Pirated Android App Shames Freeloaders 519
MojoKid writes "A pirated version of an Android app is actually a Trojan that shames someone who installs it by sending an SMS message to all his/her contacts telling them of his/her piracy. The original app is called Walk and Text, and costs $2.10 in the Android Market. The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings, which will supposedly prevent the user from running into the street or across a set of train tracks. The pirated version is available from unofficial Android app markets, and once installed redirects the pirate to the legitimate app in the Android Market, while also sending the SMS message to the phone's entire contact list."
The joke's on you... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The joke's on you... (Score:4, Insightful)
I already tell all of my friends I'm a pirate. They know and come to me for software all the time. :P
Re: (Score:2)
What about parrots, peg legs, and eye patches? Where can I get those?
Re: (Score:3)
The doctor's office?
Re:The joke's on you... (Score:4, Funny)
Parrots are at Booty Bay. I think the eye patch and peg leg are rep rewards.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor guy. He's so ronery!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you have a phone, then?
Not GP, but clearly because of the net pr0n.
Re:The joke's on you... (Score:4, Interesting)
As with any quip, it is a bit overbroad. As with any good quip, it still manages to come close to the heart of the matter.
Don't click link in summary (Score:5, Funny)
Don't click the link in the summary - it posts a message to Slashdot telling everyone you tried to read the article :(
Re: (Score:3)
Don't click the link in the summary - it posts a message to Slashdot telling everyone you tried to read the article :(
Are the editors looking for things to do next April Fool's day?
...hmm interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Although this is a novel and some what interesting approach to pirates, i think this approach itself depending on the implementation etc.. might effectively count as breaking the law, unless the user who install the pirated software agree to a Terms of Use Agreement that explicitly mentions such actions might be possible or as a consequence if software thinks its pirated.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that I don't have a text message plan (having to pay a ridiculous $0.05 a message to and fro), I'm pretty sure someone will be in hot shit over this, espcially if the guy has a ton of contacts. I would also be hesitant to put the legitimate app on my phone because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
$0.05/message is nothing. Most carriers in Canada charge $0.15/message and some charge $0.40.
I do have a plan, but what concerns me is that there's international numbers in my cell phone. I don't pay for calling them, because I have a good plan with the phone, but I would pay between $0.50 and $2.50 to text them, depending on what country they're in....
(that said, I wouldn't install an app like that... if I need to send a text, I sit down to type it out, and don't really nneed to worry about walking into tr
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, this problem (at least something that happens so soon after you try it) wouldn't happen on a moderated market, no reason to be hesitant to put legit apps on - and without apps, why even have a smartphone?
Because the company that pulled this stunt just demonstrated a significant ethical lapse. That's sufficient reason not to buy anything from them. Find a competitive product and support that vendor instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since this application is designed to send text messages, it is a bit tricky to imagine a good security model that would allow it to send ones you want it to and prevent it from sending ones that you don't; but that doesn't make the fact that potentially hostile code has access to both your contacts and a
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the pirated version isn't in fact pirated but a version planted by the original author, how is the downloader supposed to know he's downloading the "pirate" version? And if it is some sort of copy protection, what if it accidentally identifies itself as a pirated version?
I don't expect to wait for long for a defamation lawsuit against the authors of this app.
Re:...hmm interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who is this "they" that you speak of?
The pirated app appears to be created and released by the same company who makes the legitimate app. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good thing to do.
Re:...hmm interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is this "they" that you speak of?
The pirated app appears to be created and released by the same company who makes the legitimate app. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good thing to do.
Correct. And so far as I'm concerned, they just proved that they are no more deserving of my trust (or my money!) than is the author of any trojan. I understand that they're concerned about copyright infringement, but that doesn't excuse unethical behavior. No more than Sony's CD rootkit was justifiable.
Re: (Score:3)
Some problems with that line of thought:
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't really just about ethics. It's about user self determination vs user antagonism.
Free freedom is essentially a declaration of self determination where will of the code is the will of the user. Proprietary software enables and in fact encourages an antagonistic relation ship with users, where the user is considered the enemy until they have been tracked and authenticated to the developers satisfaction (and whims [slashdot.org]). Why would anyone pay to get into such situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this "they" that you speak of?
The story I read about this yesterday indicated that another company had modified the code and loaded it into alternate app stores. This story says it was the authors of the software who had posted the altered version that contained the SMS crap.
If the original authors made their software available for 'free' and then pulled this shit just because people chose a free version over their 'paid' version then they deserve a Cleavland Steamer.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, they'd be liable for SMS fees at the worst I imagine.
I'm pretty sure in a lot of jurisdictions you can't sue someone for what happened to you when you did something illegal (but I may be wrong). It falls to common sense. If you get shot breaking into someone's home, can you have them arrested for shooting you? Sadly, in more than a few states in the U.S. this can actually happen, as ridiculous as it is. I'd imagine, though, that if you asked anyone if they thought this was right they'd say no.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure in a lot of jurisdictions you can't sue someone for what happened to you when you did something illegal (but I may be wrong).
Of course you're wrong. You can't set a boobytrap to kill intruders, you can't beat the shit out of burglars if you catch them, etc. That's why you have police and courts.
if you asked anyone if they thought this was right they'd say no.
Vendettas and vigilantism is what you are advocating. Try living in a place where you can dispense "justice" like that, such as the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflammatory headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling pirates "freeloaders" is an unnecessary ad hominem designed to turn everyone else against them without applying critical thought to the issue at hand. It's the same as calling it "theft" or "stealing". The terminology may technically apply, but in the circles in which piracy is usually discussed (such as Slashdot), saying these things quickly makes you look like a troll.
I'm disappointed in the submitter and the editor for allowing the term "freeloader" in the headline. If you wish to oppose piracy,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Do it with terms that make me look like I'm not sidestepping the payment of someone, while still using the services that they [theoretically] worked hard to provide me."
"It's no different than eating someone's food and then skipping on the bill, but I really don't want to feel bad about it, so please come up with some term that hides the reality of the situation from me."
Re: (Score:2)
Because eating food and not paying for it is comparable to downloading software and not paying for it. Yeah.
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Because eating food and not paying for it is comparable to downloading software and not paying for it. Yeah.
Yes, they are comparable. In both cases, someone has offered to provide a service to you. One is providing food, the other providing software. In both cases the party offering the service has spend money in order to provide that service.
The restaurant paid rent on their building, they paid the kitchen staff. They paid the waiters. They paid for the ingredients that were used to make the meal.
The software company paid rent on their building, they paid their employees. They paid for equipment to develop the software.
In both cases you use the service without contributing to them making up those costs.
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Trespassing to shorten your way is also taking something that has value to you (you save time), but it wasn't free for you to take. Shall we call "trespassing" now "stealing way"?
Just because you find some similar aspects in two different things doesn't make them the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking something that has value to you, and not paying for it (when it hasn't been made free by the author/developer/producer/etc), is stealing.
No, it's not.
There are costs associated to producing and distributing the software and you are depriving the author/developer/producer/etc from compensation for the copy you didn't pay for.
No, you're not.
Taking something that isn't 'free' without paying for it is stealing whether it's a digital item or food at a restaurant.
No, it's not.
The critical flaw in your line of thinking here is that there is no detectable loss of money or property anywhere. You cannot say "here's what we could have made". There are no stories, for example, of somebody creating a new copy protection mechanism and sales going up. This is is why the whole element of 'critical thought' is important. You've taken a simplistic view, claim to be seeing smoke, but can't point to a fire. I wouldn't normally mind but this sort of
Re: (Score:2)
If someone puts an item up for sale, regardless of its form, and does not intend for it to be distributed any other way than by sale, and you take it without paying, it is theft.
No, it's not.
Which just means that those of us who pay for software have to jump through extra hoops to keep it activated.
Uh, yeah, speaking of motivating pirates....
Re: (Score:2)
You may not like the terms associated to it, such as "freeloaders", "theft" or "stealing", but those aren't just 'technically' accurate, they are apt.
Well, if you're talking about U.S. copyright law they are not apt. Well, freeloading is reasonable, I'd say. Apply some critical thinking (not to mention a few facts) here yourself. The terms are not only technically inaccurate, but legally inaccurate as well. I know this is an old, old complaint, but it's not legally theft, because the owner is not deprived of his property, only (potential) profit. It is, in fact, copyright infringement, and it is so because it is a civil, not a criminal matter. Unless you
Let's think about that... (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not deprive the source from selling another copy, but not paying for your copy is stealing.
For the sake of argument, let's accept that definition and see where it leads us.
Well, why is stealing a bad thing in the first place? Is it because you get something for free? Surely not, because we all get things for free all the time. I can turn on the radio and listen to free music, then change stations when a commercial comes on. I can look at public murals that were funded by taxpayers who died before I was born. I can enjoy the benefits of those and countless other things without giving a dime to the people who created them.
I get upset when something is stolen from me, but is that because the thief has gotten something for free? No. If someone could "steal" a copy of my car, leaving the original car unharmed in my driveway, that wouldn't bother me at all. In fact, if the technology to do that existed, I believe it'd be a great leap forward for mankind.
We can also compare stealing to vandalism. If someone destroys my car, he doesn't gain anything for free, he only deprives me of the use of that property. Is destroying my car therefore not as bad as stealing it? It sure doesn't feel that way. In fact, stealing it seems marginally better, since it preserves overall utility (and there's a chance I'll get the car back).
So, I have to conclude that what makes stealing wrong is that the rightful owner is deprived of the stolen property. The benefit gained by the thief is only relevant to the extent that it comes at the owner's expense.
Now, what have we done by declaring that getting a free copy of something is "stealing"? We've created two categories of stealing: the old-fashioned kind where the owner is deprived of the stolen property, and the shiny new kind where he isn't. The first kind is wrong, since it maintains the quality that made stealing wrong in the first place. The second kind, however, is not - it's a benign, almost metaphorical type of "stealing", kind of like stealing second base. All we've accomplished with this new definition is to devalue the word.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the claim that a digital item does not cause the creator to be deprived of everything makes a fallacious assumption, specifically, that the creator will sell an infinite number of copies.
The creator invested time and effort in producing the item. If they sell zero items and you pirate it, you have deprived them of all that time and effort. If they sell one item and you pirate it, you have deprived them of half their time and effort, if they sell n items and you pirate it, you have deprived the
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, you're moving the goalposts. I never said it wasn't wrong, or that it wasn't "as bad" as stealing food, I said that it is different. Clearly, it is different. Piracy is wrong, I agree with you on that, but it is not theft. As I've said before, it's no more theft than it is arson ("you've burnt up their profits"), or assault ("you've hit them where it hurts"), or indeed rape (I'm not going to make a phrase up for that one). Piracy is wrong, but it isn't theft/stealing.
I don't know why you think th
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, you're moving the goalposts. I never said it wasn't wrong, or that it wasn't "as bad" as stealing food, I said that it is different. Clearly, it is different.
But only in so much as stealing a car is different from stealing food... Given that the original comparison was used as a metephore, they could hardly say "piracy is no different from piracy" now could they ;)
I don't know why you think the creator needs to sell an infinite number of copies in order for piracy to be different from theft. And, as a matter of simple fact, the creator will have spent that time whether they sell 1000 copies or none, and whether 1000 copies are pirated or none. No-one can take another person's time away after the fact; time can only be taken prospectively (e.g. false imprisonment).
You've made my own point – the developer has invested time for an expected return – if he sells 0 copies his return is very low, and you steal all of his time, if he sells 1000 copies his return is low and you steal quite a large amount of his time, if he sells 1000000 copies his return is
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the fault of the file sharer.
Similarly it isn't the fault of the person eventually served at a restaurant that the restaurant speculatively bought the ingredients for their food.
What? How do you deprive someone of time and effort without ever interacting with them in the least?
You have interacted with them – you've taken a copy of something they produced using that time and effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly it isn't the fault of the person eventually served at a restaurant that the restaurant speculatively bought the ingredients for their food.
No, it isn't.
You have interacted with them – you've taken a copy of something they produced using that time and effort.
You didn't "take" a copy of anything. You copied it. But, really, where did you interact with them? As far as I know, file sharers typically sit in front of their computers and download the data. Where do they interact with the author in such a scenario? They didn't force the author to do anything. No further time or effort is required from them to copy this data.
The "potential profit" argument appears to make more sense than that.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Making an unauthorized copy. Let's call that copyright violation.
2) Using that software after violating copyright. Let's call that freeloading.
I think we should be able to agree on these new terms. They pretty much EXACTLY spell out what is going on, irregardless of your stanc
Re: (Score:2)
Then, I suppose, it is impossible to steal someone else's ideas
Uh.. duh? This is a ludicrous concept that presumes the impossibility of coming up with the same idea as somebody else independently, ignores that a work is not an idea but a accumulation of ideas - idea being the raw bi-product, ignores the difference between fraud and theft, ignores the difference between copying, and taking/depriving somebody of something they had, all while making the concept of plagiarism harder to understand instead of easier.
Or a copy of their homework. Or a copy of their source code. Or a copy of their credit card report.
Uh.. duh? Taking a copy of the work, leaving the origin
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:5, Informative)
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/freeloader [merriam-webster.com]
"a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return"
Please tell me how the use of that term was incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/freeloader [merriam-webster.com]
"a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return"
Please tell me how the use of that term was incorrect.
By your definition, somebody could take a photo of me, publish it in the media so everybody can see it, and I'd be able to call the whole world a bunch of freeloaders.
You'll be right once you can show us what the app's author is doing to support pirates that he isn't already doing with existing customers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit. Software development takes at a minimum, time. Developers such as this one weight the opportunity cost of the time they invest in developing the software against the money they expect to make from its sale. People who pirate the software, instead of paying, only encourage the developers to underestimate the potential value of their work, and therefore, less development will occur.
Has a cost been incurred? Absolutely. Just because it can't be measured as a physical good does not mean it was no
Re: (Score:2)
People who pirate the software, instead of paying, only encourage the developers to underestimate the potential value of their work, and therefore, less development will occur.
Is that the fault of the file sharers, who do not even interact with the authors in any way, shape, or form (and therefore do not deprive them of time, resources, or existing physical property), or the fault of a society which runs on scarcity, even if artificial? If something requires labor, and there is no limit to the amount of it that can be produced, and it's easy for everyone to do so once the original has been made, laws are typically enacted to create artificial scarcity for it. If that is not done,
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't count if he or she is not aware of it. The app is a Trojan.
Re: (Score:3)
I think people that download stuff from shady Internet sites and install them on their phones deserve other names. Here's a short list: stupid, ignorant, irresponsible and dumb.
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:5, Informative)
You remind me of the client from Clients from Hell [clientsfromhell.net]:
[I’m not a designer but the attorney hired by a designer. I’m informing the client over the phone that he’s being sued for not paying the amount specified.]
Me: “Good afternoon, my name is [xxx], representing [designer] and [company]. We’re calling about payment that has not yet been received for a project which you agreed to pay for.”
Client: “What?! Who’s suing me?! Who is this?”
Me: “As I said, my name is [xxx], representing [designer] and [company]. You have X,XXX.XX that was supposed to be paid several months ago, as agreed upon by a contract with my clients.”
Client: “Are you suing me for a website? You’re not making any damn sense!”
Me: “You owe someone a fair deal of money and you’ve made it very clear that you have no intention of paying. I have several emails from your email address responding to my clients with messages such as “sayonara, suckers” and I am calling to see if you’d like to pay your fees now, or if we need to bring this into a courtroom, which I’m sure we’re all looking to avoid.”
Client: “I don’t know who this is or what the hell you want from me but listen up: fooling someone to make you a website isn’t a crime!”
Me: “You’re actually looking at some large fines and — should this be considered a felony — jail time.”
Client: “You’re a damn lawyer, you should know websites aren’t real. A website isn’t a thing, you can’t steal it! [designer] can still look at it, it’s still kinda his!”
[Within three days time, the designer received a check with the amount listed and an additional $20.00 “for your asshole lawyer boyfriend.” The designer had to resist framing the check for the novelty.]
Re: (Score:3)
The Client from Hell is right; he didn't steal the website. He just committed breach of contract, and apparently by his own admission, fraud (by entering into the contract with no intention of actually paying).
Re: (Score:3)
Horse shit.
It's definitely not theft, but piracy is in fact legally prohibited - that is, "against the law" or "illegal". The legal instrument of copyright does in fact exist, and gives the holder the right to charge a price for it - whether the pirates believe it does or not.
So by not paying the price asked and acquiring it through other means, they are in fact freeloading - if you define freeloading as "getting for free that for which payment is expected"
So if you want to condone this action, you need to
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that you're actually right. From a certain point of view, copyright infringement is freeloading. From a certain point of view, copyright infringement is theft. The problem is that making claims like "it's theft/freeloading, pure and simple" do nothing whatsoever to address the issue itself; they only exacerbate the giant Internet flamewar that is the piracy debate. Most people consider "freeloading" to be a negative term, so when they hear "pirates are freeloaders", they automatically ass
Re: (Score:2)
But as it stands, it is freeloading. And you're putting words in peoples' mouths. When I hear "pirates are freeloaders", I think about how they're getting things for free that I followed the rules on. I don't like that - in school, in life, in business, or for software.
We should definitely be discussing the rules themselves, but the pirates are absolutely 100% responsible for breaking them as they currently stand. This is inarguable, and they are currently freeloading while others are not. This has nothing
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, come on. This is just silly.
There are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made against the use of "theft" or "stealing" in this context, because acquiring a digital good without paying for it doesn't normally deprive anybody else of that good.
But "freeloaders"? Granted, that term has various shades of meaning, but the dominant usage is equivalent to "free rider": someone who obtains a benefit without paying any of the costs involved in providing that benefit. Which describes pirates exactly. It's no more hyperbolic than describing sharks as "predators" or tapeworms as "parasites"; it's just saying what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling pirates freeloader is pretty fitting actually in the modern day. Many pieces of software (both free and paid) have hidden costs these days. One big hidden cost is the servers necessary to host the download, to run services, and to provide support forums. By pirating an app, you deprive the author the revenue necessary to recoup the cost of those servers, while possibly adding load to those servers. It's not a "zero harm" situation anymore. Even if the app is free and mirrored without permission
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think 'freeloader' is a perfectly appropriate term. Essentially people who do this are taking advantage of a system designed to incentivize creation without paying the cost for that system. While I debate the merits of this system in our current society, I think freeloader is a perfectly valid term, somewhat analogous to 'free rider', which they also are.
I think 'pirate' is a horrible, overblown term, and I do not agree with terms like 'steal' or 'theft'. What's going on is none of those things. But they
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure we've all pirated software before, but the justifications I see here are just a bunch of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh* No, it's not stealing, stealing is the removal of a mobile object belonging to someone else with the intent to keep it for yourself or the benefit of a third party and the intent to deprave the other person from its use. If you intent to be picky about semantics, at least get your act together first.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you're removing the developer's time in creating the product, and intend to deprive (I assume you didn't mean deprave) the developer of its use. How does this definition not fit?
If you intent to be picky about semantics, at least get your act together first.
Perhaps you should consider your own statement ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should consider your own statement ;)
The irony seems to be that your post is entirely grasping at straws, begging questions.
Efficacy may be limited (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Efficacy may be limited (Score:5, Funny)
Professor Plum: "You don't know what kind of people they have at the U.N., I might go up in their estimation."
Incredible! (Score:4, Insightful)
The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings
Wow! You know what else does that? Eyes.
Anyone who pays $2.10 for this should be shamed, not the pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trojan should have disabled the functionality (Score:5, Funny)
The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings, which will supposedly prevent the user from running into the street or across a set of train tracks.
Constantly show a safe environment. The truck or train would take care of the rest. That would certainly teach them to rely on an app instead of staying vigilant themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
That might actually be illegal, for the same reason it's illegal to set beartraps in front of your door even if somebody does break in. Somebody breaking the law does not allow you to break the law in return.
In any case, this is a much smarter business proposition. I think this is hilarious and IMHO the punishment fits the crime - you were too cheap to pay $2.10 for a piece of software you're using, so I'll make you look like a dick. But the developers would come off like assholes if somebody did get killed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea is callous, evil, despicable, anti-social and probably shows you have some mental issues.
I like it!
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be a debbie downer, but that would have very, very serious legal implications. In fact, if the app doesn't work properly even if you paid for it, it'd still have very serious legal implications. I hope the developer(s) have a good lawyer.
Costs of texting (Score:3)
If you figure that a lot of carriers charge around $0.10 / text, if someone has more than 21 friends in their phone, it'll cost more in messages charges than buying the app. Some vendors charge even more per text (which is a separate rant), so this could add up FAST.
I don't have a problem with that - heck I hope the author could find a way to get paid by those messages. But I could see some litigious asshat with 700 'friends' in their phone getting pissed when they get a huge bill.
If I was the author, I'd cap it at 21 friends - has all the effects of the shaming, but closely reflects the authors own stated value of the app.
Re:Costs of texting (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, the receivers of the message are also going to pay ten cents. So the author is punishing them, as well.
I hope someone decides to sue the author of the app for it, too. If I break into your house and steal something, you can't break into the houses of all my friends. The law doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
if you break into my house and steal my bomb labeled, "Ham dinner" I'm not liable for any damages you incur because my bomb went off in your house.
Re: (Score:3)
That usually doesn't apply to texts sent to international numbers.
And this is actually quite innocent (Score:3, Insightful)
People need to realize that pirated software really is a major malware distribution channel today, and has been for several years.
Tell your nephew that 90% of the cracks or keygens she downloads will also install a Trojan sending her passwords and credit card numbers back to the botnet masters.
And this is not a "genuine advantage" marketing fluff -- it is hard reality.
Re:And this is actually quite innocent (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, is that really true? No, that's exactly what the software distributors want you to think. All the statistics created about the effects of piracy are fabricated.
Re: (Score:3)
Search for "* keygen", and click on the first google site. Download the EXE it offers you (OFFICE2010CRACKS.KEYGEN.EXE). Im sure its safe, go ahead, run it.
No, its not "just what they want you to think", people looking for keygens are going to shady sites, and stop and ask yourself-- why WOULDNT a shady site admin have reason to give you bogus software? I mean, its not like they have any chance of making money off of you...
Im sure the pro pirates on here will protest that if you know where to look, and
Re: (Score:3)
I see where the confusion comes from. You're including trojans that merely claim to be pirated software as pirated software, as well as sites that claim to provide such software.
That's one way of looking at the situation, and it's not wrong per se, but it is a little counter intuitive for some. It also has the effect that you'd have to consider anti-virus software to be a major malware distribution channel as well, since a lot of malware masquerades as such.
Your NEPHEW? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn. Your family life must be.....interesting.
Re:And this is actually quite innocent (Score:4, Interesting)
90% of the cracks or keygens she downloads will also install a Trojan
I'd LOVE to see the source that supports this ridiculous claim.
To quote an ancient Wikipedia saying (Score:4, Insightful)
"Citation needed."
Seriously, I work in computer support professionally and while I've seen pirated software as an infection vector, it is in the minority. By far the biggest malware distribution channel these days I see is scareware. There are popups that act like AV scanners and get people to install fake anti-malware software.
So, let's see some number please.
Re: (Score:3)
ive seen it, but yeah.. if you're smart it never happens...
this bozo is probably talking about going to google, typing "XXX crack" and clicking the worse links possible... but those of us who saunter on over to gamecopyworld and the likes, really don't have to worry.
Read the comments? (Score:5, Interesting)
The CEO of the company that made this app sounds like a weird blend of troll and one of those king-of-nigeria scams.
* He keeps ranting about how he's going to sue avast
* He keeps shouting about how it's all a lie created by avast in order to slander his company
* He repeatedly claims that his calls to avast were blocked, even though the CEO admitted that one of his colleagues spoke to the dev.
* The only contact information for that company is found here [incorporateapps.com], which you can only get to through the avast article.
* avast lists a few other red flags from this company: "checked the registration of www.incorporateapps.com and see some red-flags: semi-anonymous, no email contact, possibly eastern-european but registered in Germany, and registered through Tucows"
But yeah, something here just doesn't feel right.
Uh oh (Score:5, Insightful)
Sending unsolicited, paid SMS to the whole contact list of a person with a specially crafted trojan seems to be a more serious offence than the one-time copyright infringement of not paying for a $ 2.10 app, which actually not even qualifies as petty theft (because infringement is not theft).
Basically, the developer has created a malware/trojan version of this app and for this he might (and, in my opinion, also should) get into serious legal trouble. In other words, what a jerk...especially, if you take into account what kind of a stupid application he sells.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He may also feel the wrath of the hardcore pirates, aside from being sued into non existence.
Re: (Score:3)
When you install an app that is able to send SMSs, you have to click on a dialog that says "you allow this app to send SMSs". It does the same with a variety of stuff, from internet access to GPS use. So I wouldn't call it exactly "unsolicited".
In most contexts this would be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't set traps for people even if the only way they would be harmed by it would be because they themselves are doing something illegal.
This does "harm" the person running the illegitimate app because it may cost them money to send all those messages plus any potential fallout from people thinking they are a software pirate.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true... At least in the US it is illegal for the government to entrap you, but there is no prohibition on private corporations doing the same. You can, however, sue over just about anything here (and you can sometimes win said crazy lawsuits).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mind you, I think that's a stupid law. The maximum damage allowed should perhaps be relative to the crime. For example, somebody pirating a texting app should pay for a bunch of texts, as opposed to somebody pirating a texting app that lets them see their surroundings instead broadcasting a beacon to someobdy who runs them over with a car. However, I think in principle the idea of prohibiting this kind of thing is wrong. Impose whatever penalty you want on somebody who harms an innocent through such a trap,
Apple.... (Score:2)
"actually a Trojan" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While probably illegal (unless they have a solid User Agreement that people ignored saying it would do this) personally I find it no more morally dubious than the person who downloaded a version of the software that they knew was pirated. And as someone who actually pays for my software I MUCH prefer the mode of punishing the pirates with software that has a 'bonus' than punishing the legitimate users by including DRM.
How about helping the Japan relief effort instead? (Score:2)
Ack, shame won't work well with a pirate. Instead, have the trojan text REDCROSS to 90999, which sends $10 to the Japan relief effort.
Piracy isn't the embarrassing part (Score:3)
The really embarrassing part of all this is your contacts finding out that you actually need an app to help you not walk into lightpoles, in front of trains, etc because you can't stop texting for a single second.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Android is similar in restricting apps and requiring permissions for apps to access functions like SMS.
However the app IS intended for texting and thus you will have a permissions request for SMS to use the app (even the legitimate version). This just sends out additional texts to your contacts in addition to the ones you want to send out.