Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Bans Sale of Android Spying App

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the what-are-you-writing-there dept.

Google 415

dbune writes "Google is not letting a handset application that spies on someone's text messages be sold at its Android App Store. The Secret SMS Replicator developed by DLP Mobile to help lovers find out if their partners are cheating on them violates company policy, according to Google. The app works by secretly duplicating incoming text messages and forwarding these to another mobile phone number."

cancel ×

415 comments

so much for being open (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100850)

isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?

Re:so much for being open (2, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100872)

Seriously? You're example is the removal of a malicious app?

Re:so much for being open (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100888)

how is it malicious? the person installing it has to have physical access to the phone. it's not like going to a website and downloading a virus

Re:so much for being open (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100956)

It's malicious in exactly the same way as someone installing a USB keylogger in an internet cafe - they have to have physical access to the machine!

Re:so much for being open (5, Insightful)

fbjon (692006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100992)

It's malicious as in illegal. Your freedoms do not extend to covert snooping on other peoples conversations.

Re:so much for being open (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101030)

apparently you don't have teenage children

Re:so much for being open (2, Insightful)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101292)

If you want to spy on your kids then install an app that doesn't try to hide itself, but does tell you if it's uninstalled. The same goes for any other "legitimate" use of software like this.

Re:so much for being open (1)

franciscohs (1003004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101050)

I thought illegal is the action of doing so, but I could install this app and forward the messages to my other phone or whatever. I don't think the app is illegal at all.

Re:so much for being open (1)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101196)

But the program isn't illegal, just against the marketplace rules. The program MAY be used for illegal or malicious purposes...but so can a knife, gun, spork...etc. Maybe I work in an industry thats highly regulated or scrutinized. An app like this could save my job.

Re:so much for being open (2, Interesting)

fbjon (692006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101228)

Yes, but you hardly need to keep that hidden from yourself. I think that's the sticking point, not the app as such.

Re:so much for being open (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101358)

Yes, but you hardly need to keep that hidden from yourself. I think that's the sticking point, not the app as such.

Actually there are plenty of Apps which I would like to run and be invisible to me. Install and forget. In addition the phone user may not always be the owner.

There are some programs which NEED to be invisible to the user for them to work such as theft recovery apps which report the current location of the phone or its IP address and a snapshot from the camera. Such an App may well be preferable to be hidden from the user.

Re:so much for being open (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101062)

how is it malicious? the person installing it has to have physical access to the phone. it's not like going to a website and downloading a virus

What do you mean? How is "going to a website and downloading a virus" malicious?

The person 'installing it' (by downloading from the website) has to have physical access to the phone.

Re:so much for being open (1)

JxcelDolghmQ (1827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101104)

As much as YOUR post is an example of proper English. :)

Re:so much for being open (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101154)

Dammit. /seppuku

Re:so much for being open (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101282)

He could have spelled it "yore" :) I am as annoyed by misspelling of your/you're, there/their, thats/that's, then/than as you probably are. Turns out that complaining/correcting doesn't have any affect on the masses. But then again, I am not sure anyone has ever tried putting it on a road-side billboard yet... so let's get a "correct you're damned english" foundation put together and by some signage.

Re:so much for being open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100928)

The difference is that you can install apps on Android phones without going through Google.

Re:so much for being open (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101010)

isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?

Exactly! How dare Google not help people do something illegal.

Re:so much for being open (3, Insightful)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101164)

isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?

Absolutely! It's amazing what you can do and still be more open than the App store.

Jokes aside, Google has a degree of responsibility over the apps that they sell to you. It's perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to sell an app which is specifically designed to be installed without the knowledge or consent of the phone's regular user and who's purpose is to spy on the regular user (with costing the owner money from extra SMSs as a side effect), as that can easily be considered illegal. If you really want this program on your phone then Android is open enough to let you install it, but you'll have to get it from somewhere other than Android Market.

Re:so much for being open (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101236)

The phone is open, not the Android Market. You can put apps on your Android phone without using a market, or you can install any number of markets not run by Google which may or may not let you sell anything you want. The official, Google run Android Market is not open and has never pretended to be. It's not nearly as closed as the Apple market, in that there's no preapproval process and there's very few things that will get you pulled, but Google reserves the right to pull whatever they want whenever they want.

Re:so much for being open (0, Flamebait)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101256)

You are an idiot.

Those bastards! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100854)

Ok, let's have the comments about how controlling Google is, just like Apple!

Re:Those bastards! (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100924)

Too late...the "first" guy already posted one. Wasn't even an AC!

Re:Those bastards! (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100926)

The apple app would be much more likely to need loop detection [wikipedia.org] to avoid infinite multiplication of messages.. (this post only makes sense if you follow the link)

Good For Google (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100862)

This is a good move by Google even if it will resemble Apple's 'app store governance' to some degree. Google needs to protect their customers/product (one and the same).

Re:Good For Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101248)

google bans stuff...

from its own market.

which is only one

enjoy platform openness

Fuck android (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100874)

Fuck Android and iOS.

Use a real mobile OS.

Re:Fuck android (2, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101128)

Windows?

Re:Fuck android (1)

onetwentyone (882404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101234)

And which mobile OS would that be that meets today's users? Symbian? WebOS (which is nice but sorely needs an update and hardware refresh to be competitive)?

iPhone version? (4, Informative)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100882)

DLP Mobile also tried to sell the app on Apple's iPhone app store but was rejected.

I doubt that. The iPhone walls off SMS messages from apps. Apple can't have rejected it - you can't write it.

Re:iPhone version? (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101076)

DLP Mobile also tried to sell the app on Apple's iPhone app store but was rejected.

I doubt that. The iPhone walls off SMS messages from apps. Apple can't have rejected it - you can't write it.

Sure you can. If it exists on the iPhone, you can weasel your way around and get at 'em. However, you're probably going to have to use enough private APIs and the like that you'll be rejected immediately for failing the static code test.

Anyhow, it's not like Android doesn't warn you - isn't that widely approved "permission list" that it pops up going to tell you it has access to SMS and the like? (Even though in practice with Joe User, it fails miserably since Joe User doesn't read dialogs and such things just impede progress to their goal of playing with the app).

Finally, I think it's an app that has been marketed truthfully. All this will do now is have other app developers embed such functionality into their apps now from all the news. Suddenly all those "2-factor bank SMS" things don't seem so secure anymore, do they?

Re:iPhone version? (5, Informative)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101158)

Anyhow, it's not like Android doesn't warn you - isn't that widely approved "permission list" that it pops up going to tell you it has access to SMS and the like?

If you have access to someone else's phone to install this spyware, you have access to approve the SMS permissions on install. The person being spied on gets no warning.

Finally, I think it's an app that has been marketed truthfully.

It's an app designed to be installed on someone else's phone without their consent.

Re:iPhone version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101266)

It's an app designed to be installed on someone else's phone without their consent.

Which doesn't make it illegal, or even the only use for it. Parents could install it on a child's phone. Heck, two parents could install it on each other's phones so they can see if a child texts one of them, without the child having to text both.

Re:iPhone version? (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101268)

If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.

My only concern would be that (I expect) the app makes itself hard for the owner to find. If the app intentionally removes itself from the app manager list etc then I'd say that was a flaw in the OS design. Otherwise this is simply the risk of letting someone (who you evidently can't trust) have full and unmonitored access to the device.

Re:iPhone version? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101176)

This is going to be installed by someone else on your phone. They will just click OK on the dialog, and you will never hear about it again.

Re:iPhone version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101284)

You'll never hear about it again - until you check your phone bill and see a pattern of sent text messages to your boy/girlfriends number after every text you receive. Or if you have to pay for sending texts you will certainly know about it!

Re:iPhone version? (1)

jlusk4 (2831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101326)

Not to mention the fact that Joe Developer claims he needs access to all rights because he's too lazy to come up with the minimal set he really needs.

Its rather Ironic (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100886)

Its rather Ironic that a company who's business relies on spying (cough) tracking what other people do should ban an app designed to track what people are doing.

Re:Its rather Ironic (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100922)

Its rather Ironic that a company who's business relies on spying (cough) tracking what other people do should ban an app designed to track what people are doing.

Yes, but the Golden Rule clearly states "Do as I say, not as I do".

Re:Its rather Ironic (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101058)

Which Golden Rule is that? Last I checked it was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule [wikipedia.org]

If you were just being sarcastic, my apologies.

Re:Its rather Ironic (3, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101170)

Which Golden Rule is that? Last I checked it was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule [wikipedia.org]

Yes, but in practice, it's usually "he who has the gold makes the rules".

Re:Its rather Ironic (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101114)

No, it's even more simple - they don't want to lose their monopoly on spying. If everyone is spying on everyone, how can Google continue to be only "not evil" force in our small sad world?

I'm joking, of course, but still...

Re:Its rather Ironic (4, Insightful)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101290)

I choose to go to google, knowing that they will use that information to sell me ads. This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's phone that will forward all text messages to him/her.

Do you not see a difference?

Re:Its rather Ironic (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101306)

Correction: it isn't a trojan, so much as spyware.

Re:Its rather Ironic (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100944)

An app that only affects a device that someone must physically have access to in order to install, no less.

Re:Its rather Ironic (5, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101106)

Yeah, because someone who knows you spying on your text messages is exactly the same as some software gathering demographic information that will be used to better market things to large groups of people.

Re:Its rather Ironic (1)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101212)

How does Google's business rely on spying? By delivering advertisements based on what you search for?

Re:Its rather Ironic (2, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101220)

Not really, what Google does is still legal. What this app does is wiretapping which is illegal without a court order. Doesn't matter whether you're in a one or two party consent state, zero party consent requires a court order and to be performed by law enforcement.

Google almost certainly pulled the app because the expressed purpose of the app is to violate the law. The only question is why it got into the market to begin with. I'd've thought they'd make a quick cursory glance at the summary before putting it in.

Re:Its rather Ironic (0)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101242)

Its rather Ironic that a company who's business relies on spying (cough) tracking what other people do should ban an app designed to track what people are doing.

They are obviously upset over the possibility that the program's maker is getting very close to finding out that Google already has this function built-in, except that it forwards the user's text messages to Google for advertising purposes (or insert your own evil institution - FBI, CIA, etc).

They figure forwarding twice may causes some raised eyebrows at the user's telecom provider.

Or perhaps it's just a really bad idea. I would guess this program would be used >90% of the time for evil. This is in the same moral grey area as installing keyloggers and monitoring programs on corporate computers. It only works because the corporation owns the computer and monitoring was a condition of employment.

Re:Its rather Ironic (1)

jlusk4 (2831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101348)

It's not spying if they're up front about it. Which they are.

Really? You're going to use their free web mail and their free browser and then complain about them using the info they harvest? Did I miss something?

Useful app (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100898)

I used something like this on my wife's BlackBerry. Yes, she was cheating on me. I couldn't use the texts as evidence but they did help me catch her in the act.

Re:Useful app (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100960)

Did you join in? *That* would have showed her!

Re:Useful app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101148)

Don't complain about app devs unwillingness to write an app in response to you not being able to satisfy your wife in the sack.

effingreat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100900)

I don't understand why apple does this. How is Steve Jobs censoring the android market place ?
Something seems very wrong with this, and I will never ever again touch an apple product, let alone purchase one.

Steve Jobs has gone too far this time !

open, my ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100902)

Yea, as long as you only do what they think is ok. :-)

Yes, your ass is probably open quite often. (0, Troll)

Brannon (221550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101084)

Enjoy.

Re:open, my ass. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101258)

So, refusing to be an accessory to illegal wiretaps means that the platform isn't really open? What's next the fact that they refuse to give you access to hawt 8 year olds as a violation of your rights?

But you can still get it, right? (5, Interesting)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100916)

Isn't one of the advantages of Android the ability to install apps from other than the Google app store? So people who really want this thing can still get it, independently of Google's disapproving glare, right?

Genuinely curious about this.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (1)

psm321 (450181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100948)

Yes, exactly. Even with no jailbreaking/rooting. That's why this shouldn't be a big deal either way.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101118)

It's a big deal if you're the one who's being spied on. A few people are going to have a "Wish I'd bought an iPhone instead" moment because of this.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101328)

as opposed to:

"wish i'd locked my phone instead" moment

or

"wish i hadn't cheated/got caught having an affair instead"

the solution is NOT always an iPhone.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (4, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100970)

Correct, provided you don't have a carrier-locked-down Android phone that prevents you from installing apps from sources other than the official market (though that kind of thing is quite rare...I believe there are only a couple out of the myriad of Android devices set up like this.)

Re:But you can still get it, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101320)

Last I looked it was any Android device sold by AT&T.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (3, Interesting)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100978)

Yes indeed. I am much less concerned about this decision than I would if this happened on App Stores. I think Google's point is that they don't want a stalker to sneak 2 minutes on a target's phone while they're going to the bathroom and install the app easily from the Android App Store.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100994)

Eh that is, I'd be more concerned if it were banned on Apple Stores, because on that, there's NO way to get the app even if you as phone owner personally approve.

So, is it hard to install from a different store? (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101024)

If so--then Google is making it 'hard' to install from a store other than their own. If not, then how does this yield any protection?

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101120)

It's still just a couple of touches away from being installed from a different location.

It's the equivelent of Blockbuster refusing to rent out adult movies. You can still find adult movies for rent...just not at Blockbuster.

This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101198)

Shields Google from liability.

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101222)

It's kind of like taking a stance. Just because Staples refuses to sell malware from their stores doesn't mean all stores have to. But is Staples going to ever carry malware? No, because the inherent risk of abuse is too high.

Re:So, is it hard to install from a different stor (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101308)

It doesn't. But on an open platform there's no way of preventing people from installing what they like. They can however refuse to be a party to it and make it so that people have to look elsewhere for it.

What I'd love to see is them add an administrative password feature to certain settings which would allow you to prevent access to certain settings without entering it. By default the Android phones won't install apps from anywhere other than the market. You have to go in and manually enable unknown sources to install other apps.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100984)

Isn't one of the advantages of Android the ability to install apps from other than the Google app store? So people who really want this thing can still get it, independently of Google's disapproving glare, right?

Genuinely curious about this.

Yes.

Re:But you can still get it, right? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101294)

Which means that it is the worst of both worlds. The App is not outright malicious, as it does not include secret functionality. It will still be available, users will simply have to go the black market, which will result in more users becoming familiair with the black market, which means they are more likely to use it. So the App store, which main purpose it protect users from malicious software, will have utterly failed in it's mission.

Furthermore, this shows a serious flaw in security model of Android. There is no reason to allow end user installed apps to run without any evidence to the user. Every App should have an icon somewhere announcing it's presence. Any app that communicates should have an indication that it is doing so. On iPhone , for example, there is a locations services panel that allows on to turn off any app that wants to know your location. It would be nice to also have one that would do the same for text or network access, but it seems that such would a feature on the Android that is an open platform.

At the very least this should not be an issue as there should be a password required to install an App, on the iPhone it is the ITMS password. If a person gives that password to the person they are cheating on, i don't see how that is anyone else's problem

hmmm (0)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100920)

If the app is visible as other apps and clearly state the purpose in help texts, requires legitimate agreement with the owner of the phone, then it should be legal.

It's the problem of the owner of the phone if he or she is trusting the person.

There could be many legit uses of the app, for example parents have a right to check the messages of their kids if they want to.

Re:hmmm (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100988)

Similarly, putting a keylogger/sniffer/trojan on your own machine for your own private use is A-OK. Therefore most malware should be legal.

It doesn't work that way. People will use it for illegal things, having a "[ ] You are the owner of this phone" checkbox during first install will do nothing for anyone.

Yes there are legit uses for spying on people - they can get it from a source other than the app store.

Re:hmmm (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101110)

Wrong. Inherent to keylogger/sniffer/trojan is illegitimate snicky procedure of installation which is not legal. It should have EULA, the user should be able to understand what the program is doing.

That is the class of the software I am describing.

Re:hmmm (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101226)

How, exactly, do you suggest an EULA would help anything, if the attacker is the one clicking past it?

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101012)

If you want a rebellious kid, sure.

In my childhood, all kids with crazy strict and monitoring parents turned out to be the worst seeds.

The kids with freedom and TRUST from their parent turned out much more sensible.

As for the app, I would remove it myself if I ran an app store. An app doesn't need to spread itself to be malicious.

TOTC!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34100930)

I mean, how can I jerk off to nudie pics of my son's high school girlfriend unless I can auto-forward all his incoming MMS to myself???

I'm switching to Apple...

Re:TOTC!!! (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101006)

I think you have found the killer app for any platform. Have a hot and slutty kid? Get all the sexts they receive sent right to you!

Not so obvious... (0)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34100974)

So far, all the comments are based on the assumption that this is a malicious app. However, my husbands / wifes property is also my property, therefore I can install whatever I want to spy on him / her.

I am also entitled to send private investigators to investigate his / her extramarital relations, which includes legally taking pictures from a public place into his / her new partner's windows to prove impropriety. I can use this evidence in court to procure a favourable divorce settlement.

So what, exactly, is the problem with this app, Google? My right to legally investigate my partner is being taken away, possibly illegally, if all apps of this type are removed.

Re:Not so obvious... (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101026)

>> My right to legally investigate my partner

Maximum shrinkage factor! Holy PreNup Batman!

Re:Not so obvious... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101044)

So what, exactly, is the problem with this app, Google? My right to legally investigate my partner is being taken away, possibly illegally, if all apps of this type are removed.

Who says the app's use would be limited to partners/spouses?

Re:Not so obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101048)

It's not legal to spy on your spouse with keyloggers in some states.

Re:Not so obvious... (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101192)

It isn't legal to DeCSS in some countries, but if I can in mine, then I can. It's not for the App Store to decide (wrongly, in this case - UK)

Re:Not so obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101052)

You're an idiot and a scumbag and I can only hope you never ever engage in any sort of relationship with another human being with your total lack of ethics.

Re:Not so obvious... (2, Insightful)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101210)

Anonymous Coward, you're such a biter!!

1) YHBT

2) Who says I would or wouldn't - this is about the RIGHT to do so in my legal jurisdiction if I suspect blah blah...

3) Morales != Ethics.

Rachel x

Re:Not so obvious... (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101116)

Yes because the store can distinguish who is a wife/husband of the phone's owner. No stalker would ever want to abuse this.

Re:Not so obvious... (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101230)

No stalker could install this on my husband's phone without physical access, either. Next?

Re:Not so obvious... (1)

robocop16 (1933606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101322)

And lets not forget about teenagers, who is going to stop the kid from down the street from "borrowing" your daughter's phone and putting this on?

Re:Not so obvious... (2, Informative)

potHead42 (188922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101124)

You missed the point where Android doesn't have a monopolistic app store, so you're free to get this spyware through other legal channels.

Re:Not so obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101296)

The difference between the two, is one requires the equivalent of bugging a room, and the other is things done in public or viewable by the public are public.

You also have no "right" to investigate your partner; there is no such thing. There is also no such thing as "illegally" taking away this "right".

Seriously, sorry your partner cheated on you. That's wrong and there's no excuse. But you're coming across like a real nutjob. You need to get that under control before you go to court or it will negatively impact your case.

Re:Not so obvious... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101340)

However, my husbands / wifes property is also my property, therefore I can install whatever I want to spy on him / her

I suggest calling a lawyer. You need one. Badly.

If Apps are outlawed... (1)

DrData99 (916924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101070)

...only Outlaws will have Apps!

(with apologies to the NRA)

Re:If Apps are outlawed... (1)

ILMTitan (1345975) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101130)

Just because guns a legal doesn't mean Toys 'R Us has to sell them. If Toys 'R Us was the only store in the country however...

There are always limits. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34101072)

You can't have a completely open app store/market without allowing this sort of application just like you can't have complete freedom of speach without allowing people to freely distribute and download child pornography. Personally I don't want either.

Cost of Text Messages? (1)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101216)

I wonder if the real reason is because someone without a good texting plan would go over the number of messages allowed and get a big bill?

And so it begins (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101250)

There goes all the fuel behind the "Google's App Store is completely open" argument. And before everyone starts jumping all over me claiming how this is a good thing because this app is malicious..that's just a matter of opinion. I'm sure the first married man who discovers his wife is fucking one of his coworkers thanks to this app will have a vastly different opinion.

Not news (0, Troll)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101254)

This app is obviously malware, so Google removed it. Why is this news?

Re:Not news (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101324)

Google good, Apple bad. That's why this is news.

For extra points, pick the one of the two that's actually deleted apps off of handsets.

What irritates me the most (3, Interesting)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101314)

What irritates me the most is how many apps now request access to my GPS data. I mean, why does Com2Us's Homerun Battle 3D need to know my GPS location? It's a freaking game! Pageonce personal finance or Live Scores? Why do you need to know where I'm at?

You don't. You just want to sell my information.

Queue the google+privacy jokes in .... (0)

grepya (67436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34101346)

... 3....2 ..... 1...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...