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

121–130 of 137 posts

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

#121

Post by ASneakyFox »

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…

It doesn't have to be legal for the government to do it. Look at the nsa.. any one who wants to give the government a kill switch to your phone is very uninformed. This level of protection for a phone makes zero sense.

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

#122

Post by tzs »

msandford wrote: post #111
tzs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would not be very effective for the kind of cover up you were speculating about (disabling phones so they can shoot protestors without it being widely recorded on video).

First, they'd have to set up a Stingray. Then they'd have to get the phone numbers. Then for each number, they have to go to the appropriate company and ask that company to do the kill. Note this only works for smartphones. Feature phones are not required to support a kill switch. There are feature phones that include still and video cameras.

That's going to take a while...and it is going to miss a lot of people in addition to those using feature phones. It will also miss tablets, laptops, and GoPro cameras.

If, improbably, the only people with cameras in the protest are people on smartphones, they still have almost no chance of making the coverup work. To get the kill switch applied without court approval, they have to claim it was an emergency, and then justify retroactively that shutting down phone communication was necessary because of that emergency.

They will not be able to do this, since it is almost impossible to come up with a legitimate emergency situation where using the slow and incomplete kill switch mechanism is better than simply shutting down the cell towers that serve the area. Going for the kill switch instead of shutting down the towers is practically admitting that they were not actually trying to stop communication (which could conceivably be a legitimate response to some kinds of emergency) but rather were trying to stop cameras (which almost never can be a legitimate response to the kind of emergency that can arise at a protest).

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

#123

Post by dllthomas »

chenelson wrote: post #120
dllthomas wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If something is better than nothing"

Of course something is better than nothing in the one dimension where it's something rather than nothing. I've never been arguing that this is the best solution or even a desirable solution. I've been stating (repeatedly) that there's a dimension (that doesn't involve being recipient of the contracts or similar) along which it's a positive thing. This was in answer to the strong statement, "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."

"why not pay robbers not to rob?"

Depends what you mean. A benefit solely for people who would otherwise rob seems obviously impractical - how do you verify that 1) they would rob absent the money, and 2) they refrain from robbing after you've given the money? Something broader like a Basic Income is actually something I favor, though I'm not certain that it will have a tremendous value in reducing robbery (though that's certainly conceivable).

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

You'll have to expand on this. Note that my argument was not "no one ever carries anything of significant value", but that the typical (black market) value of what's carried by even wealthy individuals has fallen if you exclude electronics.

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

#124

Post by msandford »

tzs wrote: post #122
msandford wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would not be very effective for the kind of cover up you were speculating about (disabling phones so they can shoot protestors without it being widely recorded on video). First, they'd have to set up a Stingray. Then they'd have to get the phone numbers. Then for each number, they have to go to the appropriate company and ask that company to do the kill. Note this only works for smartphones. Feature phones are n…

1. Setting up a stingray takes very little time if it's already mounted on a truck or a trailer.

2. Phones and towers are constantly looking for one another so that phones are always connected. This is how you are able to talk while driving or moving. You might get all the phones in an area in a few seconds or minutes.

3. You make a good point about the per-phone nature of the thing. How long before law enforcement has a kill-a-phone API though? Facebook has a dedicated website for law enforcement to get info on Facebook users.

4. Your point about missing other devices is also a good one. But again the police can arrest people and prevent the information from getting out.

5. I think your statement about simply shutting down the towers is the best counter-argument. You're right, they can just kill the towers, even without phone company assistance. Send a few officers with bolt cutters and towers will go dark.

6. There are all kinds of after-the-fact justifications for doing something especially if you're in control of the situation. You can claim basically whatever you want. Law enforcement is generally considered more reliable by the courts than regular people; cops say X and protesters say Y and judges are likely to believe the police. This is well documented.

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

#125

Post by coldtea »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #105
coldtea wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What makes you think I didn't read it?

That was exactly my point in answering it: the fact that there is another, already existing, way to effect the same thing, doesn't negate the fact that police often demands whatever they can get away with, even if its superfluous.

It's just another capability to block phones that they can have, and if they can have it without needing to even ask a telco to do it for them, even the better.

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

#126

Post by ctdonath »

seanflyon wrote: post #108
ctdonath wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The California state legislature is bound to respecting the Bill Of Rights. This is well-established under the 14th Amendment.

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

#127

Post by mikeash »

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…

Apologies, I thought you were continuing the original discussion of how Airplane Mode could provide a loophole.

Anyway, the system doesn't have to be perfect. If you significantly raise the barrier to turning stolen phones into cash, you'll significantly reduce the rate of theft.

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

#128

Post by chenelson »

dllthomas wrote: post #123
chenelson wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If something is better than nothing" Of course something is better than nothing in the one dimension where it's something rather than nothing. I've never been arguing that this is the best solution or even a desirable solution. I've been stating (repeatedly) that there's a dimension (that doesn't involve being recipient of the contracts or similar) along which it's a positive thing. This was in answer to the strong…

Is nothing finite, infinite, undefined, or? What you're calling "nothing" is actually everything not in your artificial construction.

If we unpack "nothing" further, we'll find any number of 'somethings' that are worse than what you're attempting to measure and affect. That's what we call Unintended Consequences, and not simply tautology or Begging the Question.

It is far from clear that this measure will have any significant affect on crimes such as robbery. And if we begin to unpack the "something" we quickly get to questions like, "Is it really a good idea to design a method for centrally destroying critical communication infrastructure?"

Following your logic, shouldn't we expect more robberies to make up for lost revenue?

If you're still in search of "cause", I'd suggest that the rate of robbery is inversely proportional to the typical waist size over time, i.e. we're wealthier now than we were.

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

#129

Post by chenelson »

mikeash wrote: post #127
chenelson wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apologies, I thought you were continuing the original discussion of how Airplane Mode could provide a loophole. Anyway, the system doesn't have to be perfect. If you significantly raise the barrier to turning stolen phones into cash, you'll significantly reduce the rate of theft.

Even if it were possible to raise the barrier on turning stolen phones into cash, it does not follow that it will reduce the rate of theft in the least. Do you think those that risk so much for so little are just going to roll over and die? Did you not learn the lesson of Whac-A-Mole?

If you really care about the victims, you'd use the warrant not to attempt to render tools to trash dumps, but instead use the warrant to query the networks. You know, perhaps give SWAT something legitimate to do... That seems like a deterrent for future thieves and a way to catch current thieves; or at least easier than catching copper thieves.

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

#130

Post by dllthomas »

chenelson wrote: post #128
dllthomas wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If something is better than nothing" Of course something is better than nothing in the one dimension where it's something rather than nothing. I've never been arguing that this is the best solution or even a desirable solution. I've been stating (repeatedly) that there's a dimension (that doesn't involve being recipient of the contracts or similar) along which it's a positive thing. This was in answer to the strong…

Is nothing finite, infinite, undefined, or? What you're calling "nothing" is actually everything not in your artificial construction. If we unpack "nothing" further, we'll find any number of 'somethings' that are worse than what you're attempting to measure and affect. That's what we call Unintended Consequences, and not simply tautology or Begging the Question. It is far from clear that this measure will have any si…

This has gotten even more inane. You ignore things I've said, attribute to me things I haven't, and generally aren't making a lot of sense. I'm done with this thread.
Post reply on HN