Don Havey

Bruce Schneier’s commentary on Wired today was pretty eye-opening. He discussed an issue that I had given no thought to: the remote “kill switch”.

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.

Interesting. And fair enough, in the cases of buses (city-owned) and airplanes (airline-owned), so long as the riders are informed that such a technology exists before they choose that mode of transportation. I assume that OnStar’s engine shut off is marketed as a theft deterrent. Maybe it should lock the thief inside, too.

Of course, the terrifying part is that we’re approaching a Failsafe-esque condition.

When I get into my OnStar car, I want to be able to override the remote commands using a PIN that only I know. Maybe that works. As Bruce points out, however, the challenge becomes structuring the extremely delicate, critically-managed hierarchy of overrides: deciding who has the final say. I can’t even imagine a nation’s government handling the responsibility of something like this.

And then there’s Microsoft… apparently still trying to encourage users to switch to Linux:

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 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.

Incredible, isn’t it? An astounding lack of foresight.

First of all, let’s say that the bus and airplane overrides were marginally acceptable, assuming that someone finds a way to structure the system, and the public accepts it as a modern security measure. Microsoft’s concept targets consumer goods, not public transportation or corporate-owned airlines. It targets something that has been purchased. With money. Ownership transferred. Mine.

Secondly, the idea neglects the fact that such forms of post-purchase corporate influence have a history of dying slow and painful deaths. Case in point: cellphone hacking. Another one: the music industry.

I’m always amazed by large corporate notions of censorship and regulation. They think that they will win those battles. It’s like creating a map of the empire at 1 to 1, it’s like simulating the universe on a quantum computer. Unless the corporation becomes the population they are trying to manipulate, they fail.