Who watches the watchmen? Jobs confirms remote disabling of iPhone apps possible
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Steve Jobs confirms that applications purchased for the iPhone or iPod Touch can be remotely disabled by Apple.
Apple raised hackles in computer-privacy and security circles when an independent engineer discovered code inside the iPhone that suggested iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.It's fair to debate the wisdom of such a feature, but it's impossible to deny that this makes the iPhone something less than a portable computer and instead a device that operates exclusively under the aegis of Apple's sensibilities, not its owner's. Because the iPhone is a compelling platform I'm sure this news will marginally affect its success, but personally I will be extremely torqued the first time an application I pay for — from Apple's own purportedly pre-vetted application store — is remotely disabled without my permission. If an application is remotely disabled, will I be automatically refunded its purchase price?Mr. Jobs confirmed such a capability exists, but argued that Apple needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to iPhones through the App Store. "Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull," he says.
This makes jailbreaking an iPhone — and removing the remote kill switch, if possible — something of an imperative at this point. It's icky stuff. Perhaps it could be challenged in court?
IPhone Software Sales Take Off: Apple's Jobs] [WSJ.com]
the latest
latest episodes
When Apple announced they had licensed Microsoft's ActiveSync for email/calendar/contact syncing with Microsoft Exchange servers via the iPhone, they also announced they would support the remote wipe feature of ActiveSync which allows an admin on the Exchange server to clear all data off the iPhone. This cleared the way for some corporations to include the iPhone in their 'supported phones' list because they were sure they could prevent the leak of corporate data if a user's phone was lost or stolen.
In a corporate environment where Windows Mobile phone are used, the Exchange admins can implement all sorts of policies on the phones - controlling which applications a user can or can't use, enforcing password policies, etc. Similar features exist when a Blackberry is connected to a corporate Exchange or Notes network via Blackberry's Enterprise Server.
Windows Mobile and Blackberry phones can also exist quite nicely outside of corporate environments when users connect direct through a wireless provider.
My point is that when Apple licensed ActiveSync, it made it clear that they were trying to get into the corporate smartphone world too - and that requires a certain level of centralized control to gain those sales. Perhaps some of these other features we're hearing about relate to that stuff?
Well, good, makes my decision to not get one look better all the time.
(Hope my new Tapwave Zodiac battery arrives soon. Which is actually ironic as Tapwave was overly controlling regarding developers, too. But in its case, it helped kill the product line.)
There's always a lot of speculation on Apple's part that they retain the power to become evil, giant, fascist controller of their products.
Until I hear reports of them executing this plan, I'm not going to be too worried. Israel has the ability to nuke the hell out of the Middle East, but they've restrained themselves.
Plus, you don't have to buy the iPhone. It's not a government mandate that everyone buy one. If this is the sort of thing that troubles you, you can purchase a different device.
This is specifically why the IP address / domain name of that website should be published: So that people who own their own routers / DNS systems may point that to a black hole.
And then find out whether their iPhone/iPod touches still continue to work.
There's absolutely no way anyone can ever figure out how to send the "kill" signal on behalf of Apple store...
[Error 8907234: BoingBoing application has been disabled. Please contact the manufacturer. Thank you for using Apple Store!]
My guess is that this isn't the "core location" thing discovered last week, but that there is another way to do it.
I actually am less worried about Apple abusing a "malicious app disabling" feature than the CL thing -- if Apple goes and says an application is malicious, and it happens to be by a legitimate developer, they're going to face a libel (or slander?) lawsuit. So they'd best have good reason for it. The core location disabling, on the other hand, sounds like it exists to disable any hidden navigation features more than anything else.
So how come apple didnt say this was a corp user admin like feature? or simple a way for developers to control subscription based products?
@jesse raub:
"There's always a lot of speculation on Apple's part that they retain the power to become evil, giant, fascist controller of their products."
Dude, come on.
Business do what they do to survive via contractual obligations, product development and sales. They are not all evil, malicious entities out of a novel. Often worse, but perhaps you should direct your vitriol and energy towards, say, Halliburton.
I've seen three things that could be considered a kill-switch:
1) The CoreLocation blacklist, which is the most discussed so far, prohibits blacklisted apps from using location data. There's nothing blacklisted so far, but if an app was doing naughty things with location data, Apple can put it here.
You can control access yourself by not allowing apps to get your location when the phone asks you. If an app wants location and has no apparent need for it, answer no! Apps have to be approved the first time they are run or after they are updated.
However, apparently "useful" location apps could still track you, and that's what Apple is concerned about.
2) Apps that break the rules can be deauthorized by the App Store's DRM, which will remove them from the phone at sync or OTA App update. The Netshare app violated AT&T's TOS. Sucks, but that's the deal. If you don't like the DRM, jailbreak it.
3) phones running the enterprise version of the OS do support remote wipe, which disables the phone until it is reactivated by iTunes. This isn't in the standard version of the software.