Computing desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 14[edit]

Can Samsung (or its North Korean fans) explode all the cell phones at once?[edit]

I just found this article [1] that says that Samsung can try to prevent its cell phones from exploding by limiting battery life to 60%. Can they do the opposite and set every battery to overcharge? Also, how vulnerable are they to other software options that would overload them and make them blow up at a specific time, such as when they are on the highway? What percentage of them would go off? And is there anyone official whose role actually allows them to reverse engineer the software, test for such threats and stop them before a million buildings are on fire and all the roads are blocked with burned drivers? Wnt (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer products, including software, are subject to regulation. Even if the software update is delivered wirelessly, it is still probably subject to regulation.

I've rephrased some of your questions:

Could a company intentionally or accidentally release software that causes harm to consumers who own some hypothetical product? Sure - but there would be legal and financial consequences.
Could an external black hat hacker release software that causes harm to consumers who own some hypothetical product? It isn't impossible.
In the specific case of this particular product, the Galaxy Note 7:
- How severe is the threat of malicious software with respect to its impact on the fire-hazard of the device's built- batteries?
  - The threat is severe enough that the manufacturer has offered to exchange every single device that escaped out into the world via all of its retail suppliers, and has issued this statement stopping all retail sale of the device. In addition, they have released a software patch to reduce the risk. If you're a law-student, this is a fascinating real-world case study in the nature of tort defense as pertains to consumer electronics products.
  - The scientific and engineering details - the real factual meat of the case - have not really been made available to the public. If you're the type of person who likes unfounded speculation, there are many rumor-sites and even more self-declared experts who will analyze the device, estimate its battery performance, and so on. I don't think we - in the outside world - are going to ever know all the engineering details unless a public investigation is conducted - so I would refrain from estimating anything about "percentages." I would also refrain from speculating about whether any software could cause a battery-fire "on command." In a hypothetical different device, sure: software can trigger an electrical switch that can unleash full battery current and cause heat, completing the fire triangle, and causing flame to emanate from the device. I used to play with those devices when I was a kid: we called them electrical launch controllers for toy rockets. Devices exist that contain software- and batteries- and that are designed to cause fires on command. Whether the Samsung device represents an instance of such a contraption is an entirely different question, and depends on engineering details that we - in the outside world - probably will never have permission to know. We have to trust that the engineers at least tried to design the product to be safe.
Does anybody "reverse-engineer" the device?
- Sure - both inside a company, and outside a company, there are people who exist who perform "black-box testing" for the purposes of assessing regulatory compliance, reducing liability, assuring reliability, and so on. I wouldn't even be surprised if the manufacturer pays people - in controlled environments - to try to cause harm using the device (or its software), so that the engineers can study those types of failure. One hopes that any major device flaw is fixed before it hits the mass-market. But today's devices are immensely complex. Mistakes happen. Even high-mark retail brands are sometimes attached to massive scandals.

Don't let the ill-informed "tech journalism" press-corps sway your opinion too far. The actual facts, as confirmed by the manufacturer, are more important than all the rumors:

The manufacturer confirmed "35 incidents" in their official statement. Exactly what constitutes an incident? Those pesky tech-journalists don't seem to be all that keen on digging in to that definition!
The manufacturer asked owners of the device to participate in the replacement program "as soon as possible," expressing a sense of urgency. They did not actually describe what engineering details are known, nor have they actually stated that the devices are a fire hazard or "unsafe." This is, in some sense, a pretty smart way to phrase all your public statements. But in the spirit of respect for the company, let's not indiscriminately repeat every rumor we hear on the internet as if it is gospel truth. You and I do not actually know the magnitude of any safety hazard.

It is a near-certainty that if the company actually committed a foul, they will be held accountable by way of litigation - and if that happens, more facts will become known to the public, and a procedure will exist to assess the truth of each fact. Until then, every story you read about this event - including my writing here - is just some random person's opinion.

Nimur (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while denying all responsibility may be the smart thing to do legally, it's a definite turn-off to consumers, and Samsung may see a decline in sales due to such behavior. Also; regulators, attorney generals, consumer protection agencies, etc., may feel the need to step in, where they wouldn't have, had the company taken full responsibility. So, denying all responsibility is not always the smart thing to do, for the overall bottom line. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an immense difference, both legally and linguistically, between "denying responsibility" and "choosing one's words carefully."

To help illustrate this difference: I am not aware of any public statement by Samsung that denies the existence of a fire hazard. I am also not aware of any public statement by Samsung that says that they created a fire hazard. I am aware of a statement that says they are recalling their product and have stopped new sales "(because) customers’ safety is an absolute priority at Samsung". See the difference?

Nimur (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say "not admitting responsibility" rather than "denying responsibility" then. It still triggers all those negative consequences I mentioned. Also, reality has to play a role. If only one battery caught fire, they could reasonably hope to blame it on the user, but when they have dozens all catching fire the same way, they have to know they will need to take responsibility for it sooner or later, because courts and regulatory agencies will force them to, if nothing else. So, taking responsibility up front, then getting the recall over with and out of the news, is the best action for the company in such cases. StuRat (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An update - demonstrating that our knowledge of this situation does change with time:

As of today (September 15, 2016), the recall is now being announced in an official statement by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, and new documented information reveals "26 reports of burns and 55 reports of property damage, including fires in cars and a garage."

Nimur (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]