Google and Microsoft Plan Kill Switches On Smartphones 137
itwbennett (1594911) writes "Responding to more than a year of pressure, Google and Microsoft will follow Apple in adding an anti-theft "kill switch" to their smartphone operating systems. In New York, iPhone theft was down 19 percent in the first five months of this year. Over the same period, thefts of Samsung devices — which did not include a kill switch until one was introduced on Verizon-only models in April — rose by over 40 percent. In San Francisco, robberies of iPhones were 38 percent lower in the six months after the iOS 7 introduction versus the six months before, while in London thefts over the same period were down by 24 percent. In both cities, robberies of Samsung devices increased. 'These statistics validate what we always knew to be true, that a technological solution has the potential to end the victimization of wireless consumers everywhere,' said San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon."
Re: (Score:3)
TFA is why I have a cheap-assed Android phone.
If it gets stolen, the thing gets remote-wiped five minutes later and I'm only out $150. less than an hour later I can mosey to the store, get another one, and be back on the network with the same phone number, with everything sync'd back up.
I actually don't mind it when other whip out the new shinies, because I know they're paying through the nose for 'em, and to be honest, there really isn't anything in latest/greatest that blows my dress up. *shrug*
Re:iphone 4s (Score:2)
Re:What about a kill switch for Google and Microso (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that theyre the only one not cooperating with governments like China these days. Microsoft has been in agreements with them for years.
Its amazing the spin that people put on reality, whre Google is the one you need to worry about/
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
this is why I don't use gmail, chrome, google docs, android, or nest.
Re: (Score:1)
(Assuming you're Chinese, but even if not, remember the old poem:"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft also records everything, and last time I checked their privacy policy was MUCH less robust than Google's.
And for the record Google offers you the option to opt out of targetted advertising. You'll still get ads, but they stop tracking all of that info.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that theyre the only one not cooperating with governments like China these days. Microsoft has been in agreements with them for years.
Keep up with current events, young'un - Google did an about-face on China over a year ago.
Google Shows China the White Flag of Surrender [telegraph.co.uk]
Google hasn't been the "don't be evil" company for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
In December, it got rid of the measure which notified Chinese users when keywords they were searching for would trigger the country's Great Firewall content blocking system – without telling its users
Sorry, thats not "cooperating" with China. They still do not provide any assistance for the Chinese government looking for dissident info, which is the source of continued strained relationships between the CCP and Google. In fact, China just this month has completly cut the cord to all Google services
They never answered the question... (Score:5, Interesting)
How does stealing smartphones relate to other types of crime? Is it really a thing at all? TFA gives percentage increases but no way to relate that to number of consumers, or actual monetary impact, so there's no way to tell if this is significant, or if it's a problem the average person is likely to run into.
People being hit by falling pianos up 100% this year!
It seems pretty obvious that this is being pursued because it gives the semblance of government helping consumers while at the same time giving government one more tool they can use to control the population. Because gee, that's never happened before...
Re:They never answered the question... (Score:4, Insightful)
If your phone is also your credit card and your medical records, and your financial planner, etc etc, well that is just more data for them to monetize.
Re: (Score:1)
How does stealing smartphones relate to other types of crime? Is it really a thing at all?
New iPhones are probably kept safe by extreme annoyances of iOS 7. If Apple allowed to downgrade iOS back to 6, the theft would go back up.
Re:They never answered the question... (Score:4, Informative)
3 million stolen last year, doubling compared to the previous year
http://thinkprogress.org/econo... [thinkprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I don't know how this happens to people. You're walking around with a $600 bankroll. You keep it in your hands, or in your pocket, at all times. Don't just leave it places, and if you do, make sure it's not around sketchy folk.
The number of thefts where you're sitting on the train next to the door and the thief steals it and books it right as the doors close is...not 3 million. Not anywhere close.
watch my phone get stolen now.
Re: (Score:2)
you vastly underestimate how brazen and opportunistic thieves are. It only takes a couple of seconds, perhaps you sit your phone down on the counter while you take your wallet out to pay for your coffee or it is slightly protruding from your pocket making it an easy target to pick. You give the example of securing a $600 bankroll, guess what, people with $600 bankrolls also get targeted and robbed all the time too.
Re: (Score:2)
whatever. blame the victim.
Re:They never answered the question... (Score:5, Insightful)
I spent approximately 5-10 seconds typing phone theft statistics into Google and it led me to the Office of National Statistics [ons.gov.uk], which says that 4% of 14-24 year-olds were victims of phone theft in the 2011/12 year.
It seems pretty obvious that people carrying small, expensive gadgets around with them are a prime target for thieves, that this is a legitimate, pervasive problem, and that this solution is effective in combating this crime.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
4%, four out of 100, of very young people were victims of phone theft last year. With no knowledge of how many of these were teens losing their phones and telling their parents they were stolen, to save face. How is this a legitimate, pervasive problem? Compared to, oh let's go with, 20% of women getting raped on campus?
Re: (Score:2)
Call the tumblr idiots what you will, but social justice is not what they're after.
Take the natural brattiness of middle class college age kids, coupled with naive idealism, then give them a zero cost (in every sense of the word), zero accountability platform to spout off from? Yup, a recipe for nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice you dont seem to give a fuck how many female non-college students get raped. What the fuck is so special about crime against college kids than crime against people the same age who arent in college?
I picked that factoid out of the air pretty much at random to demonstrate that there were probably more urgent issues than kids getting their iphones stolen. I happen to agree with your point, although I would have phrased it differently.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's a ridiculous false choice. Tech companies can take steps to reduce the likelihood of their devices getting stolen. There is no equivalent actor who can take steps to reduce the likelihood of women getting raped ("men" and "the gummint" really don't count).
Re: (Score:2)
But it's a ridiculous false choice. Tech companies can take steps to reduce the likelihood of their devices getting stolen. There is no equivalent actor who can take steps to reduce the likelihood of women getting raped ("men" and "the gummint" really don't count).
My original point being, putting a remote kill switch in every cell phone is a solution to what is largely a non-problem (affecting percentages of the population in low single digits), and it gives government unprecedented control over our access to information. For this reason, government will push for this solution to a very small problem while they continue to ignore much larger problems. Because, if I haven't made it clear yet, it benefits them greatly. While benefiting us hardly at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what your original point was. I don't know why you think it's useful to repeat it here. I wasn't taking issue with it. I was taking issue with your ridiculous false choice. Which remains ridiculous (as well as offensive to rape victims).
Is it really that hard for you to reflect on the analogy you drew and either admit it was ridiculous and offensive or alternative stfu? You could pretend you were having an actual conversation with another human in a bar, where women might be present who could have ov
Re: (Score:2)
On your original point.
Pervasive is in the eye of the beholder. It may not be enough for you to care about, but 4% is still millions of pissed-off consumers, so it's not surprising that *tech companies* are seeking to provide a fix for this.
And there is no automatic *need* for government involvement in this tech. Apple doesn't involve the government in its kill switch, for example. So far as I know, the work on solutions is market-driven, not government driven, although the government might be cheering from
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of things can seem pretty obvious, it doesn't make them true by definition. Having said that, the figures look like a good enough reason for other manufacturers to follow suit. If it turns out it's a statistical blip then thieves are still left with less viable phones (proceeds f
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bah, what really combats crime is a thriving middle class. But since we can't have that anymore, we are forced to resort to having jackbooted para-military police forces, and devices with kill switches.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems pretty obvious that people carrying small, expensive gadgets around with them are a prime target for thieves, that this is a legitimate, pervasive problem, and that this solution is effective in combating this crime.
Do you know what would be as good of a solution and not give the government the ability to make our phones useless lumps of material? An IMEI blacklist. Gee. Why didn't they just implement that? Because they wanted to be able to stop the use of the phone as a recording device. They can already silence you but they did not have the ability, until now, to stop the phone from being a recording device.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole correlation != causation deal... What else transpired in the period their number represent? For example Android has made huge strides in market share so maybe the 19 % decrease on the i-side and 40% increase on the Android side is just representative of the number of phones available for theft?
Piss poor analysis!
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really a thing at all?
Do you live under a rock? It's a pretty big deal in most large cities.
Is it really? Do you have statistics? My family were early adopters of smartphones (I used to work for a carrier) and none of us ever got one stolen, not even my daughter, who got her first one (a blackberry) at twelve years old. (It helped me keep track of her.) Since the turn of the century I've worked in a group which, being on call, were entitled to a company phone (iphone, samsung or until recently blackberry). You'd think in a moderately big city when you have to carry your phone all the time, we
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really a thing at all?
Do you live under a rock? It's a pretty big deal in most large cities.
Is it really? Do you have statistics? My family were early adopters of smartphones ...
While I agree that useful statistics would help, following up your request with anecdotal evidence does not. FWIW, I've seen it happen first hand: ... we
* myself and 3 friends at a dive bar mid-day-ish, which was otherwise empty
* one of us bartended there occassionally
* random guy comes in and sits a few seats down from us
* bartender friend leaves to go to the bathroom, and leaves phone on the bar
* random guy pays for his one beer, casually gets up and leaves
* friend comes back and notices his phone is gone
Re: (Score:1)
But for the fact that "blaming the victim" is currently considered a mean-spirited social faux pas, I would point out to you where your friend went wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
try being single and going out to drink all the time and having it stolen while drunk because you leave it on a bar or just lose it or going home alone at 2am on a deserted subway train
Re: (Score:1)
try being single and going out to drink all the time and having it stolen while drunk because you leave it on a bar
That sounds like a natural consequence to me.
Re: They never answered the question... (Score:2)
Falling a sleep in the train on your way home is a good way to get your phone stolen, even here in Denmark.
I don't use public transportation now but when I did, I always slept most of the time and woke up just before my stop. Overslept once in 8 years. Now it is unsafe to sleep in the train and the advantage is gone.
I didn't have a smartphone then but I did have a discman, a laptop and later on different MP3 players. We also didn't have open borders all the way through Europe and all the "lovely" people re
Re: They never answered the question... (Score:2)
I know several people who this has happened to. Armed hold ups, people grabbing it and running, and people grabbing it when the owners back is turned.
So yes, in some cities this is a very real problem.
Re: (Score:1)
I own a car. It has never been stolen.
And, yet, I know that car theft happens.
Your lack of knowledge of it is irrelevant.
Want stats? here [cnbc.com].
The real issue is just how juicy of a t
Re: (Score:2)
That's one percent of the population. It's not that phone theft happens, it's whether it happens often enough to warrant this solution. I'm thinking no, it doesn't.
In a country this big, just about everything happens somewhere. But the smart effort is to fix the things that happen often, not the edge cases.
In point of fact, I think one could argue that vehicles (your example) are stolen much more often than smartphones. Not to mention that vehicles are generally worth more, and stolen vehicles are more
Re: (Score:2)
> The real issue is just how juicy of a target this makes for hackers ... because the ability to destroy a large number of phones is likely to be a pretty tempting target.
This is a very good point. And even if the encryption keys (presuming they even use them) are impossible to derive (unlikely) they'd be so valuable that someone, somewhere will inevitably sell them.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen people bike by and grab the phone out of people's hands while they're using it. Just try catching the thief on a bike.
But you know thieves are smart. Or at least they have specific targets. Nobody but business users own blackberries, and businesses don't buy on the black market, so there's going to be very little demand for blackberries. OTOH, if you have the shiny new Samsung Galaxy, worth almost a grand, people are going to try to take it if they are dishonest and see an opportunity.
The othe
Re: (Score:2)
I hit send too soon. The point isn't even whether this is a problem or not, the point is that articles like TFA are using a standard ruse (percentage increase without context) to sell us on necessity. You don't find that at all suspicious?
Re:They never answered the question... (Score:4, Interesting)
This was more-or-less my same thought when reading the summary. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
* iPhone theft down 19%
* Samsung theft up by 40%
That means absolutely nothing without additional context.
What if prior to the change period, iPhone theft was at 100,000 units a month, and samsung was at 10 units a month?
What about ratios (N% of activiated iPhone devices stolen per month vs N% of activated samsung devices)?
What about device classes (they just say "Samsung devices", without qualifying if those are even phones, let alone if that's just their Andriod phones, let alone if that's just certain models, etc)?
What about market changes? (did samsung sales increase while iPhone decreased, meaning there is a corrolation to availability / supply-and-demand?)
I wouldn't mind having an option for a kill switch (done "right"), remote wipe (via always-encrypted storage and wipe the key... and abilty to restore the key), lowjack, etc, but these numbers are garbage. They don't deserve to be included in the summary.
Re:They never answered the question... (Score:4, Interesting)
The article only provides the percentages but doesn't include the raw numbers by which the percentages were derived. It is highly suggested by the article that since iOS has a kill switch the thefts of iOS were instead switched to non-iOS devices. That's where the raw data would be helpful and knowing how many of the thefts were iOS vs Android. Knowing the demographics of those who typically purchase iOS vs Android would also be helpful as well are those purchasing iOS less security savvy than those who purchase Android? Repeat victims that switched OSes is a factor that needs to be eliminated. You also need to know how the crime is usually perpetrated. Are these theft violent and using threats to get the phone from the victims or are they crimes of opportunity that occur because the device is left unattended?
It's been awhile since the last patent storm... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a different type of "kill" switch, in fact more like "mute" than "kill" - more sinister one at that too. From the article you linked it seems a bit unclear if this can be used for specific devices only or if it's a general "Mute" All Phones In 100m Radius only.
...even the less sinister use case examples of it sound unacceptable to me, for example: I'm generally against phone use in movie theatres, however I can stand a person who's work demands him to be "on call" (provided it's closer to "in cas
Who has the big red button? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whilst all this may be valid and true, how are we going to prevent the "wrong people" from using this kill switch? Will it be hardware based, in which case, how will we be sure it won't be triggered/used remotely if we install a different OS on the device? Or if some script kiddie found a way of activating it by exploiting an insecure app?
(new hollywood armaggedon scenario: terrorists threaten to detonante a phone bomb that would activate kill switches around the world, bringing down entire civilizations)
Yes, a technological solution might exist for the problem; question is, is this one the right one? Are we going to stop looking for alternatives?
I'm sure the NSA wants their fingers on it. (Score:2)
If there's a Boston-type bombing, they would want to shut down cell phones in the area. That might even be a legitimate use, but next they'll want to use it preemptively around the President, then at the Superbowl.... and suddenly we've got tyranny.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop watching TV. The NSA and government agencies would want to keep the cell phone structure working so that (1) people affected can use their cell phones and not sue the government because the government shut them down, and (2) attempt to find out the perpetrators, which would be hard to do if the perps weren't squawking about their latest "victory".
Re: (Score:1)
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Stop trusting that "they" give a fuck about you. They don't. When crisis hits, they WANT people isolated, to control the story, to keep it isolated, off the grid, and in the fog of war. And 'sue the government'? Don't make me laugh. They'd either cite National Security, or just not allow you to.
Oh - you didn't realize you needed the government's PERMISSION to sue, did you?
Thought so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly right, and I believe this is the exact reason they so very much want this technology on phones and in cars.
Maybe they got the idea from TV, if you want to go there, but the idea being on TV doesn't automatically make it impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't shut down cell phones at the end point, you shut them down at the top. The carrier can do a better job of killing off cell phone reception at any given point and time than any 'kill switch' on the phone. Shutting down the towers and the C&C infrastructure assures that YOU have control and that grandma's iPhone 3GS (sans kill switch) is off as well as your Cyanogen mod super-clean-built-up-from-the-ground malware free, Google free, Apple free FreePhone.
It can already happen....
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a secret raid about to be conducted on a property. One where they would rather you not call any of your buddies and warn them that you've been attacked. They can quietly shut down every phone in the building right before they throw in the flashbangs. They can do this on a phone-by-phone basis, and without involving the phone company since their rubberstamp FISA warrant has already given them complete access to the phone.
Who has the big red button? (Score:1)
Apple's solution, which is non-intrusive and leaves you in control: you register all phones with iCloud. When you have Find my iPhone switched on, the phone can ONLY be registered to another account by entering the password of the original account. No matter how much you reset it. Also, you cannot switch off Find my iPhone. If you reinstall, you won't even notice (except the prompt says you have to register with this account), and if somebody else takes it over, it tells you to switch it off (forcing pas
Re: (Score:2)
More likely is that the switch will be used during the next "Arab spring" by some not so friendly governments.
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA's "kill switch" is to take a NSL to your carrier and tell them to kill your service or the whole tower or region for that matter. And if you're really bringing out the big guns there's jammers and missiles, those towers light up like beacons. And whatever exploits they have for the carrier's systems. Besides, I suppose in some WWIII-prelude knocking out the enemy's communications systems and throwing them into disarray may be useful, but I imagine 99.99% of the time they're interested in signals in
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's see how Apple does it.
When you activate a phone, it gets associated with an Apple ID. That Apple ID is required to erase, restore, and recover a phone. But onl
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. I would say "there goes my preference for not associating my phone with an online account" but that would actually be incorrect. Though I would indeed prefer not to have to have an account to install apps.
I guess I still treat my phone like a computer in many respects and I'm trying my darndest to keep it away from any form of remote kill at all for the sake of a "no remote please" blanket stance...
Still, I'm pretty sure I prefer to be slightly on the neurotic side.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't
you trade your phone in to a legit business and they have a deal with apple and everyone else to reformat the phone and disable any kill switches
Re: (Score:2)
you don't
you trade your phone in to a legit business and they have a deal with apple and everyone else to reformat the phone and disable any kill switches
Sure, conducting a transaction with another citizen is doubleplusungood. What we really need is more middlemen inserting themselves into every transaction, because we don't have nearly enough of that.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of iPhone, make sure the person you buy it from isn't an idiot and unregisters it from their iCloud account.
There is lots of incentive for them to do this, like not having you reading all their messages and digging through their photos.
Are thieves that selective? (Score:3)
Certainly it would be to your benefit to know if the device you're risking your freedom for is worth the effort. But I had thought that phone thefts were largely crimes of opportunity: you see the phone unguarded and you take it. I wouldn't think you have all that long to judge what kind of phone it is.
I suppose maybe these are just professionals, good at their jobs, who have heard that the fences aren't taking some brands any more because it's not worth it. But I wonder if there's some other factor besides the kill switches that accounts for the data.
Re:Are thieves that selective? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't to prevent theft of the phone. It's to protect theft of the information stored on the phone, which is generally far more valuable than the phone itself.
Re: (Score:1)
It's to protect theft of the information stored on the phone, which is generally far more valuable than the phone itself.
You can already do that with encryption and PIN locks. My /data partition is encrypted, with a six word diceware password, and the phone is auto-locked with a five digit PIN after five minutes of idleness. Ten failed PIN attempts wipes the device. Powering off the device removes the encryption keys from memory. It's entirely possible (probable even) that a well resourced organization could extract the encryption keys from the phone but that's really not a pressing concern for most people. If it's a con
Re: (Score:3)
No, the point of a kill switch is to destroy the resale value. Same as an IMEI ban, once reported stolen nobody should* give you service
* not actually implemented worldwide, yet
Re: (Score:2)
FCC will step in and regulate if the carriers actually try to do this with all sales. I'm pretty sure there will always be a legitimate used phone market for the next 25 years or so probably. We've got enough people with their heads still screwed on straight to prevent this doomsday scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't to prevent theft of the phone. It's to protect theft of the information stored on the phone, which is generally far more valuable than the phone itself.
Close. Very close. The information on the phone might very well be valuable... but to who? Are you at a protest and taking pictures of an officer beating the shit out of an innocent bystander? That information is indeed valuable in the sense that the government (at all levels) wants to destroy it. This is not going to end well.
Are thieves that selective? (Score:1)
People stopped using the original iPod/iPhone headsets (which are very recognizable) because of the risk of theft a couple years ago. Now, it's more of a safeguard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
iPhones do have the advantage of being particularly distinctive. Android phones come in a stunning array of models and colors, but iPhones are rather restricted. If you're going to invest brain cells in "Don't take that phone" it would be easiest for it to be iPhones.
If so, it sounds as if you'd need a fair bit of "herd immunity" to make other phones safe. Either that, or some highly distinctive branding, which is not the way Android manufacturers tend to work; they make their living offering everything to
At Fault (Score:2)
Hooray! (Score:3)
You Know, for Stopping Protesters (Score:2)
So much for peaceful demonstrations, and out Right to Assembly.
BTW, are you wondering, why instead a national database of stolen phones is not created, so no stolen phone cannot be activated?
Technological solution (Score:2)
I added an IO device that overloads the battery so the phone explodes.
Re: (Score:2)
I added an IO device that overloads the battery so the phone explodes.
How'd you test it?
Unintended Victim (Score:2)
There goes the right of first sale.
Perhaps my post title is wrong, and 'right of first sale' is actually the intended victim after all...
Anyway, this makes my work for the pawn shop, unlocking devices people lost to hock, a bit more challenging.
Of course, it would help if they'd stop taking in iPads without getting the iCloud password... damn college kids... /rant
Laugh (Score:1)
that a technological solution has the potential to end the victimization of wireless consumers everywhere
Does that include the victimization the phone companies are doling out with their 2 year plans, termination fees, data caps and generally shitty service?
Really? (Score:2)
'These statistics validate what we always knew to be true, that a technological solution has the potential to end the victimization of wireless consumers everywhere,' said San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon."
Correlation? Probably.
Causation? Possibly, but I'd argue that the ubiquitous nature of smart phones, and significant decrease in pricing has just as much, if not more to do with it.
Who holds the key? (Score:2)
If only the owner holds the key to kill a device, ( and can be given to a new owner.. ) then i'm ok with it as its my device, my control.
If i dont get total control over its use, then leave it off my phone/tablet/etc.
Who controls the switch? (Score:2)
If the user/owner controls the switch? Great. But if the carrier/government does? No.
I'd love to have a kill-switch in my phone that, when receiving a code that only I have would result in a wipe and disabling of the device. That way if the government comes along and steals my property, I can do something about it. "Tampering with evidence?" No, that was a "malfunction" and we just lost the hard drives.
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Doesn't Google already have this? The Android Device Manager lets you remotely locate, lock or find your device. Is there something more to this 'kill switch'? Does it permanently disable the phone?
Kill the thief, not the phone. (Score:1)
Nothing more to say.
Killswitch is Turn Key Tyranny (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, on an iPhone, you have to log in using your Apple ID. So there's that.
Find My iPhone: http://www.apple.com/ios/featu... [apple.com]
As for the Google & Microsoft implementations that the story is discussing, you'll have to wait and see, I guess.
> don't use them in sketchy places
Another option is using an app that will automatically call 911 when needed:
SafeTrek: https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap... [apple.com]
> do you usually flaunt valuabl
Re: (Score:1)
Any government,
Any organized crime outfit (think eastern Europe),
Any well-sized telecom provider,
Any well-funded police department
The premise that my killswitch is safe because only I know the password is flawed. The existence of this type of feature alone is a security vulnerability in and of itself, and it is really unfortunate, because this vulnerability is actually by design.
That's like
Re: (Score:1)
You don't want a killswitch because you think the cost of an unauthorized use outweighs the benefit of an authorized use. Other people have other opinions. Many businesses, for example, require such features on devices they supply to their employees. So... perhaps your estimation of the likelihood of getting mis-used could be a lit
Getting calls from new "owner" (Score:2)
We are starting to hear stories about people who had their phones stolen in Scandinavia, getting calls from Eastern Europe where the new "owners" of the phone wants the password for iCloud so they can use the phone.
Some have offered a small amount of money to get their password others have been angry with the rightful owner that they couldn't use their phone. Go figure.
iOS7 release = less thefts...? (Score:2)
People are Stupid (Score:1)
Having government institutions with control over something as private as a cell phone is not a good idea.
This idea that government will make you safe, as long as you have no rights seems to be on the menu of the times we live in.
It will end up serving the same ole dish:
Death, misery and more chaos.
Bye bye Human Race, was really nice knowing you, don't forget to write about it in the fossil record.
Does it just kill the CELL portion? Or brick it? (Score:2)
Here's the real Occum's Razor here:
Does the "kill switch" remotely disable the mobile/cellular capabilities of the phone? Or does it completely disable the device, thus bricking it?
These are smartphones, and they're used by many people for more than just a phone. I'd even argue that the function used the least on these devices, is the actual phone itself.
I rarely see someone having an actual voice conversation on a phone these, days, but people spend hours and hours doing everything else with them.
So if the
Quick scan on eBay shows the kill switch is a joke (Score:1)
Advancements going through all over MIcrosoft (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, lets start with the bankers and phone company CEO's.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Too bad they can't put a kill switch on hand guns. That would stop a lot of crime.
They can. [wikipedia.org] Unfortunately the NRA is against such technology because "Obama wants to confiscate our guns!".
Re: (Score:1)
Or you can take the simple-minded approach and say "all gun owners are crazy, thanks MSNBC" or you can realize that an attacker can remotely disable your gun, thus killing you.
You don't want to die, do you? So I wouldn't put a killswitch on my gun...
While we're on the topic of guns and self
Re: (Score:2)