Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

CA Bill Requires Antitheft Technology in Smartphones

scaredpoet said:
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.
Click to expand...

no, apple did it because 1) it's a good idea. 2) the writing had been on the wall -- NY and others have been talking about this a long while.

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.
Click to expand...

sure it is. CA has pioneered many of our consumer protection laws, from hazardous materials to foodstuffs. states dont have to write their laws the same as everyone else -- thats a nationalist view point. states-rights advocates feel the state should right the laws its people want and ratify.

dont like it? dont do business there. simple market solution.
 
mknopp said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're muddying the issue here. This isn't about surveillance, it's very simply about state governments overreaching and over regulating commerce.

Besides, it's already been demonstrated that should any government feel that the use of cellular networks are a threat to their existence, they don't need individual kill switches to neutralize that "threat." Not to mention: the NSA's work in particular would be disrupted by kill switches.


So, call me paranoid,
Click to expand...

I think I will!
 
They should make and enforce this new law by Monday. It's crazy to keep allowing easy to steal phones to be sold. Do it now!
 
mdelvecchio said:
no, apple did it
Click to expand...

I'm not criticizing what Apple did. I'm criticizing what a state government is doing to curry favor with Apple. Please read more carefully.

sure it is. CA has pioneered many of our consumer protection laws, from hazardous materials to foodstuffs. states dont have to write their laws the same as everyone else
Click to expand...

Not until federal law supersedes state law on relevant matters, which will most certainly happen eventually in this case.

mdelvecchio said:
dont like it? dont do business there. simple market solution.
Click to expand...

So it's okay for free market competition to be restricted in a particular state through creative legislation? Interesting.
 
mdelvecchio said:
yes, because safe guards in phones = tyranny. :roll eyes:

oh, you arm-char libertarians...
Click to expand...

You think that this is some kind of absurd suggestion? How much do you think the leaders during the Arab Spring would have loved to have the ability to kill every single phone used by those who rebelled against them?

Is it just a coincidence that very shortly after the US government praised the openness of the internet for aiding in these revolutions that they sought to implement a kill-switch on the internet in the US? Of course, it was to stop terrorist, but it also coincidentally would also allow the US government to stop the same thing that they praised in the Middle East.

Do you not see the problem with a secret court passing secret authorization for secret programs in a supposed democracy? I would have laughed if I hadn't found it so sad when the government's response to Snowden was to condemn it and state that the right way to go about it would have been for a public discourse. How was the public supposed to have a discourse regarding something that was made illegal for anyone to mention to the public?

I am not saying that this is what is intended, but the simple fact is that trust has to be earned and our government has done everything in their power to make sure it is not earned. The one constant of government is that over time if you give them an inch they will take a hundred miles.
 
If this law passes, I'm going to steal Senator Mark Leno's, district attorney George Gascón's, and Governor Jerry Brown's smart phones just to prove that it won't do a damn thing to stop phone theft. :D :p
 
scaredpoet said:
You're muddying the issue here. This isn't about surveillance, it's very simply about state governments overreaching and over regulating commerce.
Click to expand...

I never once said anything about surveillance. This is about the government implementing something that can very easily be abused.

scaredpoet said:
Besides, it's already been demonstrated that should any government feel that the use of cellular networks are a threat to their existence, they don't need individual kill switches to neutralize that "threat."
Click to expand...

Interesting that you make my point for me. What Egypt did was the equivalent of carpet bombing. They had to shut down a huge swath of communication, thus catching those towing the line, and possible supporting them, along with those opposing them.

What phone specific kill-switches allow is the equivalent of a guided missile. It would allow the government to only target those that they want to target. Thus, keeping the apathetic thus and allowing their supporters to enjoy the benefits of the internet and modern communications.

scaredpoet said:
Not to mention: the NSA's work in particular would be disrupted by kill switches.
Click to expand...

Now you are muddying the waters. Again, this has nothing to do with surveillance. Legal or otherwise.

scaredpoet said:
I think I will!
Click to expand...

For my children's sake I pray that you are right, but fear that you are not.
 
The Doctor11 said:
Didn't think about people getting killed for their phone... Ok I agree with this now.

----------



Not stop but decrees the amount of it.
Click to expand...

How would it decrease the amount of them? Do you think it this law is going to somehow magically lower the parts value of a phone? Most criminals are not stealing a phone to use it, they are just going to turn around and sell it.
The phone is sold for pennies on the dollar and sent to the equivalent of a chop shop for cars.
 
lostngone said:
How would it decrease the amount of them? Do you think it this law is going to somehow magically lower the parts value of a phone? Most criminals are not stealing a phone to use it, they are just going to turn around and sell it.
The phone is sold for pennies on the dollar and sent to the equivalent of a chop shop for cars.
Click to expand...

Before they could get close to 400-600 for a new phone stolen or not.

With iOS 7 it's down to ~180 for a activation locked phone. It certainly made an impact. I don't think this can do any harm and it benefits us. It lowers the value of stolen devices.
 
This surveillance state is brought to you by our big brothers at Silicon Valley.

Silicon Valley: Removing humanity from progress since 1960 :p
 
Why don't they have cars that will shut down and never restart when stolen?

What about anti-theft 7-11s?

Wallets that explode when removed from the owner?
 
lostngone said:
Do you really think this law is going to stop armed robbery?
Click to expand...
Stop it? No. but by reducing the street value of a stolen phone, reduce it substantially. By disabling a stolen phone it can't be resold as a working device to an unsuspecting (or often not so unsuspecting) person who would drop in their SIM card and use it. It would have to be parted out to, as someone else called it, a Chop Shop who would use the case, screen and battery and have to trash the rest. That will drop the value of the devices substantially, therefore reducing the pressure to steal them. Criminals go where the money is.
 
lostngone said:
How would it decrease the amount of them? Do you think it this law is going to somehow magically lower the parts value of a phone? Most criminals are not stealing a phone to use it, they are just going to turn around and sell it.
The phone is sold for pennies on the dollar and sent to the equivalent of a chop shop for cars.
Click to expand...

They steal them for your info. If you can't get to the info your less likely to try and get to the phone
 
Z400Racer37 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it did not. Free market didn't do a thing because stolen phones didn't affect profits.

----------
ThisIsNotMe said:
Heaven forbid people have personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

False.

Personal responsibility has noting to do with being a victim of crime. You can do every possible thing to safeguard yourself and still fall victim to crime.
 
The next law:
Purse and wallet makers will have to make sure that their products have anti-theft measures too. And then jewelry.

Let's not stop there:
Every home sold will need to have an alarm installed. They will be made affordable with the Obamalarm (I know it's CA, I just thought that sounded funny) program. Oh and cars as well, the key just isn't enough any more.

Jeez.
 
jephrey said:
The next law:
Purse and wallet makers will have to make sure that their products have anti-theft measures too. And then jewelry.

Let's not stop there:
Every home sold will need to have an alarm installed. They will be made affordable with the Obamalarm (I know it's CA, I just thought that sounded funny) program. Oh and cars as well, the key just isn't enough any more.

Jeez.
Click to expand...

I love hyperbole too.
 
elvisimprsntr said:
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?" :eek:

YouTube: video
Click to expand...

I should have wrapped my comment in <sarcasm> tags as I know they already do this.

"Newman!!!"
 
nzalog said:
Before they could get close to 400-600 for a new phone stolen or not.
Click to expand...

600 for stolen phones?!?! No fence in his right mind would pay 600 for a stolen iPhone. At best you are looking at ~100 for an iPhone.
Don't believe me, walk into a pawn shop and see what they will give you for a iPhone that isn't stolen.
 
California thinks they can legislate ANY problem away.... I'm no social conservative, but when you go to a shop there and go to buy a souvenir coffee mug and there's a sticker on it that says you may get cancer if you drink from it, they've gone just a bit over-board.....to the nth degree...on EVERYTHING.

I think most law makers should spend their time REPEALING STUPID LAWS (many laws from the 1800s make NO sense today but remain on the books) instead of making new ones that are even more stupid.

If a consumer wants to buy a phone without theft "protection" that should be their choice, not California's "right" to FORCE everyone to behave the way some tree hugger (used in a broader sense to define people that go to extremes for their limited personal preferences and beliefs rather than personal freedom) thinks they should behave.

The problem is the squeaky wheel gets the oil. MOST people don't even follow this crap (and thus the laws never represent the masses). But someone's cat gets run over and the news picks it up and makes a HUGE stink about it and suddenly you get "Miss Kitty's Law" that forbids someone from running over a cat if they can swerve and hit a telephone pole instead (and probably die themselves) and if it's decided they should have taken the pole instead, they go to jail and get fined $1 million for hitting the stray cat instead of getting themselves killed (yeah, many laws ARE that stupid).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back