Print 12 comment(s) - last by robinthakur.. on Aug 14 at 6:16 AM

Secret "feature" may allow Apple to blacklist any app on your iPhone

While I generally try to maintain a writing moratorium on all things Apple or Steve Jobs – it’s both a personal bias/contempt thing and a desire not to be flamed to a crisp – I will make the occasional exception for things that grossly offend my personal values, of which Apple appears to have done this week.

The value in question is rather simple: what’s mine is mine. Not yours, Apple – it’s mine. If I pay for something, and that transaction does not explicitly specify a condition like “rental” or “lease”, then I will automatically assume an ownership stance and I expect the goods that I purchase to behave as such – which means “do what I tell you do,” in the old-school-parenting spank-your-kids sense of the phrase. Do it without questioning me, bugging me, or otherwise interfering with what I want in the end result.

This leads me to rumors floating around the ‘net, about a hidden feature in the iPhone OS that gives Apple a silent, remote killswitch for any application running on users’ iPhones. These rumors come from Jonathan Zdziarski, a forensic examiner and author of the books iPhone Open Application Development and the upcoming iPhone Frensics Manual, who found that iPhones running the version 2.0 of the phone’s OS will periodically check a special URL for a list of applications to disable:

“This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while to find out what applications it should turn off. At the moment, no apps have been blacklisted, but by all appearances, this has been added to disable applications that the user has already downloaded and paid for, if Apple so chooses to shut them down.

“I discovered this doing a forensic examination of an iPhone 3G. It appears to be tucked away in a configuration file deep inside CoreLocation.”

Word on the street seems to indicate the feature was designed for combating the spread of malware, but since Apple hasn't used it yet, nobody knows for sure. Many fear that the feature could be used in conjunction with Apple’s propensity for silently removing applications from its App Store, disabling snuffed programs even after they would ordinarily be out of the company’s control.

This takes me back to my original principle: what’s mine is mine. If I had an iPhone (which I don’t, thanks to AT&T’s apparent contempt for current customers), I would expect that the things I put on it remain there, fully functional. If an app stops working, it should be my fault!

There’s an even bigger fear, however: With the knowledge out there that Apple has the capability of permanently disabling already-downloaded apps, a court could theoretically compel Apple to invoke the feature in a lawsuit – such as the one surrounding an application called, simply, Baseball. Major League Baseball claims the app’s use of official logos infringes its trademarks, and is suing to force its author to either remove the offending graphics, or presumably remove the app entirely. (Never mind the fact that the MLB has a program of its own available for $5, called At Bat.)

While the program’s author, self-employed hobbyist and Mac programmer Dave Knopper, says he will comply with the court’s order and make the necessary adjustments, let’s play devil’s advocate here: what if he refused, and either fought the case and lost, or simply ignored the order? What if he was outside U.S. jurisdiction or otherwise unable to appear? The MLB would, presumably, sue to have the app removed and, had it the knowledge, might move to blacklist it as well.

Or, let’s say AT&T doesn’t like iPhone-tethering app NetShare, and asks Apple to pull it off the store and blacklist its execution. Even if Apple or AT&T issued refunds to NetShare’s paying customers, those users are still out the tethering capability.

What about license agreement violations? Homebrew apps? Unauthorized hacks?

Do we really want Apple to have this capability? Apple does not know best, and never can know what’s best, simply because it carries a heavy financial stake in the continued business and operation of its Mac platform, and the health of its partnerships. One look at the music industry tells us that company objectives aren’t always in-line with customer freedom – another principle that I consider absolutely paramount – and I have a hard time believing that Apple, or any of its legal adversaries, would never try to wield this kind of power in the future.

Ordinarily I would have segued into a rant against cloud computing and Big Brother-ish tactics, but this post is neither the appropriate time nor place – plus, it's long enough. So let’s just keep it at this: if Apple’s tactics bother you at all then let your voice be heard before we tread much further down that path.

Will this stop me from buying an iPhone? Probably not. I am actually a pretty satisfied Apple customer, however when I buy the company’s products I choose not to buy into its attached ecosystem. When I finally do get an iPhone, I fully intend to jailbreak the thing and load on it whatever I damn well please. Hopefully, by then, someone will have found a way to cripple this “feature”.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: But will they ever do that?
By mmntech on 8/12/2008 1:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
They did brick iPhones that were unlocked to run on networks other than AT&T. I always figured apps would work just like dashboard widgets. I'm guessing Apple wants to try and curtail stuff like Torrent clients for the iPhone. I like Mac (but I hate iPod), but with the inclusion of Trusted Computing on their new systems, plus this, makes you think twice about buying one of their products.

RE: But will they ever do that?
By robinthakur on 8/13/2008 7:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is a storm over nothing really other than the fact that this has now become common knowledge.

Bricked iPhones - I have little sympathy with any out there who claim that Apple "bricked" their iPhones. I had 2 original 2G iPhones both unlocked and knew full well the risk I was taking by doing so. People need to grow up and be more responsible for their own actions. You're modifying a device's firmware with a cracked version, your consumer rights go way out the window, obviously. Besides the small fact that barring hardware mods, I've always been able to restore the iPhone to factory conditions no matter how badly I broke it, so I think these reports are exaggerated at best.

I think you lot need to get out more and stop acting like Apple has already disabled all the apps that you paid for. If this rumour does exist then I doubt that Apple would risk the bad pr of using it in a high profile way.

Bottom line is now you know this, if you don't like it don't buy it, and that goes for anything out there. If you buy it, it signifies your complicity.

RE: But will they ever do that?
By mindless1 on 8/13/2008 8:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
I can't agree that your consumer rights should go right out the window. If I break it, so be it, but if I modify something I paid for and own to do something more or different, it is inexcusible that it stops doing what I wanted through the actions of another party. It might be different if they were giving away the phone with the contract or replaced it free but in the latter case I'm not so sure as some buy things with the expressed purpose of modifying.

RE: But will they ever do that?
By robinthakur on 8/14/2008 6:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
To clarify what I meant, there are always going to be certain operations with consumer products which void the warranty. The company makes you aware of this in the terms and conditions of sale. Nobody unlocks their iPhone by accident, they should be very aware that they are carrying out an after-market modification of the iPhone by doing so, not sanctioned or supported by Apple, thus voiding the warranty.

You are of course entirely free to modify it, but if you then wish to use Apple's *services* such as iTunes or are foolish enough to *accept* (note that the action here is an End-user action alone) an update to the latest version, knowing that your phone is in an unsupported state, then you only have yourself to blame. For me when I did that to see what would happen, it goes back to unactivated defaults and I had to jailbreak again. It did NOT "brick" the phone or any such nonsense. In point of fact, the only brickings I know of are where people have carried out hardware mods, and really...what did you expect was going to happen?

You also do not technically own the phone as it is subsidized by AT&T on their contract, its just more expensive than a regular phone. Why do you expect somebody else to be obligated to fix what you break? You might *wish* to believe that Apple are obligated, but this is not the same thing. An identical situation occured when I unlocked my Blackberry 8800 from Vodafone in the UK, where Voda told me they would no longer warranty repair it, because I modified it under the contract period. Bottom line, if you as a user are sophisticated enough to buy a product with the express view to modifying it, you should know the consequences of your actions.

"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki