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

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

#111

Post by msandford » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 12:36 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #100

msandford wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How would the police know whose phones to do this to? The kill switch is on a phone by phone basis.

They have a thing called a stingray which can impersonate a real cell tower for the purpose of gaining information about the phones in range. That would be a very effective way to create a list of phones to temporarily disable.

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

#112

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 1:05 AM UTC

kabdib wrote: post #73

anigbrowl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is that "imminent risk" tends to creep downward over time, to the point that it becomes "imminent risk that a citizen unit will improperly fail to bow and scrape." If you're going to shut off several thousand cell phones, you can bloody well get a judge out of bed for that.

Perhaps, but I don't think it's fair to judge this bill on how legislators might amend it in future, or we'll never pass any laws at all.

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

#113

Post by wyager » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 1:11 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #102

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. [...]

>An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time

How much you want to bet that "opting out" happens on the government end and not the device end?

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

#114

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 1:12 AM UTC

talmand wrote: post #81

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…

The argument is that they would have to pass the law first to compel the manufacturers to implement the switch in every phone. Then any other agency outside that law's jurisdiction can take advantage of the presence of the switch with little oversight. It would still likely result in lawsuits anywhere it was used regardless of the law.

That doesn't explain why the bill includes all the restrictions on government, though. If the aim was to empower government, they could simply have been omitted.

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

#115

Post by lemonlyman87 » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 1:19 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #99

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exi…

7908(3)(C) incorporates s.7907 by reference. (C) "Interrupt communications service" does not include any interruption of service pursuant to an order to cut, reroute, or divert service to a telephone line or wireless device used or available for use for communication by a person or persons in a hostage or barricade situation pursuant to Section 7907. However, "interruption of communications service" includes any inte…

Yes, that provision does state that any type of wire cut conducted pursuant to 7907 that cuts cell service is also labeled as denial of cell service as discussed in 7908, but denial of cell service is not limited to such situations - there can be other means of shutting down cell service, such as police co-opting a kill switch.

More importantly, this subsection certainly doesn't change the fact that your above description of 7908 as a law that "prohibits interruption of communication by law enforcement in anything other than a hostage or barricade situation" is completely inaccurate.

It is broader, and could apply to protests if there is a claim of imminent risk of great bodily harm, as police have been claiming for the last week during mistreatment of protesters and journalists in Ferguson.

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

#116

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 1:53 AM UTC

chenelson wrote: post #107

mikeash wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#117

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 1:55 AM UTC

chenelson wrote: post #103

dllthomas wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crim…

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

That is clearly wrong, but it is not the assumption. The "assumption" (and not a very big one) is that a kill switch will substantially reduce the value of the device, which will reduce the incentive for theft. And that's almost certainly the case.

"Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested for robbery tested positive for a controlled substance."

What percentage of the population at large would "test positive for a controlled substance"? Particularly in the demographics in question (young and risk-taking)? That's not a terribly meaningful figure. Some portion of these crimes doubtless are drug related, some portion of those crimes would likely still occur. So? If we can get rid of some other crimes that's still a boon (and may, as I've said, nonetheless not be worth the trade-offs).

"Does an addict have Free Will?"

In a meaningful sense, less than the rest of us, but that doesn't mean they're going to react the same regardless of circumstances. If robbery is working less well to get them their fix then it certainly seems like they might be less likely to pick robbery next time. For those that do respond by engaging in more robberies to pay for a fixed cost habit, they are more likely to get caught as they are forced to attempt more difficult opportunities and leave more of a pattern.

Flip it around. Say phones were cheap, and someone was proposing something to artificially make them more valuable to criminals. Would you think that likely to make the number of robberies go down, up, or not move?

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

#118

Post by chenelson » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 4:18 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #117

chenelson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crim…

"Assumption: A Kill Switch will render a $500 device worthless, and thus eliminate the incentive for theft." That is clearly wrong, but it is not the assumption. The "assumption" (and not a very big one) is that a kill switch will substantially reduce the value of the device, which will reduce the incentive for theft. And that's almost certainly the case. "Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested f…

Robbery has been trending down since the 90s. What was being stolen before the proliferation of cell tech during the 2000s? I think it's clear cellular phones do not cause theft. Though, I do think those robbed, are robbed of all of their valuables. I also think it's clear that those robbed were targeted, and a valuable phone suggests other valuables. I also am aware of existing parts markets including eBay and traditional retail. Will this Kill Switch render a device worth less than its weight in copper? Probably not. "I want your wallet, watch, and such--keep the phone."

I think if we were actually serious about victims, instead of using that warrant for a Kill Switch, we'd use it to query the networks and track the breadcrumbs; it's even richer than metadata sourced from billing systems. (It works for finding missing hikers.) And I'm pretty sure existing law covers this already.

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

#119

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 4:26 AM UTC

chenelson wrote: post #118

dllthomas wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Assumption: A Kill Switch will render a $500 device worthless, and thus eliminate the incentive for theft." That is clearly wrong, but it is not the assumption. The "assumption" (and not a very big one) is that a kill switch will substantially reduce the value of the device, which will reduce the incentive for theft. And that's almost certainly the case. "Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested f…

Robbery has been trending down since the 90s. What was being stolen before the proliferation of cell tech during the 2000s? I think it's clear cellular phones do not cause theft. Though, I do think those robbed, are robbed of all of their valuables. I also think it's clear that those robbed were targeted, and a valuable phone suggests other valuables. I also am aware of existing parts markets including eBay and tradi…

People don't carry much of value any more except their electronics. Before the 90s, people carried more cash, more regularly.

"I think if we were actually serious about victims, instead of using that warrant for a Kill Switch, we'd use it to query the networks and track the breadcrumbs"

I don't know that I'd object to that. I'd still demand an owner-provided code. Note that I've never been saying "this system is amazing and exactly what we want", I've been saying "there is a legitimate up-side" - which I stand by, and which the existence of better alternatives don't undermine.

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

#120

Post by chenelson » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 5:35 AM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #119

chenelson wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robbery has been trending down since the 90s. What was being stolen before the proliferation of cell tech during the 2000s? I think it's clear cellular phones do not cause theft. Though, I do think those robbed, are robbed of all of their valuables. I also think it's clear that those robbed were targeted, and a valuable phone suggests other valuables. I also am aware of existing parts markets including eBay and tradi…

People don't carry much of value any more except their electronics. Before the 90s, people carried more cash, more regularly. "I think if we were actually serious about victims, instead of using that warrant for a Kill Switch, we'd use it to query the networks and track the breadcrumbs" I don't know that I'd object to that. I'd still demand an owner-provided code. Note that I've never been saying "this system is amaz…

If something is better than nothing, instead of expending capital on owner-supplied code infrastructure, why not pay robbers not to rob? That way, there's greater chance the owner is alive to use their device. (I'm thinking more control for you.)

And people carry much of value besides electronics today. You can use NYC seizure records and ATMs as proxies.