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

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#61

Post by mindslight »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
ihsw wrote: post #19

Sounds 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.

- killswitch prevents phone from being "jailbroken", as the only way this "feature" can work (beyond current IMEI blacklisting) is with "trusted" computing and a non-user-modifiable trust root. Regardless of the placating mention of "opting out", the possibility to really opt out cannot exist, as it would render the whole system useless.

Despite noble intentions, anti-theft DRM is actually the worst kind there is. It is impossible* to differentiate between a thief in possession of your phone, and you in possession of a company's phone that they're considering you renting.

If this becomes reality, it's yet another bullet point for getting a separate MiFi + actual computing device next time I'm forced to upgrade. That's the only way of regaining the concept of a service demarcation point.

(* unless every device is given a different root key, and the owner actually manages the corresponding private key. given the usability issues, this will never happen in a commercial design).

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#62

Post by kbolino »

sdkmvx wrote: post #59
ds9 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arra…

Indeed, there are ways to magnify your bargaining power outside of the government. Most people generally aren't willing to pay for it, though. A stolen phone fund or phone theft insurance could accomplish the same goals without involving the legislative and executive branches. However, the cost would be obvious, in the form of an upfront or recurring charge. It's much easier to assign the task to a government, and then wonder years later why taxes are going up, or the government is constantly in debt.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#63

Post by derekp7 »

ds9 wrote: post #48
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:…

I think this is more of a public safety issue. Currently, a mugger has an incentive to harm someone to take their device and sell it. If it becomes known that there is no profit in selling a disabled device, then there should be fewer mugging attacks.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#64

Post by sigzero »

cheald wrote: post #45
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.

Exactly! California can go F itself. They should not be legislating this crap.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#65

Post by sdkmvx »

Imagine a pawn shop that loans money on cell phones. Now imagine someone comes in and pawns their phone. It still has service and all, but he thinks he will come back next week and redeem it. A few months pass and he never comes back. Now the phone is legally (the pawn contract says one must completely own the collateral, so carrier subsidies etc. shouldn't be a problem) the pawn shop's property. Mr. Defaulter calls the phone company and has the IMEI blocked. Now the pawn shop is out the money and owns a useless piece of metal and plastic.

I've seen this problem with phones, tablets, and even tasers. The company will not activate them if they've been reported lost or stolen. But "finders-keepers" is legal and people can lie about theft. Of course the company also has a second interest not to help create a used market. Just like encrypted firmware schemes, this erodes personal control over our property. The legal owner with physical control should be able to use the device. Period.

There are also concerns over government or corporate disablement. Aside from obvious government malice during e.g. protests, does anyone really think either the government or the phone company can run a blacklist without false positives? Obviously not. Nobody can when your population size is >300 million. And the customer service grunt is just following the rules when your device is disabled and he cannot re-enable it.

The argument for this law is that it will reduce thefts by making the phones worthless. I understand this. I just don't think that is worth losing control over our property and devices.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#66

Post by maxerickson »

sdkmvx wrote: post #65

Imagine a pawn shop that loans money on cell phones. Now imagine someone comes in and pawns their phone. It still has service and all, but he thinks he will come back next week and redeem it. A few months pass and he never comes back. Now the phone is legally (the pawn contract says one must completely own the collateral, so carrier subsidies etc. shouldn't be a problem) the pawn shop's property. Mr. Defaulter calls…

A simple answer is that the pawn shop should be careful about the contracts it takes. That is, if the owner will not or can not cede control of the IMEI, the phone isn't worth very much as collateral.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#67

Post by ds9 »

uptown wrote: post #57
wehadfun wrote: post #36

They 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?

Government already can do that by co-opting the phone companies.

@wehadfun, I like the general concept of identifying and taking action against the bad actors, but there are two flaws in your plan.

(a) Most of the users of stolen phones are not the thieves, they're secondary buyers. And amongst them, how do you propose to distinguish knowing buyers of stolen goods from innocent purchasers? Maybe in some cases the circumstances are suspicious, but what if you buy from someone on craigslist with a reasonable story and pay a market price?

(b) While in theory it's possible to trace back to the thief, in practice police don't have the resources to do the necessary investigation when the value is only a few hundred dollars. In many jurisdictions they won't even send an officer unless someone is bleeding.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#68

Post by poopsintub »

sdkmvx wrote: post #65

Imagine a pawn shop that loans money on cell phones. Now imagine someone comes in and pawns their phone. It still has service and all, but he thinks he will come back next week and redeem it. A few months pass and he never comes back. Now the phone is legally (the pawn contract says one must completely own the collateral, so carrier subsidies etc. shouldn't be a problem) the pawn shop's property. Mr. Defaulter calls…

This isn't a worthy argument. Pawning and selling your device is nothing new. There should be paperwork for all of this in case someone calls the phone company or wrongly claims it stolen.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#69

Post by ChrisNorstrom »

We all know how this is going to end: Someone is going to hack the method used to disable the phones and massively disable millions of people's phones. As always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'd much rather see technology that temporarily disables access to my phone's private contents while turning a permanent GPS [on] switch so my stolen phone can be located.
Post reply on HN