Slashdot Mirror
Pirated Android App Shames Freeloaders
MojoKid writes "A pirated version of an Android app is actually a Trojan that shames someone who installs it by sending an SMS message to all his/her contacts telling them of his/her piracy. The original app is called Walk and Text, and costs $2.10 in the Android Market. The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings, which will supposedly prevent the user from running into the street or across a set of train tracks. The pirated version is available from unofficial Android app markets, and once installed redirects the pirate to the legitimate app in the Android Market, while also sending the SMS message to the phone's entire contact list."
...I don't have any friends! I'm so lonely :(
Don't click the link in the summary - it posts a message to Slashdot telling everyone you tried to read the article :(
Although this is a novel and some what interesting approach to pirates, i think this approach itself depending on the implementation etc.. might effectively count as breaking the law, unless the user who install the pirated software agree to a Terms of Use Agreement that explicitly mentions such actions might be possible or as a consequence if software thinks its pirated.
Calling pirates "freeloaders" is an unnecessary ad hominem designed to turn everyone else against them without applying critical thought to the issue at hand. It's the same as calling it "theft" or "stealing". The terminology may technically apply, but in the circles in which piracy is usually discussed (such as Slashdot), saying these things quickly makes you look like a troll.
I'm disappointed in the submitter and the editor for allowing the term "freeloader" in the headline. If you wish to oppose piracy, that's your call, but do it without the use of hyperbole and emotional arguments.
You act like anyone on this planet (affected parties aside) cared whether you copy software.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are those circles (like mine) where such messages lead to high compliments.
how many times are we going to run this story?
The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings
Wow! You know what else does that? Eyes.
Anyone who pays $2.10 for this should be shamed, not the pirates.
So I get both recognition from my peers and later on to sue the makers? Awesome!
Why would anyone pay $2.10 for what is essentially a useless app? of course i's going to be pirated, its price point is obscene for the intended use.
I know the article is tech-related and about piracy, malware, etc, and is actually interesting to read about, but what is wrong with people today? People would actually pay $2.10 to be able to text and walk instead of just, say, paying attention to their surroundings? We're slowly losing a grip on being human.
The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings, which will supposedly prevent the user from running into the street or across a set of train tracks.
Constantly show a safe environment. The truck or train would take care of the rest. That would certainly teach them to rely on an app instead of staying vigilant themselves.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If you figure that a lot of carriers charge around $0.10 / text, if someone has more than 21 friends in their phone, it'll cost more in messages charges than buying the app. Some vendors charge even more per text (which is a separate rant), so this could add up FAST.
I don't have a problem with that - heck I hope the author could find a way to get paid by those messages. But I could see some litigious asshat with 700 'friends' in their phone getting pissed when they get a huge bill.
If I was the author, I'd cap it at 21 friends - has all the effects of the shaming, but closely reflects the authors own stated value of the app.
People need to realize that pirated software really is a major malware distribution channel today, and has been for several years.
Tell your nephew that 90% of the cracks or keygens she downloads will also install a Trojan sending her passwords and credit card numbers back to the botnet masters.
And this is not a "genuine advantage" marketing fluff -- it is hard reality.
Not sure how many people read through the comments on the avast! page, but something definitely smells there.
The CEO of the company that made this app sounds like a weird blend of troll and one of those king-of-nigeria scams.
* He keeps ranting about how he's going to sue avast
* He keeps shouting about how it's all a lie created by avast in order to slander his company
* He repeatedly claims that his calls to avast were blocked, even though the CEO admitted that one of his colleagues spoke to the dev.
* The only contact information for that company is found here, which you can only get to through the avast article.
* avast lists a few other red flags from this company: "checked the registration of www.incorporateapps.com and see some red-flags: semi-anonymous, no email contact, possibly eastern-european but registered in Germany, and registered through Tucows"
But yeah, something here just doesn't feel right.
Its not the same as calling it theft or stealing. Both those imply that there is a loss of original item. This does not; it implies that the person in question is trying to get something that has value without paying for it. You go out to dinner with friends, one of those friends seems to forget their wallet constantly, they are a freeloader, not a thief or pirate.
The message it sends to all your contacts is "The bloody app ........ just pirated cost $2.10. Cheap bastard!"
That might actually be illegal, for the same reason it's illegal to set beartraps in front of your door even if somebody does break in. Somebody breaking the law does not allow you to break the law in return.
In any case, this is a much smarter business proposition. I think this is hilarious and IMHO the punishment fits the crime - you were too cheap to pay $2.10 for a piece of software you're using, so I'll make you look like a dick. But the developers would come off like assholes if somebody did get killed, somewhat defeating the purpose.
I'm all for this sort of DRM - like the Batman game that put a jump most of the way through that a pirating user couldn't perform.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Sending unsolicited, paid SMS to the whole contact list of a person with a specially crafted trojan seems to be a more serious offence than the one-time copyright infringement of not paying for a $ 2.10 app, which actually not even qualifies as petty theft (because infringement is not theft).
Basically, the developer has created a malware/trojan version of this app and for this he might (and, in my opinion, also should) get into serious legal trouble. In other words, what a jerk...especially, if you take into account what kind of a stupid application he sells.
Your idea is callous, evil, despicable, anti-social and probably shows you have some mental issues.
I like it!
I don't know if it's dumber to successfully pay good money to be able to walk around guided only by what you can see on a 3 inch screen behind your texts or if you were fooled by the "freeloader" app? Who or what is a freeloader anyways? I guess you can't say "Pirated Android App Shames Pirates" or "Freeloading Android App Shames Freeloaders". Maybe "freeloader's" and pirate's don't want to be associated with one another.
It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
Damn. Your family life must be.....interesting.
I hate to be a debbie downer, but that would have very, very serious legal implications. In fact, if the app doesn't work properly even if you paid for it, it'd still have very serious legal implications. I hope the developer(s) have a good lawyer.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
This is really brilliant. It actually shows what has been hard to prove in a very clear and understandable way. Sometimes pirating is justified, and sometimes the developer really is asking for it. Bravo!
there is an app you can buy that uses a camera on a small hand held device that shows you where you are walking while you are holding the small hand held device?
Why cant you just look up?
I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
You can't set traps for people even if the only way they would be harmed by it would be because they themselves are doing something illegal.
This does "harm" the person running the illegitimate app because it may cost them money to send all those messages plus any potential fallout from people thinking they are a software pirate.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Try a walled garden. Keeps the retards out...
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Just installed the sdk. The original developer brought it on himself. Charging $2.10 for something this simple and then releasing a pirated version with a trojan himself.
The focus of the story is his Trojan. It stinks when your trojan gets more attention than your terrible app.
no one has mentioned the utter inanity of the need for an application that shows the world around you so you can use a computer while walking through green lights.
The funny thing is, I think at 99 cents, anything can sell even if it's totally useless.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
... seems that the real thieves are the writers of the app... Typical... Sounds like one of Sony's schemes...
Amusing, but in the end may be very self destructive. Given that it redirects the user to buy the real app, I think most of us have a strong belief who released this. Aside from the risk of lawsuits for such deceptive software, I would expect few android users to ever trust any software from this company ever again. Heck, I'm not even an Android user, but I'm going to learn the name of the company to be sure to never install any software from them, just in case they also code for a platform that I use. If they think that releasing trojans is acceptable behavior then I don't want their software on my systems.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
On that Avast page, they got the source code somehow? How can I do that to see what apps are doing? I know Java but not really an reverse engineering or security things >__>
Ack, shame won't work well with a pirate. Instead, have the trojan text REDCROSS to 90999, which sends $10 to the Japan relief effort.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
You show me the law stating you can't find really creative ways to trick a retard into dying like a lemming and I'll start following it.
I don't know man, the Batman thing was simply brilliant.
A far, far better way now that one can make in-app purchases on Android, is to indeed intentionally leak a version of your app for piracy; but after some use, pop up a "It looks like you enjoy using [product], which you downloaded from an unofficial source. Would you like to purchase [product] now and continue to use it?", and disable if the user chooses not to.
Of course that would also get cracked and the usual sources for pirated apps would simply put up the new version pointing out that it doesn't have this 'stupid nag screen/protection', but hey.. beats getting flamed to hell for allegedly releasing a version that does naughty things.
Though, personally, I don't see the problem. So the user may have 1,000 contacts in their phone and they all get an SMS @ $0.05 (because the user's contract apparently doesn't give them a shit-ton of free text messages), and they're out $50, and potentially so are the collective recipients. Tough. They shouldn't have pirated the app, and those recipients would have lost just as much from any other text message the user might have sent like "omg lol I just farted so hard!".
Fact of the matter is that there's very little you can do about piracy. So if you don't want to use the carrot method (see above), the stick is an alternative. The legal stick, however, is made of fluffy materials and very intangible. You first have to know -who- pirated your app, which will simply be met with scorn that a 'trojan' app sends 'personally identifiable information' somewhere and that's apparently a no-no, too. Even if you get that information directly (you're the author and you see somebody using the pirated app next to you in a Starbucks), then what? Hire a lawyer, pay court fees, etc. etc. That's not economically feasible for a $5,000 desktop app, nevermind a $2 mobile app. So, you see, there's very little stick-recourse for these authors. So I can see why they might use such a method as that which is described in the story.. even though it's probably backfiring.
On a side-note.. it does also nicely illustrate that even though Android has some safeguards in terms of needing to grant an application certain permissions, such as text messaging, it doesn't mean malware (or shameware) can't still seem completely legitimate in needing those services (the original app being mimiced needing text message access) and then abuse it.
I think you might not quite understand the law. You can't take any automated security measures you couldn't take in person. So that means you can't have a shotgun on a spring to automatically shoot someone who opens the front door to an empty house.
Let's analyze why not. (1) It does not descriminate (no human judgment) and (2) you are not present; it is an empty house. Being your dwelling can make a difference.
Now, many states have some modified form of the Castle doctrine, which states that you have no duty to retreat from your home if you have an intruder, and often, you needn't question the intent of the intruder before employing lethal force, if you feel your life (or that of your family) may be in danger. Under such a reading, I really think that, say, given that you live in a high-crime neighborhood, you could justifiably set bear traps in front of your door at night as long as you lived there. Honestly. And I AM a lawyer, for what it is worth.
Since the app's precise purpose is texting, it naturally requests and receives these permissions during installation. Think of it as a third-party texting app, like Handcent SMS: it wouldn't be supercool to have to confirm every single SMS you try to send, would it?
If you're completely blind, you can't see the screen. If you're severely retarded, you shouldn't be out on the street on your own anyway.
So what's the point of this app? The human eye triggers on motion - is anyone seriously so unaware that they wouldn't notice cars roaring past in front of them before walking out into traffic?
So someone buys the legitimate app but for whatever reason installs the pirated one. Seems to me they may have liabled the purchaser; plus cost money if he or she is not on an unlimited message plan.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I think this is a good idea, pirates ruin it for everyone as it is, if you DON'T want the app, DON'T BUY IT. $2.10 isn't a lot of money, for fuck sakes, stop being cheap fucks.
It's called manslaughter (and sometimes murder or homocide, depending on the details).
Here's the plan: Tell pirates' friends about the piracy. Everyone realize how common piracy is and how even good people do it. Piracy loses its social stigma. Piracy doubles.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
"The original app is called Walk and Text, and costs $2.10 in the Android Market. The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings," Uses the camera to show a visual of upcoming surroundings....what like your eyes do? But you have to use your eyes to look at the display, so unless you hold the phone right infront of your face all you're going to see is the floor about 4 foot infront of you. And they want $2.10 for this and are surprised when people don't buy it, I can't see why anyone would pirate it except for the lulz. And to top it off all your friends get a message telling them you're too stupid to be able to look up once in a while when you insist on walking a texting, near busy roads and train tracks apparently. Sure this isn't a late april fool?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I am not very familiar with Android, but does it really just let any app you install to send texts to your contact list? If this is true, I don't like Android's security model.
In iOS, an app cannot send a text message, and I like it that way. When an app tries to do certain operations, such as access your current location, you are prompted to grant the app permission, which you can choose to deny in many cases. I like this also.
I like my apps properly sandboxed.
--
#include <malloc.h>
free(your.mind);
There is a pretty rigorous policing of torrents for that sort of thing. There's no real risk if you're at all sensible.
That's just common sense. Why would you voluntarily enter contact details into a system who's primary users are spam harvesters?
Look on the website for contact information.
Since the developer put the trojan up himself, it's an authorized use.
I'm sure they would not be amused.
This does illustrate why using text messaging as a billing platform is such a horrible idea. It is going to get abused like this by someone, and likely not for charity.
"Citation needed."
Seriously, I work in computer support professionally and while I've seen pirated software as an infection vector, it is in the minority. By far the biggest malware distribution channel these days I see is scareware. There are popups that act like AV scanners and get people to install fake anti-malware software.
So, let's see some number please.
But an app that sends text messages kind of needs permission to send text messages.
The guy obviously has some serious ego issues or else he never would have written the fake trojan in the first place.. Most developers accept some copyright infringement as a part of doing business. Some people are going to copy your app, that is just life. You don't like it, you maybe do some things to make it harder to do, but you realize it'll happen.
This guy decided to try and be a real dick about it, to attack people who do it, to try and get some retribution. That is rather stupid, and over the top. So no surprise he acts with hostility to anyone that questions his methods or motives.
As long as it's not me typing the SMS, yes it would be cool. That seems like elementary common sense no? It's user unfriendly to require that a user give an app blanket permissions with no specifics.
regards
Reminds me of the IRC program AmIRC that when pirated would send "/me is a lame software pirate" to the channel when the copyright infringing user tried to say anything. :)
It may not deprive the source from selling another copy, but not paying for your copy is stealing.
For the sake of argument, let's accept that definition and see where it leads us.
Well, why is stealing a bad thing in the first place? Is it because you get something for free? Surely not, because we all get things for free all the time. I can turn on the radio and listen to free music, then change stations when a commercial comes on. I can look at public murals that were funded by taxpayers who died before I was born. I can enjoy the benefits of those and countless other things without giving a dime to the people who created them.
I get upset when something is stolen from me, but is that because the thief has gotten something for free? No. If someone could "steal" a copy of my car, leaving the original car unharmed in my driveway, that wouldn't bother me at all. In fact, if the technology to do that existed, I believe it'd be a great leap forward for mankind.
We can also compare stealing to vandalism. If someone destroys my car, he doesn't gain anything for free, he only deprives me of the use of that property. Is destroying my car therefore not as bad as stealing it? It sure doesn't feel that way. In fact, stealing it seems marginally better, since it preserves overall utility (and there's a chance I'll get the car back).
So, I have to conclude that what makes stealing wrong is that the rightful owner is deprived of the stolen property. The benefit gained by the thief is only relevant to the extent that it comes at the owner's expense.
Now, what have we done by declaring that getting a free copy of something is "stealing"? We've created two categories of stealing: the old-fashioned kind where the owner is deprived of the stolen property, and the shiny new kind where he isn't. The first kind is wrong, since it maintains the quality that made stealing wrong in the first place. The second kind, however, is not - it's a benign, almost metaphorical type of "stealing", kind of like stealing second base. All we've accomplished with this new definition is to devalue the word.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Heh, now that's funny as well as hypocritical. A pirate calling someone who stoops to their level to fight back, unethical "Do as we say, not as we do". The ONLY people who have anything to worry about with this Trojan are those who understand neither trust nor financial reciprocals to begin with.
The reason that booby-trapping is illegal has nothing to do with the possibility of injuring potential burglars. In most cases, it's legal to shoot someone who breaks into your home in self defense. The reason setting traps is illegal is that you could injure any number of other people who would have legitimate reasons to come into your home without your permission, e.g. firemen should your house catch on fire, police searching your home or responding to a call of someone having broken in, etc.
The really embarrassing part of all this is your contacts finding out that you actually need an app to help you not walk into lightpoles, in front of trains, etc because you can't stop texting for a single second.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
It should be legal to hurt criminals!
Really, it's a fun thing to do so why not make it legal? We're not forcing them to be criminals, they're choice.
I'd love to set up traps in my home. I'd do it creatively. Like, I'd use one of those camping gas things to spray an intruder with flames if they open a door. Maybe set a trap that gets them covered in alcohol. Just imagine:
"Hey, why'd that bucket of alcohol fell on me when I opened this door? Ah, nevermind, let's see what they hide in the bedroom... HIIIAAARGH!!!! IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!!!! KILL MEEEE!!!!". Hell I should have the legal right to finish them off by playing golf with their balls and making them pop out their mouth while they burn to melted ashes!
I'd never break the law, that's why the law should be changed. To hell with criminals, they're worse than animals and would be an easy excuse to evacuate our aggression. How cool would that be? Imagine you have a bad day at the office, so you walk to the local prison, they put you in a room with a thief or tax cheat or rapist or drunk driver tied to a chair, provide you with tools and weapons, and just let you have your way with him. You could even request someone who looks like your boss or mother in law if you want. And if you kill them they''d even let you do what you want to the body, even stuff it or mount the head on your wall as a trophy.
Seriously, why do we protect people who break the law when we, good people, could use them to our advantage in so many ways?
Slavery is also an option by the way.
Of course I pirate! All my friends know I have hundreds of gigs of pirated software, music and videos. Most of them do as well.
I buy a lot of stuff too. I'm never buying anything from this company.
I could potentially sue them for libel, and perhaps theft of service. I did not authorise them to send a message to every single person on my contact list, or to use up my limited number of texts doing so.
While they could potentially sue me, it's possible that I simply didn't know it was pirated. However, since I only downloaded there's no statutory damages. The most they can get from me is the cost of the app. I'll make an offer of settlement out of court for that one.
35.4, i, -20 - take your pick, there's plenty of them where those came from ;)
For the last time, /.: piracy is theft.
The argument that making a copy of a digital product does not deprive the author of anything is wrong: copyright infringement leads to profit loss, and therefore it is outright theft.
It seems to me that if you often find yourself walking into traffic or off ledges while texting, getting a new app on your phone is not the obvious solution.
If your definition of theft is that it results in a loss of profits, then competition is theft, making a superior product or advertising better than you competitors is theft. Telling the media that a company is putting poison in their powdered milk is theft. Demanding a replacement at a store for faulty merchandise is theft. You also assume that people would buy everything they pirate if piracy weren't an option, I assure you this is not the case. I for one could never afford it.
Maybe in the US $2.10 is throw-away territory, but what about in India or China? Even the way the dollar has fallen, that could well be a few hours worth of work in other countries.
I like the concept as well, except for one thing -- false positives. I'm playing Shogun 2: Total War, and there's a lot of whining in the forums over the multiplayer online server tagging nearly everyone as dishonorable cowards. Maybe this little app has perfect piracy protection and this point is moot, but I'd be a little upset if I payed for the app and it ended up spamming all my friends and slandering me.
It's actually twenty cents -- at least on AT&T
This post agrees with that! http://www.lesmond.net/2011/04/3-months-in-comparison-between-ios-android-and-windows-phone-sales/
copyright infringement leads to profit loss, and therefore it is outright theft.
Profit loss == otright theft? Better stop negative reviews, stop people from lacking the desire to buy something once they see it, window shopping since people don't buy as a result of these things, and somehow that is theft because you deserve money , and didn't make it - never mind that not making the money you want is never the same as having money you already had taken away on the very logical principal THAT YOU NEVER HAD IT YET - nor were you gaurneteed to make it. If you want to argue piracy is theft, at least TRY to make a logical argument as to why your point is why..
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
competition is theft
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
making a superior product or advertising better than you competitors is theft.
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
Telling the media that a company is putting poison in their powdered milk is theft
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
Demanding a replacement at a store for faulty merchandise is theft.
It's not, because it does not end in using a product you didn't pay for.
You also assume that people would buy everything they pirate if piracy weren't an option, I assure you this is not the case. I for one could never afford it.
Indeed. If people had the cash, they wouldn't pirate software/media. Since they don't have the cash, they do pirate software/media.
Enjoying a product you didn't make without having paid for it is theft.
it is impressive how many powerfully stupid things are built into this story.