71–80 of 137 posts
Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which point there are better ways to handle the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And they're supposed to get prior judicial approval. It's only acceptable to file retroactively in cases where there is an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm, such as a hostage or barricade situation or other 'extreme emergency situation.' You're assuming the worst possible outcome (police overreach, court apathy) and using that as a justification to omit any mention of the copious rules limiting official us…
If you're going to shut off several thousand cell phones, you can bloody well get a judge out of bed for that.
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…
Finally, if they can do then its likely they will have phones produced only usable by important people who will be immune so who will those people be? How do they get their phones. Let alone, if its in the phone some group will figure it out and trigger it which would be pretty much awesome in my book
Government should never be given any ability to suppress speech or the expression of it and my communicating with another person is expression. They have no right to prevent it, especially under the guise of get them all and let God sort it out mentality that they hide behind to trample individual rights
This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which poin…
Because it's not their money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Seems like that would work... once. The ID and credit check requirements would probably not make it a viable long-term solution though.
And, again, irrelevant to Airplane Mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. Keep in mind those phones are bricked forever. It is probably much easier to disable phone service in a certain region from the network side. I would imagine people suing the police for destroying their phones.
I seriously, seriously doubt 'bricked' forever. Unless the hardware actually overheats, it'd be possible to replace the relevant parts with cheap China imports.
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 wil…
The entire reason for attempting to pass a law like this is because it's assumed it would be illegal for the police to do it without a law passed specifically saying they're allowed to (Like everything else). If the police in MO did this, they'd have tons of lawsuits against them.
This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which poin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-officer…