News - California is expected to enforce adoption of smartphone killswitch

[HEXUS]

If the bill is passed all mobile devices sold from 2015 onwards would need this feature.

Read more.

[Saracen]

Interesting.

I will watch to see how this turns out.

[crossy]

The most recent numbers I could find for mobile phone loss/thefts are as follows: 10,000 per month in London, and 4.9 million per month for the whole of the USA (but another source said 133,000 per month in the USA during 2012).

Wow! They're shocking numbers.

I recently misplaced my phone and was very glad that I'd got remote wipe capability (actually three - Google's one, Samsung's one, and one from AVG that I installed). Thankfully I was also able to use remote locate and remote ring to find my phone, but it was a worrying time. So I can see where the Californian folks are coming from on this initiative.

[Saracen]

Wow! They're shocking numbers.

I recently misplaced my phone and was very glad that I'd got remote wipe capability (actually three - Google's one, Samsung's one, and one from AVG that I installed). Thankfully I was also able to use remote locate and remote ring to find my phone, but it was a worrying time. So I can see where the Californian folks are coming from on this initiative.

I get the impression that the Californian move is primarily about violent phone robberies, as it is about data protection. Though, clearly, that's also a real concern, and one reason (but by no means the only one) why I've steered clear of smartphones.

I don't want by data being stolen/abused by criminals, but I also don't want it being stolen/abused by corporates because of overly-wide permissions granting app developers huge numbers of permissions the app doesn't actually need.

[crossy]

I don't want by data being stolen/abused by criminals, but I also don't want it being stolen/abused by corporates because of overly-wide permissions granting app developers huge numbers of permissions the app doesn't actually need.

Quite!

And yes, we DO mean you Mr Google!

(Pet hate of mine - that Android apps just presents you with a list of permissions and you have to either grant in full or remove the app. E.g. why the heck does Firefox need to be able to record voice and video?)

[Saracen]

...

And yes, we DO mean you Mr Google!

....

Absolutely. Not only them, of course, by a very large margin, but Google first and foremost.

[Saracen]

....

(Pet hate of mine - that Android apps just present you with a list of permissions and you have to either grant in full or remove the app. E.g. why the heck does Firefox need to be able to record voice and video?)

Give me granular control over permissions and I might even buy a smartphone. But until I can lock all apps out of things they don't need, I'm not going put put the data on a phone that might actually make it worth having one.

Of course, I (we??) are probably more representative of the exception than the rule, with the majority either being naive enough to not know, or do know but just don't care. My bet would be, largely speaking, the latter.

[ik9000]

I've been looking for something that would give me control over the whole permissions thing. Anyone know of anything? I currently resort to the strategy of: if it looks like a cack list of permissions it doesn't get installed. I am running very old versions of a lot of things due to the BS in the new version permissions. several other ones haven't even made it onto the phone at all. And I agree, Google really ought to do better. It's not hard for a software to simply say "this feature is not activated" if you block certain permissions. Like why does Firefox need NFC rights? And why does kindle need access to the camera? Etc etc.

[jim]

I'm not sure granular control will ever happen, because I and probably many others would instantly ban most apps from accessing the internet and thus stop the ads. It's certainly what I did when I had a rooted phone with a firewall on it.

And it would introduce yet more problems to bug-test for.

I wish it would happen though.

As for the OP, I'm not sure I'm too bothered. As long as it is just that, i.e. a switch that permanently disables the phone, as opposed to one that enables the police to start tracking it via GPS, taking front-facing camera photos, then I don't see it as a major privacy concern. It would just be a more effective alternative to the existing barring system, wouldn't it?

[moeburn]

E.g. why the heck does Firefox need to be able to record voice and video?)

Voice-to-text search. Video gets lumped in the same permission.

[ik9000]

I'm not sure granular control will ever happen, because I and probably many others would instantly ban most apps from accessing the internet and thus stop the ads. It's certainly what I did when I had a rooted phone with a firewall on it.

And it would introduce yet more problems to bug-test for.

I wish it would happen though.

As for the OP, I'm not sure I'm too bothered. As long as it is just that, i.e. a switch that permanently disables the phone, as opposed to one that enables the police to start tracking it via GPS, taking front-facing camera photos, then I don't see it as a major privacy concern. It would just be a more effective alternative to the existing barring system, wouldn't it?

How would it work? Linked to IMEI number? Launched by a global server someplace? Your phone gets nicked, you tell your network provider who does the right clicks and kabang. The phone is toast? All well and good but you just need one bad egg to maliciously type out your ISP, or some dimwit to typo one and you could end up with a brick and no recourse.... Fine in principle, but what are the safeguards.

And the paranoid brigade will also point out that if the government went evil they could auto-kill the handsets of anyone they disliked. eep!

[ik9000]

I'm not sure granular control will ever happen, because I and probably many others would instantly ban most apps from accessing the internet and thus stop the ads. It's certainly what I did when I had a rooted phone with a firewall on it.

yeah when I play soduko (deliberate typo) I put it in flight mode to block the ads. Works a treat.

[crossy]

I've been looking for something that would give me control over the whole permissions thing. Anyone know of anything? I currently resort to the strategy of: if it looks like a cack list of permissions it doesn't get installed. I am running very old versions of a lot of things due to the BS in the new version permissions. several other ones haven't even made it onto the phone at all. And I agree, Google really ought to do better. It's not hard for a software to simply say "this feature is not activated" if you block certain permissions. Like why does Firefox need NFC rights? And why does kindle need access to the camera? Etc etc.

I'm going to assume that you're on Androind, in which case, I was looking at Permission Manager on the basis that SOME control is better than what I've got now (i.e. nothing). I've included the link because there's quite a few Permission Managers on Play which is downright confusing.

One piece of bad/good news was in Engadget "Google says Android app permission manager was released by mistake, removes it from latest update". So basically if you've got Android 4.3 through 4.4 - but NOT the latest 4.4.2 release then you should have that hidden control.

Given Google's been roundly criticised for years about Android's permissions, you'd think that they'd be a bit more eager to give some control, especially if gApps are excluded. Still maybe the best things come to those who wait - and I'm waiting for OS upgrades on both of my Samsung devices!

[crossy]

How would it work? Linked to IMEI number? Launched by a global server someplace? Your phone gets nicked, you tell your network provider who does the right clicks and kabang. The phone is toast? All well and good but you just need one bad egg to maliciously type out your ISP, or some dimwit to typo one and you could end up with a brick and no recourse.... Fine in principle, but what are the safeguards.

And the paranoid brigade will also point out that if the government went evil they could auto-kill the handsets of anyone they disliked. eep!

Well, we can't do anything about the government - especially the US one - after all, if they really take a dislike to you then they can always whistle up a drone strike!

I would exclude the carrier/teleco from this arrangement - otherwise it could get get complicated if you're with a small teleco that goes bust, or move service (as I did in December). So it's either got to be provided by the OS provider or by the phone manufacturer.

Actually quite like the arrangement that Samsung has - you "register" your phone with them. So if it gets nicked then you log into your Samsung account and there's the list of registered devices that you own. You just click the one that you want zapped - so no danger of getting a transposed-digit error. Heck, they could always include two-factor authentication (using another phone of course!!!) to make it doubly sure.

Only downside is what you do about phone transfers - so you buy a phone second-hand off of someone else? Conceivably if they want revenge for some slight in the future, then if they've not "deregistered" that phone they sold to you, then they could remote wipe/lock it. Not sure how you'd get around that in practice unless there was some requirement to "renew" that registration at intervals proving that the phone is still in your possession - perhaps sending you a code that has to be typed into the entry for your phone - thereby proving that you've got the phone and know the login details for your account.

[CampGareth]

I've been looking for something that would give me control over the whole permissions thing. Anyone know of anything? I currently resort to the strategy of: if it looks like a cack list of permissions it doesn't get installed. I am running very old versions of a lot of things due to the BS in the new version permissions. several other ones haven't even made it onto the phone at all. And I agree, Google really ought to do better. It's not hard for a software to simply say "this feature is not activated" if you block certain permissions. Like why does Firefox need NFC rights? And why does kindle need access to the camera? Etc etc.

I think cyanogenmod has this built in for this reason, if a torch shouldn't be able to read your texts then you can turn off that individual permission. If I can see why an app has it I'm fine with it, like firefox wants my camera and microphone for voice recognition and presumably video calls within the browser, maybe search from a photograph, NFC should be for sharing web pages with other devices.

Oh, but I'm not fine with anything that takes control of my devices away from me so directly. My files can be in the cloud but a government agency could actually turn off the phone in my hand? Just no, not okay with that.

[Saracen]

I think cyanogenmod has this built in for this reason, if a torch shouldn't be able to read your texts then you can turn off that individual permission. If I can see why an app has it I'm fine with it, like firefox wants my camera and microphone for voice recognition and presumably video calls within the browser, maybe search from a photograph, NFC should be for sharing web pages with other devices.

Oh, but I'm not fine with anything that takes control of my devices away from me so directly. My files can be in the cloud but a government agency could actually turn off the phone in my hand? Just no, not okay with that.

And that, of course, in an option ....for anyone that wants to run the risks of bricking/warranty-voiding a potentially expensive phone or tablet.

My argument is that I ought to be able to lock/unlock such permissions on MY device without having to run the risks inherent in replacing firmware.