kill switch
Latest
Police say Apple's anti-theft switches have dramatically reduced iPhone thefts
When mobile sales are booming, smartphone thefts are almost certain to rise. That's something San Francisco and New York prosecutors George Gascón and Eric Schneiderman have been telling smartphone makers for over a year, but now they're finally making some headway. After pressuring Apple to implement a "kill switch" inside its devices, the New York Times reports that police officers in London and San Francisco saw iPhone robberies in the cities fall by 24 percent and 38 percent respectively in the six months before and after the company implemented its Activation Lock feature inside iOS 7. Over in New York, robberies were down by 19 percent and those involving grand larcenies dropped 29 percent when the police compared data in the first five months of 2014 with the same period from 2013.
Minnesota beats California to the punch, signs smartphone kill-switch into law
The Governor of Minnesota just signed a bill that could change the cellphone industry forever: a mandatory kill-switch law. The bill was written as a criminal deterrent: if a stolen phone can be remotely disabled, stealing smartphones may become a less lucrative crime. A study conducted at Creighton University suggests that such a measure could save consumers upwards of $2.5 billion a year, but it could prove expensive for carriers. The law has the potential to gut profits from selling cellphone insurance, sure, but implementing a feature for a single state isn't cost effective -- Minnesota's kill-switch requirement might bring the feature to the entire nation.
California law could end grand theft mobile with kill-switches in all smartphones
Lawmakers in California are so intent on curbing record levels of smartphone theft, they're ready to fine phone makers if anti-theft measures aren't installed on their devices. The New York Times reports that the order will come from State Senator Mark Leno, who is set to introduce a new bill requiring all smartphones and tablets sold in the state to include a "kill switch" solution that would lock down a device if it was stolen. Ignore the ruling and there's a $2,500 fine for each device sold. San Francisco and New York prosecutors George Gascón and Eric Schneiderman set the ball rolling when they met with representatives from Apple, Google, Samsung and Microsoft last year. Apple has since won praise for including its Activation Lock feature by default in iOS 7, requiring device owners to set a passcode that stops thieves reactivating a stolen phone (but could be unlocked with a username and password). While it would only officially cover California, the new law could force phone makers into a full US rollout, likely upsetting the carriers. The CTIA, which represents the likes of AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint, believes its stolen-phone database is a better solution and will fight the ruling. If it is signed into law, phone makers will have until January 1st, 2015 to implement a solution or they will not pass Go and will be forced to pay out a lot more than $200.
US carriers don't want to give smartphone users an anti-theft kill switch
Earlier this year, lawmakers in San Francisco and New York joined forces in an initiative called "Secure our Smartphones" that would encourage manufacturers to include a so-called "kill switch" in future phones to address the growing problem of handset theft. According to George Gascon, San Francisco's district attorney, carriers are determined to kill the kill switch initiative. The New York Times reports that Gascon was in talks with Samsung to pre-load software that would allow customers to deactivate stolen handsets, similar to iOS 7's Activation Lock. However, inclusion of the software would require approval from US carriers, and the likes of AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint weren't having it. According to Gascon, it appeared that the companies in question rejected the idea because it could cut into the revenue they make from cellphone insurance. In response, the CTIA, which represents the carriers, says it already has a solution in the stolen phone database that went live last year. However, some say that solution falls short, as it doesn't address those devices that end up overseas, out of the reach of the database. A Samsung spokeswoman had this to say in a statement to The New York Times: "We are working with the leaders of the Secure Our Smartphones (S.O.S.) Initiative to incorporate the perspective of law enforcement agencies. We will continue to work with them and our wireless carrier partners towards our common goal of stopping smartphone theft."
Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
Picture this: You're out for a stroll on the streets of Vancouver when suddenly you find yourself caught up in a depressed mob of hockey fans. Riot police are striking a young man with their batons near a squad car. You pull out your iPhone to capture a video of this seeming abuse of force -- only to see a flashing message on the screen that says 'Recording Disabled.' Earlier this month, Patently Apple analyzed a patent application filing that Apple originally submitted in December of 2009. The patent application covered several ways to communicate with a cellphone through its camera using a coded infrared light transmission. Simply pointing your phone's camera at a properly equipped museum exhibit, for example, could load a webpage about the artifact on display or offer additional details about its origins. An auction house or fashion show could easily provide pricing, availability or 'click to bid' buttons. The technology would work like a giant, invisible QR code -- although it couldn't do the bidirectional sharing that Google's demo showed earlier. You also couldn't block it with a bit of masking tape, since the infrared data stream is captured by the phone's camera itself, not by a separate sensor. That's the user-affirming side of the patent. The other big use case, however, is for the infrared transmission to tell the phone "Hey, no pictures here!" The suggested applications are for concert halls, movie theaters or even sensitive corporate/government facilities -- giving those venue owners an easy way to block photography or videotaping of copyrighted or classified materials. Whether you think that's a terrible idea or an awesome idea may rest on whether or not you own a concert hall or a movie theater. Of course, Apple patents or patent applications often don't evolve into actual, shipping Apple products. (Remember the 'undead ads for content time' patent? Ick.) Nevertheless, even in the hypothetical case, the spectre of a 'kill switch' for the iPhone camera is not sitting all that well in certain circles. The Save the Internet coalition has published a suggested open letter to Steve Jobs that suggests this patent application is deeply repugnant to the ideals of freedom: "[T]housands of people across the Middle East have used cellphone cameras to document violent government abuses. This technology would also give tyrants the power to stem the flow of protest videos and crack down on their citizens with impunity." The petition continues, "If this tool fell into the hands of repressive regimes or malicious corporations, it would give tyrants and companies the power to silence one of the most critical forms of free expression." Now, there's a wide gulf between blocking cameras at concerts and quashing dissent by democratic activists -- at least in theory. First of all, would-be repressive regimes would have to set up expensive equipment in advance, which would work only at short range -- and even if they did that there'd be no guarantee that all the phones in the area would comply with the invisible orders, so the requisite shakedown of all camera-enabled devices by armed enforcers would still have to be done. In the chaos and commotion of the kind of situations that would tend to motivate large-scale iPhone videography, it's by no means clear that this 'kill switch' would even work. As my colleague Chris Rawson points out, your average infrared TV remote control is thoroughly flummoxed by simple sunlight. None of this, however, means that it's prudent to stand atop the slippery slope of external device controls and say "Looks like a nice ride down." It's easy to think, as I did when first reading the admittedly hyperbolic language of the petition, "Look, the iPhone is not the only camera in the world; professional bootleg videographers don't use crappy cameraphones at all, protesters have many different kinds of phones and cameras at their disposal, and as soon as this capability gets rolled out people will simply jump to another platform to work around it." [Never mind the fact that Flickr now shows the iPhone 4 as the most popular camera on the site, bar none. –Ed.] The problem is that market reaction takes time, and in the thought experiment I played out at the beginning of this post there's no time to react. If you were in a traffic stop that went wrong, a political rally with a bad outcome, a movie theater where someone was being assaulted -- there's no chance to go back in time and say "You know, that iPhone camera kill switch may not have been such a good idea after all." It's impossible to say, without access to Apple's labs, whether this technology is truly viable, whether it would work in daylight, and whether it could really be used in the situations envisioned by the petition writers. It's equally impossible to say whether Apple intends to implement and commercialize this invention, or even if the company's patent application would be granted. Maybe Apple's secret objective in pursuing this patent is not to implement it in products -- to keep the concept off the market in perpetuity, or at least for the life of the patent. But that doesn't seem likely, and in the absence of comment from Apple about whether and how the capability would be implemented in future iPhones (a comment that is undoubtedly not coming anytime soon), all we have is our questions.
Google flips Android kill switch, destroys a batch of malicious apps (update)
When 21 rogue apps started siphoning off identifying information from Android phones and installing security holes, Google yanked the lot from Android Market, and called the authorities to boot. But what of the 50,000 copies already downloaded by unwitting users? That's what Google's dealing with this week, by utilizing Android's remote kill switch to delete them over the air. But that's not all, because this time the company isn't just removing offending packages, but also installing new code. The "Android Market Security Tool March 2011" will be remotely added to affected handsets to undo the exploit and keep it from sending your data out, as well as make you wonder just how much remote control Google has over our phones. Yes, we welcome our new Search Engine overlords and all that, so long as they've got our best interests at heart, but there's a certain irony in Google removing a backdoor exploit by using a backdoor of its own -- even one that (in this case) will email you to report what it's done. Update: TechCrunch says there were 58 malicious apps and 260,000 affected phones in total.
Apple attempts to patent kill switch that roots out unauthorized users, detects jailbreaks
digg_url = 'http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/21/apple-attempts-to-patent-kill-switch-that-roots-out-unauthorized/'; Just about every mobile operating system manufacturer can remotely delete apps from the smartphones they help provide, but if a recent patent application is any indication, Apple's looking to lock down the whole enchilada on future devices. The basic concept is as simple as the diagram above -- certain activities trigger the phone to think it's in the wrong hands -- but the particular activities and particular remedies Apple suggests extend to audiovisual spying (to detect if a user has a different face or voice than the owner), and complete remote shutdown. While the patent mostly sounds targeted at opt-in security software and would simply send you an alert or perform a remote wipe if your phone were stolen or hacked, jailbreaking and unlocking are also explicitly mentioned as the marks of an unauthorized user, and one line mentions that cellular carriers could shut down or cripple a device when such a user is detected. Sounds great for securing phones at retail, sure, but personally we'd rather devices don't determine our authority by monitoring our heartbeat (seriously, that's an option) and we're plenty happy with the existing Find My iPhone app.
Google flexes biceps, flicks Android remote kill switch for the first time
We knew Google had the power to remotely remove Android apps -- Microsoft and Apple have backdoors into their mobile operating systems, too -- but it's always a little disconcerting to see a kill switch used. Such is the case today, as we've just heard Google unleashed the hounds this week, siccing bits and bytes of remote deletion power on a pair of "practically useless" but still Terms of Service-infringing apps. Curiously enough, Google admits that most who'd downloaded these programs had deleted them already, and that this "exercise" of the remote application removal feature was merely a cleanup operation. Google says users will get a notification beamed to their phone if an app is removed, however -- so as Big Brother as that all sounds, at least the company's being nice and transparent about the whole matter, eh? Update: To be clear, the developers of the offending apps had already removed them from the Android Market, so this was technically a cleanup. The only question is why Google would go out of its way to mop up an app that absolutely no one would miss. [Thanks, Matt]
The internet kill switch and other lies the internet told you
Last week, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, led by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) became the subject of some debate when news spread that it was calling for a so-called "internet kill switch" which would give the President the power to shut down the whole darn thing in a state of emergency. Apparently, however, nobody bothered to do any research into the topic until very recently -- and of course, the truth is far more complicated than a horrifying phrase like "internet kill switch." Because as it turns out, according to the 1934 Communications Act (which is still in effect today), the President already has the power to shut down any and all telecommunications systems in situations he or she deems it necessary for national security, and Lieberman's call was for a reassessment of the Act. So what are Lieberman's evil plans for the 'net? His proposal, S. 3480, is a far more subtle document than the original act, which essentially says "hey, do whatever you have to do, man," and calls for the designation of cyberspace as a 'national asset.' It asks for the private owners of critical infrastructure to develop risk assessment plans, and plans to mitigate that risk, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security. There are also several recommended procedures called for in the event of an emergency, but none of them have anything to do with a mechanism to shut anything down, and the director would be expressly prohibited from requiring owners to use any specific mechanism. So... the exact opposite of a kill switch. Also, it's worthwhile to note that the entire proposition calls for these changes to be developed by the private sector itself, rather than imposed on it. Kind of makes the story a little less interesting, that's for sure. Hit up the source -- Talking Points Memo -- for a far more detailed, insightful account of what's actually going down.
Disgruntled auto salesman bricks cars with remote kill-switch
Over the years, a number of optional technologies have allowed new auto buyers to remotely disable and / or recover their vehicles after purchase, but these devices aren't always optional, and it might not even be the buyer who activates them. According to Threat Level, a man has been charged in Austin, Texas for allegedly hacking into the computer of his employer, Texas Auto Center, and activating WebTeck remote horn triggers and kill devices installed in over 100 cars owned by the company's customers -- all from the comfort of home. After Texas Auto Center reset the offending software's passwords and figured out what's what, the Austin High Tech Crime Unit quickly traced access back to one Omar Ramos-Lopez and made an arrest -- but for many, the damage (in terms of missed work, school and tow-truck calls) had already been done. Care to form an opinion? Read more about the crime, and WebTeck, at our source links.
Sony's secret kill switch: myth, rumor or hearsay?
Could there be something lurking deep inside your Sony laptop or TV programmed to break the device as soon as the warranty expires? That may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory not far off those involving the mysterious deaths of engineers, but it's a theory that continues to persist to some degree in Japan, and even seems to have grown in recent years. As Telegraph.co.uk reports, the belief in a secret timer or "kill switch" has been around for the past twenty years or so, but it apparently took on some newfound momentum amid the rash of Sony laptop battery failures, which even prompted some Sony execs to publicly deny that such a switch exists. The kill switch apparently isn't completely pervasive though, as the PlayStation 3 is supposedly "exempt," thereby explaining its considerable success in Japan -- although there's some talk that's because it's a Trojan horse for Sony's next big scheme: mind control disguised as 3D glasses.
Windows Mobile 6.5 joins the ranks of iPhone and Android with its own app kill switch
Earliest this week the internet alarms rang loud with word that Microsoft had added an app "kill switch" to its upcoming Windows Mobile 6.5 platform. Of course, such a kill switch is not unprecedented, as both the Android and iPhone platforms have their own variant. A Microsoft rep recently relayed a message of peace to assuage fears, telling Ars Technica that the vast majority of app rejections won't cause a remote uninstall, and it'll only be used if the app "exhibits harmful behavior or unforeseen effects" -- not that we're entirely assured by the latter scenario, but wording aside, it does echo statements from the aforementioned companies that have so far been very conservative with its use (i.e. we can't recall a single instance of its use). "While we hope to avoid this scenario," he said, "we will make refunds available in such cases." Only time will tell just how trigger happy Microsoft gets, assuming they ever use it. Hey, just be happy we know about it -- remember the last time we were surprised to discover such a feature?
Windows 7 runs free without activation for 120 days with simple command
We know how it is: you've paid $300 for your brand new copy of Windows 7, but what a hassle to enter in that activation code! Well, you don't have to worry about it now for a good four months after install: Microsoft has given its sort-of blessing to a simple hack to keep that non-activated copy of Windows 7 humming for a full 120 days before full-on nag mode sets in. All you have to do is enter "slmgr -rearm" into the command prompt at the end of every 30 day period, and your copy of Windows gets a whole new lease on life -- an action that can be repeated three times. The same command is available to Vista users, and we have to say that Microsoft has come a very long way since its unforgiving WGA kill switch days. [Via Telegraph]
Google implemented remote kill switch in Android, those rascals
Remember the outrage at Apple's inclusion of a sneaky application kill switch in the iPhone 3G? Yeah, well, Google's got one too. This time, however, it wasn't discovered by some meddling developer, Google owns up to it from right inside the Android Market terms of service: "Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion" Google then claims that it will make "reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the product ... from the original developer on your behalf." This on top of the Android Market's policy which allows you to "return" (er, how, it's electronic?) any application within 24 hours for a full refund. Aw shucks Google, come over here and give us a hug.
Google outs remote kill switch in Android, those rascals
Remember the outrage at Apple's inclusion of a sneaky application kill switch in the iPhone 3G? Yeah, well, Google's got one too. This time, however, it wasn't discovered by some meddling developer, Google owns up to it from right inside the Android Market terms of service: "Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion" Google then claims that it will make "reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the product ... from the original developer on your behalf." This on top of the Android Market's policy which allows you to "return" (er, how, it's electronic?) any application within 24 hours for a full refund. Aw shucks Google, come over here and give us a hug.
OLPC project has a remote "kill switch" for resold laptops
Perhaps it says something about a project if there's a likelihood the handouts will be resold for something actually useful, like food or shelter, but have no fear: Nick Neg and his OLPC crew even have a solution to that potential "problem" facing future owners of the XO. According to the recent Reuters report on the project, the laptops can be remotely shut down to help prevent the selling the devices on the black market, though details of exactly how this works aren't forthcoming. We suppose there's always the danger the laptops could be stolen, and this could prove a bit of a deterrent to that, but there's always going to be some value to the actual components of the laptop even if the locking code proves impenetrable -- which seems unlikely. "For people earning one dollar a day the temptation to sell it for $300 will be very strong," says Wayan Vota of OLPC News. Heck, who couldn't use a quick $300?[Via Techdirt]
