Microsoft arms Win8 store apps with remote self-destruct Microsoft has added a kill switch to the Windows Store that’ll let Redmond remove apps from Windows 8 beta machines. Mention of the kill switch is buried deep within the text of the terms-of-use for the Windows Store for Windows 8, which were published this week. According to Microsoft’s red tape, here: In cases where your …
It'll be interesting to see if they try that in the UK. Sections 1 and 3 of the Computer Misuse Act lay out the penalties for unauthorised access to a computer. I'm pretty sure a click-through EULA won't trump those.
Interestingly, section 3A of the above Act makes it an offence to make, adapt, or supply any article intending it to be used in the commission of an offence under sections 1 or 3. That would make the creation of the Win8 store a criminal offence...
Nothing will happen, of course - because these laws are only ever enforced against individuals, never against anyone who might make any sort of political contribution...
Vic.
Funny the Article says Apple and Google have this kill switch too, but thats not nearly the same thing:
Windows 8 is your computer, not your phone. Most people would take exception to M$ removing or adding anything to or from their systems, hence, it will be mere weeks before someone disables this functionality - and makes Windows 8 safe against unauthorized meddling.
There I have many people who need to go through some sort of community vetting process and even then they can be held accountable quickly. And if there's some malevolent software, they can simply push out an update to remove it which I as a user can choose to not apply.
The OP doesn't claim repos are a panacea, ie. a solution to everything. They are however a better solution against malware than a possibly refundable remote kill.
With respect to the arduino issue that you're still waiting on and which you bring up every time you want to cuss repos:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49764
I don't know why you think bugs are only to be found in repos. I'd rather the repo than 50 updaters eating my RAM, a la windows. And that's the point you miss when you complain about Linux requiring an update every other day. It's keeping EVERYTHING on your box up to date, not just the OS and the overblown office suite.
I don't want to cuss repos, I think they are generally a good idea, I was trying to point out that they aren't a fix to everything, they help but in no way guarantee that everything will work. I took the OPs post as a typical suggestion that there would be no problem with any software delivered by a repo. There are many post here that suggest Linux/Repos=Perfect and Windows/Wiondows Update/Proprietary update=Pisspoor, whereas the reality is somewhere inbetween.
As for the fix you post - yes, it's fixed, but that's my point. I use Fedora and it's still not made it to my laptop.
The fact that there are many updaters in Windows is hardly MS' fault - the sensible companies (Apple would be one) use the Windows scheduler to schedule updates, so they don't use your RAM. There are, of course many less sensible companies who don't.
Yes that is the point of a BSOD, and I use them to figure the issues out routinely, before having to wrestle with say a minidump. But since XP (possibly 2k), MS trying to avoid the Stigma of the BSOD decided to enforced automatic rebooting on every one, so mostly you got a flicker of blue and poof your system rebooted, defeating one of the best troubleshooting steps or reading the IT the error code.
...wouldn't they simply GUARANTEE a refund for all buyers of a discovered malware? That way, Microsoft can't be said to be profiting from accidental malware since it becomes zero-sum.
As for the Computer Misuse Act, couldn't Microsoft argue that NOT having a means to remove malware would ITSELF constitute a misuse (think being denied a bilge pump when your ship is taking on water)? And since it's THEIR software (their copyright, after all), they need a means to keep it secure. And since people are human, it's impossible to keep out every single piece of malware that could potentially exist.
In cases where we remove a paid app from your Windows 8 Beta device not at your direction, we may refund to you the amount you paid for the license.
in other words, even if you paid 400 bucks for the license, if we decide you shouldn't be running something you paid for, we'll delete it for you and oh btw, we still keep the money.
"we may refund to you the amount you paid for the license."
How can anyone get away with this sort of hedging of bets in a supposedly legal agreement? This statement means nothing, obliges no-one to do anything. They may have well said "we may give you a million dollars, a private yacht and a life-time supply of beer, but we probably won't".
...is whether or not the Microsoft store will have remote install capability.
Google has this. Apple says they don't, but who know if that's true or not? Their store is not exactly transparent.
I'm a bit surprised that there's not a lot more discussion about app stores that have the ability to remotely install an app onto a device without the user's consent. This opens the possibility that governments or law enforcement agencies can use court orders to compel the operators of these app stores to install software--say, for example, remote monitoring and/or tracking software--onto people's devices.
Has this ever happened? I don't know. But the possibility certainly exists that it can, at least with Google's app store (and possibly with others), and it's something that we as a society haven't much discussed or thought through the implications of.
In an ideal world, any app store with the ability to remotely kill OR install software would have to be completely transparent about when, how, and under what circumstances they would do either, and there would have to be legal safeguards in place to prevent governments, courts, and law enforcement from abusing the ability to do either.
This is about protecting consumers, not about people who know what they're doing. That's us.
Unless of course you like installing from rogue vendors who will happily mask some kind of malware so you don't know what's going on.
Basically, it's a kind of white list.
The refund part is a problem. I haven't read the T's & C's
I hope it will not be hard to put up a rule in the firewall or to disable the service. If it's tightly integrated with Windows Updates, I will wait for a hack that removes this "functionality" before installing Windows 8. Thanks for the information.
I am still in doubt that even Microsoft would dare to pull a legit app from many millions of users.
It might be interesting to compare these clauses containing the weasle word "may" - making refunds at Microsoft's discretion - to the Sale Of Goods Act (and similar) where, in the UK at least, the buyer's contract is with the shop, not the manufacturer of the goods, and it is the shop that must provide the refund if the goods purchased do not work or are not fit for purpose.
Ohhello hai this is microsoft and we see you bought an app but not from our store so we will remove it so you have to buy it from us instead.
Image a hack or virus/trojan that triggers this to totally remove all purchased apps from your pc.
I will purposefully find that app that communicates with the store and block it for good.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
