This Text Message Will Self Destruct 233
mwilliamson writes "Silicon.com is reporting that Staellium UK (cell provider) has created a protocol in which text messages disappear after 40 seconds. This, of course, relies on the implementation of the protocol in the device used to display the message. They're touting a future roll out for photos as well, and service in the US."
One more reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, goodie ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Text messaging reduced to the level of that arcade game where alligators poke up through holes, and you have to hit them on the head before they disappear. Maybe I can try this while driving, just to make it more interesting.
Re:Does anyone see a different story? (Score:3, Insightful)
While it should be kept under lock and key, have you any idea how much sensitive information is stored digitally? I think you would find that going back to a paper-based society (we're talking pre-1970s terminals here, people) would be very cumbersome. Just keep a sense of proportion, I mean we have your average consumer desktop (hereby referred as 'zombie') and we have the Pentagon's server with the nuclear launch codes. Somewhere in between you should find appropriate security for your digital information.
Re:Does anyone see a different story? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing I use SMS for is contacting my employees that overslept, communicating with friends, using Google for SMS and looking up prices (froogle etc). Sending proprietary information using a text messaging service is crazy.
Stallman got it right, again (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink.
Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption...
I predict (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict:
From my personal point of view this "auto descruction" feature should only be seen as a convenience where phones autodelete messages to keep enough free memory space.
Re:You're slipping Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not the point. Some of us simply don't have the time to check a million other websites, instead we use Slashdot and a handful few others that can filter out stuff of interest.
Maybe if you subscribed to a couple of hundred tech-blogs, you might end up knowing half the headlines on Slashdot. But it's much easier to just read it on Slashdot, in one place, when I can be sure that it will eventually show up.
It was a couple of days late. So what? By the time the service would be available, it would be more than a few days later.
I do not understand this obsession with, "Oooh, I saw this on $foo 32 minutes and 23 seconds ago. Slashdot is SLOWWWWWWWWWWW."
Big deal. Some of us don't really care, as long as we hear about it somehow. Slashdot is primarily a forum, if you are a news junkie, look at other sources.
*shakes head*
Re:False sense of security (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as governement agencies can request your telephone records if you call someone with a death threat (now, in complete secrecy, whether or not you've violated the law), it's hard to imagine them not being able to acquire the same kind of information from the service responsible for routing them.
So the protocol would force the message to be deleted off the headset but the network would retain a copy? Kinda defeats the purpose of the security doesn't it?
Do the cell networks even keep a copy of normal SMS traffic? Or do they just log the fact that an SMS message was sent for billing purposes (like normal phone records -- they don't log the call itself)? Do they even keep a record of who you send messages to or just a running count?
Here and yet wont happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Whilst I don't doubt that this kind of functionality has the potential to be good and bad - anything which requires support from the majority of vendors before it can be used will fail unless there is a significantly compelling reason to have it (eg. T9).
I don't see this as being quite in the same league as T9 though.
Re:How appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think they actually send you the text message. My guess would be that it's stored on their server (better have a WAP data plan) and they just tell you it's there.
The whole "40 seconds" thing is most definitely a lie. I'm sure England has data-retention laws specifying a minimum length the company must hold the message contents. (hint hint, just because you delete your voicemail, doesn't mean it's gone)
But... if they use a "private" flag & it relies on cooperation from clients, then it is broken.
Re:Does anyone see a different story? (Score:3, Insightful)
Until then, I recommend that everyone at least attempt to waste as much of the telemarketer's time as possible. Act interested without agreeing to anything, and ask lots of questions. Sure, it's a pain, but I would bet that if even five or ten percent of people did it, telemarketing would become so unprofitable that they would at least have to change their tactics.
Second utility phone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone depending on this for any real "security" is an idiot.
Re:Does anyone see a different story? (Score:3, Insightful)