California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones • Hacker News Board

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#101

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Feb 08, 2014, 5:13 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #94

pessimizer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* The hard reset definition is sort of dumb. When a device leaves the factory, it obviously doesn't have any knowledge of whom its proper owner is. A hard reset, by definition, has to nullify any owner-verification system and no technological solution can withstand it. The way that I'm reading this, a limit to what a "hard reset" can be is being set by (1). It's saying: Any process that you have in order to return a…

Rightful owner is the person with title, a concept well established in law in other contexts. I think this is a terrible bill, but the notion that the kill switch is going to be operated by the state seems like a complete misreading of the bill's text to me.

First, create the kill switch. Second, create the ability to use it.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#102

Post by madeofpalk » Sat, Feb 08, 2014, 5:31 AM UTC

andrewfong wrote: post #56

Cross-posting from the other discussion on this topic ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7197416 ): Actual draft of the bill is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... Relevant portions: (1) Any advanced mobile communications device that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, shall include a technological solution that can render the essential features of the device inope…

> * The hard reset definition is sort of dumb. When a device leaves the factory, it obviously doesn't have any knowledge of whom its proper owner is. A hard reset, by definition, has to nullify any owner-verification system and no technological solution can withstand it.

Not really. This is, more or less, a fairly easy problem to solve: Upon first use and any subsequent hard resets, the device phones home to ask to be activated. On first use, the activation server replies with an unconditional 'YES'. Upon activation after a hard reset, the server goes 'Before I answer, can solve this challange' (PIN or username/password).

This is how Apple implemented Activation Lock on it's iOS devices and it's more or less uncrackable.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#103

Post by brownbat » Sat, Feb 08, 2014, 6:18 AM UTC

Last phone I bought from Walmart, T-Mobile refused to activate because they claimed it was stolen.

I was really taken aback to have purchased a device in a sealed box when someone had already cloned the IMEI. (Or maybe T-Mobile's setup is just really buggy...)

I was fortunately able to return it and get a new phone, worked fine.

But if I could fix that problem, maybe stolen phones will just get laundered through returns that way. (ie, buy a new phone, return the stolen one as defective).

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#104

Post by mandeepj » Sat, Feb 08, 2014, 8:38 AM UTC

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #90

mandeepj wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lost my iphone some time back so when I called AT&T to report it, they kept on insisting me - please wait for few days as you may find it. They also told me once we report the phone as lost and block it using IMEI then this change can't be undone incase you find your phone then it can't be activated again. And, the block using IMEI does not work across carriers which means if its blocked in AT&T then the person car…

That situation seems a bit poorly implemented to me. The irreversible block only applies to AT&T's network, and is under AT&T's control... Wouldn't it make sense for AT&T to simply place the IMEI on watch, so that the next time AT&T's network sees it come online, an "alert" is triggered and AT&T can contact the owner to confirm whether or not it's in their possession?

Yes, they should have this feature but I don't know what is holding them from it