iPhone 'kill switch' limited to location-aware apps
Apple's "blacklist" inside the iPhone's operating system just pertains to a specific technology, according to a report.
(Credit: CNET)Apple's iPhone blacklist appears to fall short of fears that it led directly back to a big red button on Apple CEO Steve Jobs' desk.
Daring Fireball's John Gruber took a deep breath Thursday while Internet users frantically searched for their copies of 1984 following Jonathan Zdziarski's discovery of a URL inside the iPhone's operating system that downloads a list of applications designated as malicious. Some feared this would allow Apple to blacklist any application that ran afoul of its sensibilities.
Gruber spoke with what he called an "informed source" at Apple who confirmed that the discovery of that URL inside the iPhone's Core Location API was no coincidence. Code inside the URL indicates that the "blacklist" would be used to wall-off rogue applications from the Core Location API, rather than Apple using it as a "kill switch," according to his source.
Core Location is the API that allows software developers to access the location-aware features of the iPhone. According to Gruber, Apple has laid out strict policies for accessing the Core Location API over privacy concerns: malicious or sloppy software that gives away the position of your iPhone is not something that would appeal to customers.
In related news, the price of tin foil plunged Friday morning.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom.
First it was "(insert name of Apple product here) Killer" iMac Killer, iPhone Killer, iTunes Killer, and so on and so on.
Google news search shows there are over one thousand "Kill Switch stores, and fewer than a hundred with the correct information.
Nice! The best laugh I've had today, Tom...
I don't hate Apple, I do own their products, but I have to say that I am VERY suspicious of any situation where Apple is the one to allay everyone's fears.
What the "Informed Source" says sounds like little more than giving the capability another name. Sounds like the proverbial "Rose by any other name".
I mean come on! Apple is the company that engaged in the highly suspect activity and now everyone is going to take them at their word?
Seriously, if consumers have the ability to "opt in" to this function sort of like a security software agreement then so be it. But there isn't an option with this code and it is an invasion of privacy.
I really don't care how "Small" or well intentioned it is. The fact remains that Apple was not the one who came out and declared that this program existed, it was a 3rd party. Apple has already shown that it has a track record of quietly implementing anti consumer policies (Ipod classic with embedded chip which prevents all non-apple A/V cables from playing video) I see no reason to believe that this is anything other than that.
Sounds like the sheeple will swallow anything they are fed, no matter how bad it smells.
It is sad that only tin foil stocks went crashing, right? That's how much the world respects privacy nowadays..
I see that some people are starting to buy tin foil hats again.
Interesting now that the "kill switch" story has been debunked, there has only been a few troll posts.
-
by sjholcro
August 12, 2008 5:17 AM PDT
- Why not vet the apps before they get released to the public. It's fair enough to let Apple decide what it wants to carry in the app store. Then they don't need to be in the position of telling people what they can't keep on their own devices.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)