California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests • Hacker News Board

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#41

Post by programmarchy » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:21 PM UTC

plainOldText wrote: post #29

Surrounding ourselves with devices we cannot trust can be detrimental to us, especially if they are being backdoored, contain malware or are used against us. I'm starting to realize the only solution is open source hardware + software. There might be no other way. How else could we trust a device if we cannot inspect it?

Check out http://www.lowrisc.org

"lowRISC is producing fully open hardware systems. From the processor core to the development board, our goal is to create a completely open computing eco-system."

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#42

Post by seniorsassycat » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:26 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #39

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #25

Hi all; original author of this blog post, happy to see it getting so much feedback. I think it's important to highlight the risks in and out of state: The bill says that police CAN use this mandatory kill switch, but must comply with Public Utility Code Section 7908 in doing so; that law generally requires police to get a warrant before shutting down cell service, but has an "emergency" exception where court approva…

Yes, the bill has an emergency exception, but you omitted to mention that it still requires police to go to court afterwards (within 6 hours, or with additional submissions to justify the delay if that is not possible) to make a showing of why a communications interruption was necessary, and requires the court to balance police claims with First Amendment freedoms, strictly limiting the scope of acceptable reasons an…

What is the response if the court rules that the shutdown was unwarranted after the fact?

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#43

Post by goldscott » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:26 PM UTC

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #36

goldscott wrote: post #28

This article is FUD. From the actual bill: "This bill would require that any advanced mobile communications device, as defined, that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, include a technological solution, which may consist of software, hardware, or both software and hardware, that can render inoperable the essential features of the device, as defined, when the device is not in the possession of the right…

Also from the actual bill (which the post includes a link to in the first line): "Any request by a government agency to interrupt communications service utilizing a technological solution required by this section is subject to Section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code." The bill gives direct authorization for police to use this mandatory kill switch, so long as it complies with PUC Sec. 7908, which includes an emerge…

Ah! This wasn't in the version of the bill that I googled (first result when searching 'sb962' showed me the original bill).

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#44

Post by lemonlyman87 » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #39

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #25

Hi all; original author of this blog post, happy to see it getting so much feedback. I think it's important to highlight the risks in and out of state: The bill says that police CAN use this mandatory kill switch, but must comply with Public Utility Code Section 7908 in doing so; that law generally requires police to get a warrant before shutting down cell service, but has an "emergency" exception where court approva…

Yes, the bill has an emergency exception, but you omitted to mention that it still requires police to go to court afterwards (within 6 hours, or with additional submissions to justify the delay if that is not possible) to make a showing of why a communications interruption was necessary, and requires the court to balance police claims with First Amendment freedoms, strictly limiting the scope of acceptable reasons an…

Because prior judicial approval is the key check to preventing government abuse; if police want to shut down a protest a judge potentially telling them they went too far 6 hours later is not going to help.

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#45

Post by chenelson » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #22

chenelson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loophole is handset exchange at the local retailer.

Wouldn't they check the phone against the list of stolen phones, or at least make sure the thing works as a phone, before accepting it?

Returned devices often do not work--that's why they're being exchanged.

Also, just on the carrier's corporate retail side (small in comparison), we're talking about over 2,500 locations, over 25,000 reps, and over 500,000 new monthly adds and upgrades. Serialization is very expensive and does not eliminate the tricky human.

Also, even a disabled device is still worth parts.

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#46

Post by tcoppi » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #44

anigbrowl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the bill has an emergency exception, but you omitted to mention that it still requires police to go to court afterwards (within 6 hours, or with additional submissions to justify the delay if that is not possible) to make a showing of why a communications interruption was necessary, and requires the court to balance police claims with First Amendment freedoms, strictly limiting the scope of acceptable reasons an…

Because prior judicial approval is the key check to preventing government abuse; if police want to shut down a protest a judge potentially telling them they went too far 6 hours later is not going to help.

That may be true, but it should still be mentioned in the article in the interests of a fully informed electorate.

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#47

Post by le_meta » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:31 PM UTC

danudey wrote: post #33

michaelfeathers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate First Amendment challenge. One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against jamming of any sort of radio signal.

This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio in it. There's no FCC issue here.

"This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. "

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#48

Post by michaelfeathers » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

danudey wrote: post #33

michaelfeathers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate First Amendment challenge. One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against jamming of any sort of radio signal.

This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio in it. There's no FCC issue here.

I know. My point was that that regulation protected us in absence of having a kill switch on phones.

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#49

Post by AJ007 » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

scelerat wrote: post #9

There are fundamental freedoms the government cannot and should not be able to subvert. Communicating with others, via any means necessary is one of them. I feel I am politically very far away from many guns rights activists, and am wary of the practical outcomes of widespread weapon ownership, but at the same time I believe 2nd Amendment advocates are completely right to be wary of government's ability to strip indi…

It is sad to see groups of people who strongly support the Bill of Rights fall for menial tricks for the purpose of splitting them in to marketable groups of voters/donors.

All individual rights can be rationalized away in an unlimited number of scenarios, emergency and otherwise. Anyone who believes in those rights absolutely should logically appear insane at least sometimes.

Re: California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

#50

Post by miql » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:33 PM UTC

Are there past, current, or future projects for launching networks w/in low earth orbit? I think it'd be effective to create an LEO, raspberry pi network for instances such as these. Remember when Libya turned off phones and the internet to stop unrest? People thought it was ridiculous and would never happen here. We're on that trajectory.