Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cdt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

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

#61

Post by lemonlyman87 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #35

This is a rather irresponsible article. The bill as passed by the CA legislature [1] addresses this possibility. In section 2, Section 22761(e) of the code limits the scope of law enforcement use in accordance with section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code [2], which prohibits interruption of communication by law enforcement in anything other than a hostage or barricade situation, ie an ongoing standoff between polic…

The blog post gives a full discussion of the extent to which the kill switch can be co-opted by law enforcement, and I think does so in a fair manner. It directly references both the bill's requirements for police use and PUC 7908.

Your comment, on the other hand, does not accurately describe the relevant law.

PUC 7908 states that "If a governmental entity reasonably determines that an extreme emergency situation exists that involves immediate danger of death or great bodily injury and there is insufficient time, with due diligence, to first obtain a court order, then the governmental entity may interrupt communications service without first obtaining a court order as required by this section."

Your statement that PUC 7908 prohibits interruption only in hostage or barricade situations is incorrect; those are referred to in PUC 7907, which discusses cutting phone lines. PUC 7908 involves cutting cell service, and is more broad - it uses the language quoted above.

I could easily see this applied to a protest; police say a protest will lead to looting (e.g. Ferguson), perhaps they even see plans for flash mob robbery on social media. On the basis of this, they brick every phone in a protest zone, undercutting protest organization and limiting demonstraters ability to film police abuse on smartphones.

I do not know what the legislators intended; maybe they don't know about the issue, maybe they don't care, maybe they think this is an adaquete solution and are wrong. I don't try to define their intent here, I'm simply trying to point out a very real problem with this law.

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

#62

Post by ctdonath »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #51
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…

There's no existing American right to instant mass communications. And its arguable that we should be wary of this - it can cause riots, flash mobs and result in violence. This is the nature of human beings, and we should consider it carefully when expanding human rights.

Absolutely yes there is: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".

Allowing that "speech" is no less than "communication from one citizen to another", and "press" is a generic term for devices facilitating that communication, there is no reason to believe those who wrote & agreed to the particular enumerative wording of that right meant to exempt "instant mass communications". To the contrary, the specific inclusion of "the press" DID refer to the then-fastest means of communicating with the greatest number of people technologically possible at the time.

BTW: the American declaration of that right as fundamental was written by people who had in fact caused riots, impromptu mobs, and perpetrated violence precisely so they could implement a government which would, among other things, enshrine that right.

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

#63

Post by ctdonath »

rsync wrote: post #55

Here are things we know, and that we have known since the "kill switch" was first proposed: 1. Criminals/thieves will be able to circumvent/disable the kill switch, trivially, within weeks (days ?) of the introduction. Stolen phones will still have value, and theft will continue. Bank on it. 2. The kill switch will be used against legitimate users. 3. Phone manufacturers, who were against the kill switch, will find a…

Unrestricted radios are widely available and easy to build.

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

#64

Post by msandford »

anigbrowl wrote: post #59
seniorsassycat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everyone whose cell phone service was interrupted has a good basis for civil rights lawsuit against the offending police department, for one thing.

A civil rights lawsuit is fine. But the problem is that doesn't PREVENT any police behavior.

1. hit the kill switch

2. tell protesters to GTFO

3. they don't comply so start shooting

4. no recordings of what happened are made so it's he said she said

5. innocent people are dead and the only recourse is a lawsuit based on conflicting sworn testimony where officers are generally held to be more reliable than non-officers

Contrast this with the no-kill-switch situation

1. tell protesters to GTFO

2. they don't comply and are filming

3. knowing they are filming, use less lethal means of dispersal

4. nobody is dead and the police are held accountable for the actions they took

The problem here is that in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary the 6hr window gives the police plenty of time to either find a good reason for why they did what they did or if there's some particularly bad actors around, make up a good reason.

I think the vast majority of police departments wouldn't abuse their power especially considering how very nearly everybody doesn't get shot by the cops on any given day. But the concern here isn't that they'll shut down people's phones when making a traffic stop; people are concerned about the possibility of really bad actors who haven't been caught yet using this as a tool to conceal something really bad.

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

#65

Post by chenelson »

mikeash wrote: post #54
chenelson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I understand what you're proposing. Before, I thought "handset exchange" would be something where you bring in an old phone to get credit towards buying a new one. Like trading in a car. And like trading in a car, they'll want to make sure the old phone is actually worth something before they buy it from you. Now... you're proposing a warranty exchange? Surely they check to make sure the device is actua…

Within 14 days, anyone can cancel or exchange.

So, here's an overly complicated example: 1. Steal Nexus 5 2. Buy Nexus 5 from local retailer 3. Exchange the back from the stolen Nexus 5 with the clean Nexus 5 4. Return stolen Nexus 5 for full refund

What if they try to power-up or troubleshoot the stolen Nexus 5? While you're exchanging the back, damage the power leads.

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

#66

Post by chenelson »

dllthomas wrote: post #53
chenelson wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fifteen years ago people were stealing mock-ups and pretending they had cell phones. I'm not sure those that commit felonies subscribe to the same value chain that you do. Besides, assuming the device doesn't self-destruct Mission Impossible style, at worst it'll still be worth parts to someone. So there will be many more parts available--and possibly more victims to make up the difference (assuming muggers are worki…

You can't possibly believe those are reasonable points.

What--that trying to stop an opportunistic crime with white market reason is idiotic?

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

#67

Post by discardorama »

anigbrowl wrote: post #35

This is a rather irresponsible article. The bill as passed by the CA legislature [1] addresses this possibility. In section 2, Section 22761(e) of the code limits the scope of law enforcement use in accordance with section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code [2], which prohibits interruption of communication by law enforcement in anything other than a hostage or barricade situation, ie an ongoing standoff between polic…

You're not considering the second-order effects. Sure, the law in Cali says police must do X, Y and Z before killing the phones. But the phones already have the kill switch; and, because of convenience, all phones sold in the country will have this kill switch. Now what's to prevent the police in, say, Ferguson MO to just nuke everyone's phones in a region? California law doesn't apply in MO, and the police there will be free to do whatever they want with this switch.

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

#68

Post by discardorama »

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #38
colordrops wrote: post #19

"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests" As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

As a critic of the bill, I'll readily concede that smartphone theft is a major problem. It's one of the most prominant crimes in urban areas, costs billions of dollars a year, and has in several occassions caused violence. Still, it doesn't justify a mandatory kill switch (there are a large number of free apps you can download), and it certainly doesn't justify letting police use kill switches that are installed.

This theft could be eliminated today : let there be a shared registry of stolen IMEI codes. Problem solved.

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

#69

Post by discardorama »

computer wrote: post #27
colordrops wrote: post #19

"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests" As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

> When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue? When phones started being $600+ and carried by nearly everyone. I'm just as much against the kill switches as you are, but I've heard so many cops and high ranking police officers complain about smart-phone theft that I think that they truly believe this would be a major weapon against criminals. And why wouldn't it be: every phone theft is hundreds…

> I think that they truly believe this would be a major weapon against criminals.

Not really. They truly believe that this bill would be great for controlling people. But they can't come out and say that openly. Hence the theft strawman.

We have a national do-not-call registry. Why not have a registry of stolen IMEI codes? Problem solved. But that would be too easy.

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

#70

Post by krasin »

discardorama wrote: post #68
lemonlyman87 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a critic of the bill, I'll readily concede that smartphone theft is a major problem. It's one of the most prominant crimes in urban areas, costs billions of dollars a year, and has in several occassions caused violence. Still, it doesn't justify a mandatory kill switch (there are a large number of free apps you can download), and it certainly doesn't justify letting police use kill switches that are installed.

This theft could be eliminated today : let there be a shared registry of stolen IMEI codes. Problem solved.

Many devices allow changing IMEI codes. See https://www.google.com/search?q=imei+code+change
Post reply on HN