The Future Has a Kill Switch 284
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?"
Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
New host of problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
kill switches for airplanes (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome, now terrorists won't need to hijack airplanes. All they have to do is hijack the means of controlling the killswitches.
Re:New host of problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What About the Benefits?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fine, as long as I don't OWN anything (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Kill switches for kill switch systems (Score:2, Insightful)
If I own it, I'm allowed to modify it. Kill switches don't do anything if they're not connected anymore.
Oh, wonderful! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It doesn't just apply to legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
The same sentiment can be applied to new technologies.
Re:What About the Benefits?? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ?
Re:Fine, as long as I don't OWN anything (Score:1, Insightful)
This economic model we are moving into reminds me a hell of a lot of Condos, where oftentimes you are really just paying a large some of money up front to pay a discounted rent on an apartment.
Did the socialists win the cold war? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Bladerunner, man (Score:3, Insightful)
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_?
Re:What About the Benefits?? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Stock up on the firearms (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one "kill switch" they'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands.
Re:Kill switches for kill switch systems (Score:5, Insightful)
If I own it, I'm allowed to modify it.
Not anymore, especially if the code/design of the "kill switch" is protected under copyright law. DMCA makes you a criminal if you tamper with it.
We just need some watchers to watch the watchers. (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
Re:In Flight (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
And tasers would only be used in cases where the police would have shot you otherwise, right?
Re:Did the socialists win the cold war? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to owning your own property? Why should central authority have the abiity to override everything?
Sounds like maybe Socialism is indistinguishable from Capitalism for an sufficiently non-capitalized individual.
Yeah right.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The kill switch devices will have remotely reprogrammable logic, and once in place, they will not merely throw up their hands and give up the first time the system is defeated...they will just harden it until it is very difficult to subvert.
And subverting it will become a felony, as will disabling the device on your own car, or cell phone, or your camera (so it can't take pictures in "locker rooms and museums"... wtf?).
This is more than a slippery slope...this is teetering on the abyss of Orwell's wildest nightmare.
It's authoritarianism you need to worry about (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What About the Benefits?? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
I'm not (Score:2, Insightful)
I am fine with being treated like a criminal under those conditions.
I'm not.
If I about to pay the full price for something and then not own it - FUCK THAT!
If I'm about to become the owner of nothing and still end up paying for stuff - I'd rather have communism.
At least that way we will all be able to afford the same car, clothes, food and etc.
And when we don't - it will be appointed to us by the government when it decides that we need it.
Re:New host of problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's more than a little simplistic and straw... The biggest application that is advertised is the safe termination of high speed chases (or high-speed joyriding, as many police departments are now thankfully stopping ground chases in favor of air or other pursuit). Currently cops will use things like PIT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver [wikipedia.org]
to spin somebody out, but a killswitch is obviously preferable to this. I don't look at this in terms of property recovery; if somebody steals my car and goes high speed joyriding, I pretty much don't want it back. The killswitch is irrelevent to me IMHO.
Chest-thumping about 'nobody controls MY car but ME' is a bit silly; authorities already have control over how fast I go in my car, where I can go, I have to have registration, insurance, and cops can pull me over at a whim and detain me. I find these more concerning than a theoretical remote disactivation that can potentially save a lot lives.
Honestly, your car is a lot more likely to break down on the highway due to mechanical problems than have a misfire of this; and if it was activated without a warrant / inappropriately, you could sue the party that made the bad decision. I would rather have that than a confused officer ram me off the road.
Re:Oh, wonderful! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
This is the same as using law to control things that society finds unappealing. Hate speech, for example. One would argue that banning hate speech would make the country a much nicer place. However, it isn't about banning the speech. It's about getting people to stop hating each other. Hate speech is just an expression of hatred. And besides, that would violate freedom of speech (no matter how crude one's statements may be.)
If you wanted people to stop being obnoxious and shut off their cell phones in a restaurant, theater, etc., you have to get them to do so themselves, not force their cellphones off.
Re:Oh, wonderful! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why couldn't she put the phone on vibrate herself? Anyhow, it's not just the phone ringing, people talking in the theatre or getting up to take the call outside also disturb the show.
Why is it that so many people come with these extremely contrived arguments when there is talk of using cell phones in theatres? Think about it in the sense of individual vs. collective harm. One person will disturb a hundred others when using a cell phone, cannot this one person adjust his or her life to prevent this?
If it's so important for your grandmother, if her life is at stake, why must she go to the theater? Can't she stay at home and rent a DVD or read a book during that period when it is so vital for her to be near a phone? Wait till she gets her transplant, the inconvenience caused by such a major surgery will be much, much worse than having to watch a DVD instead of a theatre show.
A Safe Bet (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
. . .and so do I. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New host of problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
Chest-thumping about 'nobody controls MY car but ME' is a bit silly; authorities already have control over how fast I go in my car, where I can go, I have to have registration, insurance, and cops can pull me over at a whim and detain me
Well then, once I put this sort of device into my vehicle, which one of those things is going to go away? Oh, you mean that I get all that AND a kill switch. Sounds like a deal.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the owners of the laptop have that capability, which seems to me to be just fine. The question is, should the government?
Re:Kill switches for kill switch systems (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't have to make it illegal. They just have to make it really really incontinent to not have it.
Gas crunch? More hybrids and electric cars?
Well if you don't want to pay for your old gas guzzler anymore and want to get a new car, you'll probably be getting something with more integrated technology. Harder to defeat equipment.
A Ford Model-T will work with this installed or not. Very little to do with electricity there, but in a few years if we ever get affordable all-electric cars, there is going to be some stuff built in that will be much harder to disable with a pair of pliers.
Of course, I'm hoping there is a simple conversion kit for existing engines by then, but many new cars with Bluetooth, On-star, and other crap will probably harder to avoid. They may make a huge gas-tax or emissions tax for your old car. Smog testing? Carbon Tax?
They could just tax you for having a gasoline car until it's more expensive to have one then to sell and get a new integrated car.
I don't want an End-User Agreement with my car, saying that I don't really own it or its software and may not tamper with certain parts.
Although, I think that all you need is to know a mechanic in order to disable it. Canadian Safety inspections are required, if you go to Canadian Tire they will fail you if you don't have Daytime Running Lights installed, even if your car wasn't built with them. They installed a relay before they would pass me and give me my sticker. When renewal came up, I popped the relay off and took it to a small garage licensed for Inspections and they passed it. They could use these "Safety Inspections" as an excuse and just not let you drive legally unless the kill switches are functioning.
But what if they make it illegal? Scan your car or something at a traffic stop (or even traffic light). They could run your plates, check your registration, and check for kill-switches. Being disabled means you get pulled over and a "Fix-it Ticket" or your car towed.
You could maybe spoof it, but then if you get caught then you get an extra charge, like "Giving False Information to a Police Officer" style charge.
There are always going to be hacks. Like homebrew on a PSP.
The hard part is fighting this. If you try to get a law passed protecting privacy, you might as well be trying to "protect lawlessness". If you have nothing to fear, then why are you complaining? It makes everyone safer, how can you object to that? As was said, even trying to protect privacy may result in loopholes being exploited for the greater good.
I can live with the threat of terrorism if it means that I don't have to live under a magnifying glass in a terrarium to make sure I'm safe. Being watched and having a collar on me that "will only be used if you force us to" isn't freedom.
Re:Oh, wonderful! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are countless ways that a single person can momentarily inconvenience others. If it isn't cell-phones, it would be something else.
I haven't heard a cell-phone go off in a theater for years, I think the good old-fashioned technique of social shame seems to be doing a fine job as-is. Forgive me for thinking it asinine that the fact that some person might find something mildly annoying with another person that it should be turned into some technological ban.
If it bothers you so much complain to the theater. If enough people complain they will start to do things. Things like the slides they show at the beginning of the movie to remind people to turn off their phones. If someone is so dense that they don't know enough to turn off their cell phone, trust me, they are probably going to do 10 other things that will annoy you.
kill switch (Score:0, Insightful)
imagine bad guys getting a hold of this technology. incidents of robbery, kidnapings, murder, rape will sky rocket. best of luck trying to sell a car with this "feature."
Re:block on star (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad query, bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New host of problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
They have control to an extent. What they don't have right now is the ability to shut down 1 million cars all in one shot should the public get fed up with them.
As for straitening out the problem, yeah, sure. Some doofus typoes the ID number and confirms it without even checking and your car shuts down. Just as soon as you hike 30 miles in the freezing rain to get a ride, you can call your lawyer and try to sue city hall. Meanwhile, a bill shoots through Congress at record speed granting blanket immunity...
Re:New host of problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
Chest-thumping about 'nobody controls MY car but ME' is a bit silly; authorities already have control over how fast I go in my car, where I can go, I have to have registration, insurance, and cops can pull me over at a whim and detain me.
There's a huge difference between legal control ("if you exceed the speed limit, and we catch you doing it, you'll be fined") and technical control ("your car will refuse to move faster than the speed limit").
All the controls you mentioned are legal ones, but the new one you're lumping in with them is a technical one.
It's the same as why so many people are more concerned by DRM than by copyright laws (even when the DRM simply enforces copyright). One of them lets you use your own judgment, decide for yourself whether the benefit is worth the risk, and deal with corner cases where breaking the law is better than the alternatives. The other takes that choice away from you.
Re:Oh, wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
My father pulls out his smart phone and shows me a video of a first flight he managed (test pilot lingo for the first official flight of an experimental aircraft). The volume wasn't loud, but the sound of the aircraft drew a stare from the father of the kids next to us.
In short... anyone who thinks they should have the authority to kill my cell phone should consider that I'll in turn want the authority to kill your loud, chatty, caffeine-driven kids.
Re:New host of problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with a digital Kill Switch is just like a taser: If there is no residual damage from using the tool, it WILL be abused.
PIT maneuver: damage results to both cars, but you can't install anything on your car top prevent it.
Kill Switch: can be used at any time, since there isn't any damage to any cars as a result.
Just look at the mess with tasers, where they are used very frequently in situations that police wouldn't have used a baton because that would be excessive.
Re:Oh, wonderful! (Score:1, Insightful)
We need to elect leaders who respect human privacy and freedom and not the puppets who are in control now.