I've Seen the Future, and It Has a Kill Switch

Started by MikeWB, December 07, 2008, 05:06:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

MikeWB

Scary future ahead, folks! Combine this 'real-world' control with internet control and we're all in a police state.

QuoteI've Seen the Future, and It Has a Kill Switch
By Bruce Schneier
Wired News

It used to be that just the entertainment industries wanted to control your computers -- and televisions and iPods and everything else -- to ensure that you didn't violate any copyright rules. But now everyone else wants to get their hooks into your gear.
OnStar will soon include the ability for the police to shut off your engine remotely. Buses are getting the same capability, in case terrorists want to re-enact the movie Speed. The Pentagon wants a kill switch installed on airplanes, and is worried about potential enemies installing kill switches on their own equipment.
Microsoft is doing some of the most creative thinking along these lines, with something it's calling "Digital Manners Policies." According to its patent application, DMP-enabled devices would accept broadcast "orders" limiting their capabilities. Cellphones could be remotely set to vibrate mode in restaurants and concert halls, and be turned off on airplanes and in hospitals. Cameras could be prohibited from taking pictures in locker rooms and museums, and recording equipment could be disabled in theaters. Professors finally could prevent students from texting one another during class.
The possibilities are endless, and very dangerous. Making this work involves building a nearly flawless hierarchical system of authority. That's a difficult security problem even in its simplest form. Distributing that system among a variety of different devices -- computers, phones, PDAs, cameras, recorders -- with different firmware and manufacturers, is even more difficult. Not to mention delegating different levels of authority to various agencies, enterprises, industries and individuals, and then enforcing the necessary safeguards.
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?
How do we prevent this from being abused? Can a burglar, for example, enforce a "no photography" rule and prevent security cameras from working? Can the police enforce the same rule to avoid another Rodney King incident? Do the police get "superuser" devices that cannot be limited, and do they get "supercontroller" devices that can limit anything? How do we ensure that only they get them, and what do we do when the devices inevitably fall into the wrong hands?
It's comparatively easy to make this work in closed specialized systems -- OnStar, airplane avionics, military hardware -- but much more difficult in open-ended systems. If you think Microsoft's vision could possibly be securely designed, all you have to do is look at the dismal effectiveness of the various copy-protection and digital-rights-management systems we've seen over the years. That's a similar capabilities-enforcement mechanism, albeit simpler than these more general systems.
And that's the key to understanding this system. Don't be fooled by the scare stories of wireless devices on airplanes and in hospitals, or visions of a world where no one is yammering loudly on their cellphones in posh restaurants. This is really about media companies wanting to exert their control further over your electronics. They not only want to prevent you from surreptitiously recording movies and concerts, they want your new television to enforce good "manners" on your computer, and not allow it to record any programs. They want your iPod to politely refuse to copy music to a computer other than your own. They want to enforce their legislated definition of manners: to control what you do and when you do it, and to charge you repeatedly for the privilege whenever possible.
"Digital Manners Policies" is a marketing term. Let's call this what it really is: Selective Device Jamming. It's not polite, it's dangerous. It won't make anyone more secure -- or more polite.
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

sullivan

I wouldn't become overly concerned about this sort of stuff. Every new trick these shitbags try is quickly matched with a workaround. Technology, instead of becoming their control mechanism, will become their Achilles Heel.
"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally referred to as \'international bankers.\' This little coterie... run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen, seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection."
John F. Hylan (1868-1936) - Former Mayor of New York City

§N9sh2bj

I have a tiny criticism to be taken lightly:
Could be summary with a link to the wired article without all the orwellian double-speak interpretations be posted instead of taking the easy way and reposting their propaganda?

"How do we ensure that only police get the devices, and what do we do when they inevitably fall into the wrong hands?"
That is the same thing.

Lots of fear-based messaging is the intent of this article.  As the author himself plainly states, based on the non-success of DRM it will never work properly.
moved on.
the author does not adopt jewish \'race theory\' or \'darwinism\'.
and believes \'jewish culture\' is mostly one of supporting their organized crime syndicates, with a enough veneer and an organized system of destroying and reshaping other cultures, to obfuscate the truth to most people.