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
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Funny)
He described how the kill switch is triggered by the authorities, and how the kill switch, in turn, is a component in a vast collection of kill switches called our formerly free culture.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The kill switch is really a flat-out plate of poo supported on the back of a tortoise-like electorate."
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What are the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
She then showed the security expert the kill switch controlling his pacemaker, and he turned a whiter shade of pale.
(a shameless mooching from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly don't want to be the poo when the tortoise-like electorate decide to mate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"But it's turtles all the way down!"
'All the way down... to what?'
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
'All the way down... to what?'
To the turtles, silly.... ;)
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
((This message is encrypted with double-ROT13 to ensure security and privacy.))
Re:Slippery slope (Score:4, Interesting)
We already have this.
I just stopped a consulting job at a well known software company in Redmond, WA. - a man has to eat and feed his kids after all - On the day after my last workday, I booted the laptop I had used for the contract - it had company installed operating system software on it from over the network as that was a requirement - expecting it to log in and extract my "hours worked" data before I flattened it and formatted the NTFS partition. I was going to do the right thing. Turns out I did not need to; It had just stopped working. No login worked at all, and my IRS data that had been kept on the laptop per contract requirements had to be extracted via a "INSERT Linux" boot disk and a USB thumdrive so I could flatten/format the NTFS partition like I was going to anyway before I sent the hardware back (INSERT Linux is great for this, btw), minus any sensitive data.
They already have the power to time-bomb and kill switch your computer; It's already happened to me, and most people just don't know its possible yet and wont expect it - as I did not - when it happens to them.
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:Slippery slope (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the owners of the laptop have that capability, which seems to me to be just fine.
Circular reasoning. Ownership, by definition, is the right to control.
The question here is, who has ownership? The contractor here has the not unreasonable expectation that his laptop would continue to operate so he could get his own stuff (ie. stuff that he owned long term) off it, stuff that his contract required him to put there. There should have been some level of protocol before ownership of the laptop returned to the corp so that his own stuff could be disentangled from it. At a bare minimum they should have told him this was going to happen.
The problem with DRM like this is that it usually has only a tenuous relationship with the complexities of the real world. It often interferes with one set of ownership rights while claiming to protect another.
---
You're a fool if you think advertising pays for anything at all.
Re:Slippery slope (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, I work at Microsoft right now, and I can flat out say that there's nothing odd about this.
Active Directory has the ability to expire accounts at a certain date/time. Your account was set to expire when you left the company. One side effect of this is that you can't log in to your notebook.
You could have logged in as local administrator, had you known the password. I don't know the local admin password to my system at Microsoft. This is also not unusual.
When you join your machine to the AD domain, the company gets to take control. That's the way it has been in every company that I've worked for. That's why FTEs at Microsoft get company-provided hardware. I'm not sure what the policy is for contractors.
I had to give back my company-owned notebook at Agilent when I left. God forbid.
OnStar (no thanks) (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
block on star (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:block on star (Score:4, Interesting)
3) In the event you have a serious accident and are unconscious or hurt in the middle of nowhere, they can still contact help for you (unlikely?)
Very likely for those of us that live:
Not every one lives in a city and not every road is in a heavily traveled suburban area. Not convinced, count the number of cars that pass by you during a January night on Alaska-1 (one of the busiest Alaskan highways) near Denali. I bet you will only need one hand.
Re:block on star (Score:5, Funny)
My in-laws live on a rural mountain road with a cell phone tower just across the river. A while back, someone with an Onstar equipped vehicle drove off the road, and down a bank. The brush closed behind them, and their vehicle didn't make any noticeable marks on the side of the road. The ONLY reason the authorities found them was because Onstar told them exactly where to find their car.
The fact that they were drunk, and trying to avoid the authorities is another matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing for them they did not hit the cell phone tower. I honestly thought that that's where you were going--if they took out their own only hope of rescue
That would be Wrought Irony -- kind of like regular irony, but a bit twisted.
Not to be confused with Goldy or Bronzy, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is that really remote areas also have crappy cell phone service, which is what On*star uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you still need cell phone service for Onstar to work. (And digital service now...cars with the older analog Onstar phones are now unable to use the service.) I wonder about the rural areas you mention actually having digital cell phone service.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that in some of those areas, Onstar might not do any good anyway.
I remember the good ol' days... (Score:2)
Where you just pulled the fuses on the traction control, "door bongs," disabled the rev limiter and top speed limiter, and maybe the ABS and EBD if you like it rough. Nowadays you have all these newfangled tracking (OnStar, insurace rate-adjusting OBDII plugins) and advanced nannying systems (Nissan R35 GTR).
Ah, to get back to the good ol' days...
One small worry- (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:New host of problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
And as was discussed in the original "airplane kill switch" thread, the Pentagon wasn't asking for a "kill switch". They wanted a "non-lethal weapon" for stopping airplanes: a much more difficult problem.
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.
Don't forget personal cars and trucks (Score:2)
Cops want that today as well.
In Flight (Score:3, Interesting)
Lo-jack seems to have been fairly effective in stopping auto thieves. I don't really see an "After the Sunset" [imdb.com] remotely hacked limousine scenario developing in real life.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I don't know that much about aerodynamics, but I suspect at 30,000FT that might result in an uncontrolled decent.
It would be more logical to just force the plane into autopilot and bring her in on her own power to the nearest secure location. As it passenger planes don't really "need" a pilot these days and most pilot
It will glide (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In Flight (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know that much about aerodynamics, but I suspect at 30,000FT that might result in an uncontrolled decent.
Clearly, you don't. An airplane will glide just fine, thank you. Here's an example of an A330 losing all power and covering 100 km in 19 minutes, to a successful dead-stick landing: http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/azoresdeadstick.html [iasa.com.au]
This sort of training is among the most basic of fundamentals, and taught to every pilot before he first solos.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I don't know that much about aerodynamics, but I suspect at 30,000FT that might result in an uncontrolled decent.
I suggest you check out the stories of the 'Gimli Glider' [wikipedia.org] and Air Transat Flight 236 [wikipedia.org] - both well documented cases of aircraft losing all engines at or near cruise height, and resulting in a successful landing of the aircraft.
It would be more logical to just force the plane into autopilot and bring her in on her own power to the nearest secure location. As it passenger planes don't really "need" a pilot these days and most pilots just are there in case something went wrong and to of course set the autopilot.
No, a pilot has to be in control to successfully intercept the ILS signal, the autopilot currently cannot do that on its own - thus there is no way to bring an aircraft down from cruise to land without help from the flight deck.
Re:In Flight (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know that much about aerodynamics, but I suspect at 30,000FT that might result in an uncontrolled decent.
That happens every day, but there's nothing "uncontrolled" about it. A standard descent from cruise in an airliner involves pulling the throttles to idle and letting the aircraft come down. Ideally (for greatest efficiency), the engines would stay at idle until you're lining up on final and the gear/flaps come out. Then you have to spool them back up to hold the proper airspeed and glidepath. Up till recently, however, the ATC system and the limitations of aircraft autopilots couldn't handle this, and there would be periods where you level off for a bit, then "step" down again, and so on. But FedEx, UPS, and others are now working on implementing this in the real world. Look up Continuous Descent Arrival.
As a pilot, I do not trust automated systems as far as I can throw them. Granted, I only fly small airplanes that don't have fancy autopilots and flight management systems... but I've also worked avionics development and test for airplanes that do (my day job is engineering). Autopilots do not replace thinking. They take some of the load off the pilots' hands so they can concentrate on other, more complicated things, such as planning a new course around thunderstorms or handling ATC and other traffic. There is no AI component to autopilots, they simply follow a programmed course.
Commercial flight only (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Agree wholeheartedly.
I don't mind DRM as much in the context of the Netflix DVD model. I just don't have the emotional involvement in something that gets returned the day after I watch it. Ownership demands control. Renting permits a carefree attitude.
I'd buy a Kindle in a second if it could tap into the local library system. I don't want to own the books. I just want to read them and move on.
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.
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
She does [wordpress.com]
Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly for the airplane switch if it puts the plane into some kind of automatic mode that directs it to land at one of some list of approved airports. Do that to a couple dozen planes at once and see if their unmanned landing system can cope with lots of congestion both in the airspace around the airport and with the planes on the ground.
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.
New Tag (Score:2)
As I read stories like this one, I have found myself saying out loud "we are so fucked".
So thats how I will tag these stories from now on "wearesofucked"
At what point.. (Score:2, Funny)
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 [theregister.co.uk]
NO CARRIER
Simple questions, simple answers (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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 conc
Re: (Score:2)
What if I start referring to myself as an Idividual rather than an individual...
.
.
.
.
... would that make me sufficiently capitalized...?
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_?
Can these be installed in politicians? (Score:2)
Can these be installed in politicians?
I'm telling MIT to get right on this.
Stock up on the firearms (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one "kill switch" they'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands.
Yeah right.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence, the admonition to "stock up" while they still don't.
The NRA has the power to stop that. (Score:2)
The NRA has the power to stop that.
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.
"Digital Manners Policies" needs to have a 911 law (Score:2)
"Digital Manners Policies" needs to have a 911 law that forces a override just like how you can dial even if you don't have a sim card in the phone.
The Ballot Box (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who counts the votes? Who decides who gets on the ballot?
Does This Remind Anyone Else? (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sung to the tune of "Turkey in the Hay"
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points, I wish I had mod points, I wish I had mod points...
by the numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Case of the entrapment car and the kill switch (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Ask a lawyer (Score:2)
Movie Theater Soluion (Score:2)
Should never be mandatory. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
The Danger of Technology (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Offtopic)
FROM comments
WHERE poster_name='Anonymous Coward';
Re:Bad query, bad idea (Score:4, Informative)
Except those Scientology ones a while back...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Oh, wonderful! (Score:4, Informative)
Prevent the first five posts from being either Anonymous Cowards or user accounts registered within the last three days.
Not that it's exactly a "kill switch", per se, as that requires some entity with control, as opposed to an automated process doing its job.
I believe the airplane kill switches discussed previously are intended to force the plane to an autopilot mode programmed with a large number of no-fly zones, as opposed to simply immobilizing the controls.
That said, it's still up in the air on features for those; I wouldn't be surprised if the ultimate winner allows full remote control; that is somewhere the implementation (and operational) security needs to be bulletproof.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, my grandmother was recently on the list for a lung transplant. The transplant team was to notify her via cell phone that they had a lung ready for her. Now, if she went to a movie theater where there was an "Auto-power off device" and some kid making 6 dollars an hour forgot to put up the sign saying that the device was active then she could have missed her chance to get a lung trans
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.
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.
Re: (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
Re: (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 t
Re:What About the Benefits?? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. You got me there!
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:What About the Benefits?? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:2)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, overrides are a good idea, and I think Khan would agree with you:
"Sir, our shields are dropping!"
"Raise them!"
"I can't!"
"The override... where's the override?!"
*explosions*
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?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
That's bullshit.
OBD2 is predominantly based on the SAE J1939 application-layer protocol, and the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus. Whilst J1939 specifies the cyclic transmission of ECU identification information, in no part of the as-implemented OBD2 specification is there provision for antennae to 'broadcast VIN, speed' etc.
Try grabbing yourself a copy of the specification - it's available from SAE and ISO. The prurient specifications are ISO 15765 for the modern set of diagnostics (UDS), along with SAE's
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Either that word doesn't mean what you think it means or you're way too into SAE and ISO standards :).