Why Android's 'kill switch' is a good thing

googles intent isn't

googles intent isn't important, its their sole discretion if the TOS was violated and then they can just remove anything they want and then after its gone they can say its malicious.
on the other hand the fact that its in the TOS basically means if this happens to you, then you shouldn't be surprised.

Right on the money

Its a good thing except if:

a) a hacker finds a way to control the kill-switch and mess with other people's devices.

b) google abuses its remote control over people's devices, ie eves-dropping, recording GPS locations and extracting profiling information for marketing/search/advertising purposes.

wow very

wow very interesting

http://www.jaiderbertoli.com/blog/9-blog/11-google-android-g1-apps

Kill Switch Only Good If...

The kill switch is only good if the developer agreement language is sound. However, let's say someone writes a great app for playing certain types of digital content, or, better yet, capturing content from the internet, saving it to a memory card, converting that content in to a different format, and making it easy to share it with others. If the developer agreement contains any language even remotely associated with the DMCS and its ilk, then despite the lack of any maliciousness in the application itself, you can expect that it won't be long before the app is remotely removed. I have a sliver of hope that by virtue of being an open platform that people will figure out how to block Google's remote access.

scoff!

Good enough to get your check in the mail from g$$gle, buddy. How does it feel being a cog in the money factory? Oops google's blogspector codecs will probably detect malicious text in this response and delete it.

A shout out to my gorillatech comrades: keep fighting the good fight to free our machines from market imperialism! Support freedom of information legislation! the google boycott lives on!

It's a democaracy? Where do

It's a democaracy? Where do I get to vote one what apps to nuke?

It mine, I paid for it

So what if I develop my own app? Say an app for my own personal use? If Google decides it shouldn't be on my phone, what then?

Wrong!!!

Everybody and their grandma seems to be struggling to gain control over your mobile and other communication equipment.

Maybe I didn't get your sarcasm... or are you flamebaiting?

The "kill switch" is of course not necessary. Alternatives would be to notify users informing them about any issues of some piece of software and to then let them decide to delete or not delete the software in question.

Having the remote "kill switch" allows e.g. non-democratic governments to kill software which would allow users to access content the government wants to censor or software that protects the users privacy and anonymity.

I can think of a long list of scenarios where the remote "kill switch" is the wrong thing. As a general rule the user of the device should have the decision what runs on the device.

This is why I don't have an

This is why I don't have an iPhone and I won't buy the Google thing. Nobody should be able to uninstall anything on my computer unless I say "Yes". I can do it my damn self!

no need

When i heard about the phone the first week of the announcement i was going to get it. But now my motivation died after i conduct more research on the device. Speacially when t-mobile intention is to stick you with a $ 35 or $ 25 data fees. It's mandantoray to have that plan of the phone in order to use it.

Why wasn't this in their legal wording then?

It seems that they've narrowed down the nature of deleting software:

"In limited cases where an application has a malicious intent, we will remove it from the Market and potentially uninstall it from user devices to ensure the safety of the Android Market community."

If this is actually the intent and there's no other motive, then why didn't they include this intent and limitation in the legal verbiage?

Hi Mr. Raphael. Just

Hi Mr. Raphael. Just wondering how much you got paid by Google to spin this tale.

Sure, everyone who doesn't like owning things they pay for will love this feature. Everyone who thinks Google still owns the phone even after they've sold it to someone will think it's a good thing.

But everyone who isn't an idiot will not.

Easy Answer

If you don't agree with the Terms and Conditions of a product that you are interested in, them choose not to make that purchase. It's their product, let them sell it as they deem fit! Everyone always complains that we should restrict how companies are allowed to do business, well we can by not buying things that we don't agree with. Telling them how they HAVE to run their business is the SAME EXACT THING as telling you how you HAVE to do anything. You all seem to want your "rights" (aka wants) protected at the cost of infringing on the rights of others....being the business.

What Crap

What Crap. Talk about big brother. Not only does Google now have an advertising device right in you pocket, they can remove any app or content they determine to violate thier terms of service. That means they can read anything that happens to be on your phone.
Google already tracks you with a 30 year cookie,and alters your searches based on your history, reads your gmail and serve up advertisements based on it. Now they can remove things from your phone. Next, they'll be listening to your phone call and serving you an ad based on what was just talked about.
And the best part. There is no regulation of the industry they engage in. "Search"

puh leaze

I haven't found any cause to feel that the big G has abused their TOS. Yes, ths TOS seem mercurial, but it comes down to the question of whether you want to do business with someone you trust. If you trust them with the information that you plan to use the device for, then don't worry about it.

If you're worried about putting personal information a device developed by a NGO with rumors of bowing down to heavy-handed politics, then perhaps you shouldn't.

Either way, never write something down you wouldn't want published in a blog your grandmother would read and You'll be fine. (I'm assuming your grandmother reads blogs).

Cheers!

your missing the point

ok, everyone is upset that google may abuse this power.. or that the descression is entirely googles..

my take is a bit different, im a security professional by trade, and honestly my biggest concern is that even though i buy this phone straight out, or i agree to a service contract with my cellular provider and get the phone at a cheaper rate..

in the case of a full price purchase, this is my phone, who is google to tell me what software i can install on my "open" phone that i purchased? in the case of a subsidized phone, my agreement is between my cellular provider who can require certain things about my phone.. this was the cost of getting the phone cheaper.. but then why is google inserting itself into that contract?

this has been ahuge problem with the iphone as well, i bought my iphone straight out, with no contract at all, why am i beiing simlocked and software restricted by people who no longer have anything to do with my phone?!

frankly it worries me where this will go.. contracts with my dentist that i will only eat at mcdonalds? eula from my motherboard vendor agreeing to only run applications they aprove of? an operating system which will only let me run software provided by one company? you see where this goes wrong right?

In general, a good thing

It is true that hackers might be able to acquire access to such a function. But in general, it's nothing to worry about. It would only be to their detriment if they start deleting people's software. They'd cause a ruckus, anger the end user, and they would use something that wouldn't indiscriminately delete their software.

I'm all for it if it keeps malicious code from running on your phone. One call and a nasty program with spyware (or worse) functions goes away, and you're left with a happy phone with open-source software, which is how it should be. Lord I hate my phone and it's pre loaded crap that won't take stuff that *I* want on it.....

Control of apps

How about a review of Apps to make sure they are not malware of some sort with a strict set of guidelines of why an app can be removed from the repository and and well defined appeals process that can be followed if an app is mistakenly rejected. That would be a smarter way of handle it. I agree with the other commented on how this is great until a hacker figures out how to make use of it (it's not a matter of "if" but of "when").

The review process doesn't need to be a heavy handed fascist process like Apple's. Just one where the app is tested to make sure it works as it should and doesn't do anything it shouldn't before it is released to the general public. If an app is doing something it shouldn't, the kill switch is going to be too late to prevent a virus or some similar malware from taking actions.

Try and protect your computer.

If you are like me then you have probably tired many different types of scans to try and protect your computer. There are many different options available but I have found that most of them pick up the same bugs whether you pay for the scan or download a free version. Search-and-destroy Antispyware (http://www.Search-and-destroy.com) is one of the best that I have found so far and it cost less than many of the other well-known scans on the market today. If you are searching for a good scan I suggest that you check out the antispyware solution from Search-and-destroy.