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

21–30 of 137 posts

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

#21

Post by tlrobinson »

Someone1234 wrote: post #12
jeffrey8chang wrote: post #5

There's just too many backdoors in smart phones. That's why I choose to use standalone hardware that can work with any phone for my voice encryption project: http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/

I don't think I see the relevance. This article isn't about spying on you, it is about disabling your phone remotely ("kill switch," etc). How does encrypting your voice before it enters your phone mitigate that? Plus if you're paranoid enough to use that then frankly you're too paranoid to own a cellphone at all. They can still use it to track your location and to remotely turn on the microphone and eavesdrop on the…

The relevance, as I see it, is that the same capabilities used to spy on mobile devices (0-day vulnerabilities/backdoors, or just leverage over telcos) could be used as a de-facto "kill switch".

That said, a law that explicitly gives the state authority to shut down all cell phones in a situation "they perceive" as a risk is an order of magnitude worse.

(The "kill switch" counterpart to JackPair would be systems like mesh networks, ham radio / APRS, etc. GoTenna is one recent commercial product: http://gotenna.com/ Of course it can probably be easily jammed)

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

#22

Post by mikeash »

chenelson wrote: post #16
mikeash wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The resale value of a phone that can never be taken out of Airplane Mode is going to be pretty bad, especially if it's "will instantly brick when you touch the setting", so it doesn't seem like much of a loophole for the anti-theft goal.

The loophole is handset exchange at the local retailer.

Wouldn't they check the phone against the list of stolen phones, or at least make sure the thing works as a phone, before accepting it?

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

#23

Post by smoyer »

"Police could use the kill switch to shut down all phones in a situation they unilaterally perceive as presenting an imminent risk of danger"

That's only one step away from the use of an EMP to isolate a crowd of people from the Internet (and each other) in Cory Doctorow's "Homeland" (I'm not a teen reader but I enjoyed it anyway)

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

#25

Post by lemonlyman87 »

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 approval is not required. I worry police could abuse this, using risk of violence as a pretense to shut down a protest as CA police did during the BART subway shutdown in 2011.

A more broad risk is that because CA is such a large market, manufacturers/providers will likely deploy this mandatory kill switch nationally, so it could end up being used in other states (such as during protests in Ferguson, Missouri)that may have absolutely no restrictions on government use of a kill switch.

Unfortunately the bill is very far along so there is not much left that can be done, but I would recommend discussing the issue on social media, and, as @javajosh suggests, contacting Governor Brown's office to express concerns and recommend a veto. The bill was passed on August 12 so he must sign or veto it by August 24.

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

#27

Post by computer »

colordrops wrote: post #19

"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests" As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

> When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

When phones started being $600+ and carried by nearly everyone. I'm just as much against the kill switches as you are, but I've heard so many cops and high ranking police officers complain about smart-phone theft that I think that they truly believe this would be a major weapon against criminals.

And why wouldn't it be: every phone theft is hundreds of dollars, and there's a lot of phone thefts happening worldwide.

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

#28

Post by goldscott »

This article is FUD.

From the actual bill:

"This bill would require that any advanced mobile communications device, as defined, that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, include a technological solution, which may consist of software, hardware, or both software and hardware, that can render inoperable the essential features of the device, as defined, when the device is not in the possession of the rightful owner. The bill would require that the technological solution be able to withstand a hard reset, as defined. The bill would prohibit the sale of an advanced mobile communications device in California without the technological solution being enabled, but would authorize the rightful owner to affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale."

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

#29

Post by plainOldText »

Surrounding ourselves with devices we cannot trust can be detrimental to us, especially if they are being backdoored, contain malware or are used against us. I'm starting to realize the only solution is open source hardware + software. There might be no other way. How else could we trust a device if we cannot inspect it?

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

#30

Post by jeffrey8chang »

Someone1234 wrote: post #12
jeffrey8chang wrote: post #5

There's just too many backdoors in smart phones. That's why I choose to use standalone hardware that can work with any phone for my voice encryption project: http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/

I don't think I see the relevance. This article isn't about spying on you, it is about disabling your phone remotely ("kill switch," etc). How does encrypting your voice before it enters your phone mitigate that? Plus if you're paranoid enough to use that then frankly you're too paranoid to own a cellphone at all. They can still use it to track your location and to remotely turn on the microphone and eavesdrop on the…

My point is that it's too easy to create backdoor on smart phones. There're many ways to track and disable your phones, no matter whether it's a smart phone or not. For example, your carrier operator can do a lot of bad things on your phone. The difference with smart phone is that it can be hacked without accountability from the operator side.

Given than you are aware of such risks and still has the need to communicate, your next best options is to encrypt your conversations through non-smart phones, and that's where my project, JackPair, can be helpful.

And yes, I'm trying to promote the awareness of my project JackPair, and the technologies behind it. In fact, I'm running a kickstarter campaign now for JackPair (http://bit.ly/jkpair). I think its relevant here because people need to be more aware that they don't really own their smart phone these days.

Post reply on HN