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

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#71

Post by bmm6o »

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…

> The purpose of government is to preserve your freedom to do something.

That's maybe what you think the purpose of government should be, but it doesn't really match reality. Consider the whole section of labor laws, for instance.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#72

Post by joosters »

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.

3rd way: Kill-switch is OS-based. e.g. you tell Apple that your iPhone has been stolen. You give them the serial/IMEI, (or they can match up the device based upon your itunes account). If someone wipes the phone through an exploit or jailbreak, the device is still practically useless as whenever it needs to communicate with an apple service, apple sends back a 'you are stolen' message and the phone locks up again.

End result: either the phone stays blocked or you end up with a crippled, limited-usage device that can't use many of the services that you'd expect it to (app store, etc). Re-sale value would plummet.

It would work with Android too. Stolen phones (that are reported to Google) could refuse to use the play store or accept a gmail account.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#73

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

That will sort it out in short order, and phones will no longer be accepted by pawn shops.

The interesting side effect will be that people will won't consider stealing a phone and pawning it as a viable way of getting some quick cash.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#74

Post by ChrisNorstrom »

sigzero wrote: post #64
cheald wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They've been unable to mind their own business for decades now. They legislated the forced use of fire-proofing chemicals in mattresses, couches, & cushions in all furniture sold in California and years later scientists discovered those chemicals are harmful hormone disruptors and don't even realistically prevent fire in real world situations. Furniture companies can't create 2 different SKUs of furniture (one without the chemicals and one with) so they just included fire retardants into all their furniture by default. All the USA has now been affected with hormone disrupting fire retardants all because one state's puppet master legislators want to enforce their enlightenment on everyone.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#75

Post by ballard »

andrewfong wrote: post #56

Cross-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 inope…

Activation of the OS requiring network check-in similar to Apple's iOS would potentially be able to disable devices by blacklisting serial number / imei / meid.

It's worth noting that most carriers DO NOT blacklist all types of serial numbers burned into a device with a single serial number. There should be a requirement for a blacklist of one to also blacklist all others and that a carrier should be able to search by any of the serial type number.

Further if a device is legitimately recovered by the original owner, they should be able to unblacklist it.

Finally, carriers should cover return shipping and reactivate found blacklisted devices. There are many worthless blacklisted iOS devices on eBay, but neither Apple nor carriers will activate them nor return them to their owners.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#77

Post by mnglkhn2 »

This is not to stop theft. I can wipe my phone remotely right now if my phone is stolen. The goal is to secure the phone so that all the info on it is not accessible if the owner is not there. Especially considering that more and more the phone is the key to everything due to two step authentication (for email accounts, banks, etc. ) If things need to get more secure online then the phone needs to get even more secure.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#78

Post by Shivetya »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #73
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…

That will sort it out in short order, and phones will no longer be accepted by pawn shops. The interesting side effect will be that people will won't consider stealing a phone and pawning it as a viable way of getting some quick cash.

that and those who try this stunt will find themselves behind bars in short order, most likely for theft.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#79

Post by sabbatic13 »

sigzero wrote: post #64
cheald wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And people who willfully confuse a couple dopey activist legislators from the state's goofiest city with the entire state can...what you said. Also, none of that hate for NYC, or did you not bother to read that this BS is coming from both states, or more precisely, from a few dumb legislators based in the most full-of-themselves cities in the country, backed by politicians in law enforcement uniforms who can't stop crime, so they advocate putting the burden elsewhere?

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#80

Post by jacalata »

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…

That is one perspective on the purpose of government, yes.
Post reply on HN