Killing The iPhone Kill Switch
from the inevitable dept
Well, it was really only a matter of time. After Steve Jobs confirmed that Apple had included an application "kill switch" in the new iPhone to disable any app it wanted remotely, someone was bound to kill the kill switch. And, indeed, apps are popping up that will let you disable the kill switch -- though only on a "jail broken" iPhone. Still, it does make you wonder how useful the kill switch really is when it can be so easily disabled.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hacking, iphone, kill switch, steve jobs
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let Users Decide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let Users Decide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let Users Decide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let Users Decide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this even legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this even legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this even legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this even legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this even legal?
And that is why I have not "licensed" an iphone.
There are plenty of alternatives, some may even be a better deal - go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill the Kill Switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill the Kill Switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kill the Kill Switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kill the Kill Switch
My guess is Apple is looking for an easy way to shut down any virus threat. Microsoft showed that with market share comes attacks.
I'm not saying that they came up with a good solution, just looking for motivation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kill the Kill Switch
because the iPhone is sexy awesome and you will trade your freedom, your soul and your dignity to have one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Is this even legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes total sense if you consider why it's there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New app available...
In your iFace iJobs!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I believe the world needs.
The supporting platform should be some version of linux, and memory upgrades, and storage should be using standards based hardware (such as SD cards for storage).
But whatever the case, the subscriber system should stay out of the rest of the phone, and have no ability to cripple it's functionality. The carrier should sell data, and that's it.
Someone make this phone, and you will own the world.
Zap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I believe the world needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I believe the world needs.
http://www.openmoko.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ongoing dilemma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ongoing dilemma
Apple is acting that this old saying: Don't be afraid We are from the government. We are here to help .)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missed the bigger issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isnt it obvious?
As a security expert I am far more concerned about covert invasions of privacy like this. IF they can install a "kill switch" they can also install a monitoring application to report back. Don't think for one second that Patriot Act proponents havent been lusting after the ultimate surveillance state - and Apple is NOT the first computer manufacturer to put hidden code in their operating system to enable remote access. Another, bigger company has done it ...
To the nay-sayers, I say ... just remember that the thing that enabled Hitler to gain power was his surveillance state - oh yes ... the Stasi in Germany tapped the phones of everyone and used the information to suppress opposition. This is WELL Documented in history. And Those who fail to remember History are Destined to Repeat It.
Welcome to the Information-Control Age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The REAL story behind the story
The phone is sold, not leased or rented - its not legally within Apple's rights to stop a user from doing whatever they want with the device. Legally you can do with a computer what you want, up to the point that you infringe on other people's or companies' rights. So this means you can not use the iPhone legally to mess with the phone network - or to hack others - but given that restriction, if you own the hardware, then Apple has NO LEGAL BASIS to restrict what applications you can load and run. Apple's intellectual property rights in the software do not extend to control over the end user - in legal terms this would be tantamount to saying that you can bypass individual freedoms in the Constitution by writing a contract to do so. Apple has no legal right to remotely intrude on a piece of hardware that it sold - {sold meaning that they gave up all their rights to it and transferred them to another).
It is also not within Apple's rights under Copyright law to restrict what you can DO with their operating system - in this case, whether you can load other applications not owned or licensed by Apple - the Federal Court upheld that in the Browser Wars case between Microsoft and Netscape. You can't enforce a software monopoly legally.
IF someone hacked into Apple and disabled their applications it would be decried (and vigorously prosecuted) as a Federal Crime. The reason their actions with the iPhone 'kill switch' are comparable to a Federal Hacking Crime are the following: (1) its a covert, non-disclosed and in the language of the law, UNAUTHORIZED (authorization being a permission granted by the Owner of the computer) action, done without the consent or permission of the owner, and (2)it can cause Damage to the intent of the end-user (from the perspective of the OWNER of the computer).
It is not similar to security or anti-virus software. This is NOT what anti-virus or security protection software does - those applications are user installed, fully disclosed, and most importantly - the end user can OPT OUT.
What makes this illegal in my mind is that it was not disclosed thus bypassing the consumer's right of consent to this external control. Absent that consent, subsequent access, particularly to disable software that Apple does not own, is totally Unauthorized and in violation of the law (both criminal, 18 USC 1030, as well as anti-trust). Up Front disclosure would at least implicitly require the consumer's consent (or acquiescence).
Apple, hiding this feature was just WRONG. Shame on you.
(and I like Apple).
Its time our society stops being technophyte novices and go back to holding the individual responsible for what they do - with software - just as the individual is held responsible for what they do physcially.
The philosophy of allowing a company or a government to control what we do has been rejected since the founding of the United States - in fact, it was the Reason the country was founded.
People who steal software are called software priates; we need to coin a new phrase to describe companies that try to control individuals - Software Megalomaniacs?
There IS a balance between privacy and individual rights, but as a society we haven't found it yet. I think I've made the case that the Apple approach isn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a very easy way to opt out
If you don't agree with the terms on which the phone is sold and software is licensed to you, that's fine. Nobody is forcing you to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the WORST thing about it is...
This is just another case of apple being greedy, just like with AT&T to kill off Google
SHAME ON THEM!
You know like shame on the simpsons with the finger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think Apple has any interest in shutting down useful, healthy, non-threatening applications. They have no objective there, and quite frankly, they must be too busy to care.
They did, however, open their development platform, and therefore compromise the security of all iPhones. First, hacking, phishing, and identity theft- whatever the case may be, iphones are susceptible. If a particular virus was raging over iphones via a certain application, it would be responsible of Apple to cut them. Apple's remote Access to your iphone probably will never affect your usage (remember- it is meant to be hidden).
Think about it like the emergency exit door on a plane. "OMG, they put a door that you just pull a handle, and it pops open in flight! You could kill all the passengers!" Not exactly the point........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]