Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#41

Post by undoware »

judk wrote: post #5
ciderpunx wrote: post #2

This seems like a bad idea. * Why won't someone will figure out how to trigger the phone kill switch and start wandering round SF killing people's phones at will? * Why won't the state/NSA/whoever kill the phones of its enemies (diplomats, foreign business people, "subversives")? * and so on.

If this such a risk, Why hasn't this happened yet? Corporate phones all have remote kill switches, and are high value targets of harassment.

2007: If sub-prime loans were really a problem, why hasn't the market crashed yet?

2008: Oh.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#42

Post by malka »

billyjobob wrote: post #32
gonehome wrote: post #17

There's already an easy way to do this (that I remember reading somewhere is already being done in Australia). When a phone is reported stolen the carriers just need to blacklist the IMEI so it doesn't work - removes the incentive to steal devices. I don't remember where I originally read this (probably here), but the US carriers were not interested in doing this because they don't see stolen phones as a problem that…

IMEI blocking hasn't stopped phone thefts in Europe. Possible reasons: 1. IMEI numbers can be changed. 2. Thief can still use phone for many hours until block. 3. Stolen phones can be shipped to countries that don't implement block. 4. A blocked phone can still be used to run apps, play games, make VOIP calls on wifi etc. The Apple system seems much more sensible. You can't use an iPhone without the pincode, and even…

Phones will still be stolen for spare parts.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#43

Post by ahallock »

It must be nice to have no valuable skills to offer society yet still find employment as an authoritarian jackass dreaming up product features without doing the actual work or assuming any of the risk. If Leno wants to add features to cell phones, he should go work for those companies instead of using the Ring of Sauron to forcibly add a "kill switch" because he thought it was a good idea. And is reducing theft the real reason or just the ostensible one? Will this become an easy hook for govs to shut off phones?

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#44

Post by jcampbell1 »

eponeponepon wrote: post #30
jcampbell1 wrote: post #23

This is really needed. In New York, there is a problem of punk kids snatching iPhones and running. It is hard for the police to do anything about it, and these kids are fencing the phones for about $150, and they are likely shipped to out of the country where carrier blocks don't work. For whatever reason, I have heard of a bunch of people that get their iPhones snatched, but never android phones. The market for bad…

How quickly do these 'punk kids' sell the phones on, though? And could a system to trigger the killswitch be responsive enough to trigger it before the phone's been sold? And if it were, could it ever hope to be sure of the facts in time to catch bad requests?

I am sure they power off the phones almost immediately. I actually don't think a legislative solution is the right process. I think Apple should address the problem for the benefit of their own customers. Maybe they need to investigate this and work with Interpol.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#45

Post by cheald »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27

> On Friday, State Senator Mark Leno of California, a Democrat, is expected to introduce legislation requiring all smartphones and tablets sold in the state to include this kind of feature. This should be a required option, even if it's opt out. The consumer should be able to turn off this kind of remote authorisation over their device, even if it reduces the "herd immunity". Killing core functionality goes a step be…

Why should it be required, exactly? If people want phones with anti-theft technology, they can buy phones with anti-theft technology. What this smells like to me is a government wanting to have the power to sever your communications at will.

Having the ability to remote-brick my phone is great if I want it, but someone else having the ability to remote-brick my phone is a frickin' huge liability.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#46

Post by oftenwrong »

kirab wrote: post #3

Nice, a kill switch in every phone. When there’s a big demonstration/revolution we’re just gonna kill all the phones out there with a simple data packet.

That has already happened in CA: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/subway-internet-shu...

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#47

Post by aasarava »

Serious question, not rhetorical: Is there any precedent for forcing manufacturers to modify their product simply to prevent the product from getting stolen?

Cars and houses can have alarms, and customers decide whether they need them or not. We do not require that all cars and houses come equipped with them. Wallets can be attached to a chain or placed in the front pocket. We don't require that you can only purchase a wallet with a chain.

Unlike childrens' toys that require battery covers to be screwed shut, or cars that must have seatbelts, the theft of a device does not seem to be a public safety issue. Your decision to own an expensive phone and take it out of your pocket at the train station seems no more necessary of regulation than your decision to wear an expensive necklace.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#48

Post by ds9 »

aasarava wrote: post #47

Serious question, not rhetorical: Is there any precedent for forcing manufacturers to modify their product simply to prevent the product from getting stolen? Cars and houses can have alarms, and customers decide whether they need them or not. We do not require that all cars and houses come equipped with them. Wallets can be attached to a chain or placed in the front pocket. We don't require that you can only purchase…

I'm not necessarily defending the mandate, but maybe I can clarify the concept behind it.

It's not a case of legislators saying "it would be better to have less phone theft so let's try to reduce it this way" - instead it's more like, users want this, but don't have the bargaining power to compel the phone makers to build it in or the telcos to support it.

Without the mandate, the makers and telcos profit from theft: the stolen phone user (not necessarily the thief) pays phone charges, the victim has to buy a new phone, and thieves have a continuing incentive to steal them. With the mandate, the phones are less valuable to thieves (and to robbers - a personal-safety gain), and the telcos can't profit from the forced transfers.

Again, not saying it's a good or bad policy (can someone remote-kill my phone when I still have it?), but these are the considerations - a kind of market-failure correction.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#49

Post by baconner »

I'm all for careful legislation to force companies to improve security and protect consumers but I unfortunately most legislators dont have the technology knowledge to know what is wise and what is not. The devil is in the details here - if we mandated that the disable capability could only be enacted by the consumer that owned the device - say with a kill code password that no one else is allowed to store - then its not so bad, but I doubt such protections against misuse are in place. I surely dont want a kill switch that could be invoked by the manufacturer or cell provider.. Given that the market already provides this on tons of devices it seems unnecessary to legislate.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#50

Post by pjc50 »

billyjobob wrote: post #32
gonehome wrote: post #17

There's already an easy way to do this (that I remember reading somewhere is already being done in Australia). When a phone is reported stolen the carriers just need to blacklist the IMEI so it doesn't work - removes the incentive to steal devices. I don't remember where I originally read this (probably here), but the US carriers were not interested in doing this because they don't see stolen phones as a problem that…

IMEI blocking hasn't stopped phone thefts in Europe. Possible reasons: 1. IMEI numbers can be changed. 2. Thief can still use phone for many hours until block. 3. Stolen phones can be shipped to countries that don't implement block. 4. A blocked phone can still be used to run apps, play games, make VOIP calls on wifi etc. The Apple system seems much more sensible. You can't use an iPhone without the pincode, and even…

Apple theft exploit:

- steal phone - break phone - return to Apple store for warranty replacement (minor social engineering may be required here)

Theif gets a working phone with a different IMEI. The worst part is, the friend of mine who this happened to found out about it because it invalidated her theft insurance.

Post reply on HN