I mean, I see “leaked” videos of protests in authoritarian countries like China and just wonder why they dont just like make a backdoor that disables videos from being recorded. Or use some sort of 0-day exploit that installs malware on their phones and disable cameras.
I mean, I can’t be the only one that thought of it, right? Surely someone in the government would’ve thought of it.
Wonder why such tactic isn’t being used.
You’d likely only be able to use it effectively once before people seek out different recording devices, or just the knowledge that cameras were disabled in that area would be as damning as any video.
Especially for any zero-day exploits. As soon as it gets used people start protecting against them so they often don’t work for very long. It would need to be a pretty big coverup to be worth burning an exploit on. Especially if it’s likely that at least one person in the area wouldn’t be susceptible and could still record it.
just the knowledge that cameras were disabled in that area would be as damning as any video.
I wish it worked that way. Logically yes, but not in court (as far as I’m aware). At least not when the offending officer is on the stand
Looking at how bad our current system is, there’s clearly no need to prevent the videos from getting out because the officer can get away with it despite that.
And even if the officer doesn’t, the department can just scapegoat them and just keep doing the same things.
All the more reason to not waste a 0-day or risk the knowledge of a backdoor getting out.
Damn, this is so depressing.
I mean I guess they won’t have to do censorship anymore, with AI, they could just lie and say its deepfake or whatever.
The only thing that they could do quickly is have the towers shut down or bring a hammer. But both of those require more then just a for fun ask. Also street cops usually don’t have access to CIA level exploits. Look at what happened with stingray cell towers, local cops got access and people got wise to it since they overused it and used it for low level crimes.
only thing that they could do
Not true. Have you never heard of IMSI catchers?
Stingrays = Kleenex of IMSI catchers
Ahh look alike they are the same thing. Thanks for letting me know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#%3A~%3Atext=The+StingRay+is+an+IMSI-catcher%2C+a+cellular%2Cname+to+describe+these+kinds+of+devices.
Don’t give them ideas!
Lol its not new. I once saw on reddit that apple filed a patent that allows concerts to emit a signal to prevent recording because… reasons…
Then people in the comments were like “Police could misuse this”
I mean I could see why the US couldn’t do this. Constitution stuff and all, but just wonder why dictatorships don’t just do it, they have all the power to.
Because if they can do it, what is stopping another government doing it to them during a crisis?
You generally want to keep your capabilities hidden until you need them for something important.
A government could mandate that a company, like Apple, must install a remote deactivation and give access to that feature to the government.
There is no knowing if they already do, because there hasn’t been a good reason to use it, that we know of; it wouldn’t be impossible to make people disappear who have experienced such a thing.
OK, how?
Apple has a patent that is designed to allow concerts to disable iphone cameras to I assume “avoid distractions” or whatever. That could be exploited by the police. Luckily apple never implemented that in iOS.
So its not inpossible.
A government could mandate a manufacturer to install a backdoor that disables the camera to be used (or even disable communications if they wanted) that activates when nearby police send a certain signal, then the phone receiving the signal would disable whatever fuctions it wanted. This would allow them to just kill protesters then falsely claim that the protesters were rioting and using violence.
you are basically correct, and i believe these concerns were raised when that apple patent hit the news.
essentially it boils down to the unpleasant fact that it’s simply currently not required.
-
recording & sharing recordings of such activities has already been outlawed in certain jurisdictions.
-
media & public narrative is already tightly controlled.
-
they already routinely get away with worse crimes against the public for the above reasons.
-
even if a handful of individuals face some vague justice, the public foots the bill with tax payer funded settlements.
one day something similar to that apple patent probably will happen though, especially as corporations merge further with our legal systems, and it’ll be labelled a breach of copyright because their uniforms have sony logos or some such
-
I mean you’re kinda getting into “Stallman was right” territory here. Obviously computers (including smartphones) should not be disabling any functionality without the owner’s consent, but we do not live in a free software utopia.
How would that backdoor be activated? If over the Internet, it can be trivially avoided by not connecting the phone to the Internet.
And in the end someone is going to bring a standalone camera that can’t even be connected to the Internet.
How would that backdoor be activated?
See, phones could be preloaded with a malware that make it so that it doesn’t actually turn off radios (like wifi bluetooth or celluar) when you change the settings, and only stops transmitting and goes to passive listening only. Once they detect a certain signal, like when police activates it in a protest, the phone then activates and disables recording, and maybe also disable trasmission of data.
I mean this is just hypothetical. I don’t know if they are doing this, or if they can. But like when you think about it, its quite possible.
There are already reports of malware that fakes a shut down animation and silently records in the background, and execute remote commands.
Fair point, but it still wouldn’t stop standalone compact or interchangeable lens cameras or camcorders, those don’t even have a cell modem built in. Most people don’t carry one of these around, so it would reduce the number of cameras, but not to zero. People carrying cameras around wherever they go is a recent phenomenon anyway, it would take us back to around 2000.