It's the responsible thing to do. Jailbreak software has options to let you block it. Apple doesn't need to use it nearly as much because of the application control process, which is prevention rather than the killswitch cure.
It's the responsible thing to do. Jailbreak software has options to let you block it. Apple doesn't need to use it nearly as much because of the application control process, which is prevention rather than the killswitch cure.
definitely agree. this is more likely to happen on Android phones.
It's the responsible thing to do. Jailbreak software has options to let you block it. Apple doesn't need to use it nearly as much because of the application control process, which is prevention rather than the killswitch cure.
Yes I know Apple has that too but Google's actions are like me calling 911 after I've been shot... point is, the app has already committed the malicious act. All Google is doing is preventing further damage, not preventing damage in and of itself
Yes I know Apple has that too but Google's actions are like me calling 911 after I've been shot... point is, the app has already committed the malicious act. All Google is doing is preventing further damage, not preventing damage in and of itself
It's more like calling 911 after a few people have been shot and the madman is still on the loose in which case the situation still needs to be dealt with.
The issue in the first two posts sounded like an objection to Google's level of control. If it's about Google using a post-approval process over a pre-approval process then I'd say pre-approval is better.
The main objection with Apple's chosen method is the strictness of the rules, changing of the rules and the vagueness of the rules.
It's more like calling 911 after a few people have been shot and the madman is still on the loose in which case the situation still needs to be dealt with.
The issue in the first two posts sounded like an objection to Google's level of control. If it's about Google using a post-approval process over a pre-approval process then I'd say pre-approval is better.
The main objection with Apple's chosen method is the strictness of the rules, changing of the rules and the vagueness of the rules.
No, the real issue is that this botnet was totally undetected. Google did not know about this app until the developer presented it in a security conference.
What's to prevent a real hacker to create a real nasty botnet/spyware disguised as the latest twilight/Harry potter/etc. app?
How about a hundred hackers creating thousands of malicious apps? Not possible on iPhones but very possible on Android phones.
Seems to me that between Apple, Amazon and Google: all of which have a kill switch, Apple is the only company that HASN'T used it. Yet, more people seem to be worried about Apple having the button. What gives?
Comments
http://www.iphone-hacks.com/2008/08/...ady-published/
It's the responsible thing to do. Jailbreak software has options to let you block it. Apple doesn't need to use it nearly as much because of the application control process, which is prevention rather than the killswitch cure.
Apple has a killswitch too:
http://www.iphone-hacks.com/2008/08/...ady-published/
It's the responsible thing to do. Jailbreak software has options to let you block it. Apple doesn't need to use it nearly as much because of the application control process, which is prevention rather than the killswitch cure.
definitely agree. this is more likely to happen on Android phones.
Apple has a killswitch too:
http://www.iphone-hacks.com/2008/08/...ady-published/
It's the responsible thing to do. Jailbreak software has options to let you block it. Apple doesn't need to use it nearly as much because of the application control process, which is prevention rather than the killswitch cure.
Yes I know Apple has that too but Google's actions are like me calling 911 after I've been shot... point is, the app has already committed the malicious act. All Google is doing is preventing further damage, not preventing damage in and of itself
Yes I know Apple has that too but Google's actions are like me calling 911 after I've been shot... point is, the app has already committed the malicious act. All Google is doing is preventing further damage, not preventing damage in and of itself
It's more like calling 911 after a few people have been shot and the madman is still on the loose in which case the situation still needs to be dealt with.
The issue in the first two posts sounded like an objection to Google's level of control. If it's about Google using a post-approval process over a pre-approval process then I'd say pre-approval is better.
The main objection with Apple's chosen method is the strictness of the rules, changing of the rules and the vagueness of the rules.
It's more like calling 911 after a few people have been shot and the madman is still on the loose in which case the situation still needs to be dealt with.
The issue in the first two posts sounded like an objection to Google's level of control. If it's about Google using a post-approval process over a pre-approval process then I'd say pre-approval is better.
The main objection with Apple's chosen method is the strictness of the rules, changing of the rules and the vagueness of the rules.
No, the real issue is that this botnet was totally undetected. Google did not know about this app until the developer presented it in a security conference.
What's to prevent a real hacker to create a real nasty botnet/spyware disguised as the latest twilight/Harry potter/etc. app?
How about a hundred hackers creating thousands of malicious apps? Not possible on iPhones but very possible on Android phones.