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

By JR Raphael, PC World |  Mobile & Wireless, Android, G1 22 comments

Everyone's all a-twitter over the so-called "kill switch" found in Google's first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1. Here's the thing, though: Not only is it not a big deal -- it's actually a good thing.

The story, in case you haven't heard, involves a clause in Google's Android Market terms of service, linked to the new phone. The line states that if Google finds "a product that violates the developer distribution agreement," it "retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion." In other words, Google can delete stuff off your phone without your permission. At least, that's how a lot of people interpreted it.

The missing link

That cursory explanation, while not entirely untrue, leaves out one important thing: the fact that the clause states a removal will happen only if a developer violates his agreement. But semantics, as we all know in this week of presidential debating, can be misleading -- so I turned to Google for a straight-talking explanation.

"The Android Market is designed so developers can make their applications easily available to users," a spokesperson tells me. "While we encourage that community aspect, we are also very careful with the safety and security of the user. 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."

The Apple comparison

Now, you might remember the maker of another unnamed phone, which happens to start with a lowercase "i," offering a similar explanation when someone found a remote delete function on its device a few months ago. You might also remember that plenty of people weren't too pleased with that revelation.

Here's why this one's different: First of all, Google's been up-front with its intentions, printing them in the terms of service and openly discussing them. (Apple, in contrast, quietly admitted the existence of its "kill switch" a few days after a hacker happened to find it; there was no prior disclosure.) But, more important, if Google is to succeed in bringing an open platform to a mainstream mobile environment, such a failsafe is needed -- and will only be beneficial to the end-user.

With Apple's App Store, content is carefully controlled -- perhaps too much so. With the Android Market, in contrast, its very nature allows anyone to create applications and publish them instantly, without oversight or moderation. That leaves carriers and their users no recourse if a nasty app makes its way onto the network and jeopardizes everyone's security. It would be irresponsible of Google not to have an option to pull the plug if something malicious were to pop up.

So go about your day, friends, and sleep soundly. Your new Android phone isn't under a dictator's rule, with random unexplained killings to come. It's under a democracy -- but, as with any democracy, a well-defined set of laws is needed to keep the community safe.

22 comments

    Anonymous 1 year ago
    There are many competing in our lives, Aion Kinah game as is. Click on Buy Aion Kinah to play
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.....
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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?
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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!
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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"
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    Since when are corporations people?
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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?
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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!
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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?
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    It's a democaracy? Where do I get to vote one what apps to nuke?
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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!
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    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.

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      Mobile & WirelessWhite Papers & Webcasts

      White Paper

      Ten Steps to an Enterprise Mobility Strategy

      Enterprise employees are more mobile, relishing the ability to work productively anywhere, at any time. They may use any means to get connected, often creating financial and security risks for your company. Discover how to get control of your enterprise mobility strategy and ensure mobile worker productivity with these ten steps.

      White Paper

      What You Need to Know About the Costs of Mobility

      Mobile workers want to get connected anywhere, at any time, often at any cost. Enterprise mobility is often a hidden "black" budget in your company. Ensure that your traveling employees are productive everywhere, even while you control cost and security, through an enterprise mobility strategy.

      White Paper

      The 2011 iPass Mobile Enterprise Report

      This industry survey covers trends, recommendations and a policy guide on managing Enterprise Mobility for IT management and CIOs. Get data on employee device liability, as well as smartphone/tablet penetration, budget control and provisioning. Find out how your organization compares, how to ensure mobile worker productivity, and control costs.

      Webcast On Demand

      Managing Enterprise Mobility Costs

      Mobile employees, especially those traveling internationally, were spending time and resources finding and making connections. Roaming costs were out of control. The IT Administrator at The Hay Group tells you how he got more control over these costs, providing management with predictable budgets and insights while ensuring employee productivity.

      Sponsor: iPass

      White Paper

      Digital Transformation: Creating New Business Models Where Digital Meets Physical

      Individuals and businesses alike are embracing the digital revolution. Social networks and digital devices are being used to engage government, businesses and civil society, as well as friends and family.

      See more White Papers | Webcasts

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question