Posted by Harlan Messinger on 12/20/07 16:15

dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <8c49b6c0-0f41-4fc3-9784-ad8f7938f7e7@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.co
> m>,
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't object to "extreme", so much as it's use to qualify
>> "obfuscation".
>>
>> You appear to be using obfuscation to imply "camouflage" (potentially
>> discoverable, with effort)
>
> Anyway... without wanting to get involved between this business
> with Harlan and you, it did make me wonder how to categorize a
> kill-switch I am fond of wiring up for friend's cars.
>
> I like the idea of not hiding a switch because the damn thing can
> be found if the thief suspects it is somewhere. I prefer to put
> it right under his nose where there is nothing like a simple
> verification procedure for finding it:
>
> Ah! A toggling thingmajig, click, click!
>
> No. Best for it not to physically be this at all.
>
> Next there is another layer of ? obfus... what was the word?
> Anyway, I have a scheme to discourage the thief even suspecting a
> kill switch. Or at least to encourage a different theory in his
> evil head, namely that the car is just hard to start or flooded
> or out of petrol. I can reveal that I do this by ensuring the
> starter motor is *not* disabled.
>
> Naturally I can say no more. But I need a name for the general
> scheme. Perhaps I might patent it. (btw. anyone interested in
> investing, please send $US10 without asking anything in return -
> to show good faith.)

Another approach would be to have fake kill switches that look like real
ones all over the car--thousands of them--in addition to the real one.
*That* would provide real obfuscatory cover.

[Back to original message]