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

31–40 of 137 posts

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

#31

Post by Nargan »

kabdib wrote: post #3

Won't kill non-phone devices. Those aren't as numerous, and maybe not as real-time, but they're very difficult to shut down.

This is one reason I have a ham radio license and a couple of radios. You can't stop those. If they decide to shut down to interfere with local repeater stations, go peer to peer. If they interfere with a frequency range, just change to another one or another band entirely. If you don't want open voice being transmitted, switch to a digital mode.

It's mainly useful as a hobby or for emergency communications but there are other perks.

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

#32

Post by AJ007 »

plainOldText wrote: post #29

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?

Ask for the same trust & security of consumer devices as we ask of our servers -- with absolute certainty a reasonable expectation to all but an authoritarian state.

Edit: it is also worth pointing out that companies which fail to do this will eventually see them locked out of selling those products in certain countries.

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

#33

Post by danudey »

michaelfeathers wrote: post #11
scelerat wrote: post #9

There are fundamental freedoms the government cannot and should not be able to subvert. Communicating with others, via any means necessary is one of them. I feel I am politically very far away from many guns rights activists, and am wary of the practical outcomes of widespread weapon ownership, but at the same time I believe 2nd Amendment advocates are completely right to be wary of government's ability to strip indi…

If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate First Amendment challenge. One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against jamming of any sort of radio signal.

This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio in it. There's no FCC issue here.

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

#34

Post by chenelson »

dllthomas wrote: post #7
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.

The advantage to mandatory and default-to-on is that it will be prevalent and will therefore decrease the expected value of mugging someone for their phone. That is a legitimate benefit, and is not worth nothing. I'm still not happy about the trade-off, if the disable doesn't depend on an owner-controlled code or similar.

Fifteen years ago people were stealing mock-ups and pretending they had cell phones. I'm not sure those that commit felonies subscribe to the same value chain that you do.

Besides, assuming the device doesn't self-destruct Mission Impossible style, at worst it'll still be worth parts to someone. So there will be many more parts available--and possibly more victims to make up the difference (assuming muggers are working for something).

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

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

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 police and criminals or another situation involving immediate danger of death or great harm (but requiring court submissions within 6 hours). Any other situation, including one where public safety is concerned (such as a protest) requires a warrant to be obtained in advance, subject to quite stringent conditions designed to limit the scope of the communications interruption. You should read it in full to understand all provisions, rather than relying on this summary.

Now, this set of rules is not perfect and could conceivably be abused by police or some other entity. But the cdt.org story ignores these rules completely and leaves readers with impression that legislators wither haven't thought about it or don't care. In reality the law is designed to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.

1. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...

2. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&gr...

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

#36

Post by lemonlyman87 »

goldscott wrote: post #28

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 right…

Also from the actual bill (which the post includes a link to in the first line): "Any request by a government agency to interrupt communications service utilizing a technological solution required by this section is subject to Section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code."

The bill gives direct authorization for police to use this mandatory kill switch, so long as it complies with PUC Sec. 7908, which includes an emergency exception where police don't need court approval.

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

#37

Post by biafra »

smoyer wrote: post #23

"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)

Yeah. Keep in mind those phones are bricked forever. It is probably much easier to disable phone service in a certain region from the network side. I would imagine people suing the police for destroying their phones.

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

#38

Post by lemonlyman87 »

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?

As a critic of the bill, I'll readily concede that smartphone theft is a major problem. It's one of the most prominant crimes in urban areas, costs billions of dollars a year, and has in several occassions caused violence.

Still, it doesn't justify a mandatory kill switch (there are a large number of free apps you can download), and it certainly doesn't justify letting police use kill switches that are installed.

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

#39

Post by anigbrowl »

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #25

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 approva…

Yes, the bill has an emergency exception, but you omitted to mention that it still requires police to go to court afterwards (within 6 hours, or with additional submissions to justify the delay if that is not possible) to make a showing of why a communications interruption was necessary, and requires the court to balance police claims with First Amendment freedoms, strictly limiting the scope of acceptable reasons and requiring the purpose of the interruption be as narrowly tailored as possibly.

I don't understand why you left all this out of the original story.

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

#40

Post by danudey »

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 Apple implemented locking your phone to your AppleID and iPhone theft rates dropped precipitously[1], including (typically) violent robberies, because the phones can't be moved so it's not worth stealing them.

[1] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/antitheft-technolog...

Post reply on HN