I've installed the "little tool" on my Flipper Zero and confirmed that it does, in fact, crash my iPhone.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here on this site, but as a reminder, the tool only exposes a bug that was already there. It's an exploit for an existing problem. I'm glad that this bug is getting press now so maybe it'll get fixed. Without the public visibility, only the bad guys would have this ability.
And as another reminder, an exploit that can reboot a device might be able to leverage that memory leak, null dereference, or whatever else to do more than just crash it.
Even just crashing the device has significant impact.
A bank robber, terrorist or totalitarian state could benefit significantly from bringing down all cell phones in the area for a few minutes (or even just crashing them in a loop as they boot up).
That's a great incentive to fix such (bluetooth) vulnerabilities! Surely your message was because you're in favor for fixing such bugs urgently I hope?
I clarified a bit in a sibling comment but this was in response to folks who respond by wanting the flipper banned. I think I just misread the author's tone.
I hope so, but to me it sounded like they preferred security through obscurity. I admit my comment was quite tongue in cheek, mainly because I've seen a lot of people react to the flipper's existence by saying that the device shouldn't exist, instead of that vulnerabilities should be fixed. The comment sounded to me more like the "flippers should be banned" type, but that's my perception of the comment.
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi waste battery power on a phone, so the best thing is to leave them off anyway. Not that it should be vulnerable to this BT attack, of course.
If I'm home, I'm using a computer or tablet, so I don't even turn Wi-Fi on my phone there.
People don't seem to think this stuff through. Although to be fair, most people have no idea they're wasting power, and Apple defaults everything to ON and makes it a PITA to turn this shit off. They even put fake "on/off" controls in "Control Center" that only toggle BT and Wi-Fi TEMPORARILY. Offensive disregard for the user's choices.
> Bluetooth and Wi-Fi waste battery power on a phone
Bluetooth uses very very little power. Think about it. While I don't know the specifics of the iphones BT unit, let's take the Airpods and assume it's similar . They have about a 25mah battery per earpiece (from what i gather from a 3 second search) and they last about 5 hours. So 100mah per 20 hours. Your iphone, let's say, has 3000mah battery. So in 20 hours BT would use 100/3000 pct of your battery in that period. And that's actively using it.
It's really not worth the effort to bother toggling it.
Now, if you still want to, well that's what automations are for.
The real reason to leave bluetooth disabled isn't battery drain, but tracking. Bluetooth tracking beacons are all over the place and detect and identify your device from distances between feet and miles.
A lot of people use bluetooth devices - watches, headphones, car, speakers, etc. It makes much more sense for the toggle to only temporarily turn off bluetooth because in today's majority use case, that's what people are likely wanting.
It sucks that you have to deal with it for your minority case, but that's just the way things are. There are work-arounds, but you clearly don't want to try any of those. You're prerogative.
And Wi-Fi is more efficient than cellular. It's best to use that as much as possible.
My strong assumption is that the majority of times that people toggle off Wi-Fi, is to temporarily resolve connection issues. Keeping it off permanently is probably not what they want. The UI warns you of the temporary nature too.
Those who don’t use it, like you, quickly discover the actual way of disabling it. It’s good UX design that aligns with most user’s preferences.
The warning in the UI was tacked on only after people discovered and started complaining about this initially-hidden change.
The change removed functionality that was previously available: quick access to the real on/off toggles for these functions. There's a page in Settings devoted to "Control Center." I would have no problem with it if there were a temporary/permanent option there for these toggles, even if Apple defaulted them to the current (temporary) behavior. Then everyone's preference would be served.
Unless something is broken, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi use so little extra power, that I suspect you're wasting more power by waking up the phone and powering up the display for the couple seconds it takes you to toggle either of them when you need it.
Also: mobile data uses way more energy than Wi-Fi.
I’m not sure that’s true at all. With WiFi on and connected, it uses WiFi calling which uses way less power than LTE. WiFi uses next to no power when it’s not passing data. The power saving extensions to it are pretty good, and coalesce traffic right down.
If I have Wi-Fi available, it almost always means I'm home and I don't care how much power it's using. If I'm not home, I'm not on Wi-Fi and I want to conserve battery power. So there's no need to ever have Wi-Fi activated on my phone, unless I'm doing a software update.
I'm sure there have been efficiency improvements over the years, but it's still needless power consumption.
Also Wi-Fi calling appears to be off by default. Thanks for bringing it up, though. I might try it next time I'm in another country; if you switch SIMs on an iPhone, it loses all association between people's phone numbers and their entries in your contacts. Yes... the iPhone can't handle travel, 16 years in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."
Then why was the Reply button enabled, and why does this rudeness persist year after year?
> Bluetooth and Wi-Fi waste battery power on a phone, so the best thing is to leave them off anyway. Not that it should be vulnerable to this BT attack, of course.
Wi-Fi uses less energy than LTE/5G.
> Although to be fair, most people have no idea they're wasting power, and Apple defaults everything to ON and makes it a PITA to turn this shit off.
Because the vast majority people are OK losing < 2% of their battery life in exchange for the convenience of not having to turn all this shit on every time they want to use their headphones, listen to music in their car, cast something to their TV, etc... Hell, things like smart watches wouldn't even work with this approach.
It doesn't matter if it uses less energy than cellular; it still uses ADDITIONAL energy.
I don't have to turn any of this shit on. If I want to listen to music, I use the headphone jack or dock connector. I have a real watch, so no issue there. And I never cast to my projector because casting sucks ass, so I use a Shield.
> It doesn't matter if it uses less energy than cellular; it still uses ADDITIONAL energy.
This is not true, because both cellular and wifi connectivity do not have a fixed energy cost. That is determined by both utilization and reception quality.
When you are on WiFi with a smartphone, cellular utilization goes through the floor because nearly all utilization is moved to your more energy efficient wifi connection. Even more so if your carrier supports WiFi calling.
I can prove this in my own house. When I turn WiFi off on my phone for whatever reason and forget to turn it back on before the end of the day, my battery drains noticeably faster.
The things you say were true 15 years ago. But technology has changed and improved tremendously since then.
If I'm not at home, I'm not on Wi-Fi. So having it on is a waste of power, if nothing else.
If I am at home, I'm not using the phone except for actual phone calls. It easily lasts all day on cellular standby, and I don't have to remember to turn Wi-Fi off if I'm going to be out for a good portion of the day. I can also charge the phone right in front of me on my desk where I am most of time during the day.
It's one thing that iPhones are prone to this attack.
It's another thing that Apple confuses people with disabling Bluetooth.
I always need to go to settings -> Bluetooth to really turn it off instead of using this pull-down menu.
I assume many non-technical people don't understand this difference.
So it seems like a violation of UX principles that only makes users feel to be in control.
> I assume many non-technical people don't understand this difference.
I hate as much as you do that I can't just turn off BT (nor WiFi!) from the pull-down menu.
But at least on current iOS (17.1), when you "turn off" the BT a message pops saying "disconnecting BT devices until tomorrow"). Ditto for Wi-Fi. Also, when "disconnected", the icons don't look like the others when they are "off" (white background instead of dark gray). They actually look like other icons in the control center when they're turned on! Like the battery saver or flashlight.
They also change to a different icon (barred BT symbol and fully dark) when you switch off BT in the settings.
I'm pretty sure this has been the behavior for a while, since my older iPhone 7 had it too, and was stuck on iOS 15 IIRC.
I actually think this is worse. If you want it on, leave it on. With this, they're in a weird state where they're not off, but they won't connect to anything, either.
I tried and crashed my iPhone with this. I locked the screen, and it never turned back on. Had to force a reboot for it to come back to live. So not "never ending" unless you stay within the Flippers BLE range, which is rather limited.
Also, the notifications trigger on Windows aswell.
I noticed last night our iPad can request Personal Hotspot access even when my iPhone Hotspot is off. There is 0 delay between pressing the hotspot button and my phone beeping. And you can do it as often as you like.
It certainly doesn't go through the internet. I suspect it is direct ipad to iphone communication. I'm going to turn Bluetooth off tonight and see if it goes away.
Yeah, if you use the Bluetooth toggle in control center, it doesn’t disable Bluetooth at all, it just temporarily disconnects all Bluetooth devices. If you go to your Bluetooth settings, it will still be enabled.
Yep, and this offensive disregard for the user's choices only impedes people from mitigating this attack.
Tell Apple to PERMANENTLY respect the user's choices when turning BT and Wi-Fi on or off, no matter where they do it: https://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone/
Thanks, but I'm not going to litter my home screen with workarounds for Apple's disrespect for user choices. I turn them off in Settings and that's that.
Apple is respecting the choice of the majority of it's users who simply want to disconnect all devices temporarily in order to solve an immediate problem. Nearly all the time, Apple's users want BT (and WiFi) ON.
Like I said, there's a whole page of settings for Control Center. Apple could have simply made this behavior selectable. But nope, they changed the behavior of the buttons without telling anyone. Only after people complained did they add the explanatory text.
And another good reason: Despite some improvement Apple seems to have made on this issue over time, the phone will still connect to "free" Wi-Fi that has no Internet connectivity as you roam around.
Bricked for me means broken beyond repair, which is certainly not the case here. Basically, your best option would probably be to physically move away from the other devices, which considering the short range of Bluetooth should be doable in many cases. Provided you realize what's going on of course.
It bothers me to no end that the meaning seems to have changed (I've recently noticed that as well, and I blame it mostly on a sloppy usage of the term for clickbait). I get it, non-tech-savvy people don't see the difference - but what are we supposed to call an actually bricked device now?
Is a device ever really bricked? There's almost always some low level hackery you can perform to recover it or at least boot into an alternative firmware. And in the case of something like an encrypted boot partition with hardware-based cryptographic verification, if you get into a locked out state, it's just a matter of finding the right exploit before you can unbrick it...
Of course most cases short of a severe hardware defect can be unbricked given the knowledge, time and means, that's not the question. I'm referring to the rising tendency on YT and social networks to call any software crash, DoS or whatnot a "brick" when it can be mitigated by simple user-level measures such as a reboot, or in this case, by turning off BT.
This could be used as a way to get someone to type in their password (required on restart) in a visible environment where it can be captured by thieves. The thieves then steal/rob the phone from the person, and can access the phone, including sensitive banking apps. This allows thieves to steal a phone but get something much more valuable — thousands of dollars in bank transfers.
> A similar attack can also be used on Android devices and Windows laptops. BleepingComputer reported last week that the Bluetooth spam attacks can be used on Samsung Galaxy phones to generate a never-ending amount of pop-ups.
> [the attacker was] using a Flipper Zero device with custom firmware to send a combination of Bluetooth low energy (BLE) alerts to nearby iPhone handsets running iOS 17.
> If you have an iPhone running iOS 17, then the only reliable way to protect against the pop-ups and crash attack is by disabling Bluetooth.
True, but I suspect the number of people who have a Flipper Zero and are able to install software on it is much greater than the number of people who could perform the exploit themselves starting with just a Bluetooth chip.
Yeah this part sounds a bit set up for my taste. No context? How did he find out what device was used? Did he talk to the guy? More likely, he tested it on himself with a friend.
The post from Ars Technica [1] on the same subject has more details about the encounter. The researcher had it happen twice in two different trips, they were able to identify the person running the exploit because that was the person in common between both trips. This is very movie like in a sense still.
Even if the device doesn’t crash, the inundation of these alerts is still a DoS and at times, very scary. You can generate them with various prompts, including some that prompt to transfer your phone number to a new device or setup a new iPhone. They’re disruptive and scary, and there needs to be a better protection system in-place against this.
Yeah, I can imagine flood protection wasn't something the designers of Apple's bluetooth systems had in mind, but now this is out they're probably working on it.
Apple's reality: Overall less-crappy security & privacy than its leading competitors
For a premium brand seeking to maximize profit, this makes perfect business sense. And Tim Cook is pretty good at both the "business" and "profit maximizing" stuff.
Apple’s aura is not that they have perfect security & privacy, but that they give a fuck about security and privacy, and they don’t have a business model that’s entirely reliant on disrespecting or circumventing their users’ security and privacy.
Many longer and more-specific terms apply to what you are describing. Hence my use of "aura", with its connotations of being ethereal / involuntary / uncontrolled.
Worth noting: The business models for Apple's largest competitors should also motivate them to care greatly about security* and privacy*.
*Excepting the obvious "private" root holes, for their own exclusive use.
Bluetooth stacks are a pretty rich source of bugs and security issues. Back when I was working at a consumer electronics manufacturer circa 2010, I documented nearly a dozen different crashes/bugs on Android and iOS devices caused by malformed packets my own buggy code was sending. Even simple things like getting the length of HID descriptors wrong would crash iOS at the time. I imagine they've fixed a lot of those with time and better tooling, and BLE is a much simpler standard to boot, but clearly there's still some gremlins lying around.
If it were me, knowing nothing about the inner details of iOS, I would apply some kind of rate limit or throttling on incoming BT connections and allow the user to ignore repeated incoming connections. It would be not unlike trying to download multiple files from the same website, which usually triggers a "do you want to allow $site to download multiple files?" prompt.
Maybe I'm naïve, but this seems trivial to prevent.
Yeah, it seems easy to fix. It is just that no one thought to do it yet.
A rate-limit will turn a serious DoS (device crashes) to a very minor DoS (may struggle to pair a new device or get notifications from nearby devices).
I never anticipated to see Remotespywise reviews here, despite the fact that they once assisted me in hacking and spying on my husband's and kids' cell phones and devices, giving me access to all of their new and deleted messages as well as those from all of their social media platforms. remotespywise @ gmil com is very straightforward and upfront in their works, so it's wonderful that they receive all the recommendations like this, allowing many people who are searching for a very reputable and expert hacking business to learn about them . remotespywise @ gmil com is well-known for recovering digital assets from con artists and providing all kinds of hacking service
It seems to be a STM32WB55RGV6TR MCU (with integrated Bluetooth/Zigbee) and an LCD screen/buttons and a plastic case. At $200 that does seem expensive - you could get a real SDR that works with GNU radio for that.
It's also a sub-ghz radio, LF rfid, HF rfid, infrared and I-button, together with a GPIO connector that's seen a couple of interesting modules. More importantly, it has a community around it, with a few competing firmwares, so there are always new uses for it appearing.
I'm all for a bit of mischief, but please don't do this. I love using my little Flipper to hack my own stuff, clone RFID/NFC tags so I don't have to carry a bunch of access cards around, etc. I don't want it to get banned or classified as a criminal tool.
Good job by the hacker on the train. The more people get used to the idea that their smartphone won't always work when they want it, the more they won't exclusively rely on it when there is a more significant risk. It's a one-man public service campaign.
But it also makes them liable; messing with other people's tech like this can be construed as attempted hacking. What they were doing was NOT "white-hat hacking", that's the author who reproduced the attack in his own home on his own device.
Well I'm glad you're certain that none of the passengers on the train were using their phone for critical patient care or handling a time sensitive family issue.
The more reason to educate people on that front. Don't rely on your single piece of tech in your pocket to work all the time. Society ought to reacquire a bit of resilience on that front.
Need to do critical patient care while commuting? Surely you will have made sure to bring a dumb phone with you as backup, if you are really that critical a resource (after all, your battery might be dead, someone might have stolen your fancy Iphone, etc.).
Time sensitive family issue? What if you turned your phone off to read a book? Are you the asshole now? The train driver might have been stopped at a red signal in the Schipholtunnel; not much of a chance of getting a phone signal there. Is he now endangering people by depriving them of their umbilical uplink?
What if the time sensitive family issue happened while you had your phone turned off for some intimate private time with your partner? How will you ever forgive yourself?
The key takeaway here is to understand that there is no such thing as being available all the time. So don't expect it, and don't feel guilty about not providing it.
There are all plenty more of those convoluted minimal chance scenarios you can come up with, but these hold true for anything people around you do.
It’s amazing what sort of weird opinions people will contort themselves into to make their antisocial behavior “okay.”
Got robbed and murdered? And you only had a deadbolt on your door? Surely you couldn’t be such an idiot as to not have a dual layer steel security door, could you?
Got in a car accident because someone pulled out in front of you? And you were going the speed limit?! What a buffoon. You’re insane to be traveling above 20mph on any roadway, because someone could pull out in front of you at any moment and if you’re smart like me, and not a total doofus, you’re always on your toes.
Got food poisoning at a restaurant? Well if you were smart you’d have asked to see the expiration dates on all their ingredients and observed the kitchen’s methods VERY closely. Make sure you also visit each supplier to observe their hygiene practices, and of course each party who touches each product along the supply chain. Anything short of that is outright negligence on your part.
I’d rather we don’t degrade ourselves into a low trust society due to some abstract desire for “resilience” and instead we just put people in jail to deter people from harming others without their permission.
I think that's a false analogy. I don't have a clear sense on the ethics here, but the basic point is that we should be resilient to crises and broad cyberattacks. Cell towers _will_ sometimes go down, and rare events, such as nation-wide cyberattacks, _will_ eventually happen.
Imagine if [adversary] spends time finding a zero-day in iOS, Android, Linux, Windows, and MacOS, and releases a worm which bricks every computer it gets on (e.g. overwrites every firmware with something maximally malicious). That's within the scope of capability of many world governments.
What happens?
Do people in hospitals die? Does out infrastructure collapse? Or do things keep ticking on, somehow?
Tools like Chaos Monkey intentionally introduce more errors under normal operating circumstances in order to make systems more robust in extreme ones. This is a real-world analogy.
For something like this on a train, it's a question of value systems. I can't bring myself to _have_ a value system which makes this okay for me to do something similar, but I can see rational value systems which would allow that (e.g. hedonistic utilitarianism). It's the trolly problem.
All the examples you gave, in contrast, are just victim-blaming. There is no greater good.
By my value system, though, what I would like to see are similar tests done planfully and intentionally. In the abstract, if a federal government took down the internet and cell phone networks for eight hours, or we had planned power blackouts, or similar, I'd be fully supportive. That would require organizations to build in the right types of resiliency. I understand that's fully impossible in the kinds of political systems we have. But in the right political system, I'd like to have a government which works to make us resilient to those kinds of extreme events.
It's not a false analogy at all. You just happen to care about cyber risk and resilience, so you think it's okay to accept a higher cost in pursuit of it.
Here you go:
* You need steel security doors because we should be resilient to crises and broad security threats. You don't know when there will be a major gang war, a neighbor with a psychotic break, a government breakdown, or a ground invasion. It's just better to have steel security doors because there are all sorts of real risks that they mitigate.
* You need to drive slowly because some day someone will pull out in front of you, even by accident! Accidents like that happen hundreds or thousands of times per day, so it's frankly insane not to be prepared for it.
* You need to check all your restaurant's ingredients because someone will forget to throw out the milk one day. We need to be resilient to this because it's certainly going to happen on occasion, and the right way to achieve resilience is to shift that burden onto end users, or at least to continually poison end users until they demand action from food regulators that we have a 100% foolproof system to prevent bad milk from ever making it into a restaurant meal.
N.B. The comparison to Chaos Monkey is the false analogy. People run Chaos Monkey on their own infrastructure. And yes, if you run a tool like that on someone else's infrastructure without their permission, you're the asshole.
The core issue here is _systemic risk_ and _systemic resiliency_. The risk profile of driving does not change. By driving a car, I expect a risk of 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles driven. We all agree that's a reasonable risk profile.
On the other hand, rare events are things like natural disasters, wars, plaques, asteroids hitting the planet, and so on. Day-to-day decision-making does very poorly for preparing us for those risks.
> And yes, if you run a tool like that on someone else's infrastructure without their permission, you're the asshole.
No. This is wrong.
Things like bug bounty programs were created precisely because whitehat and grayhat hackers made us more resistant to blackhat hackers. If someone tries to compromise my bank's infrastructure _with the intent of surfacing vulnerabilities and without intent of stealing my money_, that might be bad for quarterly profits and my bank might not like it, but it's _good for me_.
Free markets push towards low resiliency by offloading risks onto consumers. Behaviors like this change market dynamics in positive ways.
Ah got it. So if someone pulls up alongside you at 80mph on a highway and remotely disables your vehicle without your prior consent and you crash into a barricade and your entire family dies, we can just take note of the threat vector and find comfort in the fact that maybe an auto manufacturer will harden their cars against future risks. Makes a ton of sense.
> bug bounty programs
Who decides whether to operate a bug bounty program and the parameters of said program?
> So if someone pulls up alongside you at 80mph on a highway and remotely disables your vehicle without your prior consent and you crash into a barricade and your entire family dies, we can just take note of the threat vector and find comfort in the fact that maybe an auto manufacturer will harden their cars against future risks. Makes a ton of sense.
A better example: Someone casually remotely disables all cars in parking lots. They need to be unbricked, which is a month-long process. The outcome is cars are built with security built in. That prevents a terrorist attack six months later where someone was plotting to disable thousands of cars on highways in the way you described.
Cost: Hundreds of parking lot vehicles disabled, with a range of (very real) consequences, such as missing job interviews, missing school pickups, missed medical appointments, etc.
Upside: Dozens of lives saved (but since this never happens, it's abstract lives)
It's very much the trolley problem. It's of course possible to set up absurd trolley problems (pull a lever, kill 5 people instead of 1, rather than the other way around, as you're doing).
People have different answers to the trolley problem.
Yep, if you brick a bunch of people's actual cars, on which they actually depend, in exchange for some hypothetical (?) future (?) hardening (?) against a hypothetical (?) future (?) threat (?), then yeah, you're an asshole. And you should just go to jail.
If you like trolling people you can just say it. No need to make up this "no dude I'm actually helping you defend against a maybe-terrorist attack!"
Yeah, it's like a trolley problem where you tie both sets of people to the tracks and put the trolley in motion. Brilliant.
I am trying to explain to you why people might have a different value system from you.
It's a lost cause.
I, and many others, have the ability to understand value systems we don't share. It would be a good skill to consider developing, in an increasingly diverse world.
You're acting like I'm unaware of the ideas of redteaming or chaos engineering or bug bounties or system resilience and that there's some "value system" blindness that prevents me from understanding it.
I understand and value all of these things. What I'm explaining to you is the ridiculously, ridiculously obvious point that responsible redteaming, chaos engineering, or bug bounty pursuits do not put innocent bystanders at risk. And if you do put innocent bystanders at risk, you are an asshole. Sure, I get that some people have value systems that dispute this, and I'm perfectly comfortable saying those value systems are not worthy of respect.
Intelligence isn't thinking so hard and so abstractly that you can't identify antisocial behavior and inflicting harm on innocent people for very likely zero actual practical societal gain. That's just, again, a convoluted excuse for being an asshole.
A better example would not be disabling all cars in a parking lot. The cars are inert. The phones are active, so driving down the road was apt.
It's not a trolly problem, because the 5 people might be on the track but the 1 person is 200km down the track.
Bluetooth has always been leaky, but apart from being trapped on a train it's mostly mitigated by being able to walk away. It's not something techs are un-aware of.
Also.. 99% of the people on the train wouldn't have any idea what's going on. Calling tech support later would have zero affect. So it's not highlighting the issue to anyone who could remotely address it.
The dongle dude here was just being a jerk because he could. Playing loud music would have been about the same. "I'm going to take joy in confusing/annoying others."
I'm a T1 diabetic and get my blood glucose values through my phone, bluetooth even. So disabling bluetooth as mitigation is not an option and the phone is crucial. The vendor doesn't support another or even a secondary device.
How am I supposed to "reacquire a bit of resilience" here?
Your life should not depend on your phone working, because it will fail sometimes — it's consumer grade electronics, not a pacemaker or milspec ruggedized device with a minimal attack service (i.e., no Bluetooth, but a safer alternative).
What do you do when your phone gets stolen or simply breaks? Complain loudly at the very least, and have a backup in place (but I'm sure you do).
(I'm also T1)When my phone (screen) broke, I contacted my hospital and got a separate device (reader), but it took a few weeks. Disabling phone access isn't okay or justifiable in public places. I'm not defending the existence of BT vulnerabilities but what the guy did on the train was dumb and antisocial.
Phones are ubiquitous in every country I've spent a reasonable amount of time so far. If my phone breaks I can just walk into a store and get a new one. The sensor will transfer its connection to the new phone within minutes. So that really is not that big of a deal.
Some edgy liberation fighter DoS'ing my phone, however, is.
Also note that there are people that have such sensors and insulin pumps connected in a feedback loop. I don't personally but this exists. There also exists a small open source scene around that topic. Examples are https://openaps.org/ or https://nightscout.github.io/
> Your life should not depend on your phone working
My life as diabetic depends on many, many variables. Theoretically, all it needs is an incorrectly labeled meal to do serious harm. Or the delivery guy transporting my insulin didn't maintain cooling. I can only do so much and still live a life without constant fear.
While this may sound dangerous to you, this way of measuring your blood glucose is extremely liberating for diabetics. The alternative is just so much worse.
People used to die before some life saving technologies were invented.
People can die these days if their technology fails. They might not have a better alternative because they can't afford it or it hasn't been invented
Teaching someone a lesson or educating society sounds like a line from a villain from a Bond movie. A sociopathic villain. You are making comments that a sociopath would make.
