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

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

#101

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 10:05 PM UTC

discardorama wrote: post #67

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 wil…

The top post is devoted to a discussion of those second-order effects. I'm pointing out that it ignores some rather significant checks upon government's use of this.

the police there will be free to do whatever they want with this switch.

Why, do they not have any law about interfering with communications in MO? If not, why hasn't cellphone service been shut down there already?

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

#102

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 10:23 PM UTC

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #4

wyager wrote: post #2

"Could"? I give it 5 years. How do people see this as a good idea? There are already voluntary methods for this, so there is literally no good justification for forcing a state-controlled version on everyone.

Exactly, but the bill makes it mandatory and default on for all smartphones in CA (which will probably lead to the same happening across the U.S.) - Ferguson protesters, watch out when police tell you to stop recording on your phones

That is simply not true.

The smartphone shall, during the initial device setup process, prompt an authorized user to enable the technological solution. [...]

(2) An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time. [...]

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

#103

Post by chenelson » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 10:45 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #72

chenelson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Inasmuch as that is even coherent, yes.

Assumption: A Kill Switch will render a $500 device worthless, and thus eliminate the incentive for theft.

So, a couple of theft cases to frame: 1. People steal fake phones (shiny objects) that have NEVER worked, ie aesthetic value only. 2. Parts, such as replacement screens, are in great demand, and there are small urban retailers today that enjoy every opportunity to lower their costs, ie $5-50.

Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested for robbery tested positive for a controlled substance. Does an addict have Free Will? Delayed gratification? What's a $100/day habit like? What is an addict willing to do for a Klondike Bar? (Answer: Anything.)

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

#104

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 10:56 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #79

lern_too_spel wrote: post #71

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…

Nah, build it so that it responds to distance to tower. Send out an alert to the whole system. If the phone is within communications distance of the tower, switch off.

That's not how it works. You're arguing against a system that nobody is planning to build.

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

#105

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 11:02 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #82

lern_too_spel wrote: post #71

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…

> 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? Because they can demand that power and have it offered to them?

Read the second half of the sentence you quoted.

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

#106

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 11:04 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #71

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…

>costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage

Qualified immunity.

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

#107

Post by chenelson » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 11:28 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #76

chenelson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assume the back is where the serial number lives? 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.

I don't care about Airplane Mode--if the device has been killed, why would one wish to power it on?

So, what about prepaid? No credit check or ID required. One just requires front money.

Also, keep in mind that the carriers have been fighting Identity Theft and handset upgrades for quite some time. For instance, people steal an identity and use it to get 5 free handsets. This is a on-going problem. Identity is a hard problem.

Also, a swap doesn't even require a purchase--just sleight of hand. If we go through the sale process, if the rep turns their back, I may be able to swap.

And this doesn't even take into account inside activity. I worked at T-Mobile for 8 years, starting as a part-time sales rep and ending a senior manager of business process. During my time, we fired the entire market of Houston twice.

There are many types of thieves, but in the case of those attempting to support a habit, with their will, they will find a way. Some claim they have no choice.

Finally, don't assume a perfect system. Telecom is a mess.

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

#108

Post by seanflyon » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 11:48 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #62

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".…

I'm not sure if it's worth bringing this up anymore, but the California state legislature is not Congress.

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

#109

Post by DSMan195276 » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 12:07 AM UTC

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #88

DSMan195276 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-argument: If what you're saying is really how the law works, then why is CA attempting to pass this at all? By your logic, if they don't pass it then they can use it all they want, but if they do pass it then there are restrictions. 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 allow…

I think the main reason they're passing the bill in general is a genuine desire to deter smartphone theft, and the result is a very bad policy outcome. But keep in mind absent this law there is no mandatory kill switch in phones in the first place, so the possibility of police use en masse aginst protesters - regardless of whether law permits such co-opting or is silent on the subject - becomes much lower.

Personally, I just read the Bill a bit closer, and this is right in section 2.b.1:

"The smartphone shall, during the initial device setup process, prompt an authorized user to enable the technological solution. The technological solution shall be reversible, so that if an authorized user obtains possession of the smartphone after the essential features of the smartphone have been rendered inoperable, the operation of those essential features can be restored by an authorized user."

And section 2.2:

"An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time. However, the physical acts necessary to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution may only be performed by the authorized user or a person specifically selected by the authorized user to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution."

And Section 1.g:

"As a result, the technological solution should be able to withstand a hard reset or operating system downgrade, come preequipped, and the default setting of the solution shall be to prompt the consumer to enable the solution during the initial device setup. Consumers should have the option to affirmatively elect to disable this protection, but it must be clear to the consumer that the function the consumer is electing to disable is intended to prevent the unauthorized use of the device."

Personally, as long as those things are both true and implemented correctly I don't see any reason to argue. If disabling it on the phone doesn't work, everybody with those phones could sue the company making them (If they live in CA...). Outside of CA, they could legally sell phones with kill-switches inside with no disable option, but that's legal to do right now anyway so this law wouldn't change that. And, seeing as in CA it'd be illegal to sell them without the disable option, I don't see why they would spend the extra money to design a version without a disable to sell outside of CA, so it probably wouldn't change things much.

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

#110

Post by DSMan195276 » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 12:14 AM UTC

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…

One, not all criminals who steal phones know anything about using a phone, and unless there's a guarantee that the kill switch is actually disabled nobodies going to take that chance of buying it off of you. It also makes the process more time consuming and error-prone, and seeing as the kill-switch is something someone can do right after they realize their phone is stolen, it'd be on a limited time basis. It makes the entire thing less worth it.

Two, it says RIGHT IN THE BILL that the phones are required to have an opt-out and disable feature, and they have to prompt the user to enable or disable when the phone is first setup, with the option to enable or disable at any later time.

Instead of spreading FUD, read the actual bill.