We're never going to agree, that much I can see. My opinion is that the user should be able to install anything they want (it's their device) and if they end up installing something that was malware, it's their own fault. Do you gladly sit and click on the EXE files you have coming to you? Probably not, as you know better.
You want to protect users by not giving developers APIs. I want to give developers APIs and have the users protect themselves. And that "OS patch" when it came out, iirc, was pushed out by the carrier. That means that people got it from a trusted source -- any system and any OS could be compromised if a trusted source gives someone malware. An Anonymous Guy On Feb 26, 2:37 pm, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > Anonymous Guy wrote: > > While I can understand your opinion, I'll have to disagree. > > You are welcome to do so. > > > Maybe the insecurity you refer to comes from the core values of the > > OS? > > Android is pro-consumer and, therefore, anti-malware. This has side effects. > > > I don't know enough of Android to offer up an opinion, but I know > > enough of the Blackberry OS to say that I've never heard of any > > "malware" being installed that causes an issue, as there are avenues > > of recourse and finding out who was directly responsible for anything > > in the wild that was released. > > You mean like the email interceptor installed on Blackberries in the UAE > last summer, one that perhaps used the very APIs you wish Android to have? > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8161190.stmhttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/blackberry-spyware/ > > "A BlackBerry software upgrade in the Middle East that turned out to be > an e-mail interception program was likely a buggy beta version of a > U.S.-made surveillance product, according to an analyst who dissected > the malicious code." > > > As it is, the most "secure" OS allows > > email interception (and, imho, for good reason), which directly > > refutes the reason you put forth as the reason you are "grateful for > > this". > > You have a curious definition of "secure" considering the above > incident. For me, the Blackberry incident is a fantastic example of the > problem that I hope Android, Symbian, and/or Meego eventually resolve, > by giving users options for using firmware that has been vetted by > independent groups against such corporate- or government-sponsored > interception. > > Hence, I don't care if there are "avenues of recourse", since whether or > not those avenues are actually followed is determined by people with > many more dollars and many more tanks than I have. > > In fact, this very issue is a large part of the reason why I'm helping > out Android. > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons > Guy)http://commonsware.com|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 3.0 > Available! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
