Google’s Android Kill Switch :: The Future of the Internet

Google’s Android Kill Switch

October 16th, 2008 | by jasoneneal | Published in iphone | 6 Comments

Readers of FOI may recall the introduction’s focus on the iPhone as the book’s first example of a tethered appliance. The release of Android was viewed with some excitement as a challenge to Apple, in more ways than one.

Google, and later the Open Handset Alliance, have touted Android as an open source alternative to the iPhone’s tight control of applications. Android, for instance, allows users to download applications from developers without a central gate-keeper deciding what applications can and cannot be run. Even key components like the dialer or the home screen can be replaced. Sounds like a great victory for generativity, even in the face of the iPhone’s popularity, right?

Maybe not. A few outlets are reporting that Android Market’s terms and conditions include reference to a kill switch. Essentially, anything downloaded from the Android Market can be removed from a phone at Google’s sole discretion if it is found to violate the developer distribution agreement.

The articles linked above point to some of the interesting questions that arise from this: How will a list of “banned” applications be communicated between Google and the phone? Can applications not downloaded from Android Market be deleted at Google’s discretion as well? But to me, one of the most interesting questions (which the CW article does ask, briefly) is what the reaction to this kill switch will be from the user community, many of whom have been excited about Android because of its contrasts with the locked-down iPhone operating system.

Will Google face a backlash? We’ve discussed the iPhone’s kill switch here at the FOI blog before. A kill switch is merely one facet of what a fully tethered application can do. I’m still working out exactly how I feel about this seemingly weaker or more partial tethering of Android phones. Maybe this could be a decent compromise that allows Google to maintain some stability while letting generativity happen (mostly) uninhibited? What do you think?

-Jason

Responses

Feed

Bertil Hatt says:

October 27th, 2008 at 7:01 am (#)

I’m surprised there is no reference to Open Source: isn’t the whole platform (to be) opened enough to identify it?

After Apple’s abuse, I certainly understand this can be frightening; I doubt it was in Apple’s or it will be Google’s interest to prevent a legitimate use, and I am positive that without central filtering, badware could use a control mechanism. I’d support a ‘secure’ default, with a choice for more savvy users — but I’m not sure whether a black-hat hacker couldn’t patch that. A clarification of any ban would be needed, whatever is the platform.
Moving Towards Generativity :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It says:

November 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm (#)

[...] applications. Both phones are not entirely generative in that the companies have the right to terminate an application. However, developers for the Android do not need approval from Google whereas all iPhone apps are [...]
Blogroll » Moving Towards Generativity says:

November 3rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm (#)

[...] applications. Both phones are not entirely generative in that the companies have the right to terminate an application. However, developers for the Android do not need approval from Google whereas all iPhone apps are [...]
Android’s security model and Wikipedia :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It says:

January 29th, 2009 at 11:44 am (#)

[...] replicated the iPhone’s App Store. There hasn’t been much protest about the Android kill switch, and people might well be okay with pulling apps that pose security problems from the Market [...]
NotTooBad says:

February 1st, 2009 at 10:30 am (#)

Disturbing trend. Apple, definitely, want to keep things hermetically sealed (contrast with their 2004 commercial) yet openness advocates with they large commercial interests seem to change their minds at some point in the game.

Personally, I am willing to ditch any technology that is too restrictive.
Google, looking like Apple, pulls tethering apps :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It says:

April 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm (#)

[...] I read the TOS, Google could use its kill switch to yank back even those apps downloaded from third-party websites, but I haven’t heard of [...]

Blog

Controlling Cyberspace

This semester, we’re starting an exciting new class, aimed not at lawyers, but undergraduate CS students here at Harvard. It’s called CS42: Controlling Cyberspace – and we’re sharing the syllabus online. Anything big we’re missing? Read more »

Computers Going Wild?

Computers Gone Wild: Impact and Implications of Developments in Artificial Intelligence on Society was an informal discussion that took place at Harvard Law School on December 8^th, 2011. Hosted by Jonathan Zittrain, Marin Soljačić and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, we brought together eighteen mostly local guests to discuss the ways that AI is changing society. Unlike futuristic predictions involving the Singularity or the underlying technology, this workshop explored current technology. Sessions included discussions on warfare, finance, education, and labor. Below is a list of attendees and a summary of the discussion.

Ideas for a Better Internet

Ideas for a Better Internet, or i4bi, is an interdisciplinary course at Harvard and Stanford that challenges students from law, computer science, and public policy to come up with novel and plausible ways to improve the Internet and its use. i4bi centers on immersing participants in Internet history, technologies, and politics, so that students can come up with ideas that help to build a better Internet — however they define “better.” Read more »

Microsoft Echoes Apple App Store Requirements

Here at Future of the Internet, we’ve already talked a little bit about Apple’s content requirements for both the iOS and Mac App Stores in JZ’s The PC is Dead post. As JZ said,

“Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore found his iPhone app rejected because it contained “content that ridicules public figures.” Fiore was well-known enough that the rejection raised eyebrows, and Apple later reversed its decision. But the fact that apps must routinely face approval masks how extraordinary the situation is: tech companies are in the business of approving, one by one, the text, images, and sounds that we are permitted to find and experience on our most common portals to the networked world. Why would we possibly want this to be how the world of ideas works, and why would we think that merely having competing tech companies—each of which is empowered to censor—solves the problem?”

Apple’s approach is an example of a larger phenomenon. Read more »

A SOPA compromise is floated

Last week several members of Congress — Senators Wyden, Cantwell, Moran, and Paul, and Reps. Issa, Lofgren and Chaffetz — floated a proposal to substitute for the contentious proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, previously discussed here. Sen. Wyden’s office has commented on the compromise, and TechDirt has a writeup and a copy of the document here. The proposal omits the elements of SOPA that had run into the most resistance. Gone is tinkering with fundamental Internet architecture such as the use of the domain name system. Gone is the involvement of the Attorney General. Gone is the criminal copyright streaming provision that could, theoretically, make a teenage Justin Bieber a felon for streaming amateur videos featuring his renditions of songs by his favorite artists.In all these ways, the Wyden compromise is significantly better than SOPA. So what’s left? Read more »

About Jonathan Zittrain

Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School

Tweets from Z

An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.