If you live in the state of CA and think this bill is a bad idea, you can look up your representative senator and send them an email asking that they vote against the bill. http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
51–60 of 104 posts
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#52Sounds like always-on DRM. The rich and the technologically adept will be unaffected, but another hammer will be available for our ambivalent rulers to manipulate normal people. This shitty DRM better be opt-in. Fined $2,500 for every device sold lacking this DRM? Only if there is a $2,500 refund for every device accidentally bricked. I can see media companies loving this. Watching an unlicensed movie? Your phone is…
Hmm. What happens to this with jailbroken phones? I can see it going two ways:
- killswitch is in the OS, and can be removed by jailbreak. Good for user, but means you just have to jailbreak a stolen phone to recover it / prevent it being killed.
- killswitch is in the baseband, and cannot be removed. Uhoh.
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While that exploit may work - it doesn't scale too well.
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#54Ah, the velvet glove. It rises to view again. Shall I buy? Shall I not? 'tis but an upvote away ..
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#55Have there been any reports on how iOS7 affects thefts?
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#56Cross-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 inoperable when the device is not in the possession of the rightful owner. A technological solution may consist of software, hardware, or a combination of both software and hardware, but shall be able to withstand a hard reset. No advanced mobile communications device may be sold in California without the technological solution enabled.
(2) The rightful owner of an advanced mobile communications device may affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale. However, the physical acts necessary to disable the technological solution may only be performed by the end-use consumer or a person specifically selected by the end-use consumer to disable the technological solution and shall not be physically performed by any retail seller of the advanced mobile communications device.
Hard reset is defined as "the restoration of an advanced mobile communications device to the state it was in when it left the factory, and refers to any act of returning a device to that state, including processes commonly termed a factory reset or master reset."
Some thoughts:
* There doesn't appear to be any requirement that the phone can be remotely disabled. One interpretation of this is that the only change from the status quo where practically every phone has a PIN is that the PIN withstand a hard reset.
* 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 fact that the kill switch can be disabled is encouraging.
* A lot would also depend on how determination of the "rightful owner" goes. That is, is it sufficient for someone who knows the PIN to be considered a "rightful owner"? This is fine 99% of the time, but there are obviously scenarios where that isn't true. If we wanted to take this to the other extreme, we might say this would require every seller and re-seller of mobile phones to check the ID of anyone buying a phone and to record this in some sort of master ownership index. Note that this would effectively outlaw burner phones.
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#57They are doing this all wrong. Thieves can use different parts of the phone that would not be effected by a kill switch, batteries, screen, ... What they really need is to turn on the GPS find where the phone is and start arresting folk.
"What they really need is to turn on the GPS find where the phone is and start arresting folk."
You really want to give the government permission to remotely enable GPS?
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#58Serious 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:…
Thanks, it's helpful to consider it from that perspective -- at least as potential reasoning for why the bill was written in the first place.
But we can counter that it's specious to claim customers are clamoring for this but not getting anywhere with manufacturers. Apple's Find my Phone feature is already one step toward addressing this issue, and there are a handful of third-party apps on the market that do similar things. These market solutions will continue to get better over time if they're popular.
And of course, there's the question of why it's the manufacturers' responsibility to address theft in the first place. Jewelers aren't required to engrave and register all their necklaces.
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#59Serious 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:…
> 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.
I am sick of reasoning like this. The purpose of government is to preserve your freedom to do something. If some users want something and cannot arrange it themselves, then they may just not be able to get it. It is not the government's place to mandate that everyone gets what some people want. That goes against personal freedom. It is certainly the government's place to punish thiefs---a person who deprives another of their freedom to control their property. The government should not mandate certain ways of arranging private (between a person and the phone company) affairs.
Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones
#60How about you just be a bit more careful with your iphone? No law in world can stop people from being stupid.