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."

Comments

so much for being open

[alen]

isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?

Re:so much for being open

[Pojut]

Seriously? You're example is the removal of a malicious app?

Re:so much for being open

[alen]

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

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that you can install apps on Android phones without going through Google.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:so much for being open

[fbjon]

It's malicious as in illegal. Your freedoms do not extend to covert snooping on other peoples conversations.

Re:so much for being open

[Dragonslicer]

isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?

Exactly! How dare Google not help people do something illegal.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently you don't have teenage children

Re:so much for being open

[franciscohs]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[mysidia]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[JxcelDolghmQ]

As much as YOUR post is an example of proper English. :)

Re:so much for being open

[Pojut]

Dammit. /seppuku

Re:so much for being open

[Barefoot Monkey]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[L3370]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[fbjon]

Yes, but you hardly need to keep that hidden from yourself. I think that's the sticking point, not the app as such.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Dishevel]

You are an idiot.

Re:so much for being open

[erroneus]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[andymadigan]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[JackOfAllGeeks]

If having physical access to a machine is enough to excuse all malicious intent then there's no such thing as an insider threat.

Re:so much for being open

[FrederikNS]

That is "...effect on the masses", "correct your damned english" and "buy some signage"

Re:so much for being open

[geekoid]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[geekoid]

Wow, you were marked Troll? shit the apple idio^H^H^H^H fanbois clearly have mod points.

Re:so much for being open

[clone53421]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Pojut]

Right??? I could see being modded "moron" for using "you're" when I should have said "your"...but troll? Beh.

Re:so much for being open

[morgauxo]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[L4t3r4lu5]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[morgauxo]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[houghi]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[clone53421]

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”.

Re:so much for being open

[AusIV]

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.

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.

Re:so much for being open

[BrokenHalo]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[BrokenHalo]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[bonch]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Fjandr]

Applying logic to fanboy rage? You must be new here...

Re:so much for being open

[rrossman2]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[rrossman2]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[mrclisdue]

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,

Re:so much for being open

[s73v3r]

Google Voice would be a much, much better solution.

Re:so much for being open

[cgenman]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[franciscohs]

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...

Re:so much for being open

[cgenman]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[unjedai]

That is, "correct your damned English."

Re:so much for being open

[FrederikNS]

True

Re:so much for being open

[BigDXLT]

Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

Re:so much for being open

[ArhcAngel]

Do current wire tapping laws cover texting? Serious inquiry as we all know laws tend to lag technology.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone that is complaining about improper grammar and spelling, you sure made a lot of mistakes in your post...

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:so much for being open

[fbjon]

You don't need to hide it either.

Re:so much for being open

[andymadigan]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Zebra1024]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[slim]

"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.

Re:so much for being open

[mysidia]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[BrokenHalo]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[L3370]

Good point. They are marketing it for nefarious purposes.

Re:so much for being open

[shadowfaxcrx]

Children do not have a right to privacy from their parents.

Adults enjoy rights and freedoms that children do not.

Re:so much for being open

[Kaz Kylheku]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[mysidia]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Thinboy00]

What's more, it's not just wiretapping, but arguably "hacking" laws as well.

Re:so much for being open

[DrgnDancer]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[toppings]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Thinboy00]

How about WiFi tethering (i.e. the phone makes its own WiFi network)?

Re:so much for being open

[clone53421]

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.)

Re:so much for being open

[slim]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[fbjon]

Even if that were the case, there's still no need for the app to hide itself.

Re:so much for being open

[Belial6]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[DrgnDancer]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Altus]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Altus]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Belial6]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Kaz Kylheku]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[spamking]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Kaz Kylheku]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[CarpetShark]

"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.

Re:so much for being open

[jhigh]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[clone53421]

It still doesn’t need to be hidden.

Re:so much for being open

[Homr Zodyssey]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[Kaz Kylheku]

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, ...

Re:so much for being open

[xaxa]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[jhigh]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[index0]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Homr Zodyssey]

Ok, so which part of your legitimate and practical purpose required that the application be comletely invisible?

Re:so much for being open

[DrgnDancer]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[flibuste]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[cHiphead]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[slim]

This thing is doing the equivalent of hiding itself from 'ps'.

Re:so much for being open

[gregfortune]

Not on my Backflip :( Shame on you, Moto.

Re:so much for being open

[slim]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[Vancorps]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[rickb928]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[SleazyRidr]

Protip: Read point B in the post to which you are replying.

Re:so much for being open

[spamking]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Zebra1024]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[higuita]

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

Re:so much for being open

[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

Re:so much for being open

[shadowfaxcrx]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[_pi-away]

Once again, there are many circumstances in which this is not illegal, so that is not a valid argument.

Re:so much for being open

[tibman]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[erroneus]

That, sir, was part of the humor.

Re:so much for being open

[UnanimousCoward]

Dude, you're serious? Can't someone make a comment in half-seriousness, half-jest without being lectured? Sheesh...

Re:so much for being open

[clone53421]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[geekoid]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[geekoid]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[cheekyjohnson]

"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.

Re:so much for being open

[cheekyjohnson]

"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.

Re:so much for being open

[mysidia]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[RobbieCrash]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[mysidia]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[SmarterThanMe]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[mysidia]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[RobbieCrash]

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 /..

Re:so much for being open

[lonecrow]

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?

Re:so much for being open

[ooshna]

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

Re:so much for being open

[xenobyte]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[xenobyte]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[MareLooke]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[xenobyte]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[BrokenHalo]

OK, whoosh, my bad. :-\

Re:so much for being open

[kangsterizer]

When I left home I could finally fart during dinner time and walk around naked in the morning.
One of these had to go when a gf came around though.
I should probably post that as anonymous but.. :p

Re:so much for being open

[shadowfaxcrx]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[tjhart85]

- 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.

Re:so much for being open

[rickb928]

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.

Re:so much for being open

[Kaz Kylheku]

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.

Those bastards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let's have the comments about how controlling Google is, just like Apple!

Re:Those bastards!

[Pojut]

Too late...the "first" guy already posted one. Wasn't even an AC!

Re:Those bastards!

[Chrisq]

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)

Re:Those bastards!

[JackOfAllGeeks]

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.

Re:Those bastards!

[clone53421]

How do you keep a blonde busy all afternoon?

(Click here for the answer.)

Good For Google

[WrongSizeGlass]

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).

Re:Good For Google

[Anonymous Coward]

google bans stuff...

from its own market.

which is only one

enjoy platform openness

Re:Good For Google

[bonch]

Google could start by protecting customers from Google.

Re:Good For Google

[icebraining]

which is only one

It was my understanding that you could install packages from outside the market.
So how is it closed again?

Re:Good For Google

[paeanblack]

Even if this app smelled like roses and shat apple pies, it shouldn't be allowed in the app store.

It's not about 'evil intent', it's about a program that behaves badly...it doesn't appear in the list of installed apps, it doesn't use the normal install/uninstall procedures, etc.

I can think of several legitimate, useful reasons for an app that duplicates text messages, even if such a program could be used maliciously. OTOH, a piece of code that circumvents the OS to hide itself? That's not an application. "Applications" are expected to mostly conform to certain norms on how they interact with the user and the OS.

There is no heavy-handedness on Google for kicking this one to the curb.

Re:Good For Google

[Anonymous Coward]

you got it the other way around:

google is preventing harmful application, but google could control only it's own marketplace.

Re:Good For Google

[Clandestine_Blaze]

google bans stuff...

from its own market.

They have every right to ban whatever they feel like banning from their market. In this case, Google claims that the app went against their policy.

which is only one

Not quite. There are alternatives.

enjoy platform openness

The platform is still open. Google hasn't banned you from installing this particular app onto your android device, just removed the possibility of buying it from their market. You can still acquire the app through the developer or from an alternative market and install it on your phone as a third-party app. The question is whether it was ethical for Google to remove the app, since you could have potential good uses for it. I can't argue for or against the ethics of removing the app from their market, but this particular case does not make the platform less open.

Re:Good For Google

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, but the alternative get not the same level of care and safeness.

Re:Good For Google

[Nadaka]

I could see a text duplicator that is visible but uninstallable (without a password) to be very useful as a parental control feature. But completely hidden? I agree, not good.

Re:Good For Google

[GameboyRMH]

Somehow a "parental control" spy app is orders of magnitude creepier than a "suspicious spouse" spy app...

Re:Good For Google

[Nadaka]

I used to think the same thing, then I got to know a few teenagers.

In this case, a known and visible app would acts as a theoretical deterrence rather than a pure spy app would.

Re:Good For Google

[GameboyRMH]

I knew plenty of teenagers in my teenage years and I still think it's creepy as hell.

Re:Good For Google

[KlaymenDK]

And yet, on the Android forum that I frequent, I've had a small handful of conversations with users who want just that for their kids' phones. Yeah, I know, go figure.

Re:Good For Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love that! It would be so much easier on me if I could just install an app and track kid's text. And if they get suspicious, they would just think it's a parental control device. It is so hard to follow them around and learn their habits before doin' mah thang to them, and candy isn't cheap. It would really take the stress out of being a rapist if I would be about to tell in advance when they were going to be alone.

Re:Good For Google

[aztracker1]

Of course, if the spouse is savvy enough to get such an app, they may be inclined enough to side-load it via the sd card, or usb tethering. At least with Android you can load apps not in the store.

Re:Good For Google

[sulfur]

It's not about 'evil intent', it's about a program that behaves badly...it doesn't appear in the list of installed apps, it doesn't use the normal install/uninstall procedures, etc.

There is nothing wrong with an application that doesn't conform to standard practices as long as system administrator is fully aware of what the application does, and knowingly chooses to install it. I may have my own reasons why I want to run a rootkit on my machine (honeypots, etc), and Google is not the one who should deprive me of this opportunity. Now, it would be unethical for me to install this app to spy on somebody, but this should be left to my conscience without Google being a moral police.

I thought the general consensus here on /. was that since I own the hardware, I should be able to use it as I please, so why is my opinion so unpopular?

Re:Good For Google

[dudpixel]

Maybe you're not a parent.?...but anyway...

I always reckon the best method is to let kids know that everything they do online is being monitored. Then if you find something you're not happy with them doing, you'll have an opportunity to discuss it and educate them on why its wrong or why you're not happy with it. It forces the child to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also the way you deal with any issues can increase the level of trust both ways.

being a parent is about giving your child the best head start in life that they can get, until its time for them to become independent and make their own way in life. leaving them to their own devices is not helping them in any way IMHO.

Re:Good For Google

[4phun]

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).

There is no Android protection.
If you want the Secret SMS Replicator developed by DLP Mobile then just buy it else where.
All you have to do is a google on Bing! and find the Secret SMS Replicator for sale.
Buy it then carefully plan to use it to get the goods on you know who!

Then SPY, SPY, SPY.

Re:Good For Google

[SnowZero]

You can install whatever you want, but it's Google's choice as to what is available in their app store. The nice thing about Android is that you are not limited to apps from the official app store -- you can install stuff directly or use other app stores. On the iPhone, this is not (yet) the case.

If you buy a computer form Best Buy, they will not control what you can install and run on your computer, but they sure can decide what boxed software they sell in their store.

Re:Good For Google

[tiggertaebo]

I'm no fan of the extremes that Apple take their control of the app store to - but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons and app should be banned and this is most definitely one of them.

As a general rule I've found Google's stance on privacy of users data to be pretty poor so on this one I say Bravo Google! It would be interesting to see if what (if any) steps they take to protect the platform as a whole from things like this, after all the app store isn't the only way software can be installed on an Android device.

Re:Good For Google

[tjhart85]

Google isn't banning the app, they're only restricting it from being on the app market. You can always install it from anywhere else.

Fuck android

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Android and iOS.

Use a real mobile OS.

Re:Fuck android

[countertrolling]

Windows?

Re:Fuck android

[onetwentyone]

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)?

Re:Fuck android

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_OS

Re:Fuck android

[mlts]

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.

Re:Fuck android

[dcherryholmes]

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.

Re:Fuck android

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Fuck android

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fuck android

[mlts]

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.

Re:Fuck android

[mlts]

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.

iPhone version?

[ceejayoz]

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.

Re:iPhone version?

[tlhIngan]

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.

Sure you can. If it exists on the iPhone, you can weasel your way around and get at 'em. However, you're probably going to have to use enough private APIs and the like that you'll be rejected immediately for failing the static code test.

Anyhow, it's not like Android doesn't warn you - isn't that widely approved "permission list" that it pops up going to tell you it has access to SMS and the like? (Even though in practice with Joe User, it fails miserably since Joe User doesn't read dialogs and such things just impede progress to their goal of playing with the app).

Finally, I think it's an app that has been marketed truthfully. All this will do now is have other app developers embed such functionality into their apps now from all the news. Suddenly all those "2-factor bank SMS" things don't seem so secure anymore, do they?

Re:iPhone version?

[ceejayoz]

Anyhow, it's not like Android doesn't warn you - isn't that widely approved "permission list" that it pops up going to tell you it has access to SMS and the like?

If you have access to someone else's phone to install this spyware, you have access to approve the SMS permissions on install. The person being spied on gets no warning.

Finally, I think it's an app that has been marketed truthfully.

It's an app designed to be installed on someone else's phone without their consent.

Re:iPhone version?

[Goaway]

This is going to be installed by someone else on your phone. They will just click OK on the dialog, and you will never hear about it again.

Re:iPhone version?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an app designed to be installed on someone else's phone without their consent.

Which doesn't make it illegal, or even the only use for it. Parents could install it on a child's phone. Heck, two parents could install it on each other's phones so they can see if a child texts one of them, without the child having to text both.

Re:iPhone version?

[N1AK]

If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.

My only concern would be that (I expect) the app makes itself hard for the owner to find. If the app intentionally removes itself from the app manager list etc then I'd say that was a flaw in the OS design. Otherwise this is simply the risk of letting someone (who you evidently can't trust) have full and unmonitored access to the device.

Re:iPhone version?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never hear about it again - until you check your phone bill and see a pattern of sent text messages to your boy/girlfriends number after every text you receive. Or if you have to pay for sending texts you will certainly know about it!

Re:iPhone version?

[jlusk4]

Not to mention the fact that Joe Developer claims he needs access to all rights because he's too lazy to come up with the minimal set he really needs.

Re:iPhone version?

[geekoid]

The only way to sue this app as intended is to get some else's phone, install it without their permissions. In that case, the person installing the app won't mind the fact that it uses SMS.

Re:iPhone version?

[IndustrialComplex]

If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.

I also don't blame Whole Foods for not selling High Fructose Corn Syrup. I don't blame vendors for not selling magnet 'health bracelets'. In a similar manner I don't blame Google for not selling this product.

Conversely, this isn't like Google Voice being banned from the Apple store because Google Voice doesn't tread into a legal grey area.

Re:iPhone version?

[geekoid]

I hope you never leave you phone on your desk while you go to the restroom.
Or never sleep while your lover is awake.

Re:iPhone version?

[clone53421]

Heck, two parents could install it on each other's phones so they can see if a child texts one of them, without the child having to text both.

WHAM. Instant infinite recursion. Great idea...

Re:iPhone version?

[Zarhan]

I wonder - never done any phone software developments, but shouldn't the SDK's and toolkits come with some sort of "minimal access profiler"? Just run your app on your dev platform, go through all functions and the profiler would tell you what accesses it really needed?

Re:iPhone version?

[Archangel Michael]

Or never sleep while your lover is awake.

We're on /. we can only dream of having that problem.

Re:iPhone version?

[jittles]

Actually you have to run your app as root to get access to the calendar, SMS, and other such private databases on the iPhone. Therefore you can only run an app such as this if you're jailbroken.

Re:iPhone version?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.

You act like you can only blame one or the other.

Guess what? Blame can go on both sides.

If you plant a bug in my house, I blame you, and I blame whatever business sells such things to private citizens.

Maybe you think that the freedom of doing so is more important than the freedom of being safe from people doing that to you, but that's a difference of opinion.

Re:iPhone version?

[h4rr4r]

In that case the app would not need to hide from the user.

Re:iPhone version?

[icebraining]

My phone has autolocking for those reasons.

Re:iPhone version?

[BrokenHalo]

Parents could install it on a child's phone.

Every time I see this kind of idea posted, I am struck by how creepy and controlling some parents are. What is so wrong with actually talking to your offspring?

Monitoring your kids' phones is just as creepy as doing the same to an adult. In fact, the invasion and abrogation of trust may well be even more unforgivable.

Re:iPhone version?

[Xest]

"Suddenly all those "2-factor bank SMS" things don't seem so secure anymore, do they?"

That's why some banks, i.e. Barclays in the UK, send you the digital equivalent of a one time pad.

It's a pain in the arse if you want to manage your account on holiday or whatever and forget the pad though.

Re:iPhone version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a lot like SELinux.

Re:iPhone version?

[toriver]

Well, for the operator at least... :)

"Honey, why do we each have a $100,000 telephone bill?"

Re:iPhone version?

[Hatta]

If you have access to someone else's phone to install this spyware, you have access to approve the SMS permissions on install. The person being spied on gets no warning.

Easy solution, don't give people you don't trust root access.

Re:iPhone version?

[DrgnDancer]

No one is saying the app is illegal, they're saying that it violates Google's Terms of Use for their app store. First, it doesn't conform to their design guidelines. It doesn't have a proper icon, can't be uninstalled via the normal method, and its settings aren't controlled via the normal interface. Second, while there are possible non-illegal uses (installing on a child's phone, while creepy and weird in my opinion is probably legal, or you could just want a way to forward your own text messages), it's primary advertised use *is* illegal. "Checking up on your lover" in this way, in addition to showing a tremendous lack of trust and being creepy, is a violation of federal wire tapping statues.

In your example, you're right, it's not illegal to sell bugs. On the other hand, most reputable retailers don't sell them. We don't blame Walmart or Best Buy for not selling electronic surveillance equipment. Why should we blame Google for not selling this?

Re:iPhone version?

[Kaz Kylheku]

It's an app designed to be installed on someone else's phone without their consent.

How many GNU/Linux distros obtain consent before installing syslogd, which can log sensitive information in a file? :)

Re:iPhone version?

[ceejayoz]

And if I trust someone, and that trust winds up violated? It happens.

Re:iPhone version?

[ceejayoz]

Let me know when syslog defaults to shipping those logs off to a third-party.

Re:iPhone version?

[Hatta]

Yeah it happens. What's your point? That Google is supposed to stop you from trusting people?

Re:iPhone version?

[ceejayoz]

No, that Google - as they did here - should probably reject ethically suspect apps that are pretty easily deemed malware.

Re:iPhone version?

[Hatta]

Isn't that the same thing?

Re:iPhone version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly all those "2-factor bank SMS" things don't seem so secure anymore, do they?

They never did.....

Its rather Ironic

[Chrisq]

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.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[WrongSizeGlass]

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.

Yes, but the Golden Rule clearly states "Do as I say, not as I do".

Re:Its rather Ironic

[cheekyjohnson]

An app that only affects a device that someone must physically have access to in order to install, no less.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Dunega]

Which Golden Rule is that? Last I checked it was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule

If you were just being sarcastic, my apologies.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[noidentity]

Yeah, because someone who knows you spying on your text messages is exactly the same as some software gathering demographic information that will be used to better market things to large groups of people.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Jade_Wayfarer]

No, it's even more simple - they don't want to lose their monopoly on spying. If everyone is spying on everyone, how can Google continue to be only "not evil" force in our small sad world?

I'm joking, of course, but still...

Re:Its rather Ironic

[pak9rabid]

Which Golden Rule is that? Last I checked it was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule [wikipedia.org]

Yes, but in practice, it's usually "he who has the gold makes the rules".

Re:Its rather Ironic

[DrDitto]

How does Google's business rely on spying? By delivering advertisements based on what you search for?

Re:Its rather Ironic

[hedwards]

Not really, what Google does is still legal. What this app does is wiretapping which is illegal without a court order. Doesn't matter whether you're in a one or two party consent state, zero party consent requires a court order and to be performed by law enforcement.

Google almost certainly pulled the app because the expressed purpose of the app is to violate the law. The only question is why it got into the market to begin with. I'd've thought they'd make a quick cursory glance at the summary before putting it in.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Jazz-Masta]

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.

They are obviously upset over the possibility that the program's maker is getting very close to finding out that Google already has this function built-in, except that it forwards the user's text messages to Google for advertising purposes (or insert your own evil institution - FBI, CIA, etc).

They figure forwarding twice may causes some raised eyebrows at the user's telecom provider.

Or perhaps it's just a really bad idea. I would guess this program would be used >90% of the time for evil. This is in the same moral grey area as installing keyloggers and monitoring programs on corporate computers. It only works because the corporation owns the computer and monitoring was a condition of employment.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[sorak]

I choose to go to google, knowing that they will use that information to sell me ads. This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's phone that will forward all text messages to him/her.

Do you not see a difference?

Re:Its rather Ironic

[sorak]

Correction: it isn't a trojan, so much as spyware.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[jlusk4]

It's not spying if they're up front about it. Which they are.

Really? You're going to use their free web mail and their free browser and then complain about them using the info they harvest? Did I miss something?

Re:Its rather Ironic

[DrXym]

Google tracks you with your consent. If you don't like it, don't consent. Delete your cookies, use rival search engines, don't buy a "smart phone".

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Captain Spam]

The only question is why it got into the market to begin with. I'd've thought they'd make a quick cursory glance at the summary before putting it in.

They don't. When I first submitted my app, as soon as I hit "Publish" on the web interface, I searched for it on my phone and found it immediately. All of Google's enforcement is apparently afterward, if complaints are raised.

Whether you find that good on the whole or not is another matter, of course.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Cro Magnon]

I thought it was "Do unto others before they do unto you.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Chrisq]

I choose to go to google, knowing that they will use that information to sell me ads. This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's phone that will forward all text messages to him/her.

Do you not see a difference?

Correction: it isn't a trojan, so much as spyware.

I think that we can all agree that it comes down to the possibility of someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[zigfreed]

relies on spying tracking

No. Google would (and likely approve) an app that aggregates the words typed in, the frequency the words are typed, the most likely word written before and after, and an email forwarding mechanism. Link it to a word list (so you're sending numbers instead of words, and you're Googling it right. Then sell the program that statistically reverses this simple procedure for hundreds.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[robot256]

I'm sure my wife would be disturbed if it came down to me slipping a trojan on another person.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[teachknowlegy]

I'd kind of rather the trojan be slipped on someone else's phone than on someone else's something else.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[clone53421]

I'd kind of rather the trojan be slipped on someone else's phone

Oh, is that how you keep the iPhone antenna from shorting out? I knew they were giving away some kind of rubber phone covers but that wasn’t quite how I imagined it.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[cgenman]

"I see you are attempting to spy on your relatives and loved ones. You might also be interested in this trailer for Mission Impossible 4."

Re:Its rather Ironic

[cgenman]

They also gather information on you through Google Mail, chat, *probably* voice, orkut, and other Google services. In they valley at least, they offer WiFi hotspots that they track to help improve search results and personal advertisements. They can tie your advertising profile to specific locations, based upon Google maps and your plethora of IP addresses. And, of course, they can track your surfing habits across their network of advertising partners.

While it's not really spying, it is a disquieting amount of private or semi-private information.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Fjandr]

This would be a perfect opportunity for a joke about an iRubber protecting dicks from getting iSTDs, but that would be mean since I do actually have friends who use iPhones...

Re:Its rather Ironic

[mdm-adph]

Honestly, if you left it completely up to the algorithm, that's probably the ad you'd get in return.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[bonch]

Are you seriously suggesting that it's okay for Google to sniff your emails and passwords because it's merely "gathering demographic information" for marketing purposes? Even the UK has reopened their investigation into Google's wifi spying, and dozens of states in the U.S. are doing probes of their own.

The blind Google defenders on Slashdot are really getting annoying. This company can apparently do no wrong! Calling the spying of your private data a harmless case of "gathering demographic information" is probably the most amusing understatement I've seen yet. Amusing in a sad way.

At some point, you have to take a stand and let people know your privacy does have meaning, even on the internet. This attitude I'm seeing lately where people shrug their shoulders and accept that everything they do on the internet is accessible is bullshit, especially for a site that used to take anonymity and privacy seriously and is one of the last big websites to allow anonymous posting.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's-

Whoa now! Let's keep it SFW here. I don't need to read about someone putting condoms on other people.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Reziac]

Yes. The husband/wife has a great deal more right to know what *their own spouse* is doing, than Google has rights to know what *everyone* is doing.

I say that even tho I object to spyware on principle, and figure if a relationship is already that devoid of trust, the *real* function of such spyware is to collect evidence for divorce court.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, Google should know more about me than my wife.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. Google should know more about me than my wife.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

...to sell me ads

I always knew it would come to this: now they're even making us pay for the ads themselves!

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Belial6]

The biggest difference being that what I do is none of Google's business, but it is my wife's? Of course, I just give my wife access to all of my communications, so having my SMS's forwarded to her would be a bigger problem for her than it would be for me.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[noidentity]

Are you seriously suggesting that it's okay for Google to sniff your emails and passwords because it's merely "gathering demographic information" for marketing purposes?

No. If you read what I wrote: "Yeah, because someone who knows you spying on your text messages is exactly the same as some software gathering demographic information [...]"

The blind Google defenders on Slashdot are really getting annoying. This company can apparently do no wrong! Calling the spying of your private data a harmless case of "gathering demographic information" is probably the most amusing understatement I've seen yet. Amusing in a sad way.

What's sadder is your imagination that I'm defending Google. I simply called into question the grandparent's implication that installing a message logger on someone's phone so you could spy on everything was the same as Google gathering demographic information in an automated way on data you feed through their system. I don't care whether someone is for or against Google, I hold everyone to the same standard. That means not mispresenting situations merely to support one's point of view, even if it means a less-dramatic case for/against something.

At some point, you have to take a stand and let people know your privacy does have meaning, even on the internet.

If you want privacy on the Internet, the surest way to achieve that is avoiding services that violate it. That's one important difference between this case; here, even your private information that you thought you were just sending to another (trusted) party over a non-Internet network is being snooped, and it's not the company who provides the service who's doing it.

This attitude I'm seeing lately where people shrug their shoulders and accept that everything they do on the internet is accessible is bullshit

Who the hell here is shrugging their shoulders and accepting it? See, your warping of my original statement hurts the cause for privacy, because you alienate people who have similar views, just because they aren't extreme about it and misrepresent things in order to support their views. Lose the extremism and stop imagining things that people didn't even write.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, look, another mysterious abuse of the Overrated modifier. Cowards who can't refute the points censor those they don't like.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[zeroshade]

I just find people criticizing google for sniffing unsecured wireless networks by driving around to be idiotic. If you don't want anyone to know what you're doing, secure your wireless network. It's not difficult anymore.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[kjcole]

The big difference is "secret". Google's tracking is no secret. They also make some, perhaps pitiful, effort to aggregate data and obscure individuals. (Perhaps they're secretly tracking on a more individual, invasive level, in which case, I'm with you on the irony.)

Re:Its rather Ironic

[sorak]

Back in the days of mom & pop stores, one of the selling points was that the store would be run by a kindly old man who would form a relationship with the customer. (I'm romanticizing, but please understand the marketing pitch). You go in and buy your groceries ever week, and he gets to know you.

I see Google's role analogous to the shop-keeper. He isn't following you out of the store, and (AFAIK), he isn't selling detailed reports on your shopping habits to some other store. He's just remembering that you were the guy who bought such-and-such last week, and he's offering suggestions for this week.

To me, that is perfectly legitimate. As long as Google is one half the transaction, they have the right to remember that transaction.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[clone53421]

Except that the same guy seems to be in every store you visit...

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's phone that will forward all text messages to him/her to see if they're slipping a trojan on with someone else.

FTFY.

Re:Its rather Ironic

[uncanny]

You aren't a parent are you?

Re:Its rather Ironic

[Oloryn]

Google's version of Clippy?

Re:Its rather Ironic

[cdrguru]

Yes, but be assured Google is also collecting information to be sold to companies about the habits and interests of people. What do you think a large grocery chain might pay for historical data indicating food items being searched for? Or what receipes are being searched for, indicating what food items people will probably be buying soon? From there they can tailor their special offers and drive people to their stores and away from the competition.

Pretty much any large to huge retailer has to be doing this kind of research and Google makes it a whole lot easier to get the data. I am sure Google is packaging it up and selling it in a nice bundle on a subscription plan as well.

You know, they just recently got a whole bunch of data on geographic distribution of wireless router brands. Do you think DLink and Netgear are interested in that sort of data?

Remember when Microsoft had Windows 95 searching for various applications and reporting back with the Windows registration what they found? Trust me, this wasn't the first instance of that sort of data collection for marketing purposes. Nor was it the last. Google has a huge data store of this sort of information and I am sure they are selling it.

Useful app

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Useful app

[drsmack1]

Did you join in? *That* would have showed her!

Re:Useful app

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't complain about app devs unwillingness to write an app in response to you not being able to satisfy your wife in the sack.

Re:Useful app

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I advise against marrying attractive women and/or independent woman. My wife is good enough looking to me, but would not be a likely candidate for cheating around because she is not too attractive to the random stranger. There would have to be some sort of personal relationship with feelings behind it to facilitate an attraction from someone else. That is far easier to detect in most cases.

The next thing is independence. You need a stay-at-home mom. Period. They cheat when they start going out on business trips or spending a lot of time with male coworkers. It's also very easy to hide.

Another thing is that some women cheat when they do not love their husband. Some women cheat because they like the feeling of a new dick inside them and the smell of a new man. You need to stay away from the latter. They will never be good wives, and you can vet this before getting married. There are multiple signs when the former is in effect. She may act like she loves you to maintain the status quo, but there are clear signs when they don't love you anymore.

My wife rubs my back each morning as I snooze the alarm clock, makes me coffee and prepares my lunch. She lays my clothes for the day out so I don't have to muck about in the closet. She always has a fresh green bowl loaded and a beer open for me when I get home. She's done this every day for the last year. We've been married for a year, but living together for 7 years before that. She was fully vetted.

These are the things she does for me because I make it so that she can stay home and raise our wonderful daughter, drink a malt beverage or two, smoke a bunch of pot all day, and play video games. She also takes care of all the errands.

The point is, if she were to stop doing these things, it would be cause for concern.

In return for all she does, I also am faithful. I also fall into the category of not being too attractive to be able to just go out and cheat. She has also made me rather dependent on her. You can probably imagine based off some of the things I described that she does for me that I would never want to do anything to fuck that up.

So if there is cheating in a marriage, it's your own fucking fault.

Re:Useful app

[ChrisMP1]

Does she read Slashdot? Because that would explain your anonymity...

effingreat

[Anonymous Coward]

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 !

open, my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, as long as you only do what they think is ok. :-)

Re:open, my ass.

[hedwards]

So, refusing to be an accessory to illegal wiretaps means that the platform isn't really open? What's next the fact that they refuse to give you access to hawt 8 year olds as a violation of your rights?

Re:open, my ass.

[Fjandr]

Goatse, is that you?

Re:open, my ass.

[icebraining]

The difference is that Google lets you install software outside the market.

Is Windows not open because Microsoft doesn't distribute every app out there?

But you can still get it, right?

[Urban Garlic]

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.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[psm321]

Yes, exactly. Even with no jailbreaking/rooting. That's why this shouldn't be a big deal either way.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Pojut]

Correct, provided you don't have a carrier-locked-down Android phone that prevents you from installing apps from sources other than the official market (though that kind of thing is quite rare...I believe there are only a couple out of the myriad of Android devices set up like this.)

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[immakiku]

Yes indeed. I am much less concerned about this decision than I would if this happened on App Stores. I think Google's point is that they don't want a stalker to sneak 2 minutes on a target's phone while they're going to the bathroom and install the app easily from the Android App Store.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Rhaban]

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.

Yes.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[immakiku]

Eh that is, I'd be more concerned if it were banned on Apple Stores, because on that, there's NO way to get the app even if you as phone owner personally approve.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[BasilBrush]

It's a big deal if you're the one who's being spied on. A few people are going to have a "Wish I'd bought an iPhone instead" moment because of this.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[fermion]

Which means that it is the worst of both worlds. The App is not outright malicious, as it does not include secret functionality. It will still be available, users will simply have to go the black market, which will result in more users becoming familiair with the black market, which means they are more likely to use it. So the App store, which main purpose it protect users from malicious software, will have utterly failed in it's mission.

Furthermore, this shows a serious flaw in security model of Android. There is no reason to allow end user installed apps to run without any evidence to the user. Every App should have an icon somewhere announcing it's presence. Any app that communicates should have an indication that it is doing so. On iPhone , for example, there is a locations services panel that allows on to turn off any app that wants to know your location. It would be nice to also have one that would do the same for text or network access, but it seems that such would a feature on the Android that is an open platform.

At the very least this should not be an issue as there should be a password required to install an App, on the iPhone it is the ITMS password. If a person gives that password to the person they are cheating on, i don't see how that is anyone else's problem

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I looked it was any Android device sold by AT&T.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to:

"wish i'd locked my phone instead" moment

or

"wish i hadn't cheated/got caught having an affair instead"

the solution is NOT always an iPhone.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[robmv]

this could be solved requesting the lock passkey/password/pattern before installing (no needed when updating), that way you can lend your phone to anybody and they will not be able to install any spying tool

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Dhalka226]

That there is any carrier lockdown at all is a pretty hilarious illustration of just how much some companies don't get it.

If I'm in the market for a smartphone, and I don't choose the iPhone, lockdown is likely a major factor for the decision; it's one of the major things Android has going for it over the iPhone. A carrier making the non-locked-down phone locked down just makes me giggle.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[DrXym]

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?

I expect people who use dodgy pirate app stores for android will get it for free as an special introductory offer.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[mobby_6kl]

Those people might want to reconsider spending any more of their lives with their SO instead of relying on a technical limitation to protect their privacy from crazies.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hard for me to feel sympathetic for those caught cheating. If you are worried enough to use this app, your relationship has sufficient problems already.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, these companies are so stupid. Large groups of people go out and buy their products, including /.ers. So, just exactly who are the ones that are being stupid?

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[the_humeister]

That would be AT&T. But there is still a way around that by downloading the Android SDK (apk tool that is in there). No need for rooting.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[slim]

this could be solved requesting the lock passkey/password/pattern before installing (no needed when updating), that way you can lend your phone to anybody and they will not be able to install any spying tool

Most people seem to be focussing on the jealous spouse as the potential installer.

I think most spouses would be able to shoulder-surf their other half's phone lock pattern.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[slim]

That there is any carrier lockdown at all is a pretty hilarious illustration of just how much some companies don't get it.

It's not a binary thing. My Desire has some level of lockdown, which essentially means I'd have to root it to have full control over the firmware/OS, but I can install any app I like. It has some bloatware that I can't remove, but isn't intrusive enough to bother me.

Whether to root it, or whether to buy something more open, is a matter of risk, reward, and cost.

It's cheaper for me to buy this locked down model than to buy a fully open phone. The cost in terms of time/effort, plus the risk of bricking it, don't justify the extra functionality I'd get by rooting it.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[mdm-adph]

Correct, provided you don't have a carrier-locked-down Android phone that prevents you from installing apps from sources other than the official market (though that kind of thing is quite rare...I believe there are only a couple out of the myriad of Android devices set up like this.)

And they're all quickly circumvented, too, using either the Android SDK or a few other Windows programs out there that will sideload apps onto your phone.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[bonch]

I thought Android was open? Not being sarcastic here; I'm genuinely curious how the platform could be regarded as open if carriers have that kind of control over it. In fact, it makes me think Android is merely being used by carriers as a tool against Apple, who totally controls their platform and won't let carriers have any say in it, and that Android isn't about openness at all.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Pojut]

As others have mentioned, it's only AT&T that locks their phones down like that...there are many different reasons why they might, but they don't matter; the restriction is still circumvented.

So long as carriers don't rape it, Android is extremely open...all it takes to install things obtained outside of the Google App Store is pressing a checkbox that is easily found in the settings menu. Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the option is only one-screen-deep, once on the settings screen (which can take between 1-2 touches, depending on how you have your phone set up. It's never more than 2 touches away though...three, if you have the screen lock when the phone is off.)

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Lockdown is becoming increasingly common in the Android phone world. Soon you may not have much of a choice. Are there any completely open android phones sold today aside from the Nexus One?

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Reziac]

I think Google's point is that they don't want the legal liability, since with their very deep pockets they'd make a tempting target for an "invasion of privacy" lawsuit. Possibly predicated on the fact that in some states (Texas leaps to mind) this might put them in the position of needing a private investigator's license.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Abcd1234]

If I'm in the market for a smartphone, and I don't choose the iPhone, lockdown is likely a major factor for the decision

Hint: You do not represent the majority of the consumer public. I know, that's hard to believe, 'cuz you're so important and awesome. But it's true.

Now, if you're wondering why this is relevant: carriers aren't working to satisfy *you*. They're working to satisfy Joe Public. Joe Public doesn't understand open versus closed. Hell, they've probably never heard of jailbreaking, or "rooting", as the Fandroids like to call it. So to Joe Public, openness is not, in fact, "one of the major things Android has going for it", 'cuz if you pointed that out to them, they'd have no fucking idea what you were even talking about.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[tepples]

That would be AT&T. But there is still a way around that by downloading the Android SDK (apk tool that is in there).

Until AT&T tries charging $99 per year to unlock use of the Android SDK on its subsidized handsets to match the deal that it offers on iPhone.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[Hatta]

I think Google's point is that they don't want a stalker to sneak 2 minutes on a target's phone while they're going to the bathroom and install the app easily from the Android App Store.

Does Android not require a password to install software? If it does, then your scenario is not a problem. If it doesn't, then the lack of a password is a bigger security problem than the existence of this app.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[the_humeister]

That would actually be Google charging for that privilege instead AT&T in order for that to make any sense.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[SpeedyG5]

Actually the deal is that the geeks who set up the androids for their mom's, dad's, technically challenged friends and relatives can slip this app on through an alternate store and there is nothing anyone can do about it. We just have to rely on the honesty of geeks, like the ones that work for the PA school district.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[RossumsChild]

For the record: I've got a Moto Droid. direct from verizon it comes with the check box clicked to "restrict applications to those purchased from the app store."

In the event you want to install an app from another source, you're notified about the setting, and prompted to change it if you want to install the app, in which case you're taken directly to the settings page and can change the state of the check box yourself.

So even if your phone is configured to deny it by default, in my experience it is an easy thing to change.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[tlhIngan]

Lockdown is becoming increasingly common in the Android phone world. Soon you may not have much of a choice. Are there any completely open android phones sold today aside from the Nexus One?

Having dealt with handset manufacturers before, they regard things like xda-developers to be a major issue. Time and time again we hear from them "We don't want to be on xda-developers" and "We don't want xda-developers on us".

So lockdown's happening, like it or not. The manufacturers want it, the carriers want it, and Google wants it (to help limit piracy). It's such that Android might be "open" in name only, purely to offer a bullet-point against the iPhone.

Re:But you can still get it, right?

[BasilBrush]

Some call them crazies. Some just call 'em women.

hmmm

[mapkinase]

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.

Re:hmmm

[Haedrian]

Similarly, putting a keylogger/sniffer/trojan on your own machine for your own private use is A-OK. Therefore most malware should be legal.

It doesn't work that way. People will use it for illegal things, having a "[ ] You are the owner of this phone" checkbox during first install will do nothing for anyone.

Yes there are legit uses for spying on people - they can get it from a source other than the app store.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a rebellious kid, sure.

In my childhood, all kids with crazy strict and monitoring parents turned out to be the worst seeds.

The kids with freedom and TRUST from their parent turned out much more sensible.

As for the app, I would remove it myself if I ran an app store. An app doesn't need to spread itself to be malicious.

Re:hmmm

[mapkinase]

Wrong. Inherent to keylogger/sniffer/trojan is illegitimate snicky procedure of installation which is not legal. It should have EULA, the user should be able to understand what the program is doing.

That is the class of the software I am describing.

Re:hmmm

[Goaway]

How, exactly, do you suggest an EULA would help anything, if the attacker is the one clicking past it?

Re:hmmm

[hedwards]

You'd be wrong. If somebody else installs it there's no way of knowing it's there unless you scroll through the list of downloaded apps. That's not something that I do on a regular basis so a person could install it surreptitiously and it might be there for weeks or months without me noticing.

Which is really the problem. An app like that is unlikely to be installed by a person for their own use, it's going to be installed by people that are wanting to stalk or are engaging in domestic violence. Tracking devices and spyware are unfortunately becoming the status quo in domestic violence situations.

Worse still is that in a situation like that the application might not even be hidden.

Re:hmmm

[clone53421]

He also said it should show up in the list of apps and clearly describe what it’s doing.

If it tries to hide, it’s malicious.

Re:hmmm

[slim]

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.

A legal right? A moral right?

I'm not sure about either.

TOTC!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:TOTC!!!

[drsmack1]

I think you have found the killer app for any platform. Have a hot and slutty kid? Get all the sexts they receive sent right to you!

Not so obvious...

[webmistressrachel]

So far, all the comments are based on the assumption that this is a malicious app. However, my husbands / wifes property is also my property, therefore I can install whatever I want to spy on him / her.

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.

Re:Not so obvious...

[drsmack1]

>> My right to legally investigate my partner

Maximum shrinkage factor! Holy PreNup Batman!

Re:Not so obvious...

[Pojut]

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.

Who says the app's use would be limited to partners/spouses?

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not legal to spy on your spouse with keyloggers in some states.

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot and a scumbag and I can only hope you never ever engage in any sort of relationship with another human being with your total lack of ethics.

Re:Not so obvious...

[immakiku]

Yes because the store can distinguish who is a wife/husband of the phone's owner. No stalker would ever want to abuse this.

Re:Not so obvious...

[potHead42]

You missed the point where Android doesn't have a monopolistic app store, so you're free to get this spyware through other legal channels.

Re:Not so obvious...

[webmistressrachel]

It isn't legal to DeCSS in some countries, but if I can in mine, then I can. It's not for the App Store to decide (wrongly, in this case - UK)

Re:Not so obvious...

[webmistressrachel]

Anonymous Coward, you're such a biter!!

1) YHBT

2) Who says I would or wouldn't - this is about the RIGHT to do so in my legal jurisdiction if I suspect blah blah...

3) Morales != Ethics.

Rachel x

Re:Not so obvious...

[webmistressrachel]

No stalker could install this on my husband's phone without physical access, either. Next?

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between the two, is one requires the equivalent of bugging a room, and the other is things done in public or viewable by the public are public.

You also have no "right" to investigate your partner; there is no such thing. There is also no such thing as "illegally" taking away this "right".

Seriously, sorry your partner cheated on you. That's wrong and there's no excuse. But you're coming across like a real nutjob. You need to get that under control before you go to court or it will negatively impact your case.

Re:Not so obvious...

[robocop16]

And lets not forget about teenagers, who is going to stop the kid from down the street from "borrowing" your daughter's phone and putting this on?

Re:Not so obvious...

[westlake]

However, my husbands / wifes property is also my property, therefore I can install whatever I want to spy on him / her

I suggest calling a lawyer. You need one. Badly.

Re:Not so obvious...

[webmistressrachel]

I'm not even married, YHBT. Thanks for playing!

Re:Not so obvious...

[hedwards]

A frequent use of this sort of technology is to tighten the grip that an abuser has on the abused. It allows the perpetrator to monitor communications and when tied in with GPS and such it makes it possible for the abused to be in society but unable to communicate freely.

There is no legitimate reason for this technology to be used without a court order. If you can't get a judge to sign off on it, then you shouldn't be doing it. There is no grey area involved. We have the 4th amendment for a reason.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While that only applies between the citizens and the government, the government at various levels has passed laws providing that protection to the citizens.

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

EMS

Re:Not so obvious...

[IndustrialComplex]

No stalker could install this on my husband's phone without physical access, either. Next?

So you would be perfectly fine with them installing secret cameras in your house the next time you and your husband are out at work/vacation/dinner?

Don't forget, stalkers are quite often spouses, friends, and other close relations.

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Morale is only associated with ethical behavior to the extent that mood affects ethical behavior.

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

No stalker could install this on my husband's phone without physical access, either. Next?

[sarcasm]Yeah, and no stalker could find a way to get physical access to your husband's phone either. That would be impossible. [/sarcasm]

Re:Not so obvious...

[cgenman]

Depending upon jurisdiction, your partner probably has wiretap laws protecting both them AND the recipient of the messages.

Re:Not so obvious...

[arose]

Do you think you have the right to open mail addressed to your spouse.

Re:Not so obvious...

[flogger]

There is no legitimate reason for this technology to be used without a court order.

Bullshit. Right underneath your post are two buttons. One is 'Reply', the other is 'Parent'

A parent should be able to use this. A parent is responsible for know where a child is and what the child is doing. If my daughter had a cell phone, I would use this to determine if she is working out some affair with a lecherous principal or teacher. Before you, and others, scoff, This happened recently in my county. A high school principal was having sexual encounters with a student and was discovered via a discovery made by the parent of incoming/outgoing texts made on the daughter cell phone.

I'd hate to use a cliche, but "Think of the Children."

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even married, YHBT. Thanks for playing!

Obviously you haven't met the man stupid enough to not recognize who and what you are yet.... Thanks for playing though.

Re:Not so obvious...

[bonch]

So what, exactly, is the problem with this app, Google?

The bad publicity it might get them. Google's "openness" has its limits.

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fourth amendment only applies to government searches.

That doesn't mean it's legal. Before using something like this I would read Federal and State wiretap laws very carefully.

(This is not legal advice.)

Re:Not so obvious...

[slim]

A parent should be able to use this. A parent is responsible for know where a child is and what the child is doing.

This is morally murky. I've a lot of sympathy with the angle that a child has as much right to privacy as an adult. There are many legitimate reasons that a child might want to keep something secret from their parents (as a dramatic example, if a parent is abusive in some way).

If my daughter had a cell phone, I would use this to determine if she is working out some affair with a lecherous principal or teacher. Before you, and others, scoff, This happened recently in my county. A high school principal was having sexual encounters with a student and was discovered via a discovery made by the parent of incoming/outgoing texts made on the daughter cell phone.

Even this is morally murky. If I break into someone's home, and discover evidence that foils a murder plot, I'm still guilty of criminal trespass.

I think there are two ways you could ethically read your daughter's texts
1. In light of strong evidence from other sources that something was going on
2. As part of an overt arrangement, whereby you've agreed with her that she may have a cellphone on condition that you'll regularly review her texts in her company.

Re:Not so obvious...

[Duradin]

First, scoff.

Second, are we supposed to care more since the victim is female, and very obviously so, in both your cases?

Third, using "think of the children" is an automatic loss during an argument.

Re:Not so obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, are we supposed to care more since the victim is female, and very obviously so, in both your cases?

Wait - what? The part that I read said the victim was a high school principal. Were you reading something different?

Re:Not so obvious...

[webmistressrachel]

Duh, of course! And he opens mine! And my parents decided who I could talk to and when! IM IN THE UK folks! NO RIGHTS! Stop applying your nonsense Amendments this that and the other, and consider that I, yes I, who does seem like a bitch cos I'm trolling about the EXACT things that have happened to me, that I might be the abused party, esp. by my parents, and that maybe, just maybe, I know these things because the law was never there to help me!

Re:Not so obvious...

[clone53421]

I’m pretty sure what you’re trying to say is a (rather bitter) whoosh*, but I had to re-read both this and the original post before I was able to finally convince myself of that.

*What’s it called again when someone misses sarcasm that wasn’t really supposed to be funny?

Re:Not so obvious...

[webmistressrachel]

Heh heh, I've trolled even the trolls today. This day will go down in Federation history as the day Rachel... oh forget it. :-P

Re:Not so obvious...

[drsmithy]

A parent should be able to use this. A parent is responsible for know where a child is and what the child is doing.

Heh, that's pretty funny. When was the last time a parent was held responsible for something their child did ?

If my daughter had a cell phone, I would use this to determine if she is working out some affair with a lecherous principal or teacher.

Right. And I bet you'd also be right there if she was "working out some affair" with any other man you disapproved of as well.

Before you, and others, scoff, This happened recently in my county. A high school principal was having sexual encounters with a student and was discovered via a discovery made by the parent of incoming/outgoing texts made on the daughter cell phone.

How old was the girl ? If she was 13, it's a problem. If she was 17, it's neither surprising nor outrageous. Heck, just in my high school back in the day there are at least half a dozen examples of students having "encounters" with teachers that I can think of, and that was fifteen years ago (two of them have been married to that same person for the last 10).

Re:Not so obvious...

[DaVince21]

So far, all the comments are based on the assumption that this is a malicious app. However, my husbands / wifes property is also my property, therefore I can install whatever I want to spy on him / her.

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.

It's beyond Google's store's terms of service that users and developers agreed to. If users really want it, the developers of this app are totally free to still offer it outside Google's app service.

So, is it hard to install from a different store?

[Brannon]

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?

If Apps are outlawed...

[DrData99]

...only Outlaws will have Apps!

(with apologies to the NRA)

Re:If Apps are outlawed...

[ILMTitan]

Just because guns a legal doesn't mean Toys 'R Us has to sell them. If Toys 'R Us was the only store in the country however...

There are always limits.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yes, your ass is probably open quite often.

[Brannon]

Enjoy.

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor

[Pojut]

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.

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor

[countertrolling]

Shields Google from liability.

Cost of Text Messages?

[alphax45]

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?

Re:Cost of Text Messages?

[slim]

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?

Ooh, as the attacker, you wouldn't want it to send the CCs as SMS messages. Those would show up on the itemised bill and you'd get rumbled.

No, you'd send them over a TCP/IP based protocol, and you'd use a queue in case there's no internet at that moment.

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor

[immakiku]

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.

And so it begins

[pak9rabid]

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.

Re:And so it begins

[slim]

There goes all the fuel behind the "Google's App Store is completely open" argument.

Google's app store has never been completely open AFAIK.

However, you don't need to root your phone in order to install apps from sources other than the app store (on most Android handsets).

Re:And so it begins

[geekoid]

A) You can still install it. Just select the option in your options.

B) If you have to install an app to see if your wife is fucking around, you're marriage is already over. That kind of passive aggressive stupidity doomed the marriage from the start.

C) If you have reason to suspect it, and it is needed for a court case, then you can go through legal means to get those records from the phone company.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yes, and I'm sure the hired thug who murdered some poor sap because someone with money didn't like him has a "vastly different opinion" on whether or not that was malicious. That doesn't make it legal.

Re:And so it begins

[LiteWait]

Easy for you to say. Passive/Aggressive stupidity... maybe...but when your wife of 20 years is lying in front of you and your children day after day and destroying your family...you might not be so quick to judge. Jeez I'd rather burn $500 a day with a private eye or the thousands in extra legal costs getting her phone records those costs are surely won't have ANY effect on me being able to put my kids through college now will it? A tad bitter aren't I?

Re:And so it begins

[Anomalyx]

I have a hunch that this pull has nothing to do with openness and everything to do with avoiding a lawsuit for facilitation of wiretapping.

I'd still call the Android Market pretty open. The platform as a whole is still quite open, considering you can easily install apps without going through the Market - Just download the installer and run it on the phone and you have it again. All that really happened here was getting de-listed from the Market.

Re:And so it begins

[khchung]

There goes all the fuel behind the "Google's App Store is completely open" argument.

Exactly.

Compare the situation with iPhone and Android:

On the iPhone:
1. Apple bans app
2. You jailbreak your iPhone
3. You get the apps elsewhere and install in your phone

On the Android:
1. Google bans app
2. You get the apps elsewhere and install in your phone

Yes, there is an extra step on iPhone. HOWEVER, it also means that if my iPhone is NOT jailbroken, I can be reasonably sure I don't have any of these spyware installed.

Maybe Symantec should release an Android antivirus app to detect spywares for Android users, using this app to FUD users into buying it.

Not news

[slasho81]

This app is obviously malware, so Google removed it. Why is this news?

Re:Not news

[Duradin]

Google good, Apple bad. That's why this is news.

For extra points, pick the one of the two that's actually deleted apps off of handsets.

Re:Not news

[Anonymous Coward]

For bonus points, pick the platform that you can simply go back to the author, get the binary, and reinstall it?

(yes, except for AT&T handsets, but then again, you're going for AT&T... they like their control, just like the company you seem to be cheering for).

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor

[hedwards]

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

[C_Kode]

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.

Re:What irritates me the most

[faedle]

This.

It's even more annoying when you are somewhere you know you won't get good GPS information and have intentionally turned it off. Groupon's applet is particularly annoying in this regard. Dammit, just load and log me in to my account and give me the deals for the city I told you I was in.. don't sit there and freeze while you try to get a GPS fix that may never happen because I'm in the subway.

Re:What irritates me the most

[slim]

Simple answer: don't install the app, and if you're feeling particularly proactive, email the developer to say why.

They might remove the requirement, or they might decide they don't need your custom. Either way, everything's OK.

Re:What irritates me the most

[KarmaMB84]

I bet those Android app writers used to write applications for Windows XP too.

"What's this permission bullshit? My app needs access to everything!!"

Re:What irritates me the most

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see a fine GPS request I ask the author why it was included. If they can't give me a good reason, I don't install the application. Coarse GPS I'm not so worried about. Exception: if the app seems more "complex" requiring more development time, I might even consider installing since they need more $$$.

I've emailed several authors and they've all replied. Heck I even emailed Shazam with a complaint and guess what? The problem was fixed! The bug: If you plug in to a computer (the usb-storage turn on window pops up) / press home / open another app while it's analyzing, it stops / restarts the app when you come back despite not actually doing too anything resource intensive -- just sending data to a server somewhere. All it has to do is ignore the stop call from the OS and boom, everything still works and the analysis is finished. (unlike other platforms)

More to the current point, Slacker Radio recently included SMS read / send and a whole bunch of scary looking permissions. In the comments and star rating (and possible people emailing), people were leaving messages that they were either uninstalling / moving to alternates / etc. I myself didn't update. Guess what? Yesterday, the "(manual)" disappeared off the end of the Market "Update" -- i.e. they revered the permissions to what it was before.

Re:What irritates me the most

[Anonymous Coward]

They might want to know what country you're in, so they can guess what language you might speak, so they can prioritize their translation efforts to support the most popular languages.

Queue the google+privacy jokes in ....

[grepya]

... 3....2 ..... 1...

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor

[slim]

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.

TROLLK.ORE

[Anonymous Coward]

can connect to That suuports worthwhile. So I get tough. I hope conversations w4ere empire in decline, which allows fact there won't

Weird definition of 'choice'

[Brannon]

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.

Re:Weird definition of 'choice'

[immakiku]

False. You can bill the "option of restriction" as freedom, but that's simply not what it is. No closed system has ever been perfect. There's a website where you can just jailbreak an iPhone from the built in browser. That vector of attack is still there. In addition the phone's owner can't even install things that they WANT (which are not considered "attacks").

So Apple is the only store in the country?

[Brannon]

Is that your point?

but, how do you run the app on your microwave?

[Brannon]

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.

Re:but, how do you run the app on your microwave?

[icebraining]

The microwave isn't designed to run general purpose software. A smartphone is designed to run general purpose software, but then extra effort is spent preventing you from doing so.

Now go hold your phone as His Holiness ordered.

Re:but, how do you run the app on your microwave?

[drsmithy]

A smartphone is designed to run general purpose software [...]

According to whom ?

Re:but, how do you run the app on your microwave?

[icebraining]

According to the 200000 apps you can install, which implement solutions to domains the iPhone wasn't specifically built to handle. The system can run every of those apps, hence it's a general purpose system.

Re: Whatever

[colinnwn]

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.

Lovers?

[Malc]

The Secret SMS Replicator developed by DLP Mobile to help lovers find out if their partners are cheating

Call me "old fashioned, but they don't sound much like lovers to me!

Re:Lovers?

[H0p313ss]

The Secret SMS Replicator developed by DLP Mobile to help lovers find out if their partners are cheating

Call me "old fashioned, but they don't sound much like lovers to me!

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.

Re:Lovers?

[Reziac]

True, tho by that point it often also becomes about collecting evidence for divorce court.

As it happens I know a couple in just such a situation... she was cheating on him and wanted a divorce. He didn't know about the cheating but knew their relationship was over, and was amenable to giving her lots of divorce-settlement money, just to be nice. But some intuition that all was not as it seemed induced him to hack into her yahoo mail account... he learned she was not only cheating on him, but had also been using his habitual generosity to fund her plane trips (ostensibly for another purpose) to meet her boyfriend in another state!

Needless to say, his inclination to give her a nice settlement to make a new life with went away real quick. And now he has lots of evidence for divorce court, so she's going to have a tough time screwing him over to the degree she'd hope to achieve.

(Yes, she's a psycho bitch, but that's beside the point.)

As to other reasons why people hang on like this when it's clearly a dead issue... sometimes there seems to be a sort of internalized revenge factor, where if they can prove "you're guilty and I'm innocent" they feel better about the relationship going to hell, or at least feel vindicated.

Very rarely, this sort of spying can be about re-earning lost trust through verification, but that's pretty tough to accomplish. (Tho I do know someone who did it, and so far it looks like their marriage is going to recover.)

Re:Lovers?

[bem]

Even with logs of every SMS, there is no proof that something isn't happening: "Okay, you're having an affair, but using a different phone or meeting in person! the LACK of SMS's proves that!"

Such people are soul suckers --- anyone who spies on their supposed partner with such nonsense is NOT a partner in any sense of the word, and needs to be dropped by the wayside to deal with their own issues.

If this software was truly trying to point out failures in relationships, it should inform the victim of this software, "Hi, I have logging software installed because your partner doesn't trust you... is your relationship secure?"

That could save more people from crappy relationships than any sort of spying it does.

Re:Lovers?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you install the shareware version that will start to pop-up advertisements to buy the message logger after about 10 days. Two birds with one stone.

Re:Lovers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such people are soul suckers --- anyone who spies on their supposed partner with such nonsense is NOT a partner in any sense of the word, and needs to be dropped by the wayside to deal with their own issues.

How about flipping the coin? When one partner is such a soul-less two-faced psychopath in which the other side can't determine what's really going on.

Communication nowadays is no longer what it used to be growing up... where you could honestly keep tabs on everything your partner is doing. Do you honestly think that your mom & dad didn't keep a mental note of the pieces of postal mail they received? Cheating was harder to hide years ago. You had to physically be there, communication HAD to be in person or via methods that could be found ("Honey, why did you spend 30 bucks at the post office 6 months ago and now?"... "Honey, that voice is asking for you again on the phone") Sure... work extramarital relationships could still happen... other ones could still happen, but they were a MAJOR inconvenience for those married & involved.

Nowadays... with the internet & cellphones... it's so much easier to conceal your actions. I know the adage of integrity stands for some people, but for alot... it doesn't exist anymore.

If you want to know... ask Joe Public this... "If you could get away with robbing a bank and making a cool 100,000 with one heist.... nobody would know you did it... would you do it?" You will find a suprising amount of "Yes I would" answers.

Re:Lovers?

[H0p313ss]

Want so show someone how little you care? There's an app for that!

Re:Lovers?

[Malc]

Evidence might give you a reason to go to divorce court or fight harder, but the jurisdictions I've lived in don't consider why a marriage has broken down when consider the terms of settlement. Some places even have a simple formula that just considers factors like length of marriage, income difference and whose looking after any children.

Re:Lovers?

[Hatta]

You're right, it would probably be more accurate to refer to them as "fuckers".

Re:Lovers?

[Reziac]

This isn't so much a matter of the why, as that at a certain point it becomes intent to defraud. And that can go in your favour in court.

Of course it also depends on whether you take the default state-mandated approach, or pursue it like a civil suit. The rules are all over the map (literally).

Re:Lovers?

[twistofsin]

It may not have much effect on how their property is divided but I think it would help out if the subject of alimony comes up.

Re:Lovers?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Some people have some real issues trusting others. Sure, this app doesn't help (at least, in the long term), but it explains why they enter and stay in relationships with people they don't trust; specifically because the alternative is no relationship at all.

program it yourself using tasker

[Gunstick]

the superbe application "tasker" can be used to do the same job. Just create a trigger on message reception.

Re:program it yourself using tasker

[bem]

Tasker makes no attempt to hide itself. In fact, it nicely shows up in the status bar as running.

But, yes, Tasker is a great toy.

How to prevent this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[OT]

[BrokenHalo]

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".

She puts it on your phone, you put it on hers...

[bytestorm]

Pretty soon, you've got thousands of spam SMS messages from each other at 10 ct/each and you're both to blame.

What about an ATM machine?

[Brannon]

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.

Re:What about an ATM machine?

[slim]

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 don't think that is the point. I think the points are more often:

- "Given the choice between an open system and a walled garden, I myself would choose the open one"
- "I don't think most consumers understand the tradeoffs they're making when they choose a walled garden"

I do think that would apply to microwaves. If it wasn't significantly more expensive, then sure, I'd prefer a microwave which could be programmed, just as I'd prefer an ADSL router I can install DD-WRT on, or a DVR I can install a web server onto.

There are devices you'd like to be tamperproof, such as ATMs, voting machines, airbags -- but that is not incompatible with openness.

Re:What about an ATM machine?

[icebraining]

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?

Except the ATM is designed like that because unlike a smartphone, it isn't for the owner to use. You don't need to trust a third party to use your own phone.

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?

That requires extra effort by the manufacturer to implement. But if it didn't, and as long as the button wasn't easy to hit accidentally, why not?

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.

OK, if you can give some examples of personal devices in which extra effort is spent to lock them from their owners and it makes sense, I'll concede that in those cases it makes sense.
It won't change the fact that it's stupid in the iPhone case, because the supposed "security" could be achieved by requiring users to insert a security code to enable "advanced" features, like out of market installation. Regular users wouldn't ever need to touch them if they didn't want to.

Re:What about an ATM machine?

[Brannon]

> It won't change the fact that it's stupid in the iPhone case, because the supposed "security" could
> be achieved by requiring users to insert a security code to enable "advanced" features, like
> out of market installation.

But wouldn't that require extra effort on the part of the manufacturer? Implementing the security code and the alternate path for loading insecure apps?

The crux of your point is that if the manufacturer goes to any additional effort at all to limit the potential utility of a device, then that makes the device itself amoral and anyone who purchases it a sucker.

Anyone who has ever brought a product to market can tell you that it is far, far cheaper on a manufacturer to artificially limit the utility of a product than it is to put up with the endless issues caused by allowing their users to customize it. Whatever small amount of effort they put into locking down an iPhone is tiny compared to the savings on customer support calls from having to deal with the consequences of tinkered-with phones. So it is hard to argue that this doesn't make business sense to Apple based purely on that.

When you factor in the potential damage to their brand when publicity abounds about buggy sw, malware, and viruses on these defanged iPhones, then it is overwhelmingly the case that it makes more financial sense for Apple to make it hard to tinker with their phones. Remember Apple is trying to separate themselves in a crowded market, this is how they do it.

The remaining question is whether iPhone owners are naive sheep for purchasing our crippled phones. If it does everything I want it to do, and it is worth the price to me, then how does that make me naive?

Re:What about an ATM machine?

[icebraining]

Implementing the security code

No, it already has one, it's called "PIN".

alternate path for loading insecure apps

No, downloading a package file is the same code as downloading any other file, and the code for installing packages is already there. The only "extra effort" is a couple of lines of code checking "if the option for installing insecure packages is enabled, install package".
Also, if the system is well designed, adding more App Stores should be a case of adding a list of URLs, as long as they implement the same web interface. Unless of course the code is crap and completely coupled to Apple.

So it is hard to argue that this doesn't make business sense to Apple based purely on that.

Never said it didn't make business sense. On the other hand, Android sales are killing iPhone sales...

If it does everything I want it to do today

FTFY. Locking yourself to a company is always stupid. I'm sure it seemed to make perfect sense to write apps for IE6 only, or buying lots of DRMed iTunes songs and then buying a non-Apple player.

Re:What about an ATM machine?

[drsmithy]

It won't change the fact that it's stupid in the iPhone case, because the supposed "security" could be achieved by requiring users to insert a security code to enable "advanced" features, like out of market installation.

Any system whose security can be circumvented by presenting what is essentially an "are you sure" dialog box to someone completely unqualified to make the decision, is not secure.

Re:What about an ATM machine?

[icebraining]

Yes, the problem is people are stupid enough to enable stuff they don't understand, and prefer not having the option at all than leaving it alone.

Of course, if the system *forced* people to decide, you'd have a point, but that's not my suggestion. The user would have to go out of their way to enable it.

``Your Rights Online''?

[Kaz Kylheku]

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.

Well it's about damn time

[shadowfaxcrx]

I noticed this app. . Must be 6 months ago now. I reported it. Seems they finally listened.

Precisely

[zoomshorts]

What he said. If you think different, you need to leave and
not return under ANY IP or nickname.

You don't know what you are talking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You don't know what you are talking about...

[starblazer]

mod parent up.

Re:You don't know what you are talking about...

[H0p313ss]

There's nothing I can say that will make it better, so I won't try. I too have been betrayed, healing is a long, slow, painful process. Hang in there.

Re:You don't know what you are talking about...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.survivinginfidelity.com/ Seriously. It may not seem like it but the forums on that site really can help. Register and post, or just read. It's a process to get over this sort of pain but there is a lot of help out there and a lot of people who really do want to help.

Well intentioned, but misguided

[pr0t0]

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.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But what makes you think spying on the text messages would have stopped anything?

Sometimes suicide seems like the best option, been there, tried that, and I don't think any force could have stopped me at the time. If at the time I learned that I couldn't even trust my parents because they've been spying on me, I wouldn't be commenting right now.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't have "children of your own." If they are troublesome teens and you've been the step-father for a few years, they were already broken when you bought them. I believe that if you are a good parent from when they are babies, and they are born without physical defects (chemical imbalance, diminished capacity), you can raise intelligent, pleasant, successful, trouble-free children with 100% confidence. If you enter the picture after age ten, you may just be repainting a burning building.

Good luck to you.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[DocSavage64109]

Why stop at 18. Shouldn't you spy on them to prevent suicides (or whatever reason you deem sufficient) for the rest of their lives?

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

"and are looking for any way possible to protect their children."

And contributing to the ever escalating war on personal freedom by the governments of the world. Sure, I understand, you love your kids and are worry about them and don't want them to ever get hurt. Guess what? They will get hurt. They will suffer heartbreak and loss and pain. Everyone does. All you can do is the best you can, but that kind of invasion is an *attack* on their privacy and trust in you.

Also, there is more to it than just *your* kids. There is also *their* kids, and your *neighbors* kids and grandkids. You keep doing things "to protect the children" and then there *will* be war. Bloody revolution. With who knows what kind of price.

Do your kids a favor, try to trust them a little. Know that they aren't perfect but they are yours. Don't help herd society down a path guaranteed to end badly.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two complaints with this post. First: "I'm a step-father because the biological father passed away." It takes a little more than that to become a step father, such as sex with their mother. Second: "as they want to explore the world and there place in it". There vs their vs they're, please.

Thanks.

-yet another grammar nazi

mod me down, i deserve it, but i couldn't help it.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't have "children of your own." If they are troublesome teens and you've been the step-father for a few years, they were already broken when you bought them. I believe that if you are a good parent from when they are babies, and they are born without physical defects (chemical imbalance, diminished capacity), you can raise intelligent, pleasant, successful, trouble-free children with 100% confidence. If you enter the picture after age ten, you may just be repainting a burning building.

Not saying what you're saying is false, but that's one of the most insensitive things I've read in a long time. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[pr0t0]

I'd like to respond to these AC's for those who are reading this part of the discussion with interest:

AC1) After the ordeal and due to extenuating circumstances, we had cause to have an attorney contact our cell carrier who then provided transcripts of that child's text messages. Through those, we found several references to suicide, as well as a "final goodbye" an hour before the attempt. My daughter wasn't some emo goth kid, always looking depressed. She seemed outright happy, even more so than usual in the week leading up to her attempt. She had good grades and played violin in the school orchestra. She wasn't an over-achiever or a type-a kind of person; and we aren't the kind of parents that pressure the kids into achievement. We want them to succeed, but be happy and stress-free too. She's just naturally talented, academically.

It's not about spying. Parents have better things to do than read every single text message their kids send out. It is about having tools at your disposal if you think you need them. Kids don't always talk to their parents when things aren't going well, and parents can't make them.

AC2) It is very likely they were already "broken toys" in some respects before they lived with me, but that in no way absolves me of responsibility in terms of how I parent or protect them. Despite my lack of biological input, they are very much "children of my own". Not so much because I say so...because they do. As the youngest once told me on Fathers Day: Anyone can be a father. It takes someone very special to be a dad. I tear up just typing it.

AC3) While I won't stop worrying or caring when they're 18, my role in their lives will be diminished. Once they leave the house, it will be up to them to forge their path and make their decisions. See below.

AC4) I suppose that is the slippery slope isn't it. It's the "Think of the Children" bumper sticker that gets slapped all over everything, and ends up having lasting implications and repercussions for everyone else. I really don't want that either. I think this decision is different for everyone, and different people may come to it at different points (or not at all) given the same set of circumstances. So I guess I'm saying, I won't insist that everyone should read their children's text messages, and in exchange for everyone not telling me what's best for my particular situation. Because if you haven't walked in my shoes, then you really don't have the right. You can try to empathize and see yourself in my situation, but you would be so far from the reality. You just don't know...and really can't know...unless you've gone through it. And if you aren't a parent, while your feelings aren't devoid of merit, you haven't earned a seat at the discussion.

I know what I'm about to say next is total flame-bait for the younger readers. As long as you are a minor, you don't have the same expectation of privacy or freedom as you do when you're an adult. You can expect *some* level, but not total. Not having total freedom is no surprise to anyone living under the heavy mantle of their parents' Stalinist Regime. But privacy? Do parents honestly think their children should not have total privacy? This one does. I want to know where they are, whom they are with, and what they are doing at all times it is possible to know such things. Is it an invasion of privacy? Sure. But it's also being a good parent. I should I add that the level of this microscope was earned by my daughters. They used to have a lot more freedom and privacy. I do have some degree of trust in my daughters, I'm just not gullible. I know they will make mistakes. I know they will get hurt. I don't expect or even want them to be perfect. Happy, healthy, and safe is all I'm looking for. Everything else will be up to them. I wouldn't read their text messages any more than I would read their diary. If I thought their lives were in danger though? They can hate me for the rest of their lives. I'll just be grateful they have a "rest of their lives" in which they can hate me.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

So when are you allowed to step in? When she texts about suicide? How about when she's sexting to her boyfriend? When she's going to a party? When she plans to give the whole football team a blowjob?

Jesus. All Slashdot does is talk about personal freedom. But here you go, sprouting about how you want to remove the freedom of somebody else to protect them. If she manages to live to age 21, she'll just laugh at the silly things she went through as a teenager. It's how life works. Because they're smarter than you give them credit for.

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[wrook]

I can sympathize with your plight. It's not a situation I would like to be in. I can also understand your attitude that there is no tool that can not be used given the circumstances. The worst that could possibly happen has already happened, so there is no way you could have made it worse.

But even given the above, I wonder if there still isn't another perspective that might be useful. Before I say anything, I will admit first that I have no right to say anything at all. I don't know the details of the issue. I am the last person who could judge such a situation. But since you have kindly volunteered your insight into such a difficult situation, I hope I can return the favor by giving you my ideas, whether they be right or wrong.

For a tool to be useful, it must be effective. You assume that had you read your daughter's suicide note that an intervention would have been more likely. But had you stopped her attempt, can you be sure that the outcome would have been better? It seems that happily your daughter survived. There is a big difference between a person who has survived a suicide attempt and a person who committed themselves to dieing and was stopped.

Even if it was luck that allowed her to survive, she may very well be in a better place now having followed through with her convictions than if she had been stopped. If you had spied on her and stopped her, it is entirely possible that such a betrayal would have soured any possibility of recovery. And knowing that she was being watched, she could have made a second attempt much more difficult to discover.

I don't have kids. But I have helped with a friend's family when he was away with the military. I also work as a high school teacher now. It seems to me that there is a time when children are open to receiving input from their parents and a time when they are closed. As they become teenagers, the time for input diminishes. I personally believe that no matter who the person is, the only effective tool when they are a teenager is trust. And while you might be able to control a horrible situation like you describe better without that trust, I suspect that your ability to influence the person will diminish. Without that influence the situation could very possibly be worse that what you have now.

Just my 2 cents. Of course there are no right and wrong answers in life. But I hope my thoughts proved useful to you even if you don't agree with them. I sincerely wish you good luck in the future!

Re:Well intentioned, but misguided

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids don't always talk to their parents when things aren't going well, and parents can't make them.

This is why you shouldn't spy on them.

Not a chance

[Brannon]

> - "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.

You don't understand computer security

[Brannon]

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.

SMS Backup does the same thing

[yourruinreverse]

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).

You correct

[geekoid]

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.

Re: Whatever

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re: Reading comprehension... it's the new thing...

[colinnwn]

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.

Re: Reading comprehension... it's the new thing...

[BasilBrush]

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.

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.

Re: Reading comprehension... it's the new thing...

[colinnwn]

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.

Re: Reading comprehension... it's the new thing...

[BasilBrush]

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.

There weren't a "huge" number. There were 88. People who have used the tool that claimed

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.

The fact that Android source is open, means many of these "bugs" will be quickly quashed also.

There's absolutely no evidence for OSS being an advantage in fixing bugs. Just an RMS catechism declaring it must be so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That would be the closed source Blackberry.

That absolutely remains to be proven, and until today there was little evidence to support that assertion. The evidence released today is highly preliminary.

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/

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor

[drsmithy]

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...

Re: Reading comprehension... it's the new thing...

[colinnwn]

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.