FYI, even though Apple has some of the most draconian app policies ever--they have never remotely nuked an application from someone's phone. They have taken apps off of the market, but they have never actually removed it from your device. I ran GVMobile for a long time until it stopped properly authenticating, for example.
When you install apps from the market or elsewhere, Android prompts you in advance letting you know of all of the permissions this app requires.
There is with this at all. It is no different from random app X requiring my root password and prompting for it. If I trust the app and give it up, this is not a security issue.
This is how you allow apps to have access to these low level permissions, without disallowing them totally, liek Apple in it's walled garden.
It is why there are so many more in-depth Android apps than there are iPhone ones. You can replace the dialer, replace the address book, etc.
This company is fear-mongering about nothing to such a degreee that I wonder if they are on Apple's payroll.
So "when it's in service of a good cause," violating user privacy and the ability to own your phone is okay? Or is any measure acceptable if it's claimed to be to eliminate a risk? Or is it Google good, Apple bad, still? I'm very confused.
I don't want this. Not on Android. I specifically bought an Android phone to get away from the Apple control freakery. That was the only reason I wanted Android -- no big brother overseeing. Now I find that Google can throw a remote kill switch?
Do NOT want.
Yes I can see the argument that the app killing on this occasion was a Good Thing. But no, really it's a Bad Thing, because it represents the top of a slippery slope.
Hands off my phone please people who are not me!
I think that point is that if Apple did this it wouldn't just be shrugged off. The Android fanbois would be coming out of the wordwork to howl about how Apple is messing with people's phones.
When the app is clicked on, it should open a page that says: "Note: Google has determined this app to be malicious / in violation of terms of use. Tap here for a complete explanation. The app has been removed from the store, and running it is not safe. Tap here to safely and permanently remove this app"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
As an Apple fanboy who's tired of seeing the anti-Apple sensationalism in other postings (ok, even the blatantly pro-Apple sensationalism is annoying too), allow me to say that the 1-in-5 comment in the summary was absolute FUD. It really would be nice if story submissions were more about the story and less about furthering marketing agendas for/against a given product. I realize we're all passionate about our particular sections of geekdom but this is just getting pathetic. I think it's interesting that Google exercised their orbital nuke option (for a variety of reasons that I'm sure will be discussed in other threads below) but the little addendum to the story was completely irrelevant and served only one purpose - to troll. Would be nice if slashdot editors removed those extra tidbits.
This company is fear-mongering about nothing to such a degreee that I wonder if they are on Apple's payroll.
Or maybe, just maybe, the security vendor is on their own payroll and is attempting to drum up some fear and uncertainty and doubt in order to sell their own products. Kinda like all the other security vendors out there have been doing for years and years and years.
I gotta admit, I am laughing my ass off. After a year of listening to Slashdotters slam Apple for it's overly restrictive App store policies (Waaaa - I can't run any piece of crap app I want - waaaaa), it is like a breath of fresh air to see a *real* big brother operation in action. Google can remotely yank apps directly off that "completely open" phone? Priceless.
The days of user-managed consumer computing devices is just about over. The future is stringently managed devices and no unapproved applications. Why? The device manufacturers must ensure a seamless user experience - any hiccup in either hardware or application just helps sink a product in this highly competitive space. And OS manufacturers (not to mention the users) are fed up with security breaches and malware - better just to lock it all down, and eliminate the complaints and problems. The vast majority of users have no desire whatsoever to manage anything on their computers - they just want to buy and play the games or run apps that never crash. Keeping up with the latest viruses is something only totally uncool people do anymore.
The cowboy days are over, folks. The wild, wild west is becoming settled.
I think that point is that if Apple did this it wouldn't just be shrugged off. The Android fanbois would be coming out of the wordwork to howl about how Apple is messing with people's phones.
As one who is leaning strongly toward Android and won't buy an Apple iPhone for a number of reasons, some technical, some philosophical, some practical, I have to agree with this.
Having anything removed or tampered with by any outside agency on hardware I have purchased is unacceptable, full stop. I don't care what ToS conditions are buried forty pages down in the Android App store's click-through screen, in two-point type.
Google should not get a free pass on this, any more than Apple would, and it's made me reconsider my intended purchase very carefully. Not that I'm about to become an iSlave to Jobs ... but I am equally unwilling to become a gSlave to Google. This kind of unilateral tampering with other people's property, ToS or not, simply should not be condoned or tolerated, whatever their motivation.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy