← Back to context

Comment by jacobgkau

8 days ago

> Works best in areas with patchy or no internet, or under censorship.

The biggest problem I immediately foresee is that this sounds backwards. It doesn't work best in areas with patchy or no internet, it works best in areas with lots of participating devices. It's most needed in areas with patchy or no internet, but those areas are likely to be the opposite of the areas with lots of participating devices.

If your country shuts off Internet access for demonstrations this would work great.

  • I guess it depends on the authoritarian government, but a sufficiently powerful one will get the app taken down or get the bluetooth features it relies on disabled (like for airdrop in China) :/

    I would say that the underlying issue is that people do not really "own" their devices and the corporations that do are vulnerable to (or complicit in) state coercion.

    You cannot truly have freedom on a non-free device, you can just be small enough to not be worth taking action against yet.

  • But it would only really work well in a small area, such as a couple friends communicating at a demonstration, where there are a lot of people who may be motivated to participate in a particular area.

    If there is a low density area between two people, a message could take a long time to show up. A message from NYC to LA is effectively relying on the messaging being cached on a phone in NYC, that person flying to LA, and then continuing the journey.

    • Though demonstration organizers could run around with QR codes making it easy for everybody to install the right app to communicate with each other during the demonstration. As long as people can side-load things on their phones, this should be possible without any way to stop it unless you deploy radio jammers. (Which is then the logical next step for police equipment in so minded states.)

      2 replies →

  • Yeah, I used an older version of a bluetooth messaging app like this. We wish it had been available in the times of Tahrir Square, but it was actually helpfull onetime when my bus stopped at a rural Ethiopian bus stop, my girlfriend ran into the bathroom but was taking too long and I was able to warn her that the bus was getting ready to leave.

    Wireless internet is getting better, but when you really need something like this, you really need it.

  • If your country shuts off internet access they are probably going to jam bluetooth and wifi at any large demonstration, too.

  • Nation states can use the baseband radios to track/monitor you, so it's best to leave your phone at home. You can't disable or observe baseband from the higher level OS.

    • FWIW what people call "baseband" in the context of this particular security flaw is what everyone (including those people) call "cellular modem" in every other context.

      On a Pinephone you can turn it off with a physical power switch.

      If you really wanted to, on most other phones you could desolder it and throw it in the garbage. You'd need to already have custom firmware on the main CPU (or should I say "application processor" to fit in with the people who say "baseband processor") so it wouldn't crash or lock up when booting.

      A little bit less destructive (in case you want to use your cellphone as a cellphone later) would be replacing the antenna with a dummy load.

First use that comes to mind is Gaza where Israel cut off power, bombed cell towers and internet cables. Something like this could help get messages out.

  • I don't think this is relevant. Free communication of people is the last thing regimes like those that govern Gaza need. My money on that local authorities will literally execute people for simply having such apps on their phones.

    • By "regimes that govern Gaza" I presume you're talking about Likud? They are the ones dropping bombs, but they don't have boots on the ground, so they can't inspect everyone's cellphone and catch people for having the wrong apps installed.

> It's most needed in areas with patchy or no internet, but those areas are likely to be the opposite of the areas with lots of participating devices.

In fairness to op, the proposed solution seems best intended for comms blackouts in densely populated areas rather than areas with persistently limited access.

Internet don't work well in huge crowds - stadiums or mass protests. In second case govmt tend to block internet as well