4 ms·

Having a USB kill switch in this case could (would?) have escalated the arrest method to something more violent.

by Ensorceled 5y ago

marvin 5y ago
How would a more violent arrest have solved anything?
- danbruc 5y ago
  Instead of moving the laptop you move the user. Unless the kill switch is connected to the user or you remove the user too slowly and allow them to manually trigger the kill switch, you may gain access to the laptop.
  - marvin 5y ago
    That's a very interesting proposition that looks completely insane to my European eyes, but I can certainly understand the philosophy behind it. So the premise is that if using kill-switches becomes common among criminals, we can expect suspects in computer crime cases to be apprehended in ways such as unexpectedly being hit in the head with blunt force trauma, gassed with anesthesics or similar violence. Seems like it would challenge some pretty central democratic principles!
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  The kill switch is useless if the accused is incapacitated before they could trigger it. No knock raids, which are inherently violent, to "preserve evidence" and reduce the risk to LEO happen about 20000 times a year in the US.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > No knock raids, which are inherently violent > reduce the risk to LEO I remember reading news about an american who killed an officer who entered without knocking. He was not convicted, it was ruled self-defense.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      20,000 no knock raids and, I think, two cases of officers being killed.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jokethrowaway 5y ago
It's probably better to be beat up or tortured by a state actor than to rot in prison for the rest of your life if they get hands on proof of your culpability. Besides the USA is not Al Qaida, there is a chance they would respect the Geneva convention: https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/faqs-does-us-torture-people https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fac...
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  What I'm saying is that they wouldn't get a chance to use the kill switch because they would have focused on "containing" the suspect before they could activate it.
  - datameta 5y ago
    In theory, I agree. But it is somewhat akin to saying - why use strong encryption since a three letter agency can just brute force your device. If you're in that deep, maybe it won't help. But for the average reporter in a hostile zone, keeping the local police from snooping on their machine would be preferential.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      We actually agree completely. This thing may be useful, and certainly something to think about if you live or travel to places where electronic devices are often snatched and, like you said, prevents casual snooping since the local police WILL have to escalate to violence. I just don't think it's going to prevent a Silk Road incident and could make it worse for the suspect.
      - SamBam 5y ago
        I disagree. I this this sounds a little too much like a TV show like 24. The idea that you could completely immobilize someone at a public library so rapidly and without their awareness that they could not even move their arm 20 cm or so during a struggle seems ludicrous to me. Particularly as the kind of person who would buy this device would be setting themselves up with their back to the wall to prevent captures from behind. I am fairly strong and have wrestled and grappled for over a decade, and I would not put my faith in an operation that required me (even with another agent) to completely immobilize even a weak person enough that I could guarantee they could not trigger this. This takes a flick of a finger to trigger, or moving your arm a small distance away from the laptop.
amoshi 5y ago
Yep, I think so too, it wouldn't have protected him. Whoever was in charge of the operation would've noticed and identified this killswitch, and prepared appropriately. The suspect would be incapacitated as a matter of priority to prevent him from activating it.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Honestly, that sounds a little too "CSI". If the lanyard is attached to a wrist, the chance that someone could be suddenly incapacitated in such a way to avoid a jerky movement that breaks the connection is pretty small. "Knock them unconscious" is a TV trope.
  - geoduck14 5y ago
    What about "pin his hands to the table" while the nerds exfiltrate the data?
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Maybe there needs to be an accompanying/alternative device which can be worn in a shoe and detects toe movements. It would probably have to be wireless, which would introduce false positives or false negatives, (and part of it may need to be attached to the user's ankle, due to size constraints), but it would at least defend against an attacker who could physically restrain the user.
      - mellavora 5y ago
        OMG, did you just invent Agent Smart's Shoe Phone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_phone
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      How is that supposed to happen?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
dotancohen 5y ago
Why? Was he a violent criminal?
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  What does "violent criminal" have to do with it? The US (and other jurisdictions ) use extreme, violent arrest methods like no knock raids for all sorts of non violent offences.
reincarnate0x14 5y ago
I can definitely see policy to tase or otherwise subdue with less than lethal means being OK'ed by authorities and judiciaries. In principle you'd hope this was rigorously established beforehand on per case basis but that historically has not been held to standard long if they end up doing it with any frequency. This is getting into the security question of what your threat model is. If you're seriously expecting a nation-state intelligence agency to be after your laptop, I'd really, really recommend not having anything on your laptop because unless you've got your own security team they're going to find some way to get it and will observe you to see if you're using something like a killswitch first.

Having a USB kill switch in this case could (would?) have escalated the arrest method to something more violent.

marvin 5y ago

How would a more violent arrest have solved anything?

danbruc 5y ago
Instead of moving the laptop you move the user. Unless the kill switch is connected to the user or you remove the user too slowly and allow them to manually trigger the kill switch, you may gain access to the laptop.
- marvin 5y ago
  That's a very interesting proposition that looks completely insane to my European eyes, but I can certainly understand the philosophy behind it. So the premise is that if using kill-switches becomes common among criminals, we can expect suspects in computer crime cases to be apprehended in ways such as unexpectedly being hit in the head with blunt force trauma, gassed with anesthesics or similar violence. Seems like it would challenge some pretty central democratic principles!
Ensorceled 5y ago
The kill switch is useless if the accused is incapacitated before they could trigger it. No knock raids, which are inherently violent, to "preserve evidence" and reduce the risk to LEO happen about 20000 times a year in the US.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > No knock raids, which are inherently violent > reduce the risk to LEO I remember reading news about an american who killed an officer who entered without knocking. He was not convicted, it was ruled self-defense.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    20,000 no knock raids and, I think, two cases of officers being killed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

jokethrowaway 5y ago

It's probably better to be beat up or tortured by a state actor than to rot in prison for the rest of your life if they get hands on proof of your culpability. Besides the USA is not Al Qaida, there is a chance they would respect the Geneva convention: https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/faqs-does-us-torture-people https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fac...

Ensorceled 5y ago
What I'm saying is that they wouldn't get a chance to use the kill switch because they would have focused on "containing" the suspect before they could activate it.
- datameta 5y ago
  In theory, I agree. But it is somewhat akin to saying - why use strong encryption since a three letter agency can just brute force your device. If you're in that deep, maybe it won't help. But for the average reporter in a hostile zone, keeping the local police from snooping on their machine would be preferential.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    We actually agree completely. This thing may be useful, and certainly something to think about if you live or travel to places where electronic devices are often snatched and, like you said, prevents casual snooping since the local police WILL have to escalate to violence. I just don't think it's going to prevent a Silk Road incident and could make it worse for the suspect.
    - SamBam 5y ago
      I disagree. I this this sounds a little too much like a TV show like 24. The idea that you could completely immobilize someone at a public library so rapidly and without their awareness that they could not even move their arm 20 cm or so during a struggle seems ludicrous to me. Particularly as the kind of person who would buy this device would be setting themselves up with their back to the wall to prevent captures from behind. I am fairly strong and have wrestled and grappled for over a decade, and I would not put my faith in an operation that required me (even with another agent) to completely immobilize even a weak person enough that I could guarantee they could not trigger this. This takes a flick of a finger to trigger, or moving your arm a small distance away from the laptop.

amoshi 5y ago

Yep, I think so too, it wouldn't have protected him. Whoever was in charge of the operation would've noticed and identified this killswitch, and prepared appropriately. The suspect would be incapacitated as a matter of priority to prevent him from activating it.

stickfigure 5y ago
Honestly, that sounds a little too "CSI". If the lanyard is attached to a wrist, the chance that someone could be suddenly incapacitated in such a way to avoid a jerky movement that breaks the connection is pretty small. "Knock them unconscious" is a TV trope.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  What about "pin his hands to the table" while the nerds exfiltrate the data?
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Maybe there needs to be an accompanying/alternative device which can be worn in a shoe and detects toe movements. It would probably have to be wireless, which would introduce false positives or false negatives, (and part of it may need to be attached to the user's ankle, due to size constraints), but it would at least defend against an attacker who could physically restrain the user.
    - mellavora 5y ago
      OMG, did you just invent Agent Smart's Shoe Phone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_phone
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    How is that supposed to happen?
  - CRConrad 5y ago

dotancohen 5y ago

Why? Was he a violent criminal?

Ensorceled 5y ago
What does "violent criminal" have to do with it? The US (and other jurisdictions ) use extreme, violent arrest methods like no knock raids for all sorts of non violent offences.

reincarnate0x14 5y ago

I can definitely see policy to tase or otherwise subdue with less than lethal means being OK'ed by authorities and judiciaries. In principle you'd hope this was rigorously established beforehand on per case basis but that historically has not been held to standard long if they end up doing it with any frequency. This is getting into the security question of what your threat model is. If you're seriously expecting a nation-state intelligence agency to be after your laptop, I'd really, really recommend not having anything on your laptop because unless you've got your own security team they're going to find some way to get it and will observe you to see if you're using something like a killswitch first.