Slashdot Mirror
The Future Has a Kill Switch
palegray.net writes "Bruce Schneier brings us his perspective on a future filled with kill switches; from OnStar-equipped automobiles and city buses that can be remotely disabled by police to Microsoft's patent-pending ideas regarding so-called Digital Manners Policies. In Schneier's view, these capabilities aren't exactly high points of our potential future. From the article: 'Once we go down this path — giving one device authority over other devices — the security problems start piling up. Who has the authority to limit functionality of my devices, and how do they get that authority? What prevents them from abusing that power? Do I get the ability to override their limitations? In what circumstances, and how? Can they override my override?' We recently discussed the Pentagon's interest in kill switches for airplanes. At what point does centralizing and/or delegating operational authority over so much of our lives become a dangerous practice of its own?"
"At what point does centralizing and/or delegating operational authority over so much of our lives become a dangerous practice of its own?" ... From that point onwards, the battle between the controllers of the kill switches, and everybody who wants to gain control of them starts. Of course the normal user is left back in the middle.
Already at day 1, as soon as the slippery slope is hit
When I bought a GM vehicle for my wife a couple years ago, the FIRST order of business was to disconnect the antenna to the OnStar box. I don't need big brother being privy to conversations in the car, or tracking my movements. I'm normally not a tin foil fedora kind of guy, but there has already been evidence of police improperly using OnStar to bug vehicles.
"Sir, I believe you just dropped 29 planes from the sky instead of hitting the EasyButton for more toner. How do you want me to handle this with the press ?"
As was discussed in the airplane kill switch thread, this gives new difficulties. A terrorist now just has to threaten to block communication from the plane and make it fly in a weird pattern, and then the pentagon will kill the 200+ passengers on board with an F-16 rather than the terrorists.
Regarding the Onstar system, this is known about by their company, and they are being quite responsible IMHO -- the switch has many, many security levels to be activated, and gradually starves the engine of fuel so that one would coast to a stop rather than suddenly switching off. Of course, this is a bigger problem for an airplane.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
Awesome, now terrorists won't need to hijack airplanes. All they have to do is hijack the means of controlling the killswitches.
I would much rather have the engines remotely shut down or idled on a plane in flight, offering at least a chance at an emergency landing, than to have the plane summarily blown out of the sky. Most likely the "kill switch" would be engaged only so long as the craft remains on a threatening course. It would also be useful in preventing unauthorized/uncontrolled take-offs.
Lo-jack seems to have been fairly effective in stopping auto thieves. I don't really see an "After the Sunset" remotely hacked limousine scenario developing in real life.
Invenio via vel creo
So then, your two reasons for thinking this is a good thing pretty much boil down to "fear of terrorism" and "people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves".
Wow. You got me there!
Caveat Utilitor
I think the lesson of the privacy of phone conversations is an example of what will happen. They will use the information first secretly and later pass a law to hold themselves harmless for doing so. It is strictly an issue of who controls life, me or someone I don't know. I trust my own motives. I would rather not spend 2 years in court trying to explain how someone stole my identity.
This has the effect of turning us all into renters. Which is fine, I don't want the title, I don't want to carry insurance, I don't want to maintain the vehicle and so on. As long as I don't have the rights of ownership, I don't want to pay for ownership. And when it's time to get rid of said asset just bring it back to the dealer and let them deal with it. I am fine with being treated like a criminal under those conditions.
Citizen X, our routine check procedure found that you have illegaly disabled the remote control meant to protect you and other fine citizens of our state from yourself. Will you please help yourself into this correction center?
sometimes, I wish my wife had a kill switch. Nag, nag, nag.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
If I own it, I'm allowed to modify it. Kill switches don't do anything if they're not connected anymore.
Heck, like you said, just unplug the damn thing. Or if you are paranoid, get a ball of tin foil and cover up the antenna. I love how people give up their freedoms for "safety". Onstar says we can call the police in the event your air bags are deployed. No kidding, gee, golly wow. You and the 3,452 people that see your wreck are going to whip out their cell phones and call the police. Onstar, just getting people use to the idea that big brother is listening. How long until insurance companies get to peak into onstar?
How about a kill switch to prevent a First Post? Of course, the problem is how to get posts starting from second if there's no first. Always unanticipated problems when one tries to implement those security measures some politicians seem to want so much.
I'd love to see "digital manners" enforcement in theaters, restaurants, buses, etc. If mobile phones are so important that people cannot turn them off, then how did people live thirty years ago? Haven't you seen those old movies, where the detective had to stop at a public phone to send instructions to his associates? Yes, I'd love to see a way to enforce manners in public places.
However, a kill switch is no answer. If people abuse cell phones by using them in obnoxious ways, how long would it take them to abuse the kill switch? History has shown us, and it should be clear by now, that any sort of digital key is subjected to abuse.
Even assuming a perfect implementation, that mythical unbreakable code, there's still social engineering. A criminal could buy an old theatre just to get the phone kill switch installed there, if it were necessary for him to silence a phone. And there's always the risk that terrorists could find ways to crack a plane's kill switch in mid-air. When the plane is approaching JFK, wait until it is headed towards Manhattan and then immobilize the pilot's controls.
Like many medicines of old that have been abandoned because of their side-effects, kill switches are a solution that's much worse than the problem they are trying to solve.
The same sentiment can be applied to new technologies.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The first time someone launches a mass shutdown order in a metropolitan area during rush hour, will be all it takes to turn the public wildly against this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
At what point does centralizing and/or delegating operational authority over so much of our lives become a dangerous practice of its own?
When it can kill your conne%?DE
NO CARRIER
As long as the pilot doesn't nose down, the plane can glide to the ground. That is assuming the controls are still working. The only reason you need the engines is to remain at an altitude or climb. The plane can act as a glider for as long as it has enough forward air speed to produce the lift required.
So then, your two reasons for thinking this is a good thing pretty much boil down to "fear of terrorism" and "people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves".
Off course that's the reason. Why else would people give up their hard earned freedom ?
Slipping shoelaces ?
In any case without legislation making this mandatory the solution is very simple: Use only stuff that is built on open architectures, using only open source SW. Mod anything that limits your freedom.
At what point does centralizing and/or delegating operational authority over so much of our lives become a dangerous practice of its own?"
When they put kill switches in _us_?
I like how this article bring out all the negatives, but never the positives.
You have an excellent point here, and I'd like to start listing positives first, and then negatives from now on. Sometimes it's not very clear to me how great things are if looked at in this fairer light.
Positives:
1. You lose a little bit of weight.
2. The voices stop.
3. You don't have to worry about paying off those credit cards anymore.
4. It will definitely "show her"
Negatives:
1. You're dead.
Act in question:
Blowing the back of your head out with a shotgun. ...
The only negative that needs to be pointed out is that we will completely lose our freedom. But see, people are too dumb to figure out how that happens and give responses like "oh you're overreacting, it'll never come to that!" Then people with a little more foresight start to panic, since they realize that these morons who think the world will be so great with the new kill switches are the majority and will vote this sort of thing in.
That's when we start with the examples, and when it all falls apart. Giving examples is the worst thing you can ever do when the target is too stupid to understand a concept, since then they forget that they're failing to comprehend a concept, and they instead think that you're trying to barrage them with bullshit. That's when you lose time and again, and in enough time society becomes completely unbearable.
Then again, there really are people out there that like the TSA because they feel safer with minimum wage employees bossing them around, confiscating their water, and smugly apprehending their deodorant.
The moral of the story - my argument sucks because it's just a bunch of examples. Feel free to disregard it.
There's one "kill switch" they'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
> At what point does centralizing and/or delegating operational authority over so much of
> our lives become a dangerous practice of its own?
At the very beginning.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Until they put a kill switch on your firearm.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
Three killswitches for the airplanes under the sky,
Seven for the iPhones in the lesser phones,
Nine for OnStar drivers doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of California where the Shadows lie.
One Killswitch to rule them all, One Killswitch to find them,
One Killswitch to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Who has the authority to limit functionality of my devices, and how do they get that authority?
The laws will be written in a way that appears to limit their application, but the reality will be that loopholes will be woven into the rules, or that people like the CIA just plain don't care about laws and will do whatever they please. There will be no accountability. If someone does get their balls in a vice someone higher up will swoop in and "grant them immunity". (where have we heard that recently?)
What prevents them from abusing that power?
Given the above legal scene, nothing. That which can be abused, will be abused. We've been down that road so many times my shoes wore out. We're always promised that it's ok to make the laws a little overly broad just to "make sure we get them all", and then as a result the laws are always abused. It's not can be, it's not might be, it's will be. "Can be abused" always ends up "was abused". Unless you write the law without the wiggle room, it will be abused, guaranteed. End of story.
History tends to show that loopholes that crop up in new laws were introduced by those who made the law, for those that made the law. Things like congress passing telemarketing rules, that they are conveniently exempt from. (where was the justification? they didn't even bother trying to justify it) People that are already in a position of power just assume the laws don't (or shouldn't) apply to them. Nixon was a hilarious example. He was totally convinced it was OK for the president to ignore the laws. He just didn't get around to making himself legally exempt from them in time. Modern equivalents exist, they just learned from his experience and make sure they have an "out" and then proceed in the same manner.
Do I get the ability to override their limitations? In what circumstances, and how?
Just like CSS, you can override their limits, but then they'll make it illegal to do so.
Can they override my override?
No (what they tell you) Yes. (the actual practice)
We recently discussed the Pentagon's interest in kill switches for airplanes. At what point does centralizing and/or delegating operational authority over so much of our lives become a dangerous practice of its own?
Take a look where we are now. Wouldn't you say we passed that point looong ago?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Sounds like maybe Socialism is indistinguishable from Capitalism for an sufficiently non-capitalized individual.
When you have an unaccountable central government with nearly omnipotent control over those under their authority, what you have can't be described with only the words 'socialism' or 'capitalism'. What you have in such a case is authoritarianism. It's authoritarian governments that we need to worry about - not necessarily socialist or capitalist ones. Authoritarian socialism (communism) has proven to be every bit as dangerous to its citizens as authoritarian capitalism (fascism). People need to be less concerned with the socialism/capitalism axis and more concerned with the libertarian/authoritarian axis because that's the one that really counts if you're worried about monster police states.
Program was suspended in early June in Dallas after the bait (I'll call it entrapment) car struck someone before they disabled the car. Months earlier, I watched a youtube vid of a "successful" bait car incident. They let this guy steal the car and drive away, then started chasing him. It turns out the whole time they could have remotely locked the doors and killed the engine. But they had their fun chasing this guy around for a while, and even shooting at him, before disabling the vehicle. When I saw that earlier video, I knew someone would get hurt eventually. That's definitely abuse: they could have disabled the car and locked the guy in for apprehension before he even left the parking lot. Worst outcome? Maybe a little fender bender. Instead, they had all sorts of fun with high speed chases, shooting at the guy, etc. before they bothered to use it. And some old lady got killed because the cops needed their fun with a rigged high-speed chase. Disgusting.
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
Look, even if you live in Israel, you're still 10X more likely to die in a car accident than as a result of an act of terrorism. So I'm not sure 'fear of terrorism' is a valid reason for doing, um, anything different.
Let's keep risks in perspective, ok?
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Either that word doesn't mean what you think it means or you're way too into SAE and ISO standards :).
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
There should be legislation such that these "features" are ALWAYS optional, and can be turned off by the consumer.
As long as that is so, then individual consumers can give up control over their own lives on a purely voluntary basis. If they want to, then let them. Apparently some of them want to. Go figure.
You can bet your bottom dollar that as the kill switch idea penetrates further and further into society, bean-counters will ensure that a lot of people who decide when to use one will be about the same pay grade as airport screeners. That is, minimum wage drones who are bored beyond endurance by their job. So we'll all have to put up with being late for appointments and getting cop-shop phone calls from teenage kids who found some stupid but harmless way to get a bunch of cars stopped in the middle of a major intersection, while genuine security threats skate around the system with impunity.
So once again, our quality of life will be compromised, our freedom will be diminished and the net effect on security will be, at best, zero.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Except those Scientology ones a while back...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's called a pair of pliers, which I will use to rip out any of that crap out of any vehicle I own, and hope everyone else will eventually evolve enough to have the balls to do the same thing. I've hated OnStar from the start, could see the implications immediately, and have NOT been quiet about it, telling whoever may have the ears to hear. If anyone is insane enough to be buying a car in this particular time in history, they should be explicit in that NO ONSTAR or any such technology be included, and that the buyer not be made responsible for the cost of that in any way. Revolution, people. It's what is needed now, and has been for quite some time. Lock and load, and LET'S GO!
First of all, it would be
DELETE * FROM comments WHERE poster_name="Anonymous Coward";
Actually, no, it wouldn't. The DELETE command doesn't take field names. You'd either do an ALTER TABLE or an UPDATE to do what you want.
(yes, I checked against multiple SQL references, all for different products, before opening my big mouth.)
As was mine originally. We seem to be faring rather poorly with the mods, alas.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Dude, that would be like reading the article!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Your plane, your property, fine. You want to fly that plane in public airspace? You want the privilege of flying over my house? Then there's a reasonable justification to put various regulations on your plane.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood