It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


May I offer you a Kill Switch?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 02:06 AM
With companies getting more intensely worried about copyright infringement of their products, ways to curb these possible "technology pirates" has really evolved into a "thinking out of the box" mindset. Although this evolution has of course had new twist and turns thrown in to the mix as anti-terrorism/criminal concepts/sentiment seems to be the new "toy" for engineers to try an incorporate.

This isn't exactly anything new. Does anyone remember when Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah wanted to allow companies to physically damage your computers over the internet if that was at all possible? I remember seeing an interview with Senator Hatch, and he was full of himself over the possible prospect! And to think, these are the 'fine' elected folks making the laws we live by. Those concerned only need to conceive up a palatable way of presenting it to be able to sell it to the clueless. And trust me, they are going to continue trying. We are already saddled with the "DMCA" (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998) where all telecoms are immunized from any liability by congress.

So one has to ask him/herself, what's next? Are we getting ourselves one step closer to a "Orwellian Society"? I'm curious as to what the astute members here at ATS think about incorporated actions such as these?

I'm going to go ahead include a portion of the article that was posted on "Wired" back in June, but the whole story can be read here:

I've Seen the Future, and It Has a Kill Switch

I've Seen the Future, and It Has a Kill Switch
Commentary by Bruce Schneier

It used to be that just the entertainment industries wanted to control your computers -- and televisions and iPods and everything else -- to ensure that you didn't violate any copyright rules. But now everyone else wants to get their hooks into your gear.

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.

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. Professors finally could prevent students from texting one another during class.

The possibilities are endless, and very dangerous. Making this work involves building a nearly flawless hierarchical system of authority. That's a difficult security problem even in its simplest form. Distributing that system among a variety of different devices -- computers, phones, PDAs, cameras, recorders -- with different firmware and manufacturers, is even more difficult. Not to mention delegating different levels of authority to various agencies, enterprises, industries and individuals, and then enforcing the necessary safeguards.

Once we go down this path -- giving one device authority over other devices -- the security problems start piling up. Who has the authority to limit functionality of my devices, and how do they get that authority? What prevents them from abusing that power? Do I get the ability to override their limitations? In what circumstances, and how? Can they override my override?

But I do love the final sentence in his commentary.
"Digital Manners Policies" is a marketing term. Let's call this what it really is: Selective Device Jamming. It's not polite, it's dangerous. It won't make anyone more secure -- or more polite."

Johnny Anonymous
concerned citizen

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:18 AM
Sure, why not add a kill-switch to everything we own? They already put monitoring devices into anything they can, and have the NSA responsible for spying on our phone and internet activities. Why not be able to simply "stop" whatever we are doing, if they don't like it?

The ability to stop our car, will prevent high-speed chases. The ability to stop a computer, will prevent hacking and fraud. It's a wonderful world of technology we live in these days.

Order will truly be kept once each of us have a "kill-switch" installed into each of us.

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:43 AM
I believe that there are already killswitches in most of our electronic consumer goods. Have you noticed how things always seem to break down within days of the warranty expiring? Or that windows experiences more errors when a new version has been released?

These are no coincidences.

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:47 AM
Very nice post. Thank you for writing it.

One of the things I personally find amusing, is that we actually pay extra in some cases (ie; OnStar) for the privilege of having our privacy invaded. I sometimes have quite a chuckle when people rant on about how they would rather die than be microchipped, (part of some Revelations prediction in Christianity) but they carry their cellphone merrily with them everywhere.

Our losses of freedom and privacy are always sold to us as ways to make us safer. It seems to work every time.

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 04:49 AM
If we accept as 'reasonable' such restrictions, promoted to 'protect' the rights of copyright-owners, is there a slippery slope?

I say yes. In the past, I worked with one company that actually forbid their employees from reading any patents. Apparently, the concern was, that could establish a definitive record of knowledge of 'prior art', which could be used against the company in litigation.

Clearly, the 'intellectual property' system is broken.

Where does the absolute enforcement of such 'rights' end? If we accept our devices constantly monitoring for copyright infringement, what's the line to draw from accepting constant monitoring for patent infringement, which can cover a broad basis of 'techniques', 'approaches', and 'applications'?

In the USA, the Congressional right to establish laws related to patents and copyright is derived from the following language in the Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

I would add an emphasis on the "To promote the Progress" phrase.

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Psychopump
I believe that there are already killswitches in most of our electronic consumer goods. Have you noticed how things always seem to break down within days of the warranty expiring? Or that windows experiences more errors when a new version has been released?

These are no coincidences.

I have to admit that I hadn't thought of that particular scenario or factor in the equation of "things breaking down". It throws a whole new spin in my train of thought here..

When I worked for a huge Electronics Super Store, I can recall the upper management really pressing the employees to sell the extended warranties. And it did turn out that more often than not, after a few years your new product was in need of either repair or replacement. The other side of the coin was that it was cheaper for "us" to replace the unit completely rather than to attempt to repair the product..


posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:44 PM
This seems to be the world we are evolving into. But for every overbearing authoritative action their is a reaction on the other side of the scale. Linux systems to override your overrides on your blackberry. Warez to disable the disable devices in theaters. Their is always a counter punch to punch with this sort of thing...

The worst aspect I see is that once this sort of thing is applied on a grand scale... IT WILL be abused.. When the phonograph invented who ever thought it would evolve and one day be used as a device capable of brainwashing millions
through mass media propaganda? Once the genie is out it doesn't go back.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by titorite
When the phonograph invented who ever thought it would evolve and one day be used as a device capable of brainwashing millions
through mass media propaganda?

I don't believe I've heard this one (unless you've taken liberties with the context).

Could you fill in the blanks and describe exactly what it is that your referring to " it would evolve and one day be used as a device capable of brainwashing millions"?

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 07:58 PM
To clarify:

The phonograph was an invention that changed humanity. We were then able to take sound put onto a medium and reproduce it anywhere via the "speaker" and "recording". On cylinders, on disks, and on tapes this invention was awesome. Then the telegraph came along. At that point, it was not long after when people combined one invention with the other to make RADIO!!!!! WOOHOO! And this is not even going into the realm of Television in this particular posting.

Then the experiments began. Most notable would be Orwells' "War Of The Worlds". When I read books like "Animal Farm" and "1984" I saw the application in practice. People hear about the latest out break of Bird Flu and stock in theraflu goes up a few points. Rush Limbaugh says we should support Nafta and many of his listeners are swayed. ABC, CBS, and NBC all say the war on terror is righteous and warranted.... And the masses, exposed to no other influence agree, and we go to war on several fronts while simultaneously giving up our liberty here in the "homeland".

And all this can be traced back to a neat machine that was able to reproduce "Mary had a little lamb".....

Once the genii is out of the bottle there is no putting it back in.

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 08:16 PM
The constitutional abuses are incredible, as well as taking away peoples already established freedoms. Stealing someones property and selling it is pirating. But there is no difference between viewing something online or downloading to taping it on a television if you have cable. Paying each time you view it is outrageous abuse of the constitutions of many countries for the agenda of corporate profits and control. Again, its up to people to do something about it and write to those employees who seem to be committing treason on a regular basis, and finding ever increasing ways to disempower their employer. In fact, it was the law of the land that if something was on cable, and you paid for cable, you could view it or download it. Why do so many people not understand that the human race as a whole has to go forward, not backwards in its development. As for me, I remain on Linux nearly all the time, on the machines we put together. My kids even play wow on wine. I intend to write to my mla's about Harper's new scheme of copyright violations. The 3 recent dvds I purchased would never have been possible had I not discovered Jrock on various sites. They'd have never got my money, because I never would have heard of them. And their videos are normally what is put on mtv, so why the recent extreme control. Is it to limit people within countries to certain music produced there only?

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:27 AM
To keep things practical, and not speculative, look to where people are expecting to make money. Here's an interesting patent I found:

Remote disabling of an article of manufacture

Subsidization of electronic devices, appliances, and other articles of manufacture is coming. The term "subsidization" implies a subsidy is provided for the article of manufacture. Already the communications industry subsidizes a mobile phone and other wireless devices in exchange for a service contract. The user of the mobile phone (e.g., the "subscriber") receives a free, or nearly free, phone in exchange for a service commitment. Some people within the communications sector foresee subsidization spreading to any article of manufacture that requires communications service. As the latest washers, dryers, refrigerators, televisions, and even vehicles have communications capabilities, those articles of manufacture will require network access to communications networks. It may be inevitable that the purchase price for such networked articles of manufacture is subsidized in exchange for a service agreement.

So, an on-going income stream to the 'service provider' is justified by 'subsidised' manufacturing and a lower buy-in cost to the end-user, and enforced via contracts and kill-switches.

As well as techniques for remote-disabling of various electronic items, to which the owner/user may have 'agreed' (unwittingly) via service contract, there's also the concept of an 'exclusive' service contract. That's the real field in which money can be made. Say, for example, you sign with a wireless service provider for cell phone service. And, that contract is an exclusive contract -- meaning, you agree that so-and-so will be your sole provider for such services. What if you breach, or want to cancel, that contract? Well, perhaps the service provider would have the right to remotely disable any other cell phone that you try and acquire, as such service provision would conflict with your prior agreement.

Currently, there's no infrastructure in place to so such things, but you'd better believe that there's monied interests out there who would really like such a capability -- just look a little closer at the patent I linked to for evidence thereof:

Enforcing the exclusive service agreement, however, is a problem. When the service provider subsidizes a service, the exclusive service agreement is required to ensure the subsidy is recouped. If the user/subscriber reneges on the service agreement, and switches to a competing service provider, the subsidizing service provider incurs a substantial loss. What is needed, then, are methods, systems, and products that disable an article of manufacture when a subscriber defaults on a service agreement.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 09:06 AM
Johnny, you have said a mouthful there and then some.

Now, here are a few website links I'd like you and Dave Rabbit to sift through and see what you think about them.

TinWiki : Neural Chip Implant
The TinWiki one here is from our very own ATS and was submitted by someone else.

Wikipedia : Neural Implant
I thought I would include the definition of a "neural implant" and its meaning is an implantable device within the brain.

Wikipedia : Verichip

Verichip is going out of business based on S.E.C., or Security and Exchange Commission documentation at Security and Exchange Commission a Government stock website. Verichip's symbol to look up is CHIP. I've done the research, and I bought shares to take an inside look at the company, over 200 pages of documentation for shareholder information.

Wikipedia : Digital Angel

Here's Digal Angel based on S.E.C., or Security and Exchange Commission documentation at Security and Exchange Commission a Government stock website. Digital Angel's symbol is DIGA, and I bought shares after researching it to take a look there as well.

The really funny thing, or more odd thing here is, Digital Angel and Verichip have the same corporate headquarters in Delray Beach Florida, about 2 to 3 hours South of where I live currently. I'm going to take a road trip down there just to see what it all looks like soon enough.

All the rest of these links are ones where I did some independant investigation into the process of the "biochip", or human killswitch, once it's implemented through the Real ID Act which Congress institued in 2005.

Bilderberger : The Global Agenda, Eugenics, Global Warming, And Biochiping Sheeple

To Be Chipped, Or Not? Owning Stock In Your Own Verichip, And Politics

Political Collusion of a President and Congress in Collapsing America, The Fall of the New Rome

If this is implemented as I see it the "biochip" can shut off your Driver's License, Social Security Number, License Plate, Cell Phone, Credit Cards, Medical Records, you name it, if the Government decides you are a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant" or even questioning Government and its actions.

Tell us Johnny, do you trust our Government or any other Government that much?

I know I don't.

No, I'm not trying to jack your thread, I just thought it might be something that totally fit into everything you were already stating and add so much more to it.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 03:28 AM

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Johnny, you have said a mouthful there and then some.

Tell us Johnny, do you trust our Government or any other Government that much?

I know I don't.

No, I'm not trying to jack your thread, I just thought it might be something that totally fit into everything you were already stating and add so much more to it.

Nope, I don't have much faith in what I am told by our government.

And I know your not trying to hi-jack the thread, nor are your links really off-topic. I believe it's all tied together by a cosmic string (if you will)...

The Human Kill-Switch thought is something that I've wondered about for years after first hearing about nano-technology. My first thoughts were that this would be militarized in no time at all.


posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous

Johnny, I'm going to expect some commission checks soon, for posting your threads around ATS.

Has Cheney Been Fitted with a Kill Switch?

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by UFOTECH

I almost fell on the floor laughing at the reference to Dick Cheney having a "kill switch."

Not because I want to see him die, but because of this thread by JohnnyAnonymous :

May I offer you a Kill Switch?

JohnnyAnonymous and I were discussing the "human kill switch" with the Verichip/Digital Angel biochip.

And there's always been the mocking joke of Vice President Dick Cheney being Darth Vader :

[edit on 11-8-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 02:14 AM
This technology has been happening for quite sometime and a few years back I had to disable a unit I had from upgrading - because the upgrade was really a downgrade in disguise.

Many consumer products have flash upgrade capability for various reasons mainly to keep your electronic product up to date so it can continue to function or just to fix bugs, errors or security fixes. Common products include Satellite & cable television boxes and of course routers & other computing products.

I had a satellite box (DTC-100) that was very unique (between generations) and it got channels that most units could not. The change would added some channels from a new satellite, but would of removed some channels that I liked because they used the same transponders as the new satellite, so you could not have both at the same time and there were many more on the old satellite, so in order to keep it from upgrading (downgrade) I opened the box up and with a some wire cutters, one wire and a soldering gun and I temporarily disabled the chip from accepting new firmware (software on a chip) and thereby preserved the functionality that I preferred.

I'm also aware of a few software makers who's certain products Id's have been pirated on the internet when updating will invalidate the software. I'm sure there's worse stuff out there, but I'm a guy who fixes the stuff, not a pirate.

What bothers me most about the KILL SWITCH in products such as Airplanes & Automobiles is you insert another place that bugs & errors can take place and potentially kill people. Not only that - they can and will be hacked by people who again can use it as a means to control or kill people.

I don't want that crap in anything other than entertainment products and if it comes to that I guess there will be a hacker industry that will charge you to disable those capabilities in the consumer products you buy.

Does anyone remember having to disable those noisy car buzzers back in the late 70's early 80's? They were obnoxious if you wanted to wash your car or work on it - you'd have to disconnect the battery to deal with the noise or disable the device.

What''s going to happen is - they will be like one of the breath interlock devices that people with DUI have to install in their cars - so there is another level of control - if you have a drink you can't drive. Eventually it will be don't pay your ticket on time and your car won't start in the morning or as you drive by certain cameras it will disable your car on the spot and a cop & tow truck will show up to arrest you and impound your car.

Just another level of greed and control. I will gladly learn about & sell my services in order to remove and disable such functions regardless of whatever the punishment is for disabling such devices. I hate greed & control and I would rather die than be controlled by greedy POS's.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by verylowfrequency]

new topics

top topics


log in