California Rejects 'Kill Switch' Requirement Legislation for Smartphones

[ptb42]

II imagine that the Arab Spring a few years ago, which relied heavily on phones to tweet, Facebook, and text each other, might have had different results if their oppressive leaders could convince the phone companies to "kill" the phones of suspected protestors.

They didn't have to "kill" individual phones. They just shut down an entire cell phone network:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/04/20114233530919767.html

They weren't entirely successful in Libya, because one of the two providers was not controlled by the government.

The article has an interesting account of how they remained operational.

 

[winston1236]

There is no difference between a 'nanny state' and a 'corporate nanny'. If anything, most of the time the nanny state is trying to protect you, your interests, and your freedom from the corporate nanny who has significantly more influence over your information, decision making and purchases.

Corporations do not care about you. They only care about your money.

This is the government legislating to give users control over their devices, to protect the user's data and deter theft.

But this is the US and half the country votes against their own interest continually so good luck convincing the ignorant otherwise.

 

[co.ag.2005]

What use is hardware if it can't be used beyond a movie prop? At least in San Francisco, the market is for quickly flipping a device and selling it for a few bucks. From now on, anyone involved in the iPhone black market is a sucker if they purchase an iPhone without checking its functionality. Now if they want to make money, they have to take it to someone who knows what to do with camera modules, flash chips, etc.?

Am I missing something, or doesn't this still seriously deflate the incentive to steal an iPhone? Even if not 100% of users enable it, I feel like it would be a "poison pill" type deal where it seriously complicates a thieve's job.

unfortunately, people are still making decent money on "activation locked" or "iCloud locked" devices on ebay... here's a quick search of sold listings with the phrase "activation locked" in the search.

LINK

sure, these prices will likely keep falling once people realize they can't do a whole lot with them other than part them out, but there is still money to be made. To a thief, $150 is still better than $0.

It won't do much good anyway unless they crack down on people freely selling activation-locked iPhones on ebay.

agreed. in the above link I posted, I wonder how many of those are legit "I forgot my password and can't find away around it" kind of posts? My guess... very few (even then, I'm sure you can recover a forgotten password from Apple). My assumption is that a lot of these are stolen/found phones, either directly or someone sold to them locked and now they are just trying to get some $$ back off a botched deal.

 

[mytdave]

no to govt mandate

The populace better start to chime in on these matters. Call/write to your rep. Stop the govt. from "mandating" ******. You want a kill switch feature? Fine, it's your CHOICE to install/enable such a feature.

 

[oatman13]

Why does everything have to be laws and mandates anyway? Why does the government have to *require* cell phone carriers to implement a 'kill switch'? Shouldn't the free market and capitalism drive companies to innovate, I think so.

 

[Renzatic]

They didn't have to "kill" individual phones. They just shut down an entire cell phone network:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/04/20114233530919767.html

They weren't entirely successful in Libya, because one of the two providers was not controlled by the government.

The article has an interesting account of how they remained operational.

Thanks for saying this for me. If some out of control, coercive government wanted to go to such lengths to control the population, they wouldn't kill everyone's phones individually, they'd just shut down the networks.

The kill switch doesn't change much of anything, and doesn't give any government any more control over you than they already had. Really, it doesn't do all that much to deter thieves, either. But it does allow me to protect my personal data, so I'm cool with it.

 

[The Barron]

Once Elected....

Proud to be a Californian

Once somebody is elected to an office higher than a local school board, and I'm starting to doubt that to a degree, they are forever in the back pocket(s) of a HUGE "sugar daddy" PAC or company.

This doen't even surprise me in the least.

Go CA!

 

[Thunderhawks]

Proud to be a Californian

Any time somebody wants to introduce legislation using the title

PREVENTION ACT

it should be thrown out immediately!

 

[Night Spring]

(even then, I'm sure you can recover a forgotten password from Apple).

Actually, I don't think you can. Your phone unlock password is just on your device. Apple doesn't keep a record of it, it's not like it ever gets sent over the internet anywhere. Your iCloud or iTunes account password, if you forget them, can be reset by Apple. But your phone password, no.

 

[co.ag.2005]

Actually, I don't think you can. Your phone unlock password is just on your device. Apple doesn't keep a record of it, it's not like it ever gets sent over the internet anywhere. Your iCloud or iTunes account password, if you forget them, can be reset by Apple. But your phone password, no.

but isn't it just your iCloud/Apple account password? that's what mine is... at least, that's what I have to enter to disable "find my iPhone" (from the phone) - which is where the activation lock resides, correct? I'm not 100% sure but very curious.

 

[Konrad9]

If their customers want it, companies will do it on their own without being forced to. And if company doesn't implement it, then customers are free to leave for the competition.

Companies only ever do what their customers want, that's why Comcast's pricing structure is so consumer-friendly.

 

[lawrencewinkler]

NOOOOOOOOO NOW WHAT WILL I DO TO MAKE SURE MY PHONE DOESNT GET STOLENNNNNN??????

Oh, wait. Activation Lock was already in iOS 7? So innovation occurs without the involvement of government bureaucrats??? Who knew?

Apple already implemented locking. That means, without a legal requirement, other manufacturers will not have to implement such security. Seems like a marketing benefit to Apple.

 

[lawrencewinkler]

Why does everything have to be laws and mandates anyway? Why does the government have to *require* cell phone carriers to implement a 'kill switch'? Shouldn't the free market and capitalism drive companies to innovate, I think so.

If you like paying taxes for government prosecutions and police enforcement for cell phone thefts and the massive black market rings operating for that purpose, then by all means, allow this to continue. I have no problem myself criticizing government activities which cross lines, but you forget that it takes money to create and maintain an enforcement system. Preventing theft is far less expensive and certain than the disruption and cost of allowing it continue continue unabated while using resources to enforce the anti-theft laws. And, further, those who buy the phones pay just that little bit more, rather than the government(s) to have to tax everyone.

The other option is to tell the government to not enforce theft laws if it involves stolen phones.

 

[Night Spring]

but isn't it just your iCloud/Apple account password? that's what mine is... at least, that's what I have to enter to disable "find my iPhone" (from the phone) - which is where the activation lock resides, correct? I'm not 100% sure but very curious.

Ummmm, yes, that part you can reset by going to the iCloud.com website and following whatever password reset procedure Apple set up, true. I was thinking of the password used to unlock the phone itself -- which, come to think of it, you don't need to set that to enable Find My iPhone. Ok, forget what I said, sorry.

 

[dcorban]

I don't know if I want a 'Kill Switch' available in the phones. I am not normally paranoid, but it seems like something governments would use against their people. I imagine that the Arab Spring a few years ago, which relied heavily on phones to tweet, Facebook, and text each other, might have had different results if their oppressive leaders could convince the phone companies to "kill" the phones of suspected protestors.

Agreed. How little social engineering would it take for someone to call in and "kill" someone's phone? Last four of credit card and an email address, as with Apple ID password reset?

Apple already implemented locking. That means, without a legal requirement, other manufacturers will not have to implement such security. Seems like a marketing benefit to Apple.

It would be mildly humorous if we later discovered that Samsung was ultimately behind the push for this legislation. It gives them legitimacy to copy a unique feature and bring parity.

 

[mrsir2009]

Companies only ever do what their customers want, that's why Comcast's pricing structure is so consumer-friendly.

In a completely free market they either do, or the competition gets all the customers and they go out of business. In Comcast's case, the government helped them get started during the 20th century and imposes regulations and hurdles that block off the market for competitors that don't have an obscene amount of money to pay for priority access to cable routes over government land. It's a state-driven monopoly disguised as a free-market monopoly.

 

[Abazigal]

Honest question: What does the manufacturer have to do with it? Can't Google just built it in to Android?

Yeah, but the carriers would probably block or remove the feature if they felt it clashed with their own business models.

Just like how verizon blocked google wallet.

So in the end, you are still back to square one.

 

[mrsir2009]

Yeah, but the carriers would probably block or remove the feature if they felt it clashed with their own business models.

Just like how verizon blocked google wallet.

So in the end, you are still back to square one.

How would an anti-theft feature clash with a carrier's business model?

 

[Abazigal]

How would an anti-theft feature clash with a carrier's business model?

Fewer phones stolen means fewer new phones purchased? Or at least one less opportunity to sell their own insurance schemes.

These are just guesses, but Verizon at least has prevented such a feature from being installed on Samsung phones. One can only speculate why.

 

[mrsir2009]

Fewer phones stolen means fewer new phones purchased? Or at least one less opportunity to sell their own insurance schemes.

These are just guesses, but Verizon at least has prevented such a feature from being installed on Samsung phones. One can only speculate why.

I can understand why they'd want to block it to push their insurance plans, but you've got to remember that when someone doesn't get their phone stolen there is also someone who doesn't get to buy/have a stolen phone -- and thus has to buy a phone legally. When someone steals a phone that means that there is someone out there that doesn't have to buy a phone legally.

On top of that, do carriers really make that much money by selling handsets for $100-$200? I would think that most of their revenue comes from the mobile plans.

 

[SeaFox]

If Android didn't have remote wipe/Find my Android Device, then how would switching to another Android phone maker solve anything?

Now do your see why an argument of "if one maker wont offer it, go to the competition" is silly? In an oligopoly it only takes a few people to agree to lock you out from voting with your wallet.

On top of that, do carriers really make that much money by selling handsets for $100-$200? I would think that most of their revenue comes from the mobile plans.

Yes, and since most people can't afford to pay the true price of their smartphones, the carrier offers to subsidize a new one -- as long a they sign up for another contract extension.

 

[Tech198]

Apple already has a remote wipe via iCloud... What will this kill switch improve on that ?

Ok, so every other smart-phone can now be remotely wiped by the user..... anything else ?

Or is this so manufactures can remotely wipe ? The article is not very clear.

 

[MacLC]

There is no difference between a 'nanny state' and a 'corporate nanny'. If anything, most of the time the nanny state is trying to protect you, your interests, and your freedom from the corporate nanny who has significantly more influence over your information, decision making and purchases.

Corporations do not care about you. They only care about your money.

This is the government legislating to give users control over their devices, to protect the user's data and deter theft.

Your view on corporations was the punchline of a recent Dilbert comic.
Truth is if companies fail to provide the service/product customers want, they will lose money, too. In a "free" market, customer happiness is in the company's best interest.

The only western hemisphere living I've ever done was in California and to me the bill was pointless anyway. Those voting in favor probably didn't realize that the smartphones already have a kill switch and the lesser smartphones are working on one. The no votes probably would have agreed with the yes votes but got bribed by gun-running mafia affiliates (looking for new work after Leland Yee's fall).

With Android everybody secretly hopes their phone gets stolen. My Android phone didn't have a voice memo app so I started to download one. It wanted access to my phone records and complete address book and other things. Seriously, Google, you don't realize how invasive it is to bribe Peter to give you Paul's private info? Back to Apple.

 

[Bill Poulos]

Government Product Design

When governments get involved in product design it usually means trouble.

It won't take long before governments will pass laws that allows them to remotely set your Nest thermostat to a temperature the best suits the "public interest", all in the name of global warming.

Kill switches and mass metadata gathering is just the beginning.

 

[Cubytus]

Why does everything have to be laws and mandates anyway? Why does the government have to *require* cell phone carriers to implement a 'kill switch'? Shouldn't the free market and capitalism drive companies to innovate, I think so.

Free market doesn't exist in the US (and neither does it in many countries). Either you have too many rules and companies can't develop, as in France, or you have too few, like the US, where nothing is built to prevent giants from eating the small, independent players trying to build their share and maintain competition.

It won't take long before governments will pass laws that allows them to remotely set your Nest thermostat to a temperature the best suits the "public interest", all in the name of global warming.

Kill switches and mass metadata gathering is just the beginning.

Global warming is a reality. Still, your example doesn't hold water, and considering most electricity is coal-produced in the US, reducing consumption can never be bad. But reducing a thermostat? Wouldn't it be better to mandate upgrades to the building code? Our standards are currently lower than the warmer country Germany is. I don't fell the carbon market is going to curb emissions.