Google backdoor into all android phones.

[doomer4life]

If ms tapped into my computer to remove viruses I'd be a happy camper lol

Sent from my DROIDX using DroidForums App

 

[Skull One]

Ok, I have thought about this some more. Talked with some folks at the office about it 3 out of 3 android users in my very unofficial poll did not understand this functionality was agreed to by them. Take that as you may only one of them was running a rom, tranQ.

Do you support google doing this on wifi only tablets? How about if ms did it for apps on their rumored tablets? How about if ms did it for windows? Let's say evil ms makes a marketplace for apps for windows. What if ms said they can come into your system and delete apps, but only because its a security issue and we are too stupid to know any better. Id be surprised if everyone on this forum wouldn't get mad about that and its exactly the same thing google is doing right now.
Also I don't work for google or own any stock.

MS already does remove malicious applications and cleans virus, trojans and worms from your machine on a monthly basis. So that argument is moot.

 

[SkullOne]

Ok, I have thought about this some more. Talked with some folks at the office about it 3 out of 3 android users in my very unofficial poll did not understand this functionality was agreed to by them. Take that as you may only one of them was running a rom, tranQ.

Do you support google doing this on wifi only tablets? How about if ms did it for apps on their rumored tablets? How about if ms did it for windows? Let's say evil ms makes a marketplace for apps for windows. What if ms said they can come into your system and delete apps, but only because its a security issue and we are too stupid to know any better. Id be surprised if everyone on this forum wouldn't get mad about that and its exactly the same thing google is doing right now.
Also I don't work for google or own any stock.

All that unofficial poll did was prove you and your co-workers need to actually read the EULA's to anything and everything before you agree to it. Damn, wish I was the guy who sold those phones. I could have gotten all of you to sign over the title to your cars to me! :icon_ banana:

You'd be surprised as to how many Android or iOS users don't know that Google and Apple can remotely kill applications because they don't bother reading everything. Then again some of those same people got infected by DroidDream last week by installing things like Screaming Sexy Japanese Girls and Hilton Sex Sounds. :icon_eek:

If the operating system is locked down (rooting not included) where applications come from a single controlled source (for the most part) then I do not care if they do this on a WiFi only device or my home computer. Your tinfoil hat is just on way too tight. They can't randomly go deleting information or applications. They can't just randomly snoop your information either. If they did do it, they would be caught and they would be slapped harder and faster then anybody thought possible.

Plus haven't you heard of the Malicious Software Removal Tool that runs monthly during Patch Tuesday? MS is already protecting your interests. Oh wait, you probably didn't bother reading that EULA either...

EDIT: Damn you Skull One! You beat me again! :laugh:

 

[dafischman]

Ok, I have thought about this some more. Talked with some folks at the office about it 3 out of 3 android users in my very unofficial poll did not understand this functionality was agreed to by them. Take that as you may only one of them was running a rom, tranQ.

Do you support google doing this on wifi only tablets? How about if ms did it for apps on their rumored tablets? How about if ms did it for windows? Let's say evil ms makes a marketplace for apps for windows. What if ms said they can come into your system and delete apps, but only because its a security issue and we are too stupid to know any better. Id be surprised if everyone on this forum wouldn't get mad about that and its exactly the same thing google is doing right now.
Also I don't work for google or own any stock.

MS already does remove malicious applications and cleans virus, trojans and worms from your machine on a monthly basis. So that argument is moot.

This! You realize all of those little updates you get each month include virus removers and such. I just don't understand the complaint here. If you don't like it go to a feature phone where you won't have to worry about these issues. Could you imagine the outrage if a virus began to spread stealing users data and Google and no contingency plan on how it could swiftly and easily remove the apps from all users phones?! People would be up in arms about how irresponsible they were. I will accept your argument the day Google abuses it, until then I've agreed to it as a term of owning my smartphone.

Josh

 

[AngryHatter]

Ok, I have thought about this some more. Talked with some folks at the office about it 3 out of 3 android users in my very unofficial poll did not understand this functionality was agreed to by them. Take that as you may only one of them was running a rom, tranQ.

Do you support google doing this on wifi only tablets? How about if ms did it for apps on their rumored tablets? How about if ms did it for windows? Let's say evil ms makes a marketplace for apps for windows. What if ms said they can come into your system and delete apps, but only because its a security issue and we are too stupid to know any better. Id be surprised if everyone on this forum wouldn't get mad about that and its exactly the same thing google is doing right now.
Also I don't work for google or own any stock.

Try updating windows.
The first thing is Microsoft verifies you have not "rooted" your computer.
They verify you are running a "legitimate" copy of windows.

 

[kodiak799]

MS already does remove malicious applications and cleans virus, trojans and worms from your machine on a monthly basis. So that argument is moot.

Well, but it's opt-in (or is it opt-out?). Other virus/malware scanners also have the option to quarantine or remove. I think the point of the OP is that he doesn't have control (or perhaps knowledge) of the removal. So I see the point, but IMO it's only valid if something is removed against your wishes.

 

[czerdrill]

I think the Oscar Meyer reference was a little off...like someone else said if Oscar Meyer is sending their cronies into your fridge to remove the tainted meat without letting you know, don't give me the "sure, I'd let them with no hesitation" spiel. It's just funny that people are actually suggesting they'd be ok with that. Something is seriously wrong if you have no reservations about that....

The OP is simply saying he would have liked some indication that it was being done, and why it was being done. Yes, it's in the EULA that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to be all gung ho and "Google can do no wrong" about it. I'm forced to agree to it, if I want a smartphone, and that's fine with me. I don't use my smartphone with some odd sense of safety and full privacy. The point is notifying someone of what you're doing goes a long way. If oscar meyer called me and said they'd be coming over to remove the tainted meat, I'd gladly let them in. However, if I wake up in the night to get a snack and Oscar Meyer is in my kitchen rummaging through my fridge, I won't say "Awesome guys, keep up the great work!". Silly example if you ask me.

All that being said...Google did what they have to do to protect their software, and there's no problem legally with them doing it. I'm glad they did it. But to tell people that they should not feel weird about it, and that smartphones are not for them if they don't like this is dumb.

 

[SGTiger]

I think the Oscar Meyer reference was a little off...like someone else said if Oscar Meyer is sending their cronies into your fridge to remove the tainted meat without letting you know, don't give me the "sure, I'd let them with no hesitation" spiel. It's just funny that people are actually suggesting they'd be ok with that. Something is seriously wrong if you have no reservations about that....

The OP is simply saying he would have liked some indication that it was being done, and why it was being done. Yes, it's in the EULA that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to be all gung ho and "Google can do no wrong" about it. I'm forced to agree to it, if I want a smartphone, and that's fine with me. I don't use my smartphone with some odd sense of safety and full privacy. The point is notifying someone of what you're doing goes a long way. If oscar meyer called me and said they'd be coming over to remove the tainted meat, I'd gladly let them in. However, if I wake up in the night to get a snack and Oscar Meyer is in my kitchen rummaging through my fridge, I won't say "Awesome guys, keep up the great work!". Silly example if you ask me.

All that being said...Google did what they have to do to protect their software, and there's no problem legally with them doing it. I'm glad they did it. But to tell people that they should not feel weird about it, and that smartphones are not for them if they don't like this is dumb.

Excellent post! I agree 100%.

 

[kodiak799]

Point is, once you have the breakdown (the real source of the problem and where the ire needs to be directed), there's not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution to everyone's satisfaction.

There would be [more] people on here complaining if they had to download and run a solution and verify it worked, etc.. That's really not as practical or simple.

The debate should really be whether Google handled this as best they could have, and it's not a simple answer. Your perspective is guarenteed to change based on the level of threat and potential harm to you and the ease with which it can be remedied. If I bought some poison ice cream sandwiches, Little Debby better be sending the police to my house ASAP and, if need be, they absolutely should break-in if there's no answer. It's an extreme example to illustrate the point, but the idea that what Google did here can't be justified or is indefensible is simply wrong.

Not saying Google couldn't have handled this better, but I'm curious to how you would ensure 250,000 people or whatever the number is be properly notified of the problem and presented with an appropriate and expedient solution.

 

[czerdrill]

If they can remote wipe 250,000 phones, they can push a notification to the phones. At the end of the day it's a pointless argument, because no matter what anyone thinks they have every right under the sun to do what they did. The OP's issue as I understood it was just wondering how people felt about it. I don't think he was intending to bring a class action lawsuit to Google. But people ridiculed him from the first reply and told him in no few words that he shouldn't own a smartphone if he can't read a EULA. Silliness.

 

[Pupalei]

I think the Oscar Meyer reference was a little off...like someone else said if Oscar Meyer is sending their cronies into your fridge to remove the tainted meat without letting you know, don't give me the "sure, I'd let them with no hesitation" spiel. It's just funny that people are actually suggesting they'd be ok with that. Something is seriously wrong if you have no reservations about that....

The OP is simply saying he would have liked some indication that it was being done, and why it was being done. Yes, it's in the EULA that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to be all gung ho and "Google can do no wrong" about it. I'm forced to agree to it, if I want a smartphone, and that's fine with me. I don't use my smartphone with some odd sense of safety and full privacy. The point is notifying someone of what you're doing goes a long way. If oscar meyer called me and said they'd be coming over to remove the tainted meat, I'd gladly let them in. However, if I wake up in the night to get a snack and Oscar Meyer is in my kitchen rummaging through my fridge, I won't say "Awesome guys, keep up the great work!". Silly example if you ask me.

All that being said...Google did what they have to do to protect their software, and there's no problem legally with them doing it. I'm glad they did it. But to tell people that they should not feel weird about it, and that smartphones are not for them if they don't like this is dumb.

This says what I was trying to say, only more better.

 

[samiusmc]

Every software designer writes in a back door. Mathew Broderick explained it in War Games.

 

[Hugh Jass]

Every software designer writes in a back door. Mathew Broderick explained it in War Games.

Ok I lost at this one, kudos.

XD

 

[tearlach2]

Try updating windows.
The first thing is Microsoft verifies you have not "rooted" your computer.
They verify you are running a "legitimate" copy of windows.

Well this isn't true at all, Windows computers come with administrator access that you don't have to constantly throw a password at to change any setting. Linux computers have many setting that require superuser access and therefore special apps have to be installed onto a phone to hold it in su mode. That is both a good and bad thing. What you are talking about I think is the the WGA check MS does on your software to be able to use the Windows update website (though you can side load ALL ms updates by going to download.windows.com). For me, I honestly have Automatic Updates and Background Inteligent Transfer Service disabled unless I'm using windows updates, and I have windows updates set to manual anyways always. That is an option MS gives users, I only use XP when I have to though, when I have to play some game or something. Ms doesnt come and tell me tomorrow, that they ran the once monthly malicious software tool yesterday, unless I set that up beforehand.

In both the ubuntu synaptic package manager and update manager I am given the foreknowledge of all updates that are possible to download, whether I want to download them automatically, run a check daily or whenever I want it to, or not at all. Just exactly like windows actually. But without having to install a WGAcrack

 

[pyro6128]

ok since people keep bringing up this oscar meyer post, to actually compare it to google would be, "hey we sold you these hotdogs (apps), and theyre bad (maleware), luckily you agreed to let us check your moms health remotely (see if you have the app) since she may have eaten one, good thing we asked you to sign this contract...oh man, she ingested the bad hotdog, lets go in there and not only make sure shes ok, but bring doctors to give her whatever care is necessary to completely fix the issue before it gets worse and she gets hurt. Again, we at oscar meyer are sure glad you signed that agreement with us, and I bet you are too .

Happy ending for all. Yes I would be ok with this scenario since it can now be compared equally to what happened with google.

Only in the above case, people aren't saying "screw you oscar meyer, you should have left my mom alone, or let me perform all of the medical procedures, even though I have no clue what im doing, but I'm sure it would have worked out ok" :icon_ banana: