[GRLUG] kill switches

[Tim Schmidt]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
<adamtaunowilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
> A constrained-bandwidth / shared-bandwidth / shared-spectrum (RF)
> network is inherently fragile.  Sure it is a "flaw".   Maybe God will
> accept a patch.

He did.  It's called TCP/IP.

> You have a heterogeneous network of devices;  there are android phones,
> blackberry phones, WinMobile phones, OpenMoko phones, Symbian phones,
> etc... all of which are using "a range of openly designed and vetted
> protocol".   The cellular networks protocols are very well documented.

Cool.  Then we don't need kill switches.

> The point isn't to be "infallible", the point is for it to be
> reasonably difficult.

As with all DRM, that just doesn't work.  There are 6 billion of us,
and all it takes is for one to crack it once.  The magic of computers
allow that crack to be copied the other 5,999,999,999 times
essentially instantly and for free.  It's wetware parallel processing.
 And to top it all off, the people most motivated to crack the things
are the ones with nefarious intent.  They might take a week or two
longer to write their malware.  You on the other hand, have no control
over your phone to implement a suitable recourse.

> Yes, it is ENTRELY different.  First, your PC connects to an ISP (which
> does regulate your traffic)

Right.  Traffic regulation is part of the network.  They don't have to
control my PC to do it.  That's fine by me.

> and has dramatically more bandwidth

Only very recently.

> Secondly, and
> much more importantly, a PC is not used to report that (a) your father
> is having a heart attack, (b) your son just got hit by a car, (c) your
> house is on fire, or (d) some maniac with a machine gun just hi-jacked a
> bus.  The cell phone network *MUST* work 99.999% of the time.  If your
> PC gets locked out of the Internet for a few hours - nobody cares.

What's so charmingly tragic is that you think offering complete
control of your device to some distant alpha-male protector makes you
(and the network) safer, more reliable, and secure.

It's sad, but apparently common.

> The integrity of a network is the sum of the integrity which exist in
> that network.  Hence SPAM, etc... the Internet has very low integrity.

Wrong.  The integrity of a network has nothing to do (or _should_ have
nothing to do) with the data flowing over it.  Even your _incredibly
secure_ (ha!) phone network is host to myriad telemarketing,
robo-calls, and other assorted aural-spam.  Integrity is the result of
well-designed, publicly vetted, open and interoperable systems.

>> Huh?  I thought we already established that situation was more likely
>> to happen with a vendor-enforced monoculture.
>
> They've done a pretty darn good job so far in prevent that from
> happening.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking

--tim