In summary, Gov't emergency notifications will be forcibly delivered to cell phones; I provided the link from the Daily Mail in an attempt to remove any potential partisan spin (heh heh). I see some fellow civil libertarians are complaining about this, and I have to ask, what exactly are they smoking? How is sending phone messages (the stupidity of "texting" aside) an invasion of your rights?
Anyone want to provide a rational position, aside from "St00pid KKKonservatives!" - pretend it was Bush who had made this decision, if it helps. Because I just can't figure it out.|||I assume messages received would be important (e.g. earthquake warning, etc) and they are at no cost to users (aside from gov costs anyway)... so I can't think of a *valid* reason to complain.
I'd think even Bush would agree with this. I'm sure he'd find a way to plug in "war on terror" to sell this idea.|||Quote:
I'd think even Bush would agree with this. I'm sure he'd find a way to plug in "war on terror" to sell this idea.
You think he could operate a phone beyond pushing buttons?|||:/
It does seem handy in case disaster strikes, but it bothers me there's no * next to "alerts issued by the president".
On the other hand it doesn't personally affect me since I don't live in the US, don't have a smartphone (yet) and when I get one I'll make sure to strip if of any stuff I don't want (depending on how spammy those alerts are, I might leave them enabled. Knowing there's gonna be an earthquake or something is pretty handy).
I wonder how realistic it is to make smartphone manufacturers put an actual extra chip into the phone as this picture implies. Also how useful would it be, isn't it possible to disable parts of the hardware with custom firmware?|||Quote:
You think he could operate a phone beyond pushing buttons?
Well, after the Segway fiasco, I am not sure.
Quote:
I wonder how realistic it is to make smartphone manufacturers put an actual extra chip into the phone as this picture implies. Also how useful would it be, isn't it possible to disable parts of the hardware with custom firmware?
I wonder if an extra chip is even necessary, and why you'd want to disable that. If I am correct, the messages sent will only be stuff you'd rather know about like that there is a tsunami coming your way or something.
Of course, I'd be opposed if this was for propaganda or reminding you to vote, but I don't think that this is the intent.|||Quote:
I wonder if an extra chip is even necessary, and why you'd want to disable that. If I am correct, the messages sent will only be stuff you'd rather know about like that there is a tsunami coming your way or something.
Yep, But I'd still like to decide for myself what my phone does. The lack of option to switch it off is the only thing keeping it from being a pretty good idea in my eyes.
I guess the chip in the picture is just to illustrate to the general public a bit of code that makes the ringtone for those messages "special". Which it won't stay for long since people will use it for pranks and stuff.
I wonder how long it will take for someone to figure out how to send a fake message with that system, and what message they'll send. V for Vendetta anyone? (not meaning to imply anything about the US government, just the public warning system hijack idea is there)|||Quote:
I wonder how realistic it is to make smartphone manufacturers put an actual extra chip into the phone as this picture implies. Also how useful would it be, isn't it possible to disable parts of the hardware with custom firmware?
It's about as realistic as making television manufacturers install a parental control "V" chip. And about as useful. Disabling it would be as easy as jailbreaking a phone is now.
Alaris, I think the extra chip is an override, so the alert system can break in on your phone, no matter what you're doing. "We interrupt this phone sex for Important News from the President..."|||Hmmmm...
Phone sex, or tsunami warning. Tough choice.
Some people need to straighten their priorities.|||I live in Michigan. I've got better odds of being hit by a falling meteor than a tsunami.
Besides, I would classify tsunami and other natural disasters as "imminent threats", one of the warnings we can turn off. It's the apparently unblockable messages from the president that I have no interest in.|||The one has to wonder what the president might want to send as messages that would be unblockable. Any info on that?
No comments:
Post a Comment