Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Adopting 3 Laws of Robotics For Android?
jfruhlinger writes "Android's popularity is growing, but its lack of enterprise security features is making IT departments pull their hair out. Two of the biggest Android vendors, Motorola and Samsung, aren't waiting for Google, but are building their own security functionality into the devices they sell. Motorola's version will be facilitated by their purchase of 3LM, an Android-centric mobile security provider that bases their strategy on Asimov's Three Laws or Robotics, though the order is tweaked: The device must protect the user, protect itself, and obey the user, in that order."
Well, it was fun while it lasted. The 'peoples' phone: RIP. 2011
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... to allow for an interesting development of a series of stories that culminate in unexpected consequences. have a read, and then ask yourself what the bugs are in the restatement.
Hint: the bug is now the highest priority.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Of course, it won't be until much later that the zeroth law of phone security is discovered. That being: "The device may not harm the corporation, or, by inaction, allow the corporation to come to harm."
I love my Android but, its no surprise that the maker would prioritize protection above obedience. I would change the order:
1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)
2. Protect the authorized user.
3. Protect itself.
Different orders can be considered when they become self aware. Until then, its a tool damnit. My hammer doesn't try to protect me, nor would I want it to. A safety on a gun may "protect me" but, the device definitely obeys before protects, because all the user needs to do is turn off the safety, and all protection is gone.
As the user/owner of a non-self aware device, it should obey me, even if my intention is to use it to destroy itself, or others.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Protect the user,"Ok, you can't do drugs, avoid paying car insurance, speed in your car, or bring a diet pepsi on a plane"
Protect itself: Self explanitory
Obey the user except when the user wants to do something that can cause harm to the user.
God spoke to me.
Everybody remembers the famous 3 Laws of Robotics.
Nobody seems to remember that the stories were about how they failed over and over due to unintended consequences and and loopholes, for example robots are able to break them if they don't know they're doing so.
Isn't the whole idea with Google making it open source that manufacturers will contribute their own improvements to the main release? Or contribute cash for Google to allocate more programmers onto the features they would like? Instead they seem to be whining that Google isn't working on the free product they benefit from fast enough, then going off in their own direction creating proprietary code for themself which just messes up the whole open source idea.
I have always followed a rule for programming or hardware chicanery:
If it asks me to stop, I stop.
So far, so good.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I don't get it: everyone bashed Apple when its iPhone lacked certain features (multitasking, cut and paste, enterprise security) but not one peep when Android or Windows Mobile lacks these very same features.
What? Android *does* have excellent multitasking, as well as decent cut and paste. I'm not sure about enterprise security, but I think people have blasted Android for not having it, if it doesn't.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
This order sounds right.
For those of us who know what we're doing, sure this is offensive.
For those who decide that spending 99cents on Justin Bieber wall papers that also snoop on their private conversations, that's a different story.
See, no vision, this is the problem in america. If you really want to snoop people's private conversation, you make the wallpaper free!
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Obey the user except when the user wants to do something...
Fixed that for you.
Well, when speaking about Murphy, it's obvious that you have to make mistakes ... even if the Murphy you speak of isn't the one of Murphy's Law.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
It will be discovered that there is a secret fourth Directive which prevents the device from arresting any senior executive of Motorola Inc.
Watch more Robocop.
What is funny is that the Exchange security has been addressed by a solid Android app: Touchdown. This app encrypts all data, even files present on the SD card, supports remote wipe, enforces Exchange's permissions, and does what enterprises need for enforcing security.
There is only one item missing from Android, and that is device encryption, and encrypting data (not just the .apk stuff) on the SD card.
Google can easily address this -- LUKS or EncFS for the SD card, store the key in /etc, perms 066.
I hate to bust your bubble, but saying "1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)" is wrong for security. This is about security.
The fact of the matter is that social engineering is far simpler than hacking in almost all circumstances. And people are ***EXCEEDINGLY*** careless with their mobile phones. How many people don't have their PC, which sits in their locked house, remember forms data/passwords, but have a stupid app on their phone that shoots straight to all of their email accounts without so much as a password?
Power users will be power users, but for generalized security laws, the user is their own worst enemy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably even more vulnerable. It's similar to the old adage: "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- if someone is so sure of themselves that they feel they are immune to social engineering methods for bypassing security, they are at even more risk.
Another fine product by Omni Consumer Products.
I'd buy that for a dollar
. .
The laws are not "intentionally wrong". In fact, as Asimov himself pointed out, the three laws are basically common sense for any tool. It should have safeguards to protect the user, it should accomplish what the user wants, and it should be durable. Most machinery has interlocks (first law), can be tinkered with (second law), and shouldn't smash itself to bits unless the user screws up (third law).
In fact, the laws are so reasonable and obvious that they needed to be twisted into bizarre contortions (e.g. Runaround), flat out ignored (e.g. Little Lost Robot), or overridden with the Zeroeth Law , in order to achieve most of Asimov's best stories.
I hate to bust your bubble, but saying "1. Obey the authorized user (esp since he is normally the OWNER)" is wrong for security. This is about security.
Rather that the "you cannot do that" security paradigm how about trying a new one: "the easiest way to do something should be a secure way to do it"? The problem with the "you cannot do that" paradigm is that invariably you can actually do it with enough hacking, which is rarely secure, and once that happens the method to do it spreads because lots of people want it.