Slashdot Mirror
Smartphone Kill Switch, Consumer Boon Or Way For Government To Brick Your Phone?
MojoKid writes We're often told that having a kill switch in our mobile devices — mostly our smartphones — is a good thing. At a basic level, that's hard to disagree with. If every mobile device had a built-in kill switch, theft would go down — who would waste their time over a device that probably won't work for very long? Here's where the problem lays: It's law enforcement that's pushing so hard for these kill switches. We first learned about this last summer, and this past May, California passed a law that requires smartphone vendors to implement the feature. In practice, if a smartphone has been stolen, or has been somehow compromised, its user or manufacturer would be able to remotely kill off its usability, something that would be reversed once the phone gets back into its rightful owner's hands. However, such functionality should be limited to the device's owner, and no one else. If the owner can disable a phone with nothing but access to a computer or another mobile device, so can Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia or Apple. If the designers of a phone's operating system can brick a phone, guess who else can do the same? Everybody from the NSA to your friendly neighborhood police force, that's who. At most, all they'll need is a convincing argument that they're acting in the interest of "public safety."
Why should THE MAN want to brick your phone, when instead they can just track you - that's what they want - then they can brick *you* as needed.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
If bricking a phone would also result in any stored photographs going "bye bye".... I can think of quite a few police who would like that feature.
Your sarcasm aside, turn the idea around and convince me there is any situation short of an emergency where the big evil government would use this power even if they had it? Bricking phones would Streisand effect whatever situation they were trying to clamp down on. And, it doesn't necessarily prevent data from being exported off the flash drives. I can't imagine this being useful to any sort of authoritarian power in any regular way. Sure you could probably imagine one scenario where they use something like this to stop a story getting out -- but it wouldn't always work, and they would never get to use it again.... This isn't an illegal search of someone's phone, there is no point in abusing the power to brick someone's phone.
Conversely there is very real and tangible benefit to crime reduction.
So, yes, why such paranoia?
Someone leaks sensitive information to the media. Government tracks phone. Government dispatches goon. Government bricks phone to prevent victim from alerting the medial, recording the incident, calling for help, etc. Victim is disappeared.
The ability to brick phones without the consent of the one who possesses the phone inherently indicates that the user does not actually control their phone. Software on phones must be free software so that users can know exactly what the phone is doing, and can modify what it does. Hardware must be fully open.
So your situation is something you saw on 24?
Unless the guy is live streaming 24/7 then your goon can brick the whistleblower's phone with an actual brick.
Also, look at real whistleblowers and try to explain how the government would have stopped Snowden with this power? Stop imagining spy drama fiction.
Your Streisand effect theory works for widespeard bricking, or say a large protestors at a large protest. But it doesn't work on the small scale. Imagine if some poor schumck recorded video on his smartphone of that cop in Ferguson shooting that kid. They'd brick the phone immediately, eliminating the video, and only leaving the schumck's word that he had the video.
I can't imagine this being useful to any sort of authoritarian power in any regular way.
I'd say you lack imagination then, because the first thing that came to my mind was "Boy I bet the police in Ferguson would love to be able to disable people's phones right now."
Used on people en masse it'd be a great way for governments impede and control the flow of information around all sorts of events.
And, or course, the fact that the phone was bricked for no reason. Also, the video will be recoverable.
I don't think they are talking about putting a button in every police car that bricks phones.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Doesn't the kill switch also wipe the phone? The existing Android Device Manager and whatever Apple's version is called wipe the phone remotely, to protect personal information from the thief.
The beat cop doesn't need a "kill switch", he just has to call the station and they can do it or contact whoever does it, quick enough.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with hackers or script kiddies bricking thousands of phones for lol's, than I am about hypothetical law enforcement abuse of it, but it remains a possibility.
Enabling a kill switch is not really creating a new kill switch... It's simply giving you, the purchaser, the right to tell the phone company to block the IMEI using the same tools that law enforcement does now. It literally costs them nothing to allow, since it already exists, but, as noted in the Summary, will result in a huge drop in the number of re-purchased phones after theft/breakage... phones that are frequently re-purchased at full price, due to the multi-year contract lock-ins. This is all about money, not freedom.
They would, however, be able to keep the story about what's happening in Ferguson, MO (for example) from ever trending on Twitter, simply by killing every phone talking to a particular tower.
Or by shutting down the tower or by saying, "Phone number (whatever) cannot communicate with this tower."
And yet, somehow they haven't done this.
So your situation is something you saw on 24?
Before Snowden we would have said the same thing about mass government surveillance.
And ...what, also delete photos already uploaded elsewhere? Or stop new phones coming in ? Or TV crews? Or does in your scenario the government bricks phones continuously, and yet somehow you think people would just be "ok" with this and it's a function you'd ever be able to use more then exactly once?