[jester888]

zarchanalin said:

I have been baffled where people get their ideas when they say that Apple is going to start killing your stuff because they want to control what you can and cannot do. There's no evidence to support such a claim at all.

It doesn't matter if Apple is the one to use this maliciously. Who cares who does it. The sole issue is that it is possible.

Quote

This kill switch is, it seems to me, a necessary part of the iPhone software. The iPhone is not like the computer. If someone compromises your computer, as many windows users can attest to, the most you have to worry about is information theft and data loss. The iPhone, because it is a cell phone, can suffer from theft of much more. Has everyone forgotten that experiment that was run some time back and detailed in an article in Wired magazine about the ability to utilize a security hole in Windows' mobile platform and reverse SMS to create a blue tooth propagating hijacker virus that could jump between any two blue tooth enabled phones and send charges against your phone bill? Do you really want Apple to be powerless to stop such an app in it's tracks, or would you rather them have the ability to kill it before it can rack up hundreds of dollars worth of charges on your phone bill?

Name another cell phone that has the functionality? There are already millions of Windows Mobile phones out there that can take 3rd party apps which are even more risky because there is no gate to screen them. You can install/add/remove what ever you want. Yet, there is no need for a kill switch.

Quote

Another thing I've seen no one mention here is Microsoft's kill switch in their operating systems, the Remote Procedure Call. This bit of code allows Microsoft to access any Windows based computer and shut it down. If you want to know how annoying that is, just ask anyone who got the blaster worm that resulted in Windows computers just shutting down every thirty seconds to two minutes. Even government computers weren't immune to that bit of control and that was a danger to our national security (since so many of our defense agencies have switched to Microsoft).

There is no kill switch in Windows. The is a false statement, assumption, understanding, or whatever. RPC is a documented method for interacting with the operating system. This is not some surreptitious function that MS has super secret access to. Also, in order to reboot a windows system via RPC, you have to have rights on the PC to do so. AKA, a username and password. This is of course baring any exploits to get around it. RPC access is blocked by almost every router on the internet which further limits the exposure. In contrast to this, the iPhone actually calls back to Apple's webserver to find out if anything should be blacklisted. And because this is a closed system, you can't even install a firewall to prevent the actions as you could on a Windows PC or Mobile device. (Please don't take this as a Windows defense. This just happens to be one thing they are doing better than Apple.)

Quote

The point being, killswitch software is nothing new, and as far as such things go the ability to kill a virus or malicious software from your iphone before it can cause a serious problem sounds to me like something we should all be thankful for having.

You are correct, there is nothing new about it. What you are missing is the fact that everyone who has any security background or awareness will tell you it is a bad idea. If you think any differently, as Sony about the effects of their Root Kit debacle last year.

[louielu12]

Which License Agreement are you referring to? It sounds like you mean the LA of each individual app. But if you pay attention to apps' pages on the App Store, you will notice that basically the only apps with LAs are Apple's.

[tobybrut]

First, the DRM was used only as an example that we cannot do with our software as we wish, not that it is better or worse than a kill switch. Also, pulling the network cable takes care of that bit of DRM, btw, since that disables the ability of the apps from serial number checking.

Second, I should start hacking now since you're pretty much saying SLA's are worthless.

Third, the market is the enforcer to make sure Apple doesn't abuse their position. The whole reason for the App Store is because people demanded it and Apple agreed to create it in order to make the iPhone more attractive over other smart phones. If Apple wanted to make a profit on it, they would be demanding more than 30%, which is far less than anyone else's app store.

If those dozen apps on the kill list aren't malicious apps according to any reasonable person (prudent person in legal terms), then there would be a firestorm such that the App Store would become a liability to Apple as they fought declining sales (due to the sudden lack of trust) and law suits. I trust they will not abuse their position because it is not in their financial interests to do so. If they do, you'll probably find the sales of iPhones would decline quite a bit. It's the market at work.

As for Netshare, if they disable it and then offer no refunds, and offer no proof that it's malicious, then you'll have a case that Apple is abusing their power by disabling non-malicious, politically-inconvenient apps. Until they do, I see the advantages of having a kill switch far outweighing the disadvantages, which so far are zero.

[doglesby]

A lot of people install kill switches on their computers. It's called antivirus software. What if McAfee puts out a virus definition that identifies Word as a virus? About as likely as what I'm seeing people predict here.
Apple may feel too free to use the App Store as a lever, but the presence of two levers (pull from the App Store vs. kill all installations) makes me pretty comfortable regarding Apple's intentions/behavior on this switch. We all knew the iPhone apps had to be signed with a certificate from Apple, so of course Apple can revoke those certificates. The concern that it may be hacked is a big deal, though. That is a mechanism that needs to be transparent.
I'm surprised to see people so upset about I Am Rich, especially since there was a widely distributed comment that suggests the developer was uncooperative helping someone who wanted a refund. The rules of the App Store make the developer responsible for refunds. If the developer doesn't respond to customers, you better believe the app will be pulled.

[jmincey]

The burden of proof should not be on the consumer to demonstrate that software he legally purchased is not malicious. The burden of proof should fall instead on the party that -- without warning or the approval of the one who PAID for the software -- deletes it.


Jeff Mincey

[tobybrut]

Huh? I thought I said Apple had to prove an app was malicious to avoid having a firestorm erupt over disabling any apps? Reasonable people would either agree or disagree. If a killed app was banned due to political reasons rather than for what normal people would consider maliciousness, then Apple will pay the price for that egregious act as reflected in the marketplace. I don't disagree with you that Apple better have a great reason for killing an app. My point is that our control over our own pocketbooks is what will keep Apple in line since they want to keep selling iPhones.

[LGgeek]

1. I'm tired of the nanny society.
2. it's my iPhone so piss off Steve.

[Xaqtly]

jmincey said:

Proof of Apple's bad intent is irrelevant and a red herring.

How is it irrelevant when it is specifically Apple's intent that you're concerned about here? You're paranoid that Apple will remove software from your iPhone. Why? State some precedent, show some reasoning behind your concern. "There's a chance it could happen" is 100% useless. There's also a chance you could spontaneously combust, what exactly is your point here? Do you walk around with a tin foil hat on because there's a chance that aliens are monitoring your brain waves? Do you tie mattresses around yourself because there's a chance you could get hit by a car, or crushed by an elephant that's been fired out of a cannon? Or maybe a blimp will explode and land on you? I mean where does it end for you, where do you draw the line?

The issue is whether or not you believe Apple WILL remove software from your iPhone, assuming it's not malicious and Apple is doing exactly what they said they would do by removing it. "There's a chance Apple could remove it" is not good enough.

Quote

You purchase locks for the doors of your house even though you don't have proof you will be robbed -- right? Instead, you figure locks are a good investment ON THE CHANCE you might be robbed. Well, by the same token, I am opposed to this kill switch ON THE CHANCE a corporation may change its criteria or that it may delete apps against my wishes.

And again, the question is what percentage is that chance? Knowing that it's Apple, and that they do in fact want you to have apps on the iPhone, what are the real world chances that Apple will just start removing them from your phone at random? Higher than getting hit with a blimp? Higher than being probed by an alien? Higher than spontaneously combusting, being hit by lightning and then being crushed by a shark riding an elephant? You tell me.

[tewha]

jmincey said:

Well, by the same token, I am opposed to this kill switch ON THE CHANCE a corporation may change its criteria or that it may delete apps against my wishes.

You wrote earlier "Apple reserves the right to employ the kill switch even on software which does not violate security."

Did you mean ability, then?

[jmincey]

Xaqtly, you are the authority on your position and I'm the authority on mine. No number of repetitions on your part that I'm paranoid will make it so. I'm not the least bit paranoid. It's not paranoid to want control over what software runs or does not run on my computing platforms.

I don't object to Apple's taking security measures -- not at all. I would be in favor of security software on the iPhone. But the kill switch sets a precedent that allows for the selective deletion of software for any reason whatsoever.

The device belongs to me. So long as the software I use violates no law, the decision to remove it must be mine alone. I pay for its use, I expect to have that use.

Or do you suppose Apple will supply a refund to everyone whose software is deleted without their approval?

Jeff Mincey

[eteen]

Anyway, how do you call MS Genuine Advantage Tool. It's nothing more than a Kill switch for pirated version of Ms Windows.

Nothing new anyway.

Let's give Apple the ball and see what they will do with it.

A+

[jmincey]

Would you give Apple the keys to your house also?

Jeff Mincey

[eteen]

No question...

All I'm saying is any security mesure can be of good use or used the wrong ways. Especially for the Kill switch. Let's see how Apple will use it and judge them by their actions.

[jmincey]

I understand your point. I'm saying only that even where someone's actions are honorable, that doesn't mean I give them the right to determine what software may or may not run on a device I own. Even if you could be assured I would never enter your house without your prior authorization, you STILL would not give me the keys -- on principle.
And by the same token, I don't want Apple, on principle, to be the deciding party as to what software can run on my computers -- including my mobile computers, (irrespective of their honorable intentions or not).

Jeff Mincey