Google's "Open" Phone, Open to Attack?
In recent days, an application designed for Google's mobile operating system "Android" was accused of wiping data from user's phones. It's not known whether or not the rumors are true, but once again questions are being raised about the safety and security of Google's open platform versus more controlled and regulated platforms like that of Apple's iPhone. For supporters of the iPhone, a story about a rogue Android application proves their point that Apple's oversight and review process is necessary for keeping consumers safe.
However, the real story behind the accusations may have nothing to do with the "open vs. closed" debate at all, but more to do with how an unliked application (and its developer) were slammed and then taken down by the Android community.
Was MemoryUp a "Rogue" Application?
Whether or not MemoryUp actually destroyed personal data and spammed people's contacts, as it was said to have done, is unknown. However, it would have been difficult for it to have accomplished those things. The app required no special privileges to install, so it's hard to imagine how it could have accessed the data and email addresses or how it could have sent out the spam. Also, for what it's worth, the company behind the app adamantly denies the claims. Says Robert Lee, chief technical associate for eMobiStudio, "We are very disturbed by these reports. Whatever damage is out there has not been done by our product."
...Or a Victim of Community Backlash?
The truth about this application may be that it just wasn't very good, not that it was dangerous malware. Many comments about the app in the Android store (prior to the app's removal) and in the forums weren't about losing data but about how the app wasn't worth installing because it provided no real value to the user.
What's even more apparent, though, in reading through the posts and comments about MemoryUp, is that many members of the Android community seemed to have a grudge against the app's creator, Peter Liu, whose drive-by advertising in forum postings got under people's skin. "How many times are you going to advertise this on here?" wrote one user. Later, others bragged and joked about running the "Memory folks out of town." "Peter needs to get a life," said yet another user.
It stands to reason that a handful of Android community members decided to disparage the application to get back at the app's developer...but something like that could never be proven, only suspected.
Yet, if that was the case, those people inadvertently ended up hurting Android in the process. By raising questions about the safety and security of Android platform, they helped to spread "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about this new mobile OS. Even worse, these rumors make the iPhone's closed and "by approval only" model look like the safer, smarter choice when it comes to phones. But as anyone involved in the open movement will tell you, that is not necessarily the case.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
It seems the jury is still very much out on Andriod (http://www.goodbaad.com/topics/android) - these problems are likely in any Open Source product and are also what makes them so strong - but in this case with a lot of phone data being so sensitive it worries me. A reliable stron comunity wuold make Andriod a lot more tempting.
Nonsense, FUD, the last dying gasps of the telcos desperate to prevent the end of $1.99 ringtones for just a few fiscal quarters longer ( after colluding with Microsoft and the handset makers for decades ).
Rather than speculate, guess, and otherwise be completely uninformed, you need to actively participate in the development of Android's security. You can speak to the Android development team members directly and get the *FACTS*.
http://code.google.com/android/kb/security.html
I guarantee you Android/Chrome is 10,000 times more secure that Windows Mobile/IE. Dig deep and you'll find Redmond campus IPs at the root of all this bullsh*t.
RWW's content is normally so good, that this post stands out for it's sheer awfulness. To spread FUD is bad enough, but to spread it and then decry it in the same post is asinine. Perhaps your next post should be "Is ReadWriteWeb Losing it's Credibility?"
www.creativeprinter.co.uk
Cheapest online printshop in UK. 24 hours printer, superfast turnarround. print flyers, leaflets, business cards, leatterheads, banner, brochures, cheap flyers, cheap printing, printing services, all print, postage and packaging cost included, Banner printing company east london, Banner printing east london area, Banners east london, Banners in east london, Brochure printer's east london, Brochure printing company east london, Brochure printing east london area, Brochures east london, Brochures in east london, Business Card printing company east london, Business Card printing east london area, Business Cards east london, Business Cards in east london, Cheap Flyer, Cheap Flyers, Envelope printing company east london, Envelope printing east london area, Envelopes east london, Envelopes in east london, Flyer printing company east london, Flyer printing east london area, Flyers east london, Flyers in east london, Leaflet printer east london area, Leaflet printing company east london, Leaflet printing east london area, Leaflets east london, Leaflets in east london, Printing company east london, Printing company in east london, Printing company near east london, Printing company's east london, banner, banner print, banner printing, brochure, brochure printing, business card, business card design, business card printing, canvas print, canvas printing, cheap flyer, cheap flyer printing, cheap flyers, cheap leaflet printing, cheap print, cheap printer, cheap printers, cheapflyers, compliment slip, creative printer, creativeprinter, design, digital printing, e card, east london Banner printers, east london Banner printing, east london Brochure printing, east london Business Card printer, east london Business Card printing, east london Envelope printing, east london Flyer printing, east london Leaflet printing, east london Printing company, east london Printing company's, east london envelope printer's, flyer, flyer printer, flyer printing, flyers, flyers print, graphic design, graphic design agency, graphic design company, graphic designer, greeting card, leaflet printer, leaflet printing, leaflets, letterhead, letterheads, logo design, magazine, office stationery, office supply, post card, post card printing, poster, poster print, print, print company, print online, print services, print shop, printer, printing, printing services, printing uk, promotional flyer, pvc banner, stationary, stationery, cheap flyer, cheap flyers, Cheap Flyer, Cheap Flyers, print, printing, printer, printers, cheap printer, cheap printers, banner, poster, poster print, posters print, creative printer, creativeprinter, crazyprinter, crazy printer
@Todd and @Josh: Read the article. I actually implied that this has **nothing** to do with the phone being open, but is rather a case of negative user reviews driving a story. Does no one read anything but the headline?
@sarah Clearly they didn't even read the first section. They spent more time flaming the article than reading it...
Posted by: shopfiber.myopenid.com
|
January 27, 2009 12:16 PM
@shopfiber: Ah, thank you. At least someone reads. :)
I did in fact read the entire article and I'm sure you'll get a few more page views on providing an attention getting title.
You stated that because Android is open it is vulnerable to attacks: as if something being closed source makes it invulnerable to attack. It is the matter of if you say something enough times people think it is true. Later in the article, you do say that *in this particular case* the open source nature of the Android wasn't behind an attack, but don't address the many arguments dealing with the fact the open source products are just as secure, if not *more* secure than closed source products.
@Sarah I did read the entire article, which is how I know you are doing precisely what you are decrying - spreading FUD with a misleading title.
It's a bit like O'Reilly stating that he wouldn't report "unverified rumors" about Caroline Kennedy, and then leads with the report of a relationship between her and a New York Times editor. (Stephen Colbert did a hilarious job of pointing this out[hulu.com] - the mock interview with O'Reilly starts at +10:30)
No doubt O'Reilly would also accuse a complaining viewer that they hadn't watched the entire show for the disclaimer. Of course, he's also an asshole.
tankyw
Sarah, the headline is what you see first, and on services like FriendFeed and Twitter, the only thing.
You chose definitely the worng headline for this. It harms the android platform possibly more than the FUD.
The article is very good. But let's face it, the human mind makes this out of it " Googles Open Phone is Open to Attack "
BTW: Why did you put the word open into quotation? Alone this can assume negative things to android, like it's not really open, it only pretends to be...
So article if A, Headline is F.