this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
14 points (79.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35896 readers
1252 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
14
Couldn't governments just remotely disable phones nearby to prevent evidence of police brutality from being recorded? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 3 days ago by IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KeepFlying@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] KeepFlying@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] femtech@midwest.social 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

only thing that they could do

Not true. Have you never heard of IMSI catchers?

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 points 2 days ago

Stingrays = Kleenex of IMSI catchers

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Don't give them ideas!

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

OK, how?

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.

  1. recording & sharing recordings of such activities has already been outlawed in certain jurisdictions.

  2. media & public narrative is already tightly controlled.

  3. they already routinely get away with worse crimes against the public for the above reasons.

  4. 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

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] BonerMan@ani.social 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nah they dont actually have the abilities for that. Especially not some street cop murdering puppies or shit like that.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They may. I really don't know. We could go round and round about it, there are lots of arguments for both perspectives.

If a government does have this capability, they aren't likely to use it on a whim and have it be exposed.

[–] BonerMan@ani.social 1 points 3 days ago

Nobody would give some idiot with one week training a EMP device or access to the CIA technology. This would result in the biggest Chaos imaginable.