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

81–90 of 137 posts

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

#81

Post by talmand »

DSMan195276 wrote: post #78
discardorama wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not considering the second-order effects. Sure, the law in Cali says police must do X, Y and Z before killing the phones. But the phones already have the kill switch; and, because of convenience, all phones sold in the country will have this kill switch. Now what's to prevent the police in, say, Ferguson MO to just nuke everyone's phones in a region? California law doesn't apply in MO, and the police there wil…

Counter-argument: If what you're saying is really how the law works, then why is CA attempting to pass this at all? By your logic, if they don't pass it then they can use it all they want, but if they do pass it then there are restrictions. The entire reason for attempting to pass a law like this is because it's assumed it would be illegal for the police to do it without a law passed specifically saying they're allow…

The argument is that they would have to pass the law first to compel the manufacturers to implement the switch in every phone. Then any other agency outside that law's jurisdiction can take advantage of the presence of the switch with little oversight.

It would still likely result in lawsuits anywhere it was used regardless of the law.

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

#82

Post by coldtea »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #71

This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which poin…

>Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco?

Because they can demand that power and have it offered to them?

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

#83

Post by kazinator »

krasin wrote: post #70
discardorama wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This theft could be eliminated today : let there be a shared registry of stolen IMEI codes. Problem solved.

Many devices allow changing IMEI codes. See https://www.google.com/search?q=imei+code+change

Furthermore, not allowing an identifier such as IMEI to be changed is a potential privacy problem!

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

#84

Post by NoPiece »

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…

If cell service can already be at the tower level, being able to kill individual phones seems like it would be very impractical in a protest situation. This seems less prone to abuse than a mass shutdown.

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

#85

Post by DSMan195276 »

bgentry wrote: post #75
lern_too_spel wrote: post #71

This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which poin…

Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Because it's not their money?

You don't understand what he was getting at. It's much more complicated to go through this process to brick each phone individually (Which requires figuring out who owns what phone) then just disrupt phone service for a while in the area.

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

#87

Post by cag_ii »

anigbrowl wrote: post #60
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.

This is a very important point. Also, the limited scope of the "essential features" which are disabled.

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

#88

Post by lemonlyman87 »

DSMan195276 wrote: post #78
discardorama wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not considering the second-order effects. Sure, the law in Cali says police must do X, Y and Z before killing the phones. But the phones already have the kill switch; and, because of convenience, all phones sold in the country will have this kill switch. Now what's to prevent the police in, say, Ferguson MO to just nuke everyone's phones in a region? California law doesn't apply in MO, and the police there wil…

Counter-argument: If what you're saying is really how the law works, then why is CA attempting to pass this at all? By your logic, if they don't pass it then they can use it all they want, but if they do pass it then there are restrictions. The entire reason for attempting to pass a law like this is because it's assumed it would be illegal for the police to do it without a law passed specifically saying they're allow…

I think the main reason they're passing the bill in general is a genuine desire to deter smartphone theft, and the result is a very bad policy outcome.

But keep in mind absent this law there is no mandatory kill switch in phones in the first place, so the possibility of police use en masse aginst protesters - regardless of whether law permits such co-opting or is silent on the subject - becomes much lower.

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

#89

Post by kazinator »

It seems silly to disable individual devices with a remote "kill switch", when perhaps you can just do something at the network level: like block all but emergency calls, and instant messages, which coming via all the cell base stations in a given geographic area, which can be done without the inconvenience of sending configuration changes to large numbers of devices, based on where they are. There is still Wi-Fi. But most of that is connected to land lines going to telcos, with whose cooperation that could be blacked out also.

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

#90

Post by tzs »

colordrops wrote: post #19

"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests" As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

> When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

When phone theft became half of all robberies in San Francisco. When phone theft rose 40% last year in New York, to become 20% of all robberies in that city. When phone theft became the number on property crime in the US, accounting for 1/3 of all property crime. When in half the San Francisco incidents, the victims were punched, kicked, or physically intimidated, and in a quarter of them were threatened with guns or knives.

Post reply on HN