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

91–100 of 137 posts

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

#91

Post by RAB1138 »

NoPiece wrote: post #84
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.

I'm not sure the analogy holds. Yes, the tower level of control can be used to remotely disconnect thousands of people from the net, but this just separates people from the network.

The remote kill switch disconnects people from their ability to document what's happening. This frees the state from a sousveillent presence because it robs people of the ability to record what's happening at all. Remotely shutting down devices isn't about preventing people from tweeting - it's about preventing people from being able to create durable records of what happens.

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

#93

Post by msandford »

cag_ii wrote: post #80
msandford wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A civil rights lawsuit is fine. But the problem is that doesn't PREVENT any police behavior. 1. hit the kill switch 2. tell protesters to GTFO 3. they don't comply so start shooting 4. no recordings of what happened are made so it's he said she said 5. innocent people are dead and the only recourse is a lawsuit based on conflicting sworn testimony where officers are generally held to be more reliable than non-officer…

The "essential feature" that are disabled under this bill do not include the camera (or emergency calls).

Being able to take pictures or video but not upload them destroys a lot of the utility of a mobile device.

If you can't take a picture and upload it before you get arrested then whatever was on your phone can go away. But once it's uploaded it gets much, much harder to make it disappear.

I will concede that it's not as bad since the camera still works. But that doesn't make all my worries go away either.

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

#94

Post by zhengyi13 »

discardorama wrote: post #69
computer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue? When phones started being $600+ and carried by nearly everyone. I'm just as much against the kill switches as you are, but I've heard so many cops and high ranking police officers complain about smart-phone theft that I think that they truly believe this would be a major weapon against criminals. And why wouldn't it be: every phone theft is hundreds…

> I think that they truly believe this would be a major weapon against criminals. Not really. They truly believe that this bill would be great for controlling people. But they can't come out and say that openly. Hence the theft strawman. We have a national do-not-call registry. Why not have a registry of stolen IMEI codes? Problem solved. But that would be too easy.

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong."

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

#95

Post by anigbrowl »

Shivetya wrote: post #74
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…

I don't understand why there is any support for this ability in a phone. So they can prevent you from calling for help, from recording them, or what not? How much of a phone is disabled? Finally, if they can do then its likely they will have phones produced only usable by important people who will be immune so who will those people be? How do they get their phones. Let alone, if its in the phone some group will figur…

Because there's an epidemic of cell phone theft, many cellphone manufacturers don't provide a reliable mechanism for the victim of theft to deactivate their phone, and third party solutions are hit-and-miss. The primary purpose of the legislation is to require manufacturers to provide users with a way to remotely brick their phone. They're also required to get the user's permission for this as part of the phone setup, and make it easy for the user to disable the feature at any time. That's why there is support for this ability in a phone.

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

#96

Post by anigbrowl »

msandford wrote: post #93
cag_ii wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "essential feature" that are disabled under this bill do not include the camera (or emergency calls).

Being able to take pictures or video but not upload them destroys a lot of the utility of a mobile device. If you can't take a picture and upload it before you get arrested then whatever was on your phone can go away. But once it's uploaded it gets much, much harder to make it disappear. I will concede that it's not as bad since the camera still works. But that doesn't make all my worries go away either.

Then don't enable this feature on your phone. The law also requires that the feature be explicitly approved by the user and that it can be disabled by the user at any time.

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

#97

Post by anigbrowl »

ctdonath wrote: post #62
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely yes there is: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Allowing that "speech" is no less than "communication from one citizen to another", and "press" is a generic term for devices facilitating that communication, there is no reason to believe those who wrote & agreed to the particular enumerative wording of that right meant to exempt "instant mass communications".…

Arguably, the nascent country's experience with shay's Rebellion under the Articles of Confederation provided momentum for the establishment of a strong federal government; while Thomas Jefferson was sanguine about the rebellion, responding with his famous quote about the Tree of Liberty, George Washington (who was in the more difficult position of actually having to govern) was rather less enthusiastic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion#Impact_on_Cons...

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

#98

Post by tzs »

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…

> The bill says that police CAN use this mandatory kill switch, but must comply with Public Utility Code Section 7908 in doing so.

The actual wording is this: "Any request by a government agency to interrupt communications service utilizing a technological solution required by this section is subject to Section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code".

This looks more like an IF than a CAN to me. It's saying that they cannot evade the requirements of 7908 by using the kill switch instead of some other mechanism that is covered by 7908 to interrupt communication. It's preempting a potential argument that using the kill switch would not count under 7908, and so the police could use the kill switch with less restriction and oversight than 7908 requires. This seems a more natural reading to me than your reading of it...although I haven't looked at prior drafts or the legislative history to see if there is something that indicates your reading is what is intended.

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

#99

Post by anigbrowl »

lemonlyman87 wrote: post #61
anigbrowl wrote: post #35

This is a rather irresponsible article. The bill as passed by the CA legislature [1] addresses this possibility. In section 2, Section 22761(e) of the code limits the scope of law enforcement use in accordance with section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code [2], which prohibits interruption of communication by law enforcement in anything other than a hostage or barricade situation, ie an ongoing standoff between polic…

The blog post gives a full discussion of the extent to which the kill switch can be co-opted by law enforcement, and I think does so in a fair manner. It directly references both the bill's requirements for police use and PUC 7908. Your comment, on the other hand, does not accurately describe the relevant law. PUC 7908 states that "If a governmental entity reasonably determines that an extreme emergency situation exi…

7908(3)(C) incorporates s.7907 by reference.

(C) "Interrupt communications service" does not include any interruption of service pursuant to an order to cut, reroute, or divert service to a telephone line or wireless device used or available for use for communication by a person or persons in a hostage or barricade situation pursuant to Section 7907. However, "interruption of communications service" includes any interruption of service resulting from an order pursuant to Section 7907 that affects service to wireless devices other than any wireless device used by, or available for use by, the person or persons involved in a hostage or barricade situation.

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

#100

Post by tzs »

msandford wrote: post #64
anigbrowl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A civil rights lawsuit is fine. But the problem is that doesn't PREVENT any police behavior. 1. hit the kill switch 2. tell protesters to GTFO 3. they don't comply so start shooting 4. no recordings of what happened are made so it's he said she said 5. innocent people are dead and the only recourse is a lawsuit based on conflicting sworn testimony where officers are generally held to be more reliable than non-officer…

How would the police know whose phones to do this to? The kill switch is on a phone by phone basis.
Post reply on HN