[GRLUG] kill switches

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tim Schmidt wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Bruce Smith <blubdog at gmail.com> wrote:
> > They also need to limit apps if those apps cause problems on their
> > network or do illegal things.  It's better for everyone involved if
> > they can kill a single app, as opposed to killing the entire phone.
> It _is not_ better for everyone involved if someone else controls your
> phone / computer / GPS / camera / microphone / bluetooth / wifi
> device.  It's ludicrous to suggest so.

You keep constructing a false dilemma.  Your going from a kill switch to
specifically disable a specified application to "controls your phone /
computer / GPS / camera / microphone / bluetooth / wifi device."

> > The PROBLEM is when cellular providers start abusing that power
> _ALL_ power is abused.  Full stop.

If this were true the Earth would be a burnt cinder.  Power is
occasionally abused in the instance, and consistently abused
incidentally over a span of time, but not all power is abused.  That
there is even the concept of "rule of law" invalidates your premise.

> > If someone writes an app that posts all personal information on a
> > phone to the internet, then the provider would be wise to kill that
> > app.  Same if someone writes an app to send spam.  Or attack other
> > networks.  Or ...
> What you're talking about here is an issue of trust.  You can't trust
> any random software developer.  Congratulations, you've arrived at a
> conclusion that should be obvious to every person who's ever used
> Windows.  You _must_ choose someone to trust - because you can't build
> a phone, and all it's software by yourself.  Your mistake is in
> choosing the phone company. 
> Right.  That's what development communities, and distributors are for.

Yes, in this case, represented by the Google apps store (or whom ever
has app-kill authority).  Notice that in this case the "distributors"
are the cell phone providers.