|
Chris Losinger wrote: i bet you clicked something that said you agreed with the Android OS terms of service the first time you started it up.
Nothing in there about removing apps. Mostly a basic we are not responsible if this device/OS kills you or your family disclaimer.
Chris Losinger wrote: if you got an app from the Android Marketplace, you agreed to the marketplace terms of service. and those marketplace terms of service include giving Google the right to kill whatever apps they want to kill.
There is no reference to Google removing (killing) apps from my device in the Android Market ToS and I don't see why there should be. The Android Market ToS should regulate the use of the Android Market and not my particular device usage. Google (or anyone else) has no right to dictate how I use my device, except when I'm using their services/sites/whatevers.
|
|
|
|
|
PedroMC wrote: Nothing in there about removing apps.
2.4 From time to time, Google may discover a Product on the Market that violates the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. You agree that in such an instance Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a mistake to think that such clauses give corporations a legal blank cheque to do as they please. In most countries, consumers have rights relating to fair business practice and implied warranties including warranty of merchantability.
If corporations like Google removed applications unfairly and without permission, they would find quickly themselves in court. Users have rights too.
|
|
|
|
|
A damn lot of power to entrust to someone who only sees you as a source of revenue.
Even the government needs a warrant - and a special one at that - to enter without even knocking (oops - at least in my country).*
*Bush-Era domestic atrocities notwithstanding
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Such messaging could be built into the OS.
|
|
|
|
|
Boring question, can we have another one ?
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Suggest a Survey[^]
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I knew you'd get me!! 
I will think about it.
Max.
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
You've got to be kidding. They put up a survey that is the equivalent of a pile of gasoline-soaked logs and hand you a match, and you're bored?!?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Never...can you imagine the security nightmare!
Remote 'administrators' able to change the configuration of your machine without your consent?
|
|
|
|
|
If MS removed malicious programs automatically, Vista would have been forced to remove itself as part of the installation process.
And any application with a Ribbon instead of a toolbar.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
My Windows 7 even thinks software by Microsoft might be malicious. Before you know it the OS deletes itself! 
It's an OO world.
|
|
|
|
|
It should prior notifies the user and point out that particular malicious program/application an asked for the user's permission before removing it.
Either way its helps to keep clean OS when someone who don't even know whether its been malicious or not and before it ruin the performance of the OS.
Believe Yourself™
|
|
|
|
|
|
then we welcome backdoor vulnerability to OS.
|
|
|
|
|
As above. They might as well run a gigantic server hosting a single OS which controls what apps people have for their use.
My Blog
*cough* My Achievements: *cough*
* Posted 25,000th message in GIT O_O
* Official supporter of the "thatraja's GIT Meet Sponsor Foundation" 
What you do, when you don't know what to do is what you do when you don't want to do what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. Didn't we used to do that before the PC?
Hang on, we didn't have viruses then either! Coincidence? 
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Didn't we used to do that before the PC?
Are you trying to tell that "cloud computing" is not a new and modern concept? Heresy! Burn him!
|
|
|
|
|
If a malicious code is found help would be appreciated in some circumstances but still the decision of making modifications (and also actually making them) should be made by the one who owns the machine.
Instructions, explanations, possibly reasoning, possible/known side-effects etc would be helpful to make the decision and possibly removal, so that kind of assistance would be useful. Of course one question is how the malicious code was found and was the informing about the situation approved by the owner...
The removal process should have several 'levels'. Easy, just push the button, for those with no technical skills or interest in issue to 'let me handle it', for CP users 
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on who defines malicious. My definition might be different than the OS makers definition. Is a free version of something they make money off of considered malicious? they might think so.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
PJ Arends wrote: Depends on who defines malicious
Politicians
PJ Arends wrote: Is a free version of something they make money off of considered malicious? they might think so.
Ask Red Gate 
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
'Free' would include 'Pirated'. Do you think that vendors should have the right to at least disable illegal versions? Courts around the world have had different answers to this one. And I know people whose ligitimate versions of Windows have failed the Windows Genuine Advantage test because other people have reused their license no (without the original owner's knowledge).
Usual rules apply: Punish the innocent, let the guilty go free. (It's much easier that way round)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Android needs it because the app approvial process is so badly controlled
|
|
|
|
|
ed welch wrote: process is so badly controlled
May be you are right. Android is not a very developed OS. It still requires perfection. But I am impressed to see the Framework in place to make the Kill Switch work.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
