I am glad physical switches are making a come-back in computers and phones but I wish it had happened sooner and because it's more convenient and practical than a stupid piece of unreliable integrated flaky software rather than for privacy concerns (meaning: why did we convert hardware knobs to software ?).
This really reminds me of Doctorow's Walkaway. Not exactly my favourite book, but it has its merit. Among others "Lockdown mode" is mentioned right in the beginning as being something crucial to get right. Glad to see at last someone is actually trying. :)
That's pretty nice. I wish more devices came with hardware kill switches, especially on laptops -- I always disable the camera and microphone on my laptops, and it would be so much easier just to throw a physical switch (as in a switch that actually breaks electrical contacts to the camera and microphone).
Id like No 1 and 2 to be separated. I stay on Wifi a lot but rarely use Bluetooth. Far as mic vs camera, I also use the camera separately from the phone. Keeping video off by default can block privacy invasions that can happen, by attackers or buggy apps.
On covering tablet/laptop camera threads, a few people not worried about spying said some video app came on broadcasting to coworkers. One was in bed half-naked with spouse. Another on toilet in office. So, they cover cameras or kill video apps by default to prevent that stuff from happening again.
I wish they had gone with a single kill switch. The most common use case is probably "Nothing gets in or out right now." But instead of flipping one switch one direction, the user must now flip three switches the same direction to get that common behavior.
Also, what's the use case for switches flipped in different directions that wouldn't be covered by software buttons? We can't possibly be talking about targeted attacks-- in those cases you're screwed no matter what.
That only leaves indiscriminate software attacks. Now take the hardware switch setting where baseband=off and wifi=on. I guess it's nice that evil software cannot pretend that baseband is off when it's actually on. But evil software attempting to "get out" is probably going to use a high level call out to the net. So who cares that it must now leave through the wifi radio instead of the baseband radio?
I'm happy about multiple switches. I don't really understand how cell basebands work and if I can trust a software kill. My biggest issue with my phone is cell phone companies selling real time location data, so I will mainly have that switch off while using wifi for communication. If the software kill means the baseband transmits no data, great, I'd be fine with just that. If it means the basebands transmits no data from the phone, but still beacons out to cell towers, I absolutely will want to kill it while remaining on wifi.
I have mixed feelings about a phone that might lull me into thinking it's not a computer controlled by a hostile entity. Carrying a cheap android, I know I have an attacker in my pocket. On the other hand, I like the idea of being able to mitigate the danger further than I can already.
I like this approach but I don't think you take it far enough. I like to scatter broken glass around my apartment so I don't lull myself into a false sense of security that it's safe to walk to the bathroom in the dark. I also have my girlfriend poison some of my meals at random so I don't get complacent about food being safe to eat.
This feels like a bit of an odd position to me, as it looks like this would legitimately be a computer not controlled by a hostile entity, to the same degree that most desktops or laptops running Linux would be.
Is there any reason to think it would run anything other than PureOS? Wouldn't you lose all the functionality they are talking about in the post if you installed another OS?
There are some images of the phone on this page of their website [1]. Looks like a fairly clean generic phone really, other than having more physical side buttons than normal
[+] [-] johnchristopher|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robocat|7 years ago|reply
Reliability.
Switches fail, and make devices less waterproof.
I have had plenty of modern devices fail due to broken on/off or volume switches (and failed sensors, and failed plugs or sockets).
[+] [-] ASalazarMX|7 years ago|reply
Because it was cheaper, and most consumers want cheaper goods.
[+] [-] black_puppydog|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|7 years ago|reply
On covering tablet/laptop camera threads, a few people not worried about spying said some video app came on broadcasting to coworkers. One was in bed half-naked with spouse. Another on toilet in office. So, they cover cameras or kill video apps by default to prevent that stuff from happening again.
[+] [-] wurst_case|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jancsika|7 years ago|reply
Also, what's the use case for switches flipped in different directions that wouldn't be covered by software buttons? We can't possibly be talking about targeted attacks-- in those cases you're screwed no matter what.
That only leaves indiscriminate software attacks. Now take the hardware switch setting where baseband=off and wifi=on. I guess it's nice that evil software cannot pretend that baseband is off when it's actually on. But evil software attempting to "get out" is probably going to use a high level call out to the net. So who cares that it must now leave through the wifi radio instead of the baseband radio?
[+] [-] TACIXAT|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sevensor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattnewport|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miloignis|7 years ago|reply
What are your outstanding concerns about control?
[+] [-] paulcarroty|7 years ago|reply
You have an spy on your pocket. Cheap spy or costly, don't matter
[+] [-] Zelmor|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stagger87|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdc12|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/