Sadly they don’t describe how they made it work. I imagine that was a lot of software work, as up to date mobile OSses are not made to “lost” some hardware power wise. And it is even harder to get the hardware back to work when the power comes back.
Very cool. I need to have an eye on that.
Thanks for the link.
Not only this as they clearly explain on their homepage that there never has been anyone going this path in such a strict way as they did. There was some heavy engineering and programing to be done to reach the very first level of having a usable version for mass production, because there was no reference design available at all - a complete design from scratch! Also some manufacturers had to quite learn more and others contributed massively to help them to achieve their goal.
Very ambitious project…but I still love my FP2…
3 Likes
Why “only”? Why not both at the same time? Disconnect the device electrically and tell the software to deal with it?
My statement was for a SOC based system. There a hardware switch is from the view of the software nothing different then a software switch.
1 Like
I guess it’s just a matter of expression here.
Sure I do also expect it to work this way. E.g. USB should be manually/by software disconnected (due to syncing the cache etc.).
But as the OS never knows when a hardware disconnect (kill switch) is to be expected it will take a sophisticated and very improved error/exception handling to cope with such a “kill switch” design to prevent lockups and crashes.
I believe this is the main challenge in design.
An alternative would be to only boot the phone after having “set” your kill switches… 
1 Like
I like the overall concept of Fairphone. However I also miss this privacy feature of HW switches similar to the ones used on Librem 5. It would be definitely a decision maker for the purchase. Maybe something to be implemented on Fairphone 4?
3 Likes
Hi everyone and, thank you for the acceptance.
I discovered Fairphone a couple of months ago and, I fell in love with the concept.
I’ve come to learn a bit about cybersecurity in the past few months because of my job. It was pretty scary for me to see how easy it can be to hack a smartphone. And at the same time, how difficult to obtain satisfying privacy protection.
That’s why I think it would be great to have a smartphone with privacy features that allow users to, physically and easily, disable microphones and cameras if needed.
At the same time, it would be in total harmony with Fairphone’s philosophy since caring for smartphone users’ privacy is another good way to care for people.
For cameras, the solution could be by adding a lens cap to the outer shell of the smartphone. These are already on the market. But being well integrated by the manufacturer can make them more effective and robust.
For the microphones, I’m not sure what the best idea would be to disable them. But it seems that plugging a cut connector from a cheap audio kit into the smartphone redirects the sound reception to the kit’s microphone. Since the kit’s microphone is gone, there will be no sound going to the smartphone. So maybe a solution in that spirit would fit the need.
While it won’t address all user security concerns, such a feature could be suitable for large users’ categories who can be uncomfortable with technology. And, one more reason for everyone to buy a Fairphone.
I wonder what opinion will have folks here about the idea?
2 Likes
I think that’s called hardware kill switches and it’s implemented in the Librem 5 
If you check on the forum, it’s a feature asked by a few other people for the FP as well.
4 Likes
Thank you very much for the informations Alex 
2 Likes
Is it really that easy if you don’t have physical access to a device?
It looks to be the case, Incanus, unfortunately. I remember, last spring, an article revealed that through Whatsapp, Hackers were able to open the phone’s camera while the light remained shut. And that wasn’t related to Pegasus attacks …
Depends on your actor. If you followed Pegasus and NSO, this weapon has been sold to questionable authorities.
It also depends on if you update your software (Google Play Store, F-Droid, Android, firmware), and how much software you run on it. The less, the better.
Is it the right time to put this feature back on the radar?
https://cybernews.com/news/france-senate-surveillance-cameras-microphones/
It took that for me to learn that network operators can already turn on microphones and cameras remotely without the need for user’s permission (??).
2 Likes
I think no smartphone can give you true privacy. For that you need a dumb phone. Those switches will not really give you privacy since a lot of data can be collected from you just using the device. Your speakers can also be used as poor microphones (not that Google or companies like that need your mic to target you with personalized ads). Those switches will only give you a false sense of privacy. I’m not saying you shouldn’t fight for privacy, privacy is very important. I’m just not sure you’ll gain anything with hardware switches.
Hi and welcome to the forum.
As UPPERCASE said, the switches may help the user reduce their output but not to any invasive access.
And with the microphone issue, although it may not be that easy, there is the option of disabling and only using an earphone.
It’s a bit of a game, but who do I/you want to play with and who wants to play with you or me.
Switches would have to be full on mechanical disconnect, and quite a bit of extra work that not many people want.
It does seem fun to have such control, but it is a paranoid and backward way of existing.
For effective privacy, on a phone
- keep it off when not in use
- travel 100 miles to use
- remove cameras, mics and speakers
- disable mics and use a earphone
All sounds a bit of a hassle
Surely we can have encrypted sound and audio, so why use a switch
Dumbphones also contain an OS, and a microphone and speaker. You know those old Nokia devices? Guess what, they didn’t get security updates either.
The easiest thing you can do is put tape on microphones you don’t use. For example, my Nvidia Shield TV Remote comes with a microphone on it, and so does my Steam Deck. I don’t use these microphones, and I never will, so I disabled the former with some tape (the latter not, as I trust the device more 
). For cameras you don’t use, you can use a privacy cover (temporary) or some tape (semi permanent as its reversible but takes effort).
However, such surveillance isn’t allowed on innocent civilians. The first sentence of the article reads:
In France, the Senate just approved a controversial provision to a justice bill that would allow law enforcement to secretly activate cameras and microphones on a suspect’s devices.
One needs to be a suspect first, after which hacking is allowed. The same is allowed in The Netherlands already as well, but it has to be suspect of criminal activity. Drug trafficking, for example, and not some kind of minor offense like driving through a red light. So it is not something to overly worry about.
1 Like
Hi… there is no " Fairphone team" on here…it’s basically just Fairphone users.
And I think the apps you put on your device,and the “required” things you say yes to during installation is a bigger issue then hackers…
True, I’m really talking about those dumb phones that are immutable because the OS is read-only and you cannot install apps and things like that. Not saying those are air tight and cannot be hacked, just saying that the attack surface is very small.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once it becomes a normality and the privacy watchdogs get more flexible then we only have to wait for the first scandal to emerge. Hypothetical scenario; downloading schematics for a bomb or abusive content with minors would be a red flag for such an operation. In NL this resulted in operations where they tapped the whole junction point of that user, meaning the whole neighborhood. And what if someone would use the WiFi in the train? They will see everyone as a suspect? I think we should be critical of these laws. Even if you would support it now, also take into account you have to trust the government of 15 years from now as well.
We had this idea that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, not guilty due to suspicion.
Power to the people so they can corrupt more or alternatively or differently.
A single person has little power over others and not much over themselves
Co-operating is done to be able to exert more power.
The acquisition of assets, material, emotional, intellectual all acquired for power over others.
LE and justice system does have this principle (society doesn’t, but elements within society might try to apply it such as journalism), as well as Subsidiarity - Wikipedia and Proportionality (law) - Wikipedia. This applies within EU, and therefore also in FR and NL. The saying an ‘eye for an eye’ is actually from bible origins, and is about proportionality.
If you’d were to apply the above principles, you would not use hacking to figure if Bob stole and apple from the market. Because it isn’t proportional; hacking is very privacy invasive, and there would be way too much noise. You would go for lower methods first; ask for witnesses. Although probably the case would get nolle pros (sepot/sepo in Dutch) as it isn’t interesting enough (not enough economical damage). Which is all examples of subsidiarity as well. With nolle pros, the person of interest would be a suspect no longer; ie. innocent.
Now, lets say there’s a criminal investigation on Al Capone. LE has done extensive effort and has beyond reasonable doubt he is running a criminal enterprise. If previous efforts were exhausted (subsidiarity), and there are leads/clues the person is running a criminal enterprise (but not enough to have a strong case), then it could’ve been proportional to try to hack his (or his peers) smartphone.
TL;DR I’d me more afraid of countries where the above principles do not apply, such as Russian or Chinese hackers.
1 Like