Comment Re:Lesser of two evils? (Score 1) 646
Wrong, the correct answer is: "We will discontinue the sale, but we can not remove existing copies from a users' devices." Then raise a stink if the publisher tries to coerce them to do otherwise.
The whole thing that's "wrong" here is the fact that Amazon is selling the devices with those capabilities built in and their customers buying those devices knowing those capabilities are in there. If the above wasn't the case, then your proposed answer would have been the only logical and practical answer. And that would have been the right answer then.
I don't understand what is so surprising and wrong - if people believed Amazon never intended to activate the "remote delete" feature then why did they spend the time and money developing the feature and shipping the product with it? And, why should anyone trust them now that they have already exercised that power that they'll never do it again?
If Amazon really intends to keep the promise of never doing this again, they will need to remove the feature that modifies program/data on the device without user's consent. Otherwise, they will keep the feature, and they will do this again when it suits them. So, hopefully this incident brings people closer to understanding and voting with their wallets, and not buying into any DRM scheme, and remotely activated software "features." Demand Free software without DRM - that's the first important step to guaranteeing you own what you buy.