How? It's an option used to wipe and disable the phone remotely in case of theft. How would that be considered a downside?
I gave you two reasons why people might not like a kill switch on their phone. There could be others as well.
Because the cost to implement such a feature isn't necessarily any more expensive than implementing Find My iPhone, GPS Navigation, or iCloud. Hell, there you go. It could be bundled as part of iCloud.
Some smartphones don't have Find my iPhone, GPS navigation, or iCloud. And people buy those phones because they don't care about those features, don't want them, or want to save money. And it is their right to do so, and it is the right of the manufacturer to supply it.
And ultimately it doesn't matter how responsible you think you are. You could be the most responsible individual on the face of the earth, but if someone mugs you or picks your pocket, then they have your phone. And once someone has physical access to your phone, breaking through any security checks and passwords you might have implemented is only a matter of time. You might as well have the option to wipe your cell phone remotely to keep them from getting at your personal information.
Great. So you think the government knows better than the individual and they must look out for you against your will. That means you clearly don't understand the whole concept of 'freedom' or you don't give a damn about it.
Either way, you have the option to buy a phone with theft prevention on it, and I should have the option to buy a phone without it. When an individual pays money for a product, they understand the risks involved, and should be able to make their own educated decisions on what features and handsets are right for them.
It's about the same risk someone has of hackers breaking into the App Store and stealing all your credit card information. When you're using something over the internet, there's always some inherent risk involved. You have to weigh the pros with the cons.
And in this case, the pros outweigh the cons.
Bricking your phone is not the same as stealing your information. Then again, someone can make an iTunes store account with gift credit cards so nothing too pertinent is lost.
Either way, this has nothing to do with the government mandating that every phone must have a feature that some people might not want.
How is requesting a security feature infringing on their liberties? It's a mandated security standard. A move designed to give end users more power over their phones in order to minimize identity theft.
If a consumer would like to purchase a product without that feature, and a manufacturer is willing to make that product without that feature, but cannot do so because the law says they are not allowed, that is violating the liberty of both the consumer and the manufacturer from making a voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.
And the only thing the government mandate does is standardize it as a feature across all smartphones. Since the Free Market :angelic choir: is already doing it, the only thing this mandate does is solidify it's adoption across the board.
I don't want adoption across the board. That's exactly the point. People should have CHOICES.
It's a goddamn feature. The end user isn't being forced to use anything. They could ignore it entirely if they wanted to. All the government is doing is...as I said above...setting a mandate in order for it to become a standard.
It's like credit card security. For a bank to offer credit cards as a service, they have to adhere to a certain number of standards and regulations before they're allowed to do so in order to minimize damage as much as possible in the event of a personal worst case scenario. This is roughly the same thing. It's another security option.
And security options shouldn't be dependent upon what a manufacturer feels like they should or shouldn't do.
The end user is forced to have a phone with software installed that is capable of bricking a phone. Period. Again, what might be a beneficial feature to some is a hinderance to others.
The underlying reason for this legislation is an honorable one but the unintended consequences aren't worth the benefits as it stifles consumer choice, competition, and liberty.
