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

51–60 of 137 posts

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

#51

Post by JoeAltmaier »

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…

There's no existing American right to instant mass communications. And its arguable that we should be wary of this - it can cause riots, flash mobs and result in violence. This is the nature of human beings, and we should consider it carefully when expanding human rights.

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

#52

Post by freehunter »

pyre wrote: post #20
mikeash wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such things are used much less casually, though. There is immense public pressure not to misuse guns that isn't there for other stuff. Obviously guns are not immune to misuse, but it's not all that common. "Less lethal" weapons like tasers and batons and rubber bullets and tear gas get misused way more frequently, precisely because they're less harmful than a regular gun. It's likely that the same thing could apply t…

The argument will be that you don't "have a right" to cell service everywhere at anytime. "It's not like your service isn't restored after the protest."

Doesn't the kill switch permanently disable the phone?

Edit - Nope. I just reread the bill. Sorry for any misinformation:

"prevent reactivation of the smartphone on a wireless network except by an authorized user"

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

#53

Post by dllthomas »

chenelson wrote: post #34
dllthomas wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 worki…

You can't possibly believe those are reasonable points.

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

#54

Post by mikeash »

chenelson wrote: post #45
mikeash wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Returned devices often do not work--that's why they're being exchanged. Also, just on the carrier's corporate retail side (small in comparison), we're talking about over 2,500 locations, over 25,000 reps, and over 500,000 new monthly adds and upgrades. Serialization is very expensive and does not eliminate the tricky human. Also, even a disabled device is still worth parts.

I don't think I understand what you're proposing.

Before, I thought "handset exchange" would be something where you bring in an old phone to get credit towards buying a new one. Like trading in a car. And like trading in a car, they'll want to make sure the old phone is actually worth something before they buy it from you.

Now... you're proposing a warranty exchange? Surely they check to make sure the device is actually eligible for the warranty (i.e. that you bought it, and within a certain timeframe) before they accept it?

Or is it something else entirely?

The fact that it would be worth the value of the parts is a good one, but not related to the question of whether Airplane Mode makes for a loophole.

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

#55

Post by rsync »

Here are things we know, and that we have known since the "kill switch" was first proposed:

1. Criminals/thieves will be able to circumvent/disable the kill switch, trivially, within weeks (days ?) of the introduction. Stolen phones will still have value, and theft will continue. Bank on it.

2. The kill switch will be used against legitimate users.

3. Phone manufacturers, who were against the kill switch, will find a hidden value in tying the kill switch to rooting, and using kill switch laws to impede rooting activities. If it's illegal to de-kill-switch, but legal to root, all you need to do is make it impossible to root with the kill switch in place. Presto!

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

#56

Post by xxs »

biafra wrote: post #37
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.

I seriously, seriously doubt 'bricked' forever. Unless the hardware actually overheats, it'd be possible to replace the relevant parts with cheap China imports.

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

#57

Post by sigstoat »

miql wrote: post #50

Are there past, current, or future projects for launching networks w/in low earth orbit? I think it'd be effective to create an LEO, raspberry pi network for instances such as these. Remember when Libya turned off phones and the internet to stop unrest? People thought it was ridiculous and would never happen here. We're on that trajectory.

you either comply with amateur radio restrictions (probably not what you have in mind; no encryption, licensing, etc), or you comply with FCC rules & regs. or just break a bunch of laws.

from a technical standpoint, the amateur radio folks have tossed up repeater satellites in the past. see AMSAT.

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

#58

Post by anigbrowl »

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #44
anigbrowl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Because prior judicial approval is the key check to preventing government abuse; if police want to shut down a protest a judge potentially telling them they went too far 6 hours later is not going to help.

And they're supposed to get prior judicial approval. It's only acceptable to file retroactively in cases where there is an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm, such as a hostage or barricade situation or other 'extreme emergency situation.'

You're assuming the worst possible outcome (police overreach, court apathy) and using that as a justification to omit any mention of the copious rules limiting official use of this power. I find it rather ironic that you decided to leave your readers poorly informed about this, not least because it would put them at a disadvantage in any argument with a supporter of the bill.

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

#59

Post by anigbrowl »

seniorsassycat wrote: post #42
anigbrowl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

What is the response if the court rules that the shutdown was unwarranted after the fact?

Everyone whose cell phone service was interrupted has a good basis for civil rights lawsuit against the offending police department, for one thing.

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

#60

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…

Also, the bill requires that owners of the phone be able to disable the kill-switch functionality at any time if they want. So anyone heading to a protest or other activity there they anticipate police interference can immunize themselves against such service interruption if they are so inclined.
Post reply on HN