Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Outlines Windows Phone 7 Kill Switch
nk497 writes "Microsoft has outlined how it might use the little publicized 'kill switch' in Windows Phone 7 handsets. 'We don't really talk about it publicly because the focus is on testing of apps to make sure they're okay, but in the rare event that we need to, we have the tools to take action,' said Todd Biggs, director of product management for Windows Phone Marketplace. According to Biggs, Microsoft's strict testing of apps when they are submitted for inclusion in Marketplace should minimize kill switch use, but he explained how the company could remove apps from the marketplace or phones, when devices check-in to the system. 'We could unpublish it from the catalog so that it was no longer available, but if it was very rogue then we could remove applications from handsets — we don't want things to go that far, but we could.'"
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_activates_android_kill_switch_zaps_useless_apps.php
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10010070-37.html
Both Android and the iPhone have kill switches as well.
Google has actually used theirs.
Brought to you by Apple.
Buying a mobile phone is already such an exercise in trust, I have a hard time worrying about a remote app kill switch.
If someone else can come in remotely and change what you've got installed, it's not your system and it's not your software.
But we encourage you to think of it as your own - it makes the fees hurt less, and we can always straighten you out on the details of ownership later.
TFA pointed it out. I decided quite some time ago I'm just going to keep using my dumb phone; It's just smart enough to make calls, take calls, text, email, and access a limited internet.
I don't want a third party screwing around with MY property, thanks.
Free Martian Whores!
Commodore, for sitting on their asses and letting the Amiga fall behind the competition?
You're saying that it's better to disable the entire device instead of remove the one offending application? I'm not sure how you made that conclusion, but how would the owner recover their device if Microsoft shut the entire thing down? Should Microsoft or any handset vendor be allowed to simply disable the entire device?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
So who are the bad guys?
Everybody.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Look, it's time to face reality. This is 2010, not 1990. This is a FEATURE for most people, not a drawback. They are sick and fed up with PCs and malware/spyware and anything that helps avoid this problem is worth more to them, not less.
Apple does the same thing with iDevices and they are doing a brisk business and battling with Google for supremacy in the mobile computing space. The market has spoken, and it wants a safer computing experience which is provided by this ability.
No, Nokia does not have a Kill Switch. However, in the event of a rogue app infestation on their smart-phones, Nokia is capable of pushing an app to excavate the offending app before initiating a self-distruct. This is done with the users permission and discretion via the pre-installed Software Update app.
Geekism is your _only_ God!
Now I have no need to even consider getting one.
Nor an iPhone, nor an Android device, nor a Palm webOS device, nor a BlackBerry (assuming you're on a BES system). Indeed, when your world is black and white many decisions are easy.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If I were to put rouge on my handset my neighbours son would be SO...SO jealous.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Microsoft has made a lot of poor security choices in the past, so we should praise them when they do something that will improve the general level of mobile application security. All mobile platforms to-date have kill mechanisms, for the average user it's a great thing to be able to shut down a rogue app en-masse and not have to wait for even an update cycle.
Experienced technical users will ALWAYS have the equivalent of Jailbreaking to prevent applications from being removed or modified externally if they so wish. But that is a choice that should be made by a technically informed person after consideration, not a default configuration that the general public has to live with the repercussions from for the next decade.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You're saying that it's better to disable the entire device instead of remove the one offending application?
It can actually be less intrusive. I have no 'right' to use a network, so if I am screwing up the network because of an app I have, kicking me off the network doesn't do anything to MY equipment.
It means I can install whatever I want on my phone and no backdoors are needed.
Think of it like renting a car to someone. You can do whatever the hell you like to your body, but I don't want you smoking in my car. I refuse you the car, but I don't confiscate your cigarettes.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
So they are focusing on their primary line of defense being the acceptance testing.
The Code Master
"Unpublish it"? As opposed to simply de-listing it, or removing it from the catalog? "Very rogue"? I had no idea there was a spectrum of roguishness. I sincerely hope that English is his second language. I don't feel the need to correct the spelling or grammar of Slashdot commentators, but this guy is speaking on behalf of a giant corporation.
So who are the bad guys?
Everybody.
I think you've not only figured out big business, but politics as well.
except with RIM all of your data flows through the Blackberry Internet Service so all they have to do is block it there. at least with apple and google there is no middle proxy between the carrier and the internet
Now I have no need to even consider getting one.
I doubt you would get one anyways.
I think, after some years of practicing, most Slashdot readers are now able to accept that there is more than one evil company.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Sorry, too many thoughts, too much incoherance...
1 - Phones need more phones. not less apps - just more phone functionality
2 - kill switch - this "could" go badly, but I'd like to see the history of use... Malicious app - Definitely see the use of it. Pirated app? Unlicensed app? Non-approved app? Patched app? These are more of a "Would they? Just because they can doesn't mean they should or will."
We could unpublish it from the catalog so that it was no longer available, but if it was very rogue then we could remove applications from handsets - we don't want things to go that far, but we could
I wonder whether "very rogue" is anything like when Windows Genuine Advantage was classified as a security update, and pushed out with the rest of the critical patches.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Malware is the justification for the kill switch. The concern is that the technology may be misused down the road for other things. Maybe 10 years from now, kill switches will be used to shut off legitimate apps that are considered a threat for some reason (like Iran shutting down Twitter during the anti-government protests). Maybe they can use the kill switch if you are watching a documentary or reading an article you're not supposed to...
</tinfoilhat>