I think what you intend to say is this: We should assume the OS is bad and then try to minimize consequences.Trusting the OS to not be compromised isnt the same as lowering the extent of how potentially bad that could be.
If we also have a hardware kill-switch for the WiFi then solution #3 will prevent the device from collecting tracking data about you as you go.Sure it can whenever you enable WiFi/3G, but that is a "risk" one has to take when enabling these.#3 alone: Better than #1, but as soon as you turn it on, it can again do anything it wants. Same conclusion as #1 and #2 (because of other factors than 3G too).
True if we also have a hardware WiFi kill switch. I'll go edit the first post to add this to make it clear.If we also have a hardware kill-switch for the WiFi then solution #3 will prevent the device from collecting tracking data about you as you go.Sure it can whenever you enable WiFi/3G, but that is a "risk" one has to take when enabling these.#3 alone: Better than #1, but as soon as you turn it on, it can again do anything it wants. Same conclusion as #1 and #2 (because of other factors than 3G too).
#2 also, but better.#1 might give some information about tracking features implemented in the hardware itself.
A small three-way switch under the battery not easily accessible feels like the best option. By three-way I mean left position is hardware kill Wifi, middle is kill mobile, and right is obliterate both. Would only need to add complexity to the case plastics in one spot. Maybe they could do it this way for the cautious types. :mellow:This is a major concern for the people requesting it. They are legitimately worried about their game console being used to track them. If it sits in their pocket or backpack or wherever 90% of the day where they cannot see the indicator light then that's 90% of the day where they can be tracked without their knowledge. These people are used to going to extremes to protect themselves. Someone a couple pages back suggested going as far as physically cutting the traces, actually breaking the thing to prevent it from transmitting, and then resoldering it when they wanted to use it.that would be a bit annoying, don't you think?
That's why we thought of an indicator in case the module is powered up instead of a killswitch.
A switch behind the battery may be a bit annoying, but compared to the extreme measures I've seen some people go through to try and hide themselves it's nothing.
Thank you for the post gta04, but I think they're all aware of the USB pathway though. For some, a tiny toggle switch, a status LED, or both were sought as preventative alternatives to ease valid concerns with the deficiencies in the "system". I guess if the added costs you implied are so exorbitant on an already(for some) luxury pricetagged device, then it's a sensible move on your part.So the more I think about it: if someone does not trust the whole system (including component makers and certification authorities) to some level (you should encrypt your communication data anyways) - leave out the module. And use an external one through USB.
Yes and no.I have not yet checked how sensitive we can make such a circuit. The issue is that the module needs a connection as short and as low resistance as possible to the battery.@, can you confirm some stuff?
1. The external power monitor you describe would be trivial to hook up to the SoC instead of an LED. In that case you could set an extremely low trigger current.
Most likeley yes, but I have not yet checked for a specific cheap FET that can carry 3A and has less than the 30 mOhms, but they exist.2. An external electronic FET switch is cheaper than a mechanical switch.
Standard jumpers are big.Would it be possible to have something like jumpers which you can disconnect?