CA Bill Requires Antitheft Technology in Smartphones

[phillipduran]

The logic here is that failure to install this technology is costing the State money, therefore the State has the authority to require it. It's the same logic that allows the government to set safety standards for cars.

And that is exactly how tyranny gets justified. That is how rights get trampled. That is how control is seized. They have to pay therefore it becomes their bushiness and they have a right to demand compliance.

Look how cigarettes have been beaten up because of the associated health costs. With this logic, what stops the government from doing whatever it wants? Tax or over regulate anything out of existence. Who in the world needs the rule of law when you wield that kind of power?

 

[sk1wbw]

Thank God the lawmakers in California have solved all the other state's problems, like gangs and drugs and homicides. What would us low life pheasants do with ourselves if it weren't for those smart lawmakers looking out for our best interests?

 

[subsonix]

There is that as well. But a passcode stops that issue, as does a remote wipe. so how about we add to the laws...

I have no opinion about the law, just wanted to add a second area which you left out that could be affected by theft.

Also, from the article:

Apple likely won't be affected by the bill as it introduced its own antitheft technology with iOS 7's Activation Lock feature.

 

[charlituna]

The logic here is that failure to install this technology is costing the State money, therefore the State has the authority to require it. It's the same logic that allows the government to set safety standards for cars.

How?

They figure that such a kill switch is going to make folks stop stealing the phones. Hardly. They steal them for the parts. They steal them and sell them to suckers on ebay.

My BF works for an Apple store and every week he has a handful of folks that bought a phone from ebay, craigslist etc and it is activation locked. They try to argue that they have a 'receipt' from the seller so Apple should have to turn it off but there is no way to do that. Only the original Apple ID and password from the person that put the lock on will remove it.

He also gets folks coming in with phones that have been jacked with non Apple parts, sold as new even. nope that phone was originally sold 2 years ago, was jacked up and denied service for modified parts and stuck back in the box, wrapped up and sold to you. Changes nothing about the condition that you didn't know what you were buying, you are still denied. The shops doing these are getting savvy to why Apple is turning them down so getting their hands on real parts would be appealing.

 

[2457282]

I for one support this. Apple already has it and this will force others to have some feature to deter phone theft. No law, or software/hardware feature will ever eliminate theft, but this could significant deter theft. The technology is there and there is no reason not to do it.

 

[The Doctor11]

For the same reason you can't sell a car or aircraft without seat-belts. Because it's the law. Government sets standards and manufacturers follow them.

That's for safety this is for a cell phone

 

[hybrid_x]

Still can turn off my pass code enabled iPhone without a pass code.

Yup. Hopefully iOS 7.1 will come with the requirement to enter the pass code to turn the device off. That would go a long way toward assisting recovery and deterring theft.

 

[lostngone]

Wooo Hooo!

Another win for big government!

How many Billions of dollars in the hole is the state of California in? I am glad the politicians could take time out of their busy schedule to pass another useless law.

 

[Popeye206]

Heaven forbid people have personal responsibility.

BINGO!

More laws that tell us whats best for us.

 

[HitchHykr]

The logic here is that failure to install this technology is costing the State money, therefore the State has the authority to require it. It's the same logic that allows the government to set safety standards for cars.

Or what you need to wear while riding a motorcycle, or what lightbulb you can use in your home, or what you can eat....

 

[sk1wbw]

The main problem here is that Democrats think they can legislate EVERYTHING. Just look at the Senate trying to pass the buck to phone manufacturers about texting while driving, or that Communistwealth of Massachussets trying to ban energy drinks to anyone under 23.

 

[flux73]

I can give the benefit of the doubt to the folks who proposed this law, as being well-intentioned.

But I also can't help but think that there's some clear pandering going on here to the one smartphone vendor that is headquartered in that state, and who by the way, has this technology in place. It's very easy to require this sort of thing with little home state backlash, when your own constituents are already abiding by the proposed law.

Smartphones should have anti-theft technologies in them. Any little bit helps, or at least won't hurt. But one state doing their own thing and writing their own laws that are different from the 49 other states and the rest of the world, isn't the way to go about encouraging it.

Don't know why Apple would push this. If anything, they'd be against it. Having the kill switch gives them a selling point over the other smartphones.

 

[winston1236]

This is a perfect example of the government jumping in front of a parade and pretending to lead it. The FREE MARKET was taking care of this problem JUST FINE. Thank goodness they were there to waste all that money though. They must really care.

And what were they doing?

 

[kilcher]

Even if devices have anti-theft technology, they are still going to be stolen. iPhone is still the most stolen phone. Even with iOS 7.

It's too bad thugs don't research devices before stealing them.

IMO this is not something government needs to be involved in.

 

[winston1236]

BINGO!

More laws that tell us whats best for us.

So being robbed at gunpoint is about "personal responsibility"? republican much?

 

[KPOM]

The logic here is that failure to install this technology is costing the State money, therefore the State has the authority to require it. It's the same logic that allows the government to set safety standards for cars.

It's a stretch, though. It isn't the technology, or lack thereof, costing the state money. It's the criminals. Maybe they should pass a law making it illegal to take a phone that isn't yours.

Car safety isn't an exact comparison. For starters, a lot of car safety rules are designed to reduce the risk of causing injury to others.

 

[thepowerofnone]

If I want I sell a phone that doesn't have anti theft tech. why can't I? What if I don't want to put the time and money in to that? I hope this does not become a law

Because customers are stupid and when it comes to shifting stolen goods criminals generally aren't. Customers generally won't buy a phone because it has a built-in software anti-theft system: 1) how do you market that in a catchy way 2) you never think you're going to get robbed until you do 3) for people with possessions insurance, as many people have, why do they care particularly? Low excess means its not that much money out of their pocket; its plenty of money to the person who gets your phone to make smartphone theft extremely lucrative.

On the other hand, why not target criminals at their root? This is EXACTLY that. Make the items they steal worthless - only the extremely dense criminals will continue to systematically steal smartphones and stupid criminals get caught. Why take the risk when there is absolutely no gain in obtaining a shiny brick.

So why is this bad? If you want to make it apply solely to companies with more than 0.1% market share to protect the tiny start-ups then fine; anything with more market share than that runs iOS, WP8 or Android, and those tech companies have plenty of resources to copy a similar design to iOS. It would also probably do Android some good to force all its hardware partners to release phones with a moderately modern OS - Google can just patch this feature to all OS versions 4.0 and above and from 2015 vendors can either sell devices that can run what will then be a 3 y/o OS or forfeit a 40 million consumer market. Government action like this is better than inaction by everyone.

 

[idunn]

Theft by any other name

"Co-sponsored by San Francisco’s district attorney George Gascón, this kill switch requirement could go into effect as soon as January 1, 2015, if passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown." [1]


Anyone half aware will understand that these initiatives have little to do with theft and everything to do with state control and tyranny.

The entire purpose is for installation of kill switches. It is not enough that the NSA spies wholesale on everyone (and in part by having installed Trojan technology into hardware), in direct contravention of the US constitution, but they also want the ability to instantly terminate all civilian communication via its primary and most popular means, at their discretion. BART in the Bay Area has once already in effect done this, although not as elegantly as without this technology. Nor is California the only state considering this, with, I believe, New York at least one other.

Just ask anyone who has experienced a theft of property worth even several of thousands of dollars how concerned the police are. Make no mistake of what is intended here.

1) 'CA Bill Requires Antitheft Technology in Smartphones,' MacRumors
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1704664/​

 

[jeffe]

I think the idea of this being mandatory in each state is a good idea, One they cannot profit from the theft of a device and second it will slow the thieves down from stealing the devices. I personally think its a great idea, Stop these young punk kids from taking advantage of people. After they get software to do this then they also need to up the laws to actually punish the the their actions with stricter laws!!!

But this doesn't remove the profit from taking someone else's phone.

Thieves can still profit from selling a stolen phone just for the parts.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Heaven forbid people have personal responsibility.

clueless. no matter much you like to think you're pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, you can't stop a mugger from pointing a gun in your face and taking your stuff. just try it.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

I don't think the proposed law goes far enough. I think they should make your phone ping the server every 15 minutes giving your exact location so just in case your phone is stolen or you lose it, a elite task force of specially trained cell phone detectives can come and find it. It would also be a great way for our government clandestine overloads to add a layer of protection for us.

I've got news for you. Your phone is already doing this. Don't be surprised if someone shows up at your door and say, "We noticed you lost your phone and thought you might want it back. You do want it back, don't you?"

 

[mdelvecchio]

Why address the underlying causes of crime when you can propose a politically expedient bill instead?...

thieves have been with us since the dawn of time. they aren't going anywhere.

 

[mknopp]

Can anybody else hear the loud cheering coming from Washington DC?

I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but I have a real problem with the ubiquity of kill-switches that the government is wanting to put into things now a days. All, of course, in the name of stopping crime.

It is just coincidence that the same government that will secretly spy on their own citizens and secretly require technology companies to hand over data on their users, while also making it illegal for them to ever state that it happened (the secret part is what I have an issue with).

So, call me paranoid, but once the government has a way to disable all cars, they have pushed for required kill switches in vehicles to stop criminals from using cars to get away and to deter theft, and a way to disable all phones, it is clear that all phones will be smartphones and require this with a handful of years, what is to stop it from "secretly" using that ability for purposes beyond what it was intended?

The simple fact is that I don't really trust big business, but I don't trust government at all.

 

[mdelvecchio]

If I want I sell a phone that doesn't have anti theft tech. why can't I? What if I don't want to put the time and money in to that?

you're free to do that, even if this becomes law. you just can't sell it in California, where, if this becomes law, the people have spoken.

----------

And that is exactly how tyranny gets justified. That is how rights get trampled. That is how control is seized. They have to pay therefore it becomes their bushiness and they have a right to demand compliance.

Look how cigarettes have been beaten up because of the associated health costs. With this logic, what stops the government from doing whatever it wants? Tax or over regulate anything out of existence. Who in the world needs the rule of law when you wield that kind of power?

yes, because safe guards in phones = tyranny. :roll eyes:

oh, you arm-char libertarians...

 

[mknopp]

thieves have been with us since the dawn of time. they aren't going anywhere.

The solution is simple. When nobody has anything, then nobody can steal anything.

Of course, just like the wonderful idea of communism, those in charge of making it happen never quite get to the final step: joining the masses.

The problem with wonderful ideas is that they never stand the messiness that is reality and human imperfection.