Live data from Hacker News

Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

larrysanger.org

131–140 of 200 posts

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#131
post #125
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a real life blank reg here. I live in an RV operate a MESHNET and do everthing i can to foster a common persons free decentralized infrastructure. As mentioned elsewhere ive been taping cameras and stabbing microphones for years now.

Tell me more about how I can get involved

Explore and evaluate meshnet projects, find one that you like, and educate others about them.

Set up the hardware, link up with existing mesh if you're in a dense enough area.

Push federated services like Matrix and ActivityPub based services like Mastadon, so when it's time to go mesh, people don't laugh when you say "It doesn't reach Facebook/Insta".

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#132
I agree with the author's aims, but for the average person the difference between a hardware and software switch is likely immaterial. To the uninitiated, there's not a great reason to trust that Alexa's "mute" button does what it says.

To gain trust, I think we need tactile physical interventions: a built-in webcam cover and a slider over the microphone. If it doesn't exist already, I'd imagine there's a market for a nicely designed phone case that includes both.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#133
post #4

Note that a physical switch can be overridden just as easy as a soft switch, the vendor can just put a soft switch in parallel with it and you would never know it. The hard switch could turn off the display, speaker etc. while the processor and radio can stay on.

We may be back to building our own devices again.

Please!

We, as a populace, need to grow our own food and build our own quality things again.

If this means everyone is equipped to be an electrical engineer and low-level scripter, awesome for business and tech education in general.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#134

Janie Crane: “An off switch?” Metrocop: “She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!” —Max Headroom, season 1, episode 6, “The Blanks” https://www.maxheadroom.com/index.php?title=Episode_ABC.1.6:...

Max Headroom was an extremely subversive program and I continue to be amazed it was actually greenlit, produced and broadcast on mainstream television - in the United States for primetime broadcast, even!

I will provide some speculation, but first some back story, as I recall it: Max Headroom was, to start with, a collection of special effects to make a British talk-show host seemingly generated by computer, but still able to interact live with guests, etc. (A little bit of the same niche which the early muppets occupied, actually. See the early appearances of Rowlf the Dog on American talk show TV, for instance.) Anyway, the effect proved so captivating and convincing that the show became hugely popular, and a TV Movie was made (still in England) which provided a sci-fi style origin story for the (ostensibly computer generated) Max Headroom character. The character’s popularity was still rising, also in the USA (Coca-Cola famously used Max Headroom for their campaign for the now infamous New Coke), so an American TV series was proposed and made, with most of the same cast reused in the same roles, and the story of the TV movie was used (IIRC) as the two first episodes, except for a slightly happier ending to set it up as an ongoing TV series.

The problem, I guess, was that probably none of the U.S. people greenlighting the TV series had actually watched the original British TV movie; they probably only thought about getting such a popular character. They probably did not know that things like 1984, Judge Dredd and V for Vendetta are all very distinctly British things. The Max Headroom TV movie, as well as the TV series, are both essentially very dark cyberpunk; acerbically critical of prevailing trends in technology and also scarily prescient for 1987. It was also very critical of television itself as a phenomenon, which was probably what ultimately killed it, and by that time the huge fad for the character had passed.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#135
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me more about how I can get involved

Explore and evaluate meshnet projects, find one that you like, and educate others about them. Set up the hardware, link up with existing mesh if you're in a dense enough area. Push federated services like Matrix and ActivityPub based services like Mastadon, so when it's time to go mesh, people don't laugh when you say "It doesn't reach Facebook/Insta".

Thank you. Would you be so kind to write a blog post about this?

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#136

Am I the only one who has far more sensitive content visible on the screen and filesystem of my computer than through its camera? I feel like, at least for the threat models that I consider likely, if someone manages to hack my laptop and get (for example) microphone access, the thing I am most worried about is that they will use acoustic analysis of keystrokes to recover my banking password, not that they will hear…

> Am I the only one who has far more sensitive content visible on the screen and filesystem of my computer than through its camera?

Am I the only one who realizes that I may not be the one who may benefit the most from having a way to physically turn off the camera/mic device?

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#137

TVs and other gadgets that have no microphones or video cameras embedded in them should have a certification like "organic". "NoSpy Certified" or a similar trademark would be appropriate right next to the UL and CE marks.

Well, 'organic' as a certification doesn't really mean anything. And UL was kind of a joke from having dealt with them personally.

> And UL was kind of a joke from having dealt with them personally.

UL may be a 'joke', but it does keep a lot of sketchy electronics out of the market (at least in the US). In my personal experience dealing with them, bad hardware design is more to blame for a bad experience with UL than the UL process itself (which, is brutally long, but just might be for a reason..)

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#138
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I trust my WiFi cards disable pin, but not the "soft button" on my laptop that triggers it via the OS? I get that there is more software when it goes through the OS, but I trust that a whole lot more than the firmware on the WiFi card. This is from the same group that tries to explain how they don't use proprietary firmware blogs by using the Redpine chips just because the blog is already flashed on it rather…

> Why do I trust my WiFi cards disable pin, but not the "soft button" on my laptop that triggers it via the OS? I get that there is more software when it goes through the OS, but I trust that a whole lot more than the firmware on the WiFi card. When using a physical kill switch you have to trust the hardware. You don't have to trust the firmware or operating system, as a physical kill switch usually disables the powe…

They are just controlling the W_DISABLE signal which the firmware uses to control the actual radio hardware. It is _not_ a hardware switch in the since that the power is shut-off.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#139

Am I the only one who has far more sensitive content visible on the screen and filesystem of my computer than through its camera? I feel like, at least for the threat models that I consider likely, if someone manages to hack my laptop and get (for example) microphone access, the thing I am most worried about is that they will use acoustic analysis of keystrokes to recover my banking password, not that they will hear…

I started doing it because I _never_ use the camera and it took about 30 seconds. It's a _very_ minor piece of security, but it costs nothing. Incidentally, it was due to a (very obviously fake) spam email:

> You probably noticed your device is acting strangely lately. That's because you downloaded a nasty software I created while you were browsing the Ƿornographic website...

> The software automatically: > 1) Started your Ƈamera and begun recoding you, uploading the footage to my server...[...]

> If you do not do what I ask you now, I will upload this ugly video file with you ... and the stuff you were watching to several video upload sites and I will send the links to all your friends, family members and associates.[...]

> I think 2,000 USD is a fair price for my silence. I know you can handle to send me this money - and it is enough for me to get lost. So how do you send the cash?? Bitcoin.

I wasn't worried about it being real, but being able to dismiss it out of hand is useful.

Re: Vendors must start adding physical on/off switches to devices that can spy on us

#140
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I trust my WiFi cards disable pin, but not the "soft button" on my laptop that triggers it via the OS? I get that there is more software when it goes through the OS, but I trust that a whole lot more than the firmware on the WiFi card. This is from the same group that tries to explain how they don't use proprietary firmware blogs by using the Redpine chips just because the blog is already flashed on it rather…

At least in the case of Purism’s Librem 5 (unreleased), it’s not a disable pin, it’s removing power entirely from the wifi peripheral. Which is a step up for sure.

If it is the same as the laptop they are using the W_DISABLE pin not power.
Post reply on HN