“Steve Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, has confirmed there is a ‘kill switch’ built into the iPhone [operating system] that allows Apple to remotely delete malicious or inappropriate applications stored on the device,” Claudine Beaumont reports for The Telegraph.
“iPhone and iPod touch owners are able to install additional software on their devices purchased from the Apple Application Store,” Beaumont reports.
“Mr Jobs insisted that the so-called ‘kill switch’ was there as a precaution, rather than a function that was routinely used,” Beaumont reports. “‘Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull,’ said Mr Jobs.”
“Mr Jobs also announced that in the month since the iPhone 3G was released and the Application Store launched, around 60 million applications had been downloaded for the iPhone and iPod touch,” Beaumont reports.
Full article here.
Reportedly, the “kill switch” found last week (please see related article below) would allow Apple to block access to Core Location (GPS) for misbehaving apps. Whether or not Jobs was referencing that ability or another undiscovered “kill switch” is unknown.
What would be the scenario where a kill switch would be necessary? Just curious?
wings2Sky,
A stalker accessing GPS to find their target’s location, for just one example.
Did he hit the wrong button? MobileMe is down again, so maybe the wrong switch got thrown.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Or a wife or girlfriend trying to find which strip joint you’re passed out in after you bought tequila shots all night with the money you got from pawning her engagement ring. You should at least get a twenty minute head start.
I must say I don’t know enough about this to really be totally against this type of ability in the OS, but it still seems a bit “Big Brother-ish” that a company could yank or alter an application on a computing device post-purchase.
Maybe I’m wrong, but there’s nothing like this on a desktop or notebook computer, is there?
I think it’d bother people if there was. I suppose software updates sort of count, but those seem much more voluntary than this.
I can see it where they missed testing some software that did “bad” things and they needed to make sure every iPhone out there stopped the software in its tracks.
“What would be the scenario where a kill switch would be necessary?”
When you’re about to beat Steve Jobs’ high score in JirboBreak.
So by his own logic, is Mr. Jobs being “irresponsible” by not shipping Macbooks with a “kill switch”?
Let’s not forget about the kill switch every iPhone owner has implanted into their brain when they buy an one. Steve-O doesn’t like dissenters.
@Cubert
whaddya mean? i ain’t got no Apple implanted kill switch in my he…. urp! (body drops to the floor with a resounding thud)
Growl,
Unlike iPhones, MacBooks do not come with built-in GPS.
Therefore the answer to your question is “no.”
I could think of any number of reasons for a kill switch, including programs that gathered and sent out your financial information, programs that used your phone’s processor to send out spam advertising, programs that stole minutes of your service and made them available to someone else, or programs that gathered information on phone calls you made.
I think the kill switch is also needed from a liability standpoint, since Apple is in charge of distribution and handling the purchase of the app I’m sure someone will try to go after Apple for a malicious app doing something to their iPhone, contacts, minutes, etc. Being able to take down apps that violate privacy, etc. will probably prevent a lot of lawsuits:
“this app you sold me did X”
response “As soon as we discovered the problem we sent out a kill command to prevent the app from doing this to anyone else, removed it from our store, revoked the license key for the developer, and stopped payment for the purchases of this app”.
Judge: “Apple followed due diligence and corrected the problem as soon as it was found, class action status denied, etc.”
“would allow Apple to block access to Core Location (GPS) for misbehaving apps”
So much for using the iPhone as the brains for a guided cruise missile then.
“A stalker accessing GPS to find their target’s location, for just one example.”
So somehow they’re going to sign up for the developer program and create and upload the StalkMe trojan tip calculator application to the application store, and get their specific victim to download it from among the hundreds of apps? And then claim innocence when caught despite a trail which leads right to them?
Sounds like a fairly dumb stalker with way too much time on their hands choosing a very complicated way to solve a simple problem.
Now Apple killing apps they don’t like? We’ve seen that already. The risk of Apple’s abuse of the kill switch would seem to outweigh any benefit.
Not to mention that without background application support, the StalkMe trojan only works when you run it so is of very limited usefulness.
I think Jobs talked about a real kill switch. Core Location Blacklist only blocks untrusted apps from accessing Core Location, but in theory they may still function. So, malwares may be prevented from snooping where you’ve been, but they still can do other damages. What Jobs said is a lever to kill malicious applications like trojan horses/viruses that manage to escape Apple’s detection and get sold at the App Store. The kill switch will prevent those malwares from running.
People make a big deal out of this kill switch, but as long as Apple does not abuse the kill switch, it’s a good thing to have. People cannot always check everything, especially not a closed source app. So, when they trust the App Store, sometimes they don’t know what they get. For this trust, Apple must have a way to protect end users, hence, a kill switch. It is also in Apple’s interest to never abuse this kill switch since Apple needs the goodwill of third party developers and end users.
Think more along the lines of downloading…. let’s say a password app. What if the developer wanted to send info back to himself and had buried the code to do so. If a trojan finds it’s way out there, we will want it dead. Really we would want Apple to find it before it finds it’s way out there, but just in case. Or a program that makes your phone a zombie, spamming for money.
Either of these would be very bad press. I worry about developer updates squeezing in their code, piecemeal, it all looks innocent until update 3 or 4 and BAM, it’s real intention becomes active.
But then again I do hear voices in the dark. : )
“For this trust, Apple must have a way to protect end users, hence, a kill switch. “
And since their motives are not in any way underhanded, I’m sure the kill switch capability was something Apple intended to widely disclose so that trustful consumers could bask in that warm glow of anticipated Apple protection of their iPhones, knowing that the phones didn’t have any secret big brotherish features embedded within.
“If a trojan finds it’s way out there, we will want it dead. Really we would want Apple to find it before it finds it’s way out there, but just in case. Or a program that makes your phone a zombie, spamming for money. “
As has often been said, OS X is immune to all malware, and the iPhone runs OS X.
Therefore the Kill Switch cannot possibly be targeted at malware because writing OS X malware is impossible.
I just wish that instead of exotic pointless boondoggles, Apple would get back to providing quality and common sense to its customers first and above all else.
Killswitch indeed.
The only reason this is here is just in case AT&T;decides they don’t like a specific application.
They’re waiting for the day when Michael Dell and the NBC executive office to simultaneously touch an iphone. Then they’ll hit the iphone “kill switch”.
(I wouldn’t recommend keeping your iPhone in your pants on that particular day.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”excaim” style=”border:0;” /> )
And I say this as I sit here watching the wheel spin while waiting for my mobile me mail.
Candy Cane Forests: And since their motives are not in any way underhanded, I’m sure the kill switch capability was something Apple intended to widely disclose so that trustful consumers could bask in that warm glow of anticipated Apple protection of their iPhones, knowing that the phones didn’t have any secret big brotherish features embedded within.
I am not Steve Jobs. You aren’t either. Neither of us knows the motivation, so trying to imply that Apple’s motive is underhanded is a strawman argument just like your sarcasm as an argument is unwarranted. If you’ve got any proof that Apple is pulling a Big Brother for its own interest, post it here and I’ll agree with you. Whether the existence of the kill switch should be disclosed widely or not is irrelevant except to be used as a FUD argument. Jobs acknowledged its existence. That’s enough; he doesn’t need to advertise it.
“Steve Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, has confirmed there is a ‘kill switch’ built into the iPhone [operating system] that allows Apple to remotely delete malicious or inappropriate applications stored on the device,”
IOW, Apple can secretly & arbitrarily kill any app on anyone’s iPhone. Even apps the user may have paid for.
Really, what’s worse: the prospect of a runaway malicious app, or Steve leaning on the nuke button ready to shut down anything at his whim?
If MS did this we’d be screaming Big Brother. Yet it’s OK in Apple hands?
What happens when government agencies are also allowed to nose and nuke things they don’t like?