Slashdot Mirror
Google Bans Sale of Android Spying App
dbune writes "Google is not letting a handset application that spies on someone's text messages be sold at its Android App Store. The Secret SMS Replicator developed by DLP Mobile to help lovers find out if their partners are cheating on them violates company policy, according to Google. The app works by secretly duplicating incoming text messages and forwarding these to another mobile phone number."
This is a good move by Google even if it will resemble Apple's 'app store governance' to some degree. Google needs to protect their customers/product (one and the same).
Seriously? You're example is the removal of a malicious app?
Living With a Nerd
DLP Mobile also tried to sell the app on Apple's iPhone app store but was rejected.
I doubt that. The iPhone walls off SMS messages from apps. Apple can't have rejected it - you can't write it.
Its rather Ironic that a company who's business relies on spying (cough) tracking what other people do should ban an app designed to track what people are doing.
how is it malicious? the person installing it has to have physical access to the phone. it's not like going to a website and downloading a virus
I used something like this on my wife's BlackBerry. Yes, she was cheating on me. I couldn't use the texts as evidence but they did help me catch her in the act.
I don't understand why apple does this. How is Steve Jobs censoring the android market place ?
Something seems very wrong with this, and I will never ever again touch an apple product, let alone purchase one.
Steve Jobs has gone too far this time !
Yea, as long as you only do what they think is ok. :-)
Isn't one of the advantages of Android the ability to install apps from other than the Google app store? So people who really want this thing can still get it, independently of Google's disapproving glare, right?
Genuinely curious about this.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
If the app is visible as other apps and clearly state the purpose in help texts, requires legitimate agreement with the owner of the phone, then it should be legal.
It's the problem of the owner of the phone if he or she is trusting the person.
There could be many legit uses of the app, for example parents have a right to check the messages of their kids if they want to.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Too late...the "first" guy already posted one. Wasn't even an AC!
Living With a Nerd
The apple app would be much more likely to need loop detection to avoid infinite multiplication of messages.. (this post only makes sense if you follow the link)
The difference is that you can install apps on Android phones without going through Google.
I mean, how can I jerk off to nudie pics of my son's high school girlfriend unless I can auto-forward all his incoming MMS to myself???
I'm switching to Apple...
It's malicious in exactly the same way as someone installing a USB keylogger in an internet cafe - they have to have physical access to the machine!
I am also entitled to send private investigators to investigate his / her extramarital relations, which includes legally taking pictures from a public place into his / her new partner's windows to prove impropriety. I can use this evidence in court to procure a favourable divorce settlement.
So what, exactly, is the problem with this app, Google? My right to legally investigate my partner is being taken away, possibly illegally, if all apps of this type are removed.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
It's malicious as in illegal. Your freedoms do not extend to covert snooping on other peoples conversations.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?
Exactly! How dare Google not help people do something illegal.
If so--then Google is making it 'hard' to install from a store other than their own. If not, then how does this yield any protection?
apparently you don't have teenage children
I thought illegal is the action of doing so, but I could install this app and forward the messages to my other phone or whatever. I don't think the app is illegal at all.
how is it malicious? the person installing it has to have physical access to the phone. it's not like going to a website and downloading a virus
What do you mean? How is "going to a website and downloading a virus" malicious?
The person 'installing it' (by downloading from the website) has to have physical access to the phone.
...only Outlaws will have Apps!
(with apologies to the NRA)
You can't have a completely open app store/market without allowing this sort of application just like you can't have complete freedom of speach without allowing people to freely distribute and download child pornography. Personally I don't want either.
Enjoy.
As much as YOUR post is an example of proper English. :)
It's still just a couple of touches away from being installed from a different location.
It's the equivelent of Blockbuster refusing to rent out adult movies. You can still find adult movies for rent...just not at Blockbuster.
This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.
Living With a Nerd
Windows?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Dammit. /seppuku
Living With a Nerd
isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?
Absolutely! It's amazing what you can do and still be more open than the App store.
Jokes aside, Google has a degree of responsibility over the apps that they sell to you. It's perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to sell an app which is specifically designed to be installed without the knowledge or consent of the phone's regular user and who's purpose is to spy on the regular user (with costing the owner money from extra SMSs as a side effect), as that can easily be considered illegal. If you really want this program on your phone then Android is open enough to let you install it, but you'll have to get it from somewhere other than Android Market.
But the program isn't illegal, just against the marketplace rules. The program MAY be used for illegal or malicious purposes...but so can a knife, gun, spork...etc. Maybe I work in an industry thats highly regulated or scrutinized. An app like this could save my job.
Shields Google from liability.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I wonder if the real reason is because someone without a good texting plan would go over the number of messages allowed and get a big bill?
K Man
It's kind of like taking a stance. Just because Staples refuses to sell malware from their stores doesn't mean all stores have to. But is Staples going to ever carry malware? No, because the inherent risk of abuse is too high.
Yes, but you hardly need to keep that hidden from yourself. I think that's the sticking point, not the app as such.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
And which mobile OS would that be that meets today's users? Symbian? WebOS (which is nice but sorely needs an update and hardware refresh to be competitive)?
The phone is open, not the Android Market. You can put apps on your Android phone without using a market, or you can install any number of markets not run by Google which may or may not let you sell anything you want. The official, Google run Android Market is not open and has never pretended to be. It's not nearly as closed as the Apple market, in that there's no preapproval process and there's very few things that will get you pulled, but Google reserves the right to pull whatever they want whenever they want.
There goes all the fuel behind the "Google's App Store is completely open" argument. And before everyone starts jumping all over me claiming how this is a good thing because this app is malicious..that's just a matter of opinion. I'm sure the first married man who discovers his wife is fucking one of his coworkers thanks to this app will have a vastly different opinion.
This app is obviously malware, so Google removed it. Why is this news?
You are an idiot.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
He could have spelled it "yore" :) I am as annoyed by misspelling of your/you're, there/their, thats/that's, then/than as you probably are. Turns out that complaining/correcting doesn't have any affect on the masses. But then again, I am not sure anyone has ever tried putting it on a road-side billboard yet... so let's get a "correct you're damned english" foundation put together and by some signage.
If you want to spy on your kids then install an app that doesn't try to hide itself, but does tell you if it's uninstalled. The same goes for any other "legitimate" use of software like this.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
It doesn't. But on an open platform there's no way of preventing people from installing what they like. They can however refuse to be a party to it and make it so that people have to look elsewhere for it.
What I'd love to see is them add an administrative password feature to certain settings which would allow you to prevent access to certain settings without entering it. By default the Android phones won't install apps from anywhere other than the market. You have to go in and manually enable unknown sources to install other apps.
What irritates me the most is how many apps now request access to my GPS data. I mean, why does Com2Us's Homerun Battle 3D need to know my GPS location? It's a freaking game! Pageonce personal finance or Live Scores? Why do you need to know where I'm at?
You don't. You just want to sell my information.
... 3....2 ..... 1...
Yes, but you hardly need to keep that hidden from yourself. I think that's the sticking point, not the app as such.
Actually there are plenty of Apps which I would like to run and be invisible to me. Install and forget. In addition the phone user may not always be the owner.
There are some programs which NEED to be invisible to the user for them to work such as theft recovery apps which report the current location of the phone or its IP address and a snapshot from the camera. Such an App may well be preferable to be hidden from the user.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
If having physical access to a machine is enough to excuse all malicious intent then there's no such thing as an insider threat.
That is "...effect on the masses", "correct your damned english" and "buy some signage"
The obvious counter is that Google's store isn't the only game in town for Android. just because Google isn't selling something doesn't mean Android's not an open platform.
It is.
A) This is a snooping app, and malicious.
B) With a simple selection in the options on the phone, you can install it from another site.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow, you were marked Troll? shit the apple idio^H^H^H^H fanbois clearly have mod points.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My Android phone has a checkbox in the settings to control whether apps can be installed other than from the marketplace.
If it's configured to allow it, installing is just a matter of launching a package file.
What's significant is that inclusion in the marketplace could be perceived as some kind of minimal Google "blessing", which of course Google doesn't want to be seen to give, in this case.
There are some programs which NEED to be invisible to the user for them to work such as theft recovery apps which report the current location of the phone or its IP address and a snapshot from the camera. Such an App may well be preferable to be hidden from the user.
Is this one of them?
I don’t think it is. If you’re reading someone else’s text messages, you shouldn’t be doing so without their knowledge. No matter who they are.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_OS
Right??? I could see being modded "moron" for using "you're" when I should have said "your"...but troll? Beh.
Living With a Nerd
How do you keep a blonde busy all afternoon?
(Click here for the answer.)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
So Google offers you the choice of whether to install a potentially malicious app (which opens up the possibility that you will accidentally install it, or someone will install it on your phone without your knowledge).
Apple offers you this choice "if you buy one of our phones, then we'll police potentially malicious apps for you, so you don't have to worry about this particular vector of attack" (this choice also walls off access to apps which Apple doesn't like). If you don't want this, then there are less restricted phones out there.
The anti-Apple world says, more or less, that people should not be permitted Choice B but they should be permitted Choice A. The pro-Apple world says that people should be permitted both choices. In both cases, a user is making an informed decision about the capabilities they want on their phone, just at different levels of granularity. Yet, somehow, the anti-Apple world is the one that wraps themselves in the freedom flag.
Is that your point?
The advantage of Android is that an app doesn't NEED to be in the marketplace. It's a simple thing to just uncheck a box and then you can download and install apps the old fashioned way that aren't in the marketplace all you want. It's your hardware, you can install what you want. The marketplace is still Google's marketplace. If you have a website I wouldn't expect you to post something on YOUR website just because I wanted it there. I don't see how a marketplace is any different. Yes, iPhone users can do this after jail-breaking. Android users don't have to root their phones just to install software from outside the marketplace. We only have to root it to do things like tethering which the carriers either insist be removed or try to charge extra for.
Or, develop a good relationship with your children instead of once again relying on technology to babysit for you.
Talk to your kids about behaving responsibly, and openly talk with them about their concerns, and yours.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The parent post is wrong IMHO but why Troll? I bet a lot of people took it this way. Can someone with mod points mod the parent up so that this viewpoint (and the valid responses countering it) can be seen?
Thje standard is that if things happen in public that they should be public, So the main difference I see is that it is people who do it and not a large company.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It is more open then the apple store, of course that is like saying "I have more rights then your average north korean"
Including something in the android market place is essentially an endorsement, the difference between google and apple is.
Google opposes you to buy the app from their store, anyone else can open their own store, or the makers can sell direct to you.
Apple opposes you from buying it in their store and goes out of their way to prevent you from buying it anywhere else either.
Google's view: Your phone belongs to you, google's store belongs to google
Apple: Your phone and the store belong to apple.
It's your microwave, you own the hardware. It has a processor in it and it can run software--but yet you are prevented from running arbitrary code on it just as was intended by our founding fathers.
I don’t think it is. If you’re reading someone else’s text messages, you shouldn’t be doing so without their knowledge. No matter who they are.
I like to unify my communications. I actually have 2 iPhones which are mirrors of each other. I can pick up one and have access to the exact same messages/voicemails/etc.
In this case, I could see the use of having my text messages forwarded to another location where I could then archive them. I'd actually prefer such a system to be hidden from me as I don't need to know what my computers are doing at all times in the background. To steal an infomercial catch phrase, I like to set it and forget it.
I'm not comfortable with the concept that my message backup is currently managed by my phone company (who has no obligation to archive).
The point is, it isn't necessarily someone else's phone this would be installed on.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Mod parent up. Kids will get into some trouble, but well-parented kids tend to get into much less, and less severe, trouble than their peers.
Doubtful, there are plenty of iPhone security holes that can be exploited. Having world readable SMS access (on permission) was by design for Android. And that is a design consideration I am still comfortable with.
I don't need to know what my computers are doing at all times in the background. To steal an infomercial catch phrase, I like to set it and forget it.
There’s a difference between “out of sight, out of mind” and “if I go looking for it, it tries to hide”.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
This is the real difference between Android and iOS. I do believe the android market is more open; they're more forthcoming regarding what policies will disqualify an app, and their limitations are less strict. But even if this weren't the case and the android market had the exact same policies as the iOS app store, Android as an operating system would still be more open because it allows you to install apps that aren't in the market.
Call me "old fashioned, but they don't sound much like lovers to me!
As of now, we have:
Maemo/Meego which are only on one device (N900). Six click root and no lockdown whatsoever make the platform very appealing. Downside is that it isn't a popular dev platform (although it should be.)
Windows Phone 7 -- apps are getting a slow start. Time will tell because it has great Exchange support, and might be able to oust Blackberries from the corporate sector.
BlackberryOS -- kick butt security, starting to fall behind with consumers, and as the iPhone gets more and more Exchange friendly, it is starting to lose grip in companies.
iOS and Android -- we have heard the pros and cons of these two operating systems beaten to death. In reality, the only weakness of Android is no encryption (2.2 only encrypts applications moved to the SD card) of Exchange data. When Google fixes this, it is more of a matter of who has the apps someone wants than anything else. I just wish someone would make an Android phone with modern CPU/RAM/disk and open (think N1 or ADP line) of Android phones where rooting/flashing custom ROMs isn't just allowed (no code signing of kernels, eFuses, auto reinstalls), but encouraged. Preferably with a hardware sliding keyboard -- it sucks to type UNIX commands on a virtual keyboard.
the superbe application "tasker" can be used to do the same job. Just create a trigger on message reception.
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
I suppose it is technically possible that someone might have a legitimate reason to forward all their SMSs to another phone, but for practical purposes it is obvious that this should come under the heading of wire-tapping if applied by a third party with physical access to the phone for a few moments.
Having physical access to the phone does not imply that one is not malicious. In fact, if anyone at all picked up my phone and altered any settings on it or started any persistent logging programs, I would treat that action as hostile, and the person would have some explaining to do.
In actuality, any perusal of my SMSs would actually be pretty boring, but that doesn't mean they have no right to be private. Even law-enforcement agencies are required to obtain a warrant before tapping a phone.
Well, this is ironic. Many Slashdotters defended Google's wifi snooping, whereby they collected emails, passwords, and more but received no punishment from the FTC because Google promised not to do it again (Marissa Mayer's Obama fundraiser days before had nothing to do with it, I'm sure).
But when an app snoops, it's illegal and should be removed.
Applying logic to fanboy rage? You must be new here...
How is this app not illegal? It's basically wire tapping, invasion of privacy, and I'm sure there's other things that would be covered here.
errr forgot to add, and if you are using it for a legit reason as you had proposed, then why does it need to work in a fashion that's so hidden?
You may find this hard-to-believe, but yesterday I was wondering if there were some way I could forward texts from one phone to another:
I have 2 cells, one for business, the other, pleasure, and often I would that the 'twain shall meet.
So I had a legitimate and practical purpose before I had a malicious purpose.
I haven't rtfa....
cheers,
Google Voice would be a much, much better solution.
But the program isn't illegal, just against the marketplace rules.
IANAL, but installing it on someone else's phone is probably illegal in the US as there are quite specific rules around wiretapping. And the app store doesn't just offer these things frozen in a box. It does the actual installing for you. That may open the app store up to liability if they continued to knowingly profit from it. To torture an analogy, the app store is not just a knife vending machine. You put in a quarter, and the knife shoots forward repeatedly in an attempt to stab people.
If the primary purpose of the application seems to be to spy on people, the non-infringing uses aren't really going to be considered by a court. If they were to be valid uses, the app would probably need to go out of its way to reduce illegal ones to be salable in the US. For example, have a real home-screen icon. Every 10th message send a text to the original phone reminding them that forwarding is still on. etc.
The ______ Agenda
is it illegal to wire tap my own phone? or invade my own privacy?, I think it's the action of using the software in the wrong way what could be illegal, not the software itself...
The Wii has a great system where it just records daily activity to a friendly little log, and stamps Mario's smile on it. There is no way to delete it, alter it, move it, or whatnot. And they put it in its own friendly little calendar view where file activities like faking your usage or deleting the log doesn't really come up. They've invisibly made it completely natural that the system records what you do, and that you can't do anything about it.
The ______ Agenda
So if I want to keep someone from installing a malicious app like this on my phone can I password protect the phone so that nothing can be installed?
And I don't mean password protect as in locking the phone, requiring it to be it a locked state to protect it. I want it to require a password before installing an app, any app, every single time an app is installed no matter what the state of the phone is.
Something seems to have been awry with /. moderation for some time, and metamoderation doesn't seem to be catching it any more. Maybe the user-base has just got too big, and moderators need to be "appointed" with a bit more discretion. And I guess people like me should stop wasting mod points. :-|
Orphaned posts such as you mention are common now, and flagrant abuses such as this:
by Dishevel (1105119) on Wed Nov 03, '10 12:33 AM (#34101256)
You are an idiot.
are modded as "informative".
That is, "correct your damned English."
Agreed that WebOS needs some new hardware, but that's coming. I'm not sure what kind of software update you think it needs, but it seems already way out in front to me. It's the apps where it really falls behind android and iOS. The single greatest boost webOS could get is for Google to make their various services on par with android, but I don't think they have any motivation to do so.
True
QNX was just bought by RIM, and is shipping on a Blackberry tablet. It is scheduled to replace the old Blackberry OS "soon." I suspect we'll see huge strides from RIM. The idea of a high-profile consumer QNX platform makes me giddy.
The ______ Agenda
Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.
Pretty soon, you've got thousands of spam SMS messages from each other at 10 ct/each and you're both to blame.
Do current wire tapping laws cover texting? Serious inquiry as we all know laws tend to lag technology.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
For someone that is complaining about improper grammar and spelling, you sure made a lot of mistakes in your post...
Or, develop a good relationship with your children instead of once again relying on technology to babysit for you.
"doveryai, no proveryai" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
You don't need to hide it either.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Most of those are general purpose computers--owned by individual shop owners or whatever. Yet the manufacturer has prevented the owner from running whatever software they want on it. Are those immoral?
How about this? Airbags are designed to be deployed, but yet GM doesn't provide a button for me to deploy it manually. Shouldn't I have that option? maybe right next the rear defrost button?
If your point is that people shouldn't be allowed (or should at least be very ashamed) to purchase intentionally crippled goods because they perceive some safety in the 'crippling'--then this is going to be a long, long conversation with hundreds of counterexamples and you will end up looking stupid.
I agree entirely, I wasn't going to touch on the fact that spying on your kids will destroy their trust in you. A lot of parents (particularly those that would install an app like this) don't care whether their kids trust them.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
The app store sells tethering apps that do not require rooting the device. I am using one now which works great and I purchased it from the Google marketplace.
"doveryai, no proveryai" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
A phrase to be used when overtly verifying, not as a justification for covert snooping.
Having physical access to the phone does not imply that one is not malicious.
I think maybe you misunderstood the point of my post, which is to mock the example given and the idea that physical access implies non-malice. Specifically the part about
how is it malicious? the person installing it has to have physical access to the phone. it's not like going to a website and downloading a virus
My claim is that going to a website and downloading a virus is exactly the same, because both require physical access.
And both are most often malicious in nature.
BlackberryOS -- kick butt security
If you consider having governments such as India or UAE, having a backdoor into your data, and the encryption having been officially cracked, then sure.
I'm confused here. What rights does this relate to? The right of a vendor not to sell something? Or the right not to be spied on? The rights of spyware authors to disseminate?
This non-story seems miscategorized.
My "old" Motorola Razr2 V9 has a standard setting to forward selected texts to another number. These forwarded texts appear (as they should) in the sentbox, and the process is manual, so there is no question of underhand activity. Is this uncommon? I can't think of any useful reason why I would want to do this with every SMS.
Good point. They are marketing it for nefarious purposes.
Children do not have a right to privacy from their parents.
Adults enjoy rights and freedoms that children do not.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
I noticed this app. . Must be 6 months ago now. I reported it. Seems they finally listened.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Apparently, you don't work for a living.
If your mobile device is owned by your employer and provided to you for work purposes, they most certainly have a right to monitor all your SMS and other traffic.
Not only is it legal, but I suspect you could be rightfully dismissed for interfering with such an application.
A phrase to be used when overtly verifying, not as a justification for covert snooping.
There are multiple justifications for covert snooping on children.
To protect the emotional well being of the child: a desire to have the child not feel oppressed every time they send a text message, or feel every word they type is being scrutinized and might get them in trouble. So you only act on the contents of a text message if it's REALLY bad. To give them a sense or at least an illusion they are free.
The knowledge that every word they type is watched can have an emotionally negative effect on the child, it can make the child feel more like the parent is an enemy and cause the child to rebel.
Another justification for covert snooping is smart children who will have no difficulty circumventing overt verifying.
For example, by encoding messages, using code words, borrowing a friend's phone to send the naughty text message with, by using an Email to SMS gateway, or other modes of communication such as Instant messenger.
There are very good reasons for the snooping to be covert.
What's more, it's not just wiretapping, but arguably "hacking" laws as well.
$ make available
I think you're confusing "tucked neatly away" with "hidden". "Tucked neatly away" is often considered good. An app falls into that category if i don't really have to mess with it and it just automatically does what I ask it to. "Hidden" at least in this context, means "I can't get to it through any normal means".
Let's use Windows as an example. An app might be nicely tucked away. It's visible in the file system if I go to "Program Files" and look for it, it's listed in the "Add/Remove Programs" dialog, and maybe it has a little System Tray icon. Driver control panels are a good example of this. There's no big honkin' icon or start menu entry, but any reasonably knowledgeable user can change it if they need to, or uninstall it if they want to.
"Hidden" would be: It has no "Program Files" directory. Maybe it hides itself in a hidden file in the users home directory, or even in another application's directory. It doesn't show up in "Add/Remove Programs". It doesn't have a System Tray icon to let you know it's running. You would have to go out of your way to find out you even had this application installed. Look at the process list (and know which processes on it were supposed to be there). Look in the Registry. Know it's there and know where to look.
Another way to look at it. A text editor and a keylogger do essentially the same thing. The capture key strokes and save them to a file. One does so because the user would like to save what they are typing. One hides and does it secretly so that another user, or someone not a user at all, wants to see what the user is typing.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Or, develop a good relationship with your children
This part you got right.
instead of once again relying on technology to babysit for you.
Being aware of signs of trouble is a necessary part of what a good parent does. This particular technology is not a babysitting technology, such as TV (or invisible fencing?), that implies parental neglect or shirking of responsibility. This is probably worse, in that it involves clandestine monitoring, implying that you are suspicious of people you love. Neither provides a solid foundation for a relationship, but there is a distinction.
Talk to your kids about behaving responsibly, and openly talk with them about their concerns, and yours.
Sounds like a cheesy anti-smoking commercial, but I completely agree with the statement. Resorting to spying, snooping, or any type of deception will just damage your relationship because it means you mistrust your children. You should trust your children, but that does not mean you let them do anything they want without oversight or supervision. You trust them to make good decisions, but you keep an eye on them to help them when they don't.
How about WiFi tethering (i.e. the phone makes its own WiFi network)?
$ make available
Ooh, ooh, pick me...
would “hidden” be an app that installs itself into the Windows Fonts folder?
(Yes, I’ve seen a virus that did that.)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
If your mobile device is owned by your employer and provided to you for work purposes, they most certainly have a right to monitor all your SMS and other traffic.
I don't know about legal rights, but as far as moral rights go, if my employer tells me to treat the phone as a dual work/personal phone -- which I believe is pretty common -- then I would take that as a tacit assurance that they would not snoop.
Even if that were the case, there's still no need for the app to hide itself.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
By spying covertly, you get all of the problems of spying, but since your child knows you do it coverty, they will assume that EVERYTHING they do is being spied on. They will worry about cameras in the bathrooms. recorders in their clothes. You will create parinoia.
If you think you are so good that your child will NEVER catch you, you are deluded. Especially if they are a smart child.
That depends on jurisdiction. I seem to recall that German courts recently ruled just he opposite. Having said that, even in such a case the employer is generally required, by law to inform both you (the employee) and the person you are communicating with that that they are being monitored. This app is designed to be hidden and unobtrusive. Unless you know what you're looking for you'll never find it. The person you're communicating with certainly won't know, unless you've first found the app and told them about it, that their communications to you are being monitored.
For the type of application you're talking about to legal, it would have to let the recipient of each message know that their responses are being monitored, and the employee in question would have to know about the app.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
The encryption has not been cracked in toto. Backups have a weakness of how they are stored, and India/UAE have gotten access to the BIS servers. However, the OS itself is very secure. Someone yanks the SIM card out to prevent remote erasure? Phones can be configured to zero out themselves if they don't have a signal after x amount of hours or days. It also has encryption not just for files on the SD card, but internal storage.
BIS servers are both a benefit and a detriment. The advantage is that it doesn't use SSL which some governments with root certs in most browsers can forge CAs. The disadvantage is that if someone gets access to the server, they have the keys to the kingdom. Of course, this can be addressed with a BES server.
iOS has gone a way to address security and encryption on the local device, and I'm sure eventually Android will either get EncFS or LUKS to address the same issue.
I don't know much about the Andorid market place, but when I have seen people install apps on their iPhone they have to put in a username and password, even if the application is free.
Doesn't Andorid do the same thing? If so, you would have to be an authorized user to install the application via the Marketplace. Of course since you can install on an Andorid phone directly one could get around this I suppose but then not having it in the marketplace is actually a disadvantage.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
What about businesses that provide phones to their employees? They are allowed by a recent court decision to read the contents of the texts sent by the phone that they pay for.
Sometimes the every day user of the phone is not the owner of the device or the data/phone plan. In those cases I think they have a pretty clear right to do whatever they want.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Instamapper GPS tracking software for Android handles this in what I consider an adequate way. They put a small icon on the notification bar, and after about 3 days of running, it gives you the ability to turn off the icon.
I prefer Big Brother though. I like it better because it is designed for you to submit your locations to your own webserver instead of to the developers server. Ironic that 'Big Brother' is the least Big Brotherish.
I'm mystified how people cannot see that when you have reached the point in the relationship when you consider hiring an investigator or installing spyware it's long past time to move on.
Sorry for the inflammatory title but I would like people to really read this AC post and think about it
I would have thought the same thing this time last year. I was happily married and felt our relationship was stronger than it had been in years (we had some rocky times that we worked through...even forgave a previous transgression).
She did spend far too much time online playing WOW but it was fine, I understood she needed stress reduction. I started worrying that we weren't spending enough time together... no date nights, seeing films, etc. I blamed the game and tried to find reasons for her to get off the computer and interact with our children and me.
Well, I finally found a record of a hotel visit in a city far from home, which coincidentally was where one of her online buddies was from. (To this day, why she would let me know this person and become somewhat friends...through another FPS game...is beyond me). I think you know the rest of the story
Now, I never violated anyone's trust, never went through her mail, don't read messages over my kids shoulder, etc... I give trust. However, if I hadn't seen this receipt..how long would this have lasted? The guys a loser (financially) and she gave him money. What should I do if she emptied our accounts to help him out? He has admitted cheating on his wife in the past, so what health risk does her cheating create for me (STD)? There are a multitude of reasons I should know about the situation. I deserve a loving relationship and she was getting my security while having some fun on the side. And it wasn't that I wasn't "satisfying" her. People who cheat are looking for something they don't have (emotion, feeling sexy again, needing variety, whatever) and don't think to address the issue with their partner until it is too late.
So please shut up... I'm obviously not as intelligent and insightful to know my relationship was over when it was from my view OK.
Again, I would NEVER had done this to find out messages (who wants to read the sweet nothings anyway..it would be too crushing)...but I can see others who need to know the truth might.
I don't believe you are correct. Any recipient that sends e-mail to a corporate account is really sending a message to the corporation as a whole. It should be treated as if it were addressed to the CEO.
Do you really believe that if you send some e-mail to "mikesmith@intel.com", Mike Smith's boss has no right to read the e-mail without you being informed first?
Never heard of this. Maybe this is unique to some jurisdictions, like Germany.
Not the OP, but the replies.
I used to think EXACTLY like that, until I had children of my own. We often tend to think in terms of one-size-fits-all, or "if it works for me it should work for you". This is very likely human nature, so I'm not denigrating anyone. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. I have three teenage step-daughters. To say the older two have been "challenging", would be the understatement of the century. In a nice suburban home, with decent income, a loving mother and step-father, a good school system, dinner at the table, help with homework, support and encouragement; I've had to deal with drugs, law enforcement, runaways, and a very, VERY serious suicide attempt. I can't even begin to tell the readers of this site the complete and utter hell I've endured in the last few years. I wish this upon no one. Yet through it all, I love them with every fiber of my being.
Unless you are prepared to lock your child in their room until they are 18, there are forces acting on them that are well beyond the parents' control. It's fantasy to think that good parenting will overcome all. I'm a step-father because the biological father passed away. That does more than a little damage to a child, and no amount of therapy (been there), talking (done that), and good parenting (always) can fix it. There can be neuro-chemical imbalances that you just can't sit down with a child and rationally talk away. Problems can often happen faster than you can detect or address. Teenagers, even good ones, are deceitful by nature as they want to explore the world and there place in it...unencumbered by their parents views or morality. Of course, you do everything you can to prepare them for the challenges, pitfalls, and evils of the world; but there will be missteps, and a rare few can have permanent consequences.
The point of my little self-pity party, is that while "spying" on your children may not be for everyone, or even desirable by anyone, it should be tool at a parent's disposal if they deem it necessary. While I don't disagree with Google's decision to pull it from their store, I would have words with anyone who tried to keep me from having that technology when it was available because if their own rose-colored world-view from atop the ivory tower. Had we had the ability to see our daughter's text messages, it might have spared her five days in ICU and another ten in a step-down hospital room. As a parent, I can tell you there is simply no price too great to pay to prevent that...nothing, and I mean NOTHING is off the table.
Having gone though what I have, I've met many parents with similar stories. While you never really know what goes on behind closed doors, most of them do not strike me as the kind of people who let technology babysit their children. They don't seem to be absent in their children's lives. They don't seem to be anything other than loving, conscientious parents who for whatever reason, found themselves dealing with problems no parent ever wants to face; and are looking for any way possible to protect their children.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Trusting that your kids will make the right choice is one thing. Your kids actually doing the right thing is another.
Kids who feel that they have free rein to do as they please are IMO less likely to always do the right thing. However, a kid that knows that mom and dad will find out about me breaking this rule or that rule are probably more likely to not go down the road of bad choices.
My kids are 7 and 12. Do they always do what I tell them to do? No. Do I always find out that they didn't do it? No. Do they get punished for it when I do? Yes. Would something like possibly provoke them to make better choices? I believe it would.
What if I want to simply log my own text messages for archival? If the phone is destroyed, I still have an off-phone record of all of them, just like an e-mail box on a server somewhere.
What if I want to snoop on the traffic generated by thieves who stole my phone?
Are you too obtuse to imagine legitimate uses for this?
"apparently you don't have teenage children"
Apparently you messed yours up. Now would be a good time to pay attention to other points of view about whether spying on your kids is OK.
Parents should just be parents. We're not supposed to have complete trust in our children...they're children! They do dumb stuff! Does this mean that we should sneak around and covertly monitor everything that they do? Absolutely not. However, my children (who are not quite teenagers yet but will be sooner than I would like) will be made fully aware that their right to privacy ends the second that I think that there might be a problem. They will know that at any time I reserve the right to pick up their phone and go through it, sift through browser history or whatever. Kids should not be subject to constant covert monitoring, but it doesn't mean that parents should give up their authority entirely, either.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
Not for me. But that's tangential. I'm going to agree with the other people in this thread though that it shouldn't be hidden to the extent that it is.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
It still doesn’t need to be hidden.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I must disagree. All this worry about an "emotionally negative effect" of overt surveillance is a bit disingenuous. How will the child be affected when he/she finds out they're being snooped on covertly?
Really? So you think every background daemon on a device should have a persistent GUI presence on the desktop?
There is no reason for a program to be in the background unless it's a malicious app hiding itself?
Look at all the hidden malware on this machine: apache, exim4, syslogd, ...
When I was a teenager my mum would try and listen in on any landline phonecalls I made. I soon found out, so from then on I didn't make calls if she was around, and I warned my friends. She'd read my email if I left the computer logged in -- so I set up another account. She then asked why I didn't email my friends any more -- I said we used MSN. She set up MSN and added me. I blocked her.
If friends came round she'd barge into my room without knocking, or listen in at the door (my sister caught her doing this). I stopped inviting friends round, and went to their houses instead.
When I was at a friend's house my mum would phone their parents to check up on me. The parents soon got fed up with this (and thought it was ridiculous) so they'd lie and say "he's at Warhammer club" when they meant "he's gone into [city]" (or later, "I think they bought cider, they're somewhere, probably").
After all that, do you think I had a good relationship with my parents when I started university and moved out? Hardly.
If you're going to install something like this on your child's phone you'd better be damn sure they won't find out. Using the information without revealing you're spying on them won't be easy.
Ah, but here we have another issue: whose account? For example, my wife's phone is on my cell phone account, which I pay for. Is it illegal for me to covertly monitor what she does on a phone that I'm paying for? Whose phone is it really, hers or mine? I think that this could raise some interesting legal issues. Does the old principle, "possession is 9/10ths of the law" apply here? Meaning, if my wife is in possession of the phone then it is her property and I cannot legally monitor her text messages?
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
Unless you have a smart kid and knows that if you start the wii in maintenance mode (hold - and +, then press A at health warning screen) the games you play are not logged.
Ok, so which part of your legitimate and practical purpose required that the application be comletely invisible?
When you talk to a customer service rep on the phone, don't you get a warning that your conversation is being recorded and/or monitored? E-mail is a bit different. By its very nature it's always recorded and most people are aware of this. Even then a lot of companies put e-mail disclaimers in every message to protect themselves. I personally suspect, though I don't know, that SMS would be considered more like telephone conversation than e-mail by the courts. While technologically SMS is more similar to e-mail, socially it's more similar to a phone call. People believe that the only thing between them and the other end is ma bell. There's an expectation of privacy that doesn't exist in e-mail.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Or a cheating wife constantly texting her lover. Although one can responsibly deal with teenage kids without spying on their text messages, you can't do anything about a cheating wife. There are many valid reasons to want to use such an app besides this. However, if it is not legal, then the argument stops there.
Looking back at my own life, I had free reign beyond belief but still had the sense (and perhaps fear?) to not do bad shit. The kids that were doing the worst shit were the ones whose parents were the most oppresive, those kids learned real quick how to have dual personalities and hide things from the parents with gusto.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This thing is doing the equivalent of hiding itself from 'ps'.
Not on my Backflip :( Shame on you, Moto.
There are multiple justifications for covert snooping on children.
To protect the emotional well being of the child: a desire to have the child not feel oppressed every time they send a text message, or feel every word they type is being scrutinized and might get them in trouble.
Even though they *are* being oppressed, and every word they type *is* being scrutinised?
There are very good reasons for the snooping to be covert.
How would you feel about someone using the same rationale to snoop covertly on you?
Here's a for instance, they google for keywords like how to crash a hard drive. I try to educate parents that think they need to know everything their child does. All the media fear mongering has had a dramatic impact on parents. It's hard to make parents aware that these days aren't really all that different from the days they grew up, especially when the parents are only 30 years old.
Of course there are lots of reasons to watch out for your child these days as even a 4 year old can be sued as insane as THAT sounds.
Good for you, telling the publisher how to adapt their app a little. If the app popped up and told you that it was installed, and what it did, by whom, and that uninstalling it would signal the original installer that it was indeed being removed, then hey, kids can uninstall it and face their parents later. Ok.
I don't have kids. If I did, I would give them some rules about computer and phone usage:
- Everything on a computer you use at home or portably is available to me. I will ask you to translate the really obscure stuff. I won't need a translator for the really foul and indecent stuff. We'll talk about it.
- Your phone likewise. I won't listen in on conversations unless I happen to be within earshot. I won't be overreacting to what seems to be natural kid stuff. Sexting and nudies we need to talk about. You will surrender your phone to me if I ask for it, even if you 'pay' for it.
- You will not try to get around this by having a phone or computer you don't want me to know about. Doing so is proof you are up to no good. Talk to your mother if you don't like this. If you are using someone else's computer or phone, and I catch you, well, your mother will not let you be with the lender. Nice try. We'll let you out of this after you've gotten over it.
These are the rules between me and my wife. She can see all my email etc, and she reads my stupid postings also. She has all my passwords. I have all of hers I know of. I can live with that. And I know a few parents that have similar rules. Some talk to their kids, some don't. All seem to be getting along with the rules.
The reality is that your kids are your responsibility.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Why are you surprised? Slashdot is full of people who trivialise words like "evil" and "abusive" when applying them to corporations. They take sides as though corporations were their personal friends. It's similar to how Trekkies form relationships with TV characters...oh wait, now I get it.
Protip: Read point B in the post to which you are replying.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
QNX has been around a long time, and definitely is a mature product. I wonder what BlackberryOS will look like if it is rewritten to take advantage of QNX's realtime abilities.
Looking back at my own life, I had free reign beyond belief but still had the sense (and perhaps fear?) to not do bad shit. The kids that were doing the worst shit were the ones whose parents were the most oppresive, those kids learned real quick how to have dual personalities and hide things from the parents with gusto.
I think most of us had a similar experience. Rebelling against the "system" and the like . . . I just don't see using some of these tools as being oppressive.
Oppressive to me would mean no friends over, no fun after school, no movies, no parties, etc.
No - I believe you have to root the phone to do WiFi tethering. But USB tethering is good enough for me and I can use Connectify to setup my Laptop as a hot spot If I need to.
agree... if a child finds that is being spied, they usually get a workaround to still do what they want. this will make then further away from the parents.
even if they dont do that, when they finally get out of parental control, they usually do worst things than those that actually talk with the parents
Higuita
this still don't stop a wife/husband from cheating...
and if she/he is stupid for texting from her/his cell phone, she/he will be caught pretty soon (all people make mistakes), no need for this app
Higuita
I wasn't making a comment on the effectiveness of the tactic. I was making the comment that kids don't have the right to privacy. I know nothing of your childhood, but if you were a "good kid" then your mom was over the line. But if, for instance, you had been caught smoking dope behind the stadium, then you deserved what you got. Either way, what your mom did was not illegal, and neither is spying on a kid's phone activities.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Once again, there are many circumstances in which this is not illegal, so that is not a valid argument.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
I had stupid amounts of freedom and discovered that stricter kids went crazy when they finally left the house.
My Mom's rules were:
1) "Clean up your own messes."
2) "Be polite to guests that are over."
3) "Learn something new every day."
My Dad was constantly deployed and played a smaller role in parenting.
If i skipped class or did poorly on a test and the school called the House to talk to my Mom.. she would ask them if they have talked to me about it yet. If not, she would ask them to speak with me about school related problems first because only the school and myself have the ability to directly change an outcome.
This set the stage for how i live my life. Laws aren't a substitute for morals. Laws aren't something to obey because The Man will catch you. It's up to the individual to internalize the differences and learn (usually through experience) why rules exist and specifically why. Everyone reading probably breaks the law every day.. speeding. But very few if any are breaking the spirit of the thing and that is to set a safe speed to travel at. Police obviously are supposed to enforce the law to the letter but from experience we know a good officier is lenient and follows the spirit of the law. After all, we are Human.. not machines.
Strict kids go fucking nuts when they get out of the house. No rules man! That's because they haven't internalized the reasons for the law existing.. it was pressed upon them from above.
all imo, of course.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
That, sir, was part of the humor.
Dude, you're serious? Can't someone make a comment in half-seriousness, half-jest without being lectured? Sheesh...
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
UnanimousCoward (9841):
Can't someone make a comment in half-seriousness, half-jest without being lectured? Sheesh...
Boy, Slashdot sure must’ve been different in your time.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
> - "Given the choice between an open system and a walled garden, I myself would choose the open one"
Then what is the argument? Nobody in Apple-land is arguing that Android shouldn't exist or should be just as locked down as Apple. But most in the anti-Apple camp argue that iPhone's should be just as unprotected as Androids are. Do you see the asymmetry in this argument?
> - "I don't think most consumers understand the
> tradeoffs they're making when they choose a
> walled garden"
This is the one that bothers me the most because it is so condescending. First of all, I really doubt that there is anything you know about these tradeoffs that I don't know, and I chose willingly to buy an iPhone--so it is silly to claim that choosing an iPhone is a choice only an ignorant one would make.
Secondly, I am annoyed to death at how the technical community consistently undervalues ease-of-use and they look down their noses at anybody who doesn't want to either (a) spend a lot of time becoming an expert in the device and maintaining it, or (b) be scared of their device and seek the help of some smug expert.
It is perfectly reasonable for those people to make a simple, blunt choice that limits the danger they can accidentally get themselves.
I will give you a free lesson:
1. There is no such thing as "impossible to break"
2. Not impossible != Easy
---
Also, take a moment to reflect on your argument at this point, which is that Apple App control isn't successful at curbing viruses/malware/buggy apps while at the same time complaining that they make it hard to run the apps you want.
I've been using SMS Backup for months now. Install it (free), configure it and let it copy your text messages to a gmail account. Only it isn't caled s3cr3t SMS Backup so it's perfectly alright to use (and has better purposes than spying).
JeR
Shut the fuck up.
It's not an either or, it's a tool to help you with your children. Along with openly talking to them, knowing their friends and activities, and other good parenting habits.
So sick of idiots making it one or the other.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
All my history is available; however if you want to install an app that hides itself from you so you can get your history or archive then you can still get the App and install it. No jail breaking, no warranty voiding, just select the checkbox.
If you want to snoop traffic for a stolen device, just contact your provider. In fact, they can tell you it's location so you can get it.
You are clearly to obtuse to realize that the INTENT for the app is to be put on someone else phone WITHOUT their permission.
Still, even if you did want to use it for the stupid reasons you mention, then you still can. That is my point, you stupid fuck.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
but then nobody has said Google's app store is completely open.
Android , otoh, is.
Apparently Apple has so completely brainwashed you that you can not conceive of a device that has more then one place to get apps.
It's like thinking that if you buy a Dell computer, you can only install Dell apps.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
More than happy for you to point to any security hole that lets you run a process in the background that intercepts SMS messages. Let alone lets you retransmits them without the users knowledge.
You can't. Your claim is nonsense.
"There are multiple justifications for covert snooping on children."
Like there are "multiple justifications" for doing so on the citizens, only the snooper in this case would be the government.
"To protect the emotional well being of the child"
Anyone who gets hurt over mere text is weak to begin with.
"To give them a sense or at least an illusion they are free."
They are free, no matter how much you don't want it to be true. Also, it isn't exactly "covert snooping" since the next time you bring something up that happened to them online, they will know that you've been snooping.
"Another justification for covert snooping is smart children who will have no difficulty circumventing overt verifying."
They will have no problem circumventing either method of snooping. Hey, you did say smart.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
"such as TV"
Watching television is a hobby. Doing so a lot does not imply bad parenting.
"does not mean you let them do anything they want without oversight or supervision"
I think the government should apply this line of thinking to citizens.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I never claimed there was a specific exploit for capturing and resending SMS on iPhone. But there are plenty of other exploits that are as big, or a bigger security concern, including unencrypted access to the file system containing user data.
As I said, access to SMS on permission was by design with Android. The only concerning thing about this episode, was that apparently the app could hide by not showing an icon, not showing up in the downloaded applications list, and possibly hiding in the process menu.
How would you feel about someone using the same rationale to snoop covertly on you?
I wouldn't feel much at all if I never found out about it, and it was never used against me. However, it's actually a privacy rights violation to snoop an adult's private conversations w/ other people without their consent.
How the channel 'might' feel is a hypothetical that does not matter, as long as you make sure the snooping is not so blatant that the child could ever possibly detect it.
Covert snooping might be combined with Overt snooping of another nature also. You might warn the child of the risks of cell phones, that other people might be able to hear what they say or type, and never to text contact details -- just a risk of the technology.
The covertness serves more to get it out of the way.
And we're back to letting technology parent for you.
If you have concerns, talk to your fucking children.
If my parents had spent half the time asking me what was going on in my life that they did snooping through my shit, I'd probably have had a relationship with them between 15 and 25.
You might think that you're doing them a service by policing their every action and 'making sure they're not getting in trouble,' but the truth is that you're doing nothing but making them resent you and do more to hide things.
As EVERY rebellious child can attest, they are better at hiding things than you are at finding them.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
That might be a security concern on Android. It's not on iPhone. iPhone Apps only have access to their own private data directory.
And it's quite funny you should point the insecurity finger at the iPhone, when the app in question can only work on the Android, not the iPhone, due to fundamental security mistakes on Android. And the very same day there are reports of huge numbers of security vulnerabilities on Android.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/11/02/2238205/Serious-Security-Bugs-Found-In-Android-Kernel
Face it, Android is far more susceptible to malware than the iPhone.
Here's a for instance, they google for keywords like how to crash a hard drive.
Who cares?
I would be more concerned if they Googled "best way to kill someone", "how to find pot", or "felatio videos"
Google searches are a bit different from text messages. Googling such a thing is no evidence to imply any particular intent, only interest in a certain subject, which is not harmful to the child.
Searches are not part of a conversation, and it is rare that an explicit intent is apparent by a search
Parents would want to monitor further actions and only take action when the nature of the situation is clear enough. For example, if the child was seen to Google "(cool computer game or movie)" on a Torrent website, then found to have installed a bittorrent client, and then opened a download page, parental smackdown and removal of computer privileges should happen only at that point, not the mere Googling of "BitTorrent" or even reading about BT clients.
Parents should not really be concerned about just any thing their child might Google search for, even if the results on the face of it, could in theory be applied to some nefarious purpose.
Even if a hard drive at home happened to crash shortly after the child Googled how to make a hard drive crash, the Google search is no evidence of either action or intent.
There are probably some Google searches that should be warning signs however... covert surveillance based on certain keywords, seems reasonable.
For example, if the child Googles for explicit obscene terms that shouldn't even be in the child's vocabulary for 10 more years.
I had stupid amounts of freedom when I was a kid as well, with roughly the same basic rules (the only other two were "help each other for the common good" and "respect each other's rights and opinions"), and I believe that it was the best environment for me. I like to think that I've grown up to be a decent moral person. However, I don't believe that we can say that laws aren't a substitute for morals; laws exist because there are some basic rules that society expects people to follow, and unfortunately all people can't be expected to follow those basic rules.
So I'll compare myself with my sister. My sister spent most of her teenage life fucking herself up with whatever tobacco products, alcohol and drugs she could get her hands on. While she wasn't disrespectful, she flunked out of high school because she was basically a bludger and did no work. When people told her that she had to do some work (above what she wanted to do, ie, for the common good or her long-term good), she screamed and ranted and raved about her right to do whatever she wanted. In the abstract and long term, she broke all the rules by requiring the rest of the family to work harder to align themselves with the rules, but that didn't matter to her (or to my mother).
I believe strongly that, if our house had stricter rules (ie, curfews, no cigarettes/drugs/alcohol, etc.), then my sister would not have got away with the shit that she did. If you don't mind my saying so, I (and my other two brothers) were sensible enough to work within the rules, but my sister for whatever reason was not.
I think this is because people develop morals in the same way that they develop other characteristics (height, intelligence, etc.). We know that kids don't have the same moral sense as full grown adults, and we also know that not all adults develop to the same endpoint in respect to moral development (in the same way that not all adults are the same height or possessed of the same intelligence).
The guy to look to here is Kohlberg and his Stages of Moral Development. Unfortunately, some people only get so far in terms of their moral development as thinking "how can I do what I want and not be punished".
So, I have fewer problems with the idea of parents keeping tabs on their kids, so long as they're doing it properly (which is a whole different story.
And we're back to letting technology parent for you.
If you have concerns, talk to your fucking children.
It's not fucking sufficient. Technology creates a multitude of problems and issues for parents to be concerned about, such as making adequate supervision impossible or prohibitive, if any children are to be allowed to use technology at all, and it is eminently suitable that technology assist in solving technology-created problems.
If my parents had spent half the time asking me what was going on in my life that they did snooping through my shit, I'd probably have had a relationship with them between 15 and 25.
I see... you have personal issues going back to your childhood that prejudice you against reasonable technology-based solutions to address problems created by technology.
As EVERY rebellious child can attest, they are better at hiding things than you are at finding them.
Since they rely on technology you buy them to do technology-related things, that becomes exceedingly difficult for the child, particularly when all their technology is working for you.
At the age this would be used, the child would barely comprehend what is even happening
For non-technology-related activities, where the child does not have anonymity or obscurity, traditional methods of supervision apply.
I don't need to know what my computers are doing at all times in the background ... I like to set it and forget it.
And you read Slashdot why?
Technology makes them no more hidden than they were when they left your house in days gone by. Sure, now you might be able to send some dirty text messages to someone, but 15 years ago you could've just been at a friend's house and snuck onto the phone for a bit of racy chat. Or just gone to the person's house and banged in their bedroom when the parents were out.
I'm not against reasonable technological solutions in the slightest. I am against people not understanding that snooping on your kids text messages is no different than reading their diary. If you think that is good parenting, or that it is going to cause them to behave in a manner you deem acceptable, I have no rebuttal because I'm unable to fathom how you can think that.
Kids are not mindless machines, if you breach their privacy, they will resent you for it.
Stating that they're never going to find out is laughable.
"Johnny, what were you doing out with Bobby and Tom? I told you you couldn't see them!"
"Uh, how did you know I was?"
"er, well, um..."
As soon as you act on anything that you've learned while snooping on their texts, you have outed yourself.
The fact that you're saying that "the child would barely comprehend what is even happening" is nothing but illustrative of the lack of respect that you have for them. Kids are not dumb, and are way more aware of things than their parents would like to think. Not to mention, way more tech savvy than most people, including lots of the parents that are on /..
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
Its open because I can download the apk file from the developers site and install it myself. Can you do that yet on the iPhone without jail breaking it?
Its open because I can connect to any of the other app stores that exist. Google runs one app store, not the ONLY app store.
Its open because I can say "hey cool idea" write my own version and install it on my phone without having to ask googles permission.
Does that answer your question?
iPhone Apps only have access to their own private data directory.
Doesn't matter. I'm talking about the ability to read the contents of supposedly encrypted iPhone data that is allowed to be unencrypted inflight by iOS using another computer.
when the app in question can only work on the Android... due to fundamental security mistakes on Android
The "app in question" works by design on Android. There is currently no confirmed data there were "security mistakes" in Android that allowed this behavior. The only question is to what extent the app was able to cloak itself and if that should be prevented.
huge numbers of security vulnerabilities on Android.
There weren't a "huge" number. There were 88. People who have used the tool that claimed these vulnerablities, and its categorization system, have said the actual number of real vulnerabilities are probably half that number, and less than half of those remaining are probably legitimately "serious."
When that tool was released for Linux originally, there were thousands of identified potential bugs. The actual ones were quickly quashed by the community. The fact that Android source is open, means many of these "bugs" will be quickly quashed also. In fact, the targeted build of Android wasn't the stock Google one, it was a customized HTC one. It remains to be seen how many of the actual serious bugs are present in the standard Android build.
Finally, since iOS source code isn't available for community review and testing like Linux and Android are, there are likely as many or more bugs in iOS. There have been plenty already inadvertently identified serious iOS bugs by enthusiasts and security researchers. The only mobile OS that has a solid claim to superior security is Blackberry. Apple has demonstrated their inadequacies, Android looks to have some inadequacies that will be quickly addressed.
Face it, Android is far more susceptible to malware than the iPhone.
That absolutely remains to be proven, and until today there was little evidence to support that assertion. The evidence released today is highly preliminary.
Who thought it was ok for google to collect that data? I always thought it was an asshat move and they should have been fined for every byte they received
Doesn't matter. I'm talking about the ability to read the contents of supposedly encrypted iPhone data that is allowed to be unencrypted inflight by iOS using another computer.
You mean the flaw that was fixed in Oct 2009? A year ago. It'd help if you were specific.
Coverity themselves say 359 bugs, with 88 of them being high-risk security flaws. And that's just in the kernel. Yes, that's a huge number. With iPhone, a single security flaw (such as the one you mentioned) is big news on slashdot.
There's absolutely no evidence for OSS being an advantage in fixing bugs. Just an RMS catechism declaring it must be so.
What matters is what code actually ships on devices. That is what is exploited, and that is yet another weakness of Android phones. They rely on manufacturers issuing updates to privide fixes and patch security defects. And they are poor at that. Manufacturers are even shipping new devices with ancient Android versions. Again, advantage iPhone - Apple issues a security fix, and it's quickly available to all, and generally installed automatically. The power of tight integration.
Again, an assertion in the RMS catechism, believed without question by freetards, without any apparent appetite for evidence. There was a report a while back that showed that, rather then the RMS "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow" theory, most OSS source had never been audited by a single eye. I'll take professional software engineers doing their job against a bunch of amateurs doing what they fancy any day.
That would be the closed source Blackberry.
There was plenty of evidence, even before todays Android fiasco. You are making hay out of an iOS exploit, fixed a year ago that allowed you to read the contents of the flash disk. With Android, you can just pull the SD card out of the device, and read it on your PC directly. That'll never be fixed. Access to data on the internal drive? Whoops
http://www.gaj-it.com/22202/android-security-attacked-hacking-tool-released-which-exploits-google-android-security/
If you install it on your own phone, there's nothing illegal about it. If your partner or your child then uses it and you thus are able to snoop on their conversation is irrelevant. It's your phone.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Snooping on teenage children? - Now there's a way to gain their trust... NOT!
That's possibly the worst possible way to handle your kids.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
That entirely depends, a lot of parents nowadays abuse the tv to get their children to sit still and be quiet and thus reduce the amount of effort they would otherwise need to expend on parenting. This usually results in the children spending most of their time at home either in bed or in front of the television. Using television in such a way and for these reasons is, without a doubt, bad parenting and is most probably what the other poster was referring to.
That's a huge flame-bait although I suspect it wasn't meant as such.
Please go read the Human Rights Charter. Tell me where your age discrimination fits in, please.
In case you miss the point: EVERYBODY has a right to both freedom of expression and a right to privacy, not matter what age. Here in Denmark we've had a huge discussion about fitting GPS trackers to elderly people with dementia in order to find them before they die of exposure if they wander off from nursing homes. The issue is that they also have a right to privacy, even if they cannot administer it. Similar for children. Gotta watch your kids but there's limit.
It is justifiable to use a baby monitor on a baby because it serves an important purpose (checking that the baby is alright) while it doesn't violate the baby's privacy as the child is too young to be doing anything it would like to keep private (actually in isn't until around age 5-6 that a child understand the concept of privacy).
But both ethically and morally it is wrong to purposely snoop on your children. Besides, if you respect your children and their right to privacy, chances are much greater that they'll respect you and your rules, especially if they are reasonable and serves a valid purpose.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.
Of course, you're then more exposed to the possibility of being mugged walking out of the video store, or standing next to a guy in loose trackpants with his hands in his pockets while you're making your selection...
You mean the flaw that was fixed in Oct 2009? A year ago. It'd help if you were specific.
Over the past year, I've read about at least 5 what I would consider very concerning iPhone/iOS bugs. Some were recently fixed, others were waiting for a response from the notoriously uncommunicative Apple PR system. I'm not in the mood to spend hours trying to track down all these articles for a quick conversation on Slashdot. I didn't keep track of the articles because they weren't relevant to my life more than reminding me to be wary of Apple products.
Coverity themselves say 359 bugs, with 88 of them being high-risk security flaws. And that's just in the kernel. Yes, that's a huge number. With iPhone, a single security flaw (such as the one you mentioned) is big news on slashdot.
And people in that thread who have used Coverity said their bug count and rating system is notoriously duplicative and generous. One person said the actual serious bugs will probably turn out to be less than 22. It isn't a huge number for a complex OS. And again we have no idea how many serious bugs Coverity or any other tool would identify in iOS because it is closed source.
There's absolutely no evidence for OSS being an advantage in fixing bugs.
That is absolutely untrue. As I said before, Coverity was a research project originally unleashed on the Linux kernel. It identified thousands of bugs initially. The actual bugs WERE quickly fixed by the community.
They rely on manufacturers issuing updates to privide fixes and patch security defects. And they are poor at that...Again, advantage iPhone - Apple issues a security fix, and it's quickly available to all, and generally installed automatically. The power of tight integration.
All manufacturers are poor at this, including Apple. iOS4 is not backward compatible to the original iPhone/iPod touch, and there are some remaining bugs on the original iPhone that likely won't be fixed. This situation reflects poorly on HTC, it does not yet reflect poorly on Android, but it may in the future after more indepth research.
Again, an assertion in the RMS catechism, believed without question by freetards...I'll take professional software engineers doing their job against a bunch of amateurs doing what they fancy any day.
Absolutely untrue again. For one blatantly obvious example, when code is freely available, it can be sent through automated review and exploit tools such as Coverity that find potential flaws. You seem terribly misinformed or ideological. Much of the important bits of Linux are written by software engineers on the job, or in their free time, or by extremely experienced "amateurs" that by every measure match or rival "professional" counterparts.
That would be the closed source Blackberry.
But it isn't because Blackberry is closed source. I have no doubt the Blackberry OS would be incrementally better with public review of their code. However, BB source code has been reviewed by several government agencies, including likely the NSA when it was being considered for use by the President. There is extensive non-code documentation they have had to submit to large companies spelling out how the OS operates and why it is secure, before it was considered for implementation. Again this isn't ideal, but it is good evidence. Finally, I am sure there have been some BB exploits found, but I can't remember reading about any recently. So if publicized exploits are the ultimate judge for you, BB takes it.
With Android, you can just pull the SD card out of the device, and read it on your PC directly. That'll never be fixed. Access to data on the internal drive? Whoops
Again that is by design and I wouldn't have it any other way. If an app on Android needs to keep its data secure, the developer knows it must come over the air encrypted, and stay in volatile memory, or only be written to flash while encrypted. It doesn't matter that you can take the SD card out, there is nothing to read in that case.
OK, whoosh, my bad. :-\
When I left home I could finally fart during dinner time and walk around naked in the morning. :p
One of these had to go when a gf came around though.
I should probably post that as anonymous but..
You're right in that my post was not at all intended as a flame-bait. But we disagree on the rest.
Here in the USA we have a distinct legal line between competent and incompetent - - and those are not pejorative terms when used here, they simply refer to people who are not capable of properly supervising themselves. Children, even those older than 5, are not capable of consistently making good decisions. That's why they live with their parents until they're adults. The parents are supposed to watch their children and do their best to make sure the children aren't doing things that will lead to disaster.
As I said in another sub-reply, if your kid is well-behaved and responsible, then spying on his phone conversation is probably (and I say probably because even well-behaved and responsible kids can get into trouble through no fault of their own) going too far.
But if your kid has been caught doing drugs, or stealing, or he hangs out with gang members (all of these are not uncommon among American teenagers), then it would be irresponsible of the parent not to do everything possible to monitor the kid's behavior, and put a stop to bad decisions.
Put another way, if as a parent I determine that my kid might be using his phone to engage in bad behavior, then I'm going to check into it. And if I can't, then he's going to lose the phone.
BTW, in this country the terms "freedom of expression" and "right to privacy" involve restrictions on what the government can and can't do. They do not trump parental responsibilities.
To be quite clear, children do not and should not have the right to freedom of expression beyond that which the parent approves of (No, son, you may not dress as a Nazi and scream "white power" while you live in my house) and they do not have the right to privacy beyond that which the parent approves of (no, son, you may not take your girlfriend into your bedroom and lock the door).
The government cannot tell my child what he can or can't say, and the government cannot spy on my child, but I can, and when necessary, I will.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
- Your phone likewise. I won't listen in on conversations unless I happen to be within earshot. I won't be overreacting to what seems to be natural kid stuff. Sexting and nudies we need to talk about. You will surrender your phone to me if I ask for it, even if you 'pay' for it.
OK, If you intercept child porn or "nudies" then you are in posession of child pornography. Have fun with that & make sure you don't delete it, that's a felony!
Why should your kid surrender their phone to you? If you don't pay for it, it's their property and their money that you are wasting every second that you are in possession of it.
If you were willing to pro-rate the money they lost and give it back to them, it wouldn't be so horrible, but a parent who acts like you propose to generally isn't the type of person who would be willing to do that.
Well, if the phone gets wiped, the authorities will have to work that out for themselves. Unless the sender would be so kind as to provide them with the originals they sent. That should work out well.
BTW, if any service, such as the carrier(s) involved, keep copies long enough to complete the transmission, are they also guilty of posession?
But more on point, I have had a job pretty much uninterrupted for 41 years. When I was 16, I bought my own clothes, paid for extras like radios, albums, concert tickets, and lunch at school. When I turned 18, I paid a share of the family food costs and rent. Two months later, when I graduated from high school, I enlisted in the U.S. miitary. My mom was matter-of-fact about it - I could contribute, so I would. But I still was subject to her approvals for clothing, etc. I was still her responsibility until I became the military's responsibility. The military was somewhat more accomodating.
If I had children, they would be my responsibility. By your logic, if they bought a gun with their earned money and shot up someone, am I off the hook? Especially if I knew they had the gun, and especially if I knew they had shot someone.
Even more on point, after the discussion about sex, sexting, and such, I probably would need to have a discussion about the hypersensitive legal environment towards child porn and the potential for legal problems, maybe even in the future.
And in case you aren't clear on my opinions, I'm not inclined to give children many legal rights. Yes, they have the right to be cared for, and should expect to be loved and cherished, and prepared for life. But they do not ahve a right to a cell phone, or to exchange anything thye wish with others no matter the age or relationship, and they do not, IMHO, have the right to commit crimes for which their parents may be held jointly responsible.
Nice try though. I'm just old-fashioned. And I chose not to have children. Call me lazy and scared too.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
When you talk to a customer service rep on the phone, don't you get a warning that your conversation is being recorded and/or monitored?
Sometimes, sometimes not.
That implies it's legal for them to do the monitoring, but doesn't imply that the disclaimer is required.
I suspect that the warning's main function is to cut down on abusive behavior. People will tend less to be jerks if they suspect they may be recorded. It's a good idea to have that message even if you have absolutely no monitoring and recording program whatsoever in place, and no plans to implement one.
It could be that the legal department of these service organizations simply thinks it's a good idea to put in the disclaimer. That doesn't imply it's legally required. It's a form of "fine print" that covers behinds. Essentially they can argue that by listening to the disclaimer and proceeding, the customer is giving consent to being monitored. They could use this to convince a court to grant them indemnity against any action that could arise (which could be a civil action, not based in any criminal law against monitoring).
Speaking of e-mail and expectations regarding e-mail, ISP's still have agreements in which they spell out that your e-mail, and unencrypted communication in general, isn't private. Subscribers have to agree to that, which covers the ISP's butt against unreasonable actions by subscribers.