Cell Phone Kill Switches Are A Slippery Slope For Abusive Governments
from the you're-not-helping dept
Last Spring, wireless carriers and the government jointly announced that they'd be collaborating on building a new nationwide database to track stolen phones (specifically the IMEI number). The goal was to reduce the time that stolen phones remain useful, thereby drying up the market for stolen phones and reducing the ability of criminals to use the devices to dodge surveillance. The move came after AT&T was sued for not doing enough to thwart cellphone theft, the lawsuit alleging AT&T was intentionally lax on anti-theft practices because stolen phone re-activations were too profitable. After regulator pressure, AT&T launched new stolen device blocking tools and re-vamped their website with security tips.Law enforcement has complained that none of these efforts have done much to stop cell theft and resale, in large part because phones stolen here are simply taken overseas and used there. This in turn prompted a push for new "kill switch" legislation in both New York and most recently San Francisco, in addition to a new bill proposed by Senator Amy Klobuchar we discussed last month. While perhaps well-intentioned, all of the bills have one thing in common: they forget that if you can kill your phone remotely, so then can governments, hackers, and anybody else.
Those concerns are part of the reason cell carriers oppose kill switch legislation (again, that and they profit off of re-activations and new plans), and the worries shouldn't be taken lightly. There's a long, long list of examples where remote or artificial termination technology (Monsanto's wonderful scientific advancements are the first to come to mind) isn't a particularly great idea. Information Week tries to hash through some of these to illustrate the dangers of the concept and its contribution to a broader surveillance state, where the control over your personal devices could become an illusion and institutionalized control becomes a threat:
"Mandatory phone kill switches will hasten the arrival of the Surveillance of Everything, an unavoidable consequence of the so-called Internet of Things. Using technology to extend the reach of property rights make as much sense for other objects as it does for phones. But in so doing, individual property rights mingle with social mores and government prerogatives. Nothing is truly yours on someone else's network....Consider a recent Google patent application, "System and Method for Controlling Mobile Device Operation," which describes research to help in "correcting occasional human error," such as when phones have not been silenced in a movie theater.Granted governments could still shut down the BART network on protesters (one of the first examples the author gives) or kill Internet access in Egypt without necessarily needing a kill switch. A gifted hacker might also be able to remotely brick your current phone. But why would you want to make it any easier? There's countless other ways to combat cell phone theft that doesn't involve making an entire industry considerably less secure.
The thing about kill switches is that they're a manifestation of digital rights management. In the hands of individuals, perhaps they're a good idea. But they won't remain in the hands of individuals. They will be used by companies, organizations, and governments, too. And even when people believe they have control of their kill switches, authorities and hackers can be expected to prove otherwise."
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: bart, egypt, kill switch, wireless
Companies: at&t
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ya ok
imagine them trying to put a kill switch into a baby cam/headphone set....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Global problem global database
It's not like replicating that data would be difficult; nor is searching a well structured database computationally intensive. These same numbers are already used to associate the customer to account information (and if not this is a very small extra thing to track).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Smartphone kill switches are already way past the slippery slope. You've already arrived at the bottom of the slope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I mean, that is not even inviting it anymore, that is a huge neon sign visible from the moon saying "shut down my infrastructure, I beg you".
and to anyone saying this is unlikely to happen, I only refer you to the general handling of security issues by government and telcos...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doesn't solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Kill switch for phones..
Same goes for police repeaters, both conventional and trunked.
Destroy the controller,and smash the equipment, the site is dead. In times of civil unrest, this will be a necessity.
Deny government the ability to communicate, and you silence them. Take all sites down, not just one, then you can also run interference by jamming point to point comms and car to car communications.
For government to get involved with private parties and personal property and how it's used, is not going to sit well with the people, and shouldn't.
Government has no right nor business meddling with the affairs of business and private individuals, and what they do. Far too many 'laws' already, dictating what the people can and can not do, which is far beyond the constitutional limits that were placed on government at the onset of our nation's founding. Keep government OUT of the private transactions of the people, that's all they need to do....BUTT OUT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Willl the government's cell phones have kill switches too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Willl the government's cell phones have kill switches too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doesn't solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Willl the government's cell phones have kill switches too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dystopian future already here?
She has no proof that any action was taken to stop her from taking photos (didn't record the support call...), so if this was an act of censorship, noone is the wiser. Anyhow, I think this problem may already be among us, along with several other methods of targeting activists.
I personally can't wait for the full scope of these operations to be thoroughly exposed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doesn't solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Doesn't solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How to defeat a cyber attack on infrastructure
1) don't put vital infrastructure where an attacker could get at it.
2) ignore that advice and then spend billions of dollars on security systems that are circumvented the day after they're released, complete with NSA-mandated backdoors...and wonder how the attackers kep getting in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The whole "cyber defense" strategy of US is such a farce, because most of what they do there is *offensive* stuff, and making our systems LESS secure by hoarding all the exploits and trying to subvert encryption in products, and influencing NIST and RSA to put poor security tools out there.
But they actually have an INCENTIVE to do just that, because the less secure our systems are, the more they can yell about the government giving them more powers and more funds to "fix it" (i.e. make it worse).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kill the kill switch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lets put kill switches on the criminals(Not as in killing them although I despise thieves).
Is this a very serious crime(Theft is, in my opinion)?
Does the punishment fit(I know it can be up to $150 000 for infringing copyright on a $20 movie or a $0.99 song, what is it for outright stealing a $500 cell phone?)?
We don't need more laws or other methods of control, we can just enforce existing laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]