9 ms·

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

133 points by conorgil145 12y ago

wyager 12y ago
"Could"? I give it 5 years. How do people see this as a good idea? There are already voluntary methods for this, so there is literally no good justification for forcing a state-controlled version on everyone.
- lemonlyman87 12y ago
  Exactly, but the bill makes it mandatory and default on for all smartphones in CA (which will probably lead to the same happening across the U.S.) - Ferguson protesters, watch out when police tell you to stop recording on your phones
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    That is simply not true. The smartphone shall, during the initial device setup process, prompt an authorized user to enable the technological solution. [...] (2) An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time. [...]
    - wyager 12y ago
      >An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time How much you want to bet that "opting out" happens on the government end and not the device end?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  The advantage to mandatory and default-to-on is that it will be prevalent and will therefore decrease the expected value of mugging someone for their phone. That is a legitimate benefit, and is not worth nothing. I'm still not happy about the trade-off, if the disable doesn't depend on an owner-controlled code or similar.
  - chenelson 12y ago
    Fifteen years ago people were stealing mock-ups and pretending they had cell phones. I'm not sure those that commit felonies subscribe to the same value chain that you do. Besides, assuming the device doesn't self-destruct Mission Impossible style, at worst it'll still be worth parts to someone. So there will be many more parts available--and possibly more victims to make up the difference (assuming muggers are working for something).
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      You can't possibly believe those are reasonable points.
      - chenelson 12y ago
        What--that trying to stop an opportunistic crime with white market reason is idiotic?
        dllthomas 12y ago
        Inasmuch as that is even coherent, yes.
        chenelson 12y ago
        Assumption: A Kill Switch will render a $500 device worthless, and thus eliminate the incentive for theft. So, a couple of theft cases to frame: 1. People steal fake phones (shiny objects) that have NEVER worked, ie aesthetic value only. 2. Parts, such as replacement screens, are in great demand, and there are small urban retailers today that enjoy every opportunity to lower their costs, ie $5-50. Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested for robbery tested positive for a controlled substance. Does an addict have Free Will? Delayed gratification? What's a $100/day habit like? What is an addict willing to do for a Klondike Bar? (Answer: Anything.)
        12y ago
kabdib 12y ago
Won't kill non-phone devices. Those aren't as numerous, and maybe not as real-time, but they're very difficult to shut down.
- lukifer 12y ago
  The problem is, how many people actually carry non-phone devices? There are a small handful of folks who carry around SLRs or iPod with cameras, but not many. (Since Google glass is paired with a phone, I'm guessing it would be bricked as well.) I'm also curious if "Airplane Mode" defends against shutdown. While common sense says it should, it's an easy loophole for the thieves who are (ostensibly) the purpose of the shutdown switch.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    The resale value of a phone that can never be taken out of Airplane Mode is going to be pretty bad, especially if it's "will instantly brick when you touch the setting", so it doesn't seem like much of a loophole for the anti-theft goal.
    - chenelson 12y ago
      The loophole is handset exchange at the local retailer.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Wouldn't they check the phone against the list of stolen phones, or at least make sure the thing works as a phone, before accepting it?
        chenelson 12y ago
        Returned devices often do not work--that's why they're being exchanged. Also, just on the carrier's corporate retail side (small in comparison), we're talking about over 2,500 locations, over 25,000 reps, and over 500,000 new monthly adds and upgrades. Serialization is very expensive and does not eliminate the tricky human. Also, even a disabled device is still worth parts.
jeffrey8chang 12y ago
There's just too many backdoors in smart phones. That's why I choose to use standalone hardware that can work with any phone for my voice encryption project: http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/
- Someone1234 12y ago
  I don't think I see the relevance. This article isn't about spying on you, it is about disabling your phone remotely ("kill switch," etc). How does encrypting your voice before it enters your phone mitigate that? Plus if you're paranoid enough to use that then frankly you're too paranoid to own a cellphone at all. They can still use it to track your location and to remotely turn on the microphone and eavesdrop on the background sounds.
  - TheBiv 12y ago
    Commenter created that company he's linking to...there is no relevance to this article! "JackPair: protect your voice phone calls from wiretapping by Jeffrey Chang & the AWIT team"
    - pyre 12y ago
      The commenter did mention that: > my voice encryption project
  - tlrobinson 12y ago
    The relevance, as I see it, is that the same capabilities used to spy on mobile devices (0-day vulnerabilities/backdoors, or just leverage over telcos) could be used as a de-facto "kill switch". That said, a law that explicitly gives the state authority to shut down all cell phones in a situation "they perceive" as a risk is an order of magnitude worse. (The "kill switch" counterpart to JackPair would be systems like mesh networks, ham radio / APRS, etc. GoTenna is one recent commercial product: http://gotenna.com/ http://gotenna.com/ Of course it can probably be easily jammed)
  - jeffrey8chang 12y ago
tootie 12y ago
Also, cops in California will be issued guns that they may use to arbitrarily murders citizens.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Such things are used much less casually, though. There is immense public pressure not to misuse guns that isn't there for other stuff. Obviously guns are not immune to misuse, but it's not all that common. "Less lethal" weapons like tasers and batons and rubber bullets and tear gas get misused way more frequently, precisely because they're less harmful than a regular gun. It's likely that the same thing could apply to a cell phone kill switch.
  - pyre 12y ago
    The argument will be that you don't "have a right" to cell service everywhere at anytime. "It's not like your service isn't restored after the protest."
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Doesn't the kill switch permanently disable the phone? Edit - Nope. I just reread the bill. Sorry for any misinformation: "prevent reactivation of the smartphone on a wireless network except by an authorized user"
scelerat 12y ago
There are fundamental freedoms the government cannot and should not be able to subvert. Communicating with others, via any means necessary is one of them. I feel I am politically very far away from many guns rights activists, and am wary of the practical outcomes of widespread weapon ownership, but at the same time I believe 2nd Amendment advocates are completely right to be wary of government's ability to strip individual power to protect and disrupt.
- michaelfeathers 12y ago
  If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate First Amendment challenge. One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against jamming of any sort of radio signal.
  - danudey 12y ago
    This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio in it. There's no FCC issue here.
    - le_meta 12y ago
      "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. "
    - michaelfeathers 12y ago
      I know. My point was that that regulation protected us in absence of having a kill switch on phones.
- AJ007 12y ago
  It is sad to see groups of people who strongly support the Bill of Rights fall for menial tricks for the purpose of splitting them in to marketable groups of voters/donors. All individual rights can be rationalized away in an unlimited number of scenarios, emergency and otherwise. Anyone who believes in those rights absolutely should logically appear insane at least sometimes.
joeframbach 12y ago
Does this include access points like the MiFi hotspot?
javajosh 12y ago
Call Gov. Brown (916) 445-2841 and let his staffers know how you feel. This is SB962.
colordrops 12y ago
"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests" As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?
- computer 12y ago
  > 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 of dollars, and there's a lot of phone thefts happening worldwide.
  - discardorama 12y ago
    > 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.
    - zhengyi13 12y ago
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong."
- lemonlyman87 12y ago
  As a critic of the bill, I'll readily concede that smartphone theft is a major problem. It's one of the most prominant crimes in urban areas, costs billions of dollars a year, and has in several occassions caused violence. Still, it doesn't justify a mandatory kill switch (there are a large number of free apps you can download), and it certainly doesn't justify letting police use kill switches that are installed.
smoyer 12y ago
"Police could use the kill switch to shut down all phones in a situation they unilaterally perceive as presenting an imminent risk of danger" That's only one step away from the use of an EMP to isolate a crowd of people from the Internet (and each other) in Cory Doctorow's "Homeland" (I'm not a teen reader but I enjoyed it anyway)
- biafra 12y ago
  Yeah. Keep in mind those phones are bricked forever. It is probably much easier to disable phone service in a certain region from the network side. I would imagine people suing the police for destroying their phones.
  - xxs 12y ago
    I seriously, seriously doubt 'bricked' forever. Unless the hardware actually overheats, it'd be possible to replace the relevant parts with cheap China imports.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      I haven't seen anything like it in the US. But I spent some time in China, and at the local grocery store close to my apartment, there were a couple of teen-aged looking kids with a hot-air soldering station and some smt stencils who were re-working cell phones (probably failed QC) in their spare time when they weren't selling sunglasses or wristwatches and that kind of stuff.
diafygi 12y ago
Seems like the first time this happens it can be easily challenged on free speech grounds, right?
lemonlyman87 12y ago
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 approval is not required. I worry police could abuse this, using risk of violence as a pretense to shut down a protest as CA police did during the BART subway shutdown in 2011. A more broad risk is that because CA is such a large market, manufacturers/providers will likely deploy this mandatory kill switch nationally, so it could end up being used in other states (such as during protests in Ferguson, Missouri)that may have absolutely no restrictions on government use of a kill switch. Unfortunately the bill is very far along so there is not much left that can be done, but I would recommend discussing the issue on social media, and, as @javajosh suggests, contacting Governor Brown's office to express concerns and recommend a veto. The bill was passed on August 12 so he must sign or veto it by August 24.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  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 and requiring the purpose of the interruption be as narrowly tailored as possibly. I don't understand why you left all this out of the original story.
  - seniorsassycat 12y ago
    What is the response if the court rules that the shutdown was unwarranted after the fact?
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Everyone whose cell phone service was interrupted has a good basis for civil rights lawsuit against the offending police department, for one thing.
notjustanymike 12y ago
In New York we already have a kill switch. It's called AT&T.
- talmand 12y ago
  Don't be silly, that's a nationwide feature.
goldscott 12y ago
This article is FUD. From the actual bill: "This bill would require that any advanced mobile communications device, as defined, that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, include a technological solution, which may consist of software, hardware, or both software and hardware, that can render inoperable the essential features of the device, as defined, when the device is not in the possession of the rightful owner. The bill would require that the technological solution be able to withstand a hard reset, as defined. The bill would prohibit the sale of an advanced mobile communications device in California without the technological solution being enabled, but would authorize the rightful owner to affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale."
- lemonlyman87 12y ago
  Also from the actual bill (which the post includes a link to in the first line): "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." The bill gives direct authorization for police to use this mandatory kill switch, so long as it complies with PUC Sec. 7908, which includes an emergency exception where police don't need court approval.
  - goldscott 12y ago
    Ah! This wasn't in the version of the bill that I googled (first result when searching 'sb962' showed me the original bill).
plainOldText 12y ago
Surrounding ourselves with devices we cannot trust can be detrimental to us, especially if they are being backdoored, contain malware or are used against us. I'm starting to realize the only solution is open source hardware + software. There might be no other way. How else could we trust a device if we cannot inspect it?
- AJ007 12y ago
  Ask for the same trust & security of consumer devices as we ask of our servers -- with absolute certainty a reasonable expectation to all but an authoritarian state. Edit: it is also worth pointing out that companies which fail to do this will eventually see them locked out of selling those products in certain countries.
- programmarchy 12y ago
  Check out http://www.lowrisc.org http://www.lowrisc.org "lowRISC is producing fully open hardware systems. From the processor core to the development board, our goal is to create a completely open computing eco-system."
anigbrowl 12y ago
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 police and criminals or another situation involving immediate danger of death or great harm (but requiring court submissions within 6 hours). Any other situation, including one where public safety is concerned (such as a protest) requires a warrant to be obtained in advance, subject to quite stringent conditions designed to limit the scope of the communications interruption. You should read it in full to understand all provisions, rather than relying on this summary. Now, this set of rules is not perfect and could conceivably be abused by police or some other entity. But the cdt.org story ignores these rules completely and leaves readers with impression that legislators wither haven't thought about it or don't care. In reality the law is designed to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. 1. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB962 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... 2. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=07001-08000&file=7901-7912 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&gr...
- lemonlyman87 12y ago
  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 exists that involves immediate danger of death or great bodily injury and there is insufficient time, with due diligence, to first obtain a court order, then the governmental entity may interrupt communications service without first obtaining a court order as required by this section." Your statement that PUC 7908 prohibits interruption only in hostage or barricade situations is incorrect; those are referred to in PUC 7907, which discusses cutting phone lines. PUC 7908 involves cutting cell service, and is more broad - it uses the language quoted above. I could easily see this applied to a protest; police say a protest will lead to looting (e.g. Ferguson), perhaps they even see plans for flash mob robbery on social media. On the basis of this, they brick every phone in a protest zone, undercutting protest organization and limiting demonstraters ability to film police abuse on smartphones. I do not know what the legislators intended; maybe they don't know about the issue, maybe they don't care, maybe they think this is an adaquete solution and are wrong. I don't try to define their intent here, I'm simply trying to point out a very real problem with this law.
miql 12y ago
Are there past, current, or future projects for launching networks w/in low earth orbit? I think it'd be effective to create an LEO, raspberry pi network for instances such as these. Remember when Libya turned off phones and the internet to stop unrest? People thought it was ridiculous and would never happen here. We're on that trajectory.
- sigstoat 12y ago
  you either comply with amateur radio restrictions (probably not what you have in mind; no encryption, licensing, etc), or you comply with FCC rules & regs. or just break a bunch of laws. from a technical standpoint, the amateur radio folks have tossed up repeater satellites in the past. see AMSAT.
rsync 12y ago
Here are things we know, and that we have known since the "kill switch" was first proposed: 1. Criminals/thieves will be able to circumvent/disable the kill switch, trivially, within weeks (days ?) of the introduction. Stolen phones will still have value, and theft will continue. Bank on it. 2. The kill switch will be used against legitimate users. 3. Phone manufacturers, who were against the kill switch, will find a hidden value in tying the kill switch to rooting, and using kill switch laws to impede rooting activities. If it's illegal to de-kill-switch, but legal to root, all you need to do is make it impossible to root with the kill switch in place. Presto!
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Unrestricted radios are widely available and easy to build.
- DSMan195276 12y ago
  One, not all criminals who steal phones know anything about using a phone, and unless there's a guarantee that the kill switch is actually disabled nobodies going to take that chance of buying it off of you. It also makes the process more time consuming and error-prone, and seeing as the kill-switch is something someone can do right after they realize their phone is stolen, it'd be on a limited time basis. It makes the entire thing less worth it. Two, it says RIGHT IN THE BILL that the phones are required to have an opt-out and disable feature, and they have to prompt the user to enable or disable when the phone is first setup, with the option to enable or disable at any later time. Instead of spreading FUD, read the actual bill.
lern_too_spel 12y ago
This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which point there are better ways to handle the situation.
- bgentry 12y ago
  Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Because it's not their money?
  - DSMan195276 12y ago
    You don't understand what he was getting at. It's much more complicated to go through this process to brick each phone individually (Which requires figuring out who owns what phone) then just disrupt phone service for a while in the area.
- talmand 12y ago
  Nah, build it so that it responds to distance to tower. Send out an alert to the whole system. If the phone is within communications distance of the tower, switch off.
  - lern_too_spel 12y ago
    That's not how it works. You're arguing against a system that nobody is planning to build.
    - talmand 12y ago
      I didn't say anyone was planning to build such a system nor argued against such a thing. I was suggesting another way it could be done.
kazinator 12y ago
It seems silly to disable individual devices with a remote "kill switch", when perhaps you can just do something at the network level: like block all but emergency calls, and instant messages, which coming via all the cell base stations in a given geographic area, which can be done without the inconvenience of sending configuration changes to large numbers of devices, based on where they are. There is still Wi-Fi. But most of that is connected to land lines going to telcos, with whose cooperation that could be blacked out also.
yutah 12y ago
This reminds me of Apple's patent to remotely disable protester's (cellphone) cameras: http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras-7000003640/ http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-pro...

133 points by conorgil145 12y ago

"Could"? I give it 5 years. How do people see this as a good idea? There are already voluntary methods for this, so there is literally no good justification for forcing a state-controlled version on everyone.

lemonlyman87 12y ago
Exactly, but the bill makes it mandatory and default on for all smartphones in CA (which will probably lead to the same happening across the U.S.) - Ferguson protesters, watch out when police tell you to stop recording on your phones
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  That is simply not true. The smartphone shall, during the initial device setup process, prompt an authorized user to enable the technological solution. [...] (2) An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time. [...]
  - wyager 12y ago
    >An authorized user of a smartphone may affirmatively elect to disable or opt-out of enabling the technological solution at any time How much you want to bet that "opting out" happens on the government end and not the device end?
dllthomas 12y ago
The advantage to mandatory and default-to-on is that it will be prevalent and will therefore decrease the expected value of mugging someone for their phone. That is a legitimate benefit, and is not worth nothing. I'm still not happy about the trade-off, if the disable doesn't depend on an owner-controlled code or similar.
- chenelson 12y ago
  Fifteen years ago people were stealing mock-ups and pretending they had cell phones. I'm not sure those that commit felonies subscribe to the same value chain that you do. Besides, assuming the device doesn't self-destruct Mission Impossible style, at worst it'll still be worth parts to someone. So there will be many more parts available--and possibly more victims to make up the difference (assuming muggers are working for something).
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    You can't possibly believe those are reasonable points.
    - chenelson 12y ago
      What--that trying to stop an opportunistic crime with white market reason is idiotic?
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        Inasmuch as that is even coherent, yes.
        chenelson 12y ago
        Assumption: A Kill Switch will render a $500 device worthless, and thus eliminate the incentive for theft. So, a couple of theft cases to frame: 1. People steal fake phones (shiny objects) that have NEVER worked, ie aesthetic value only. 2. Parts, such as replacement screens, are in great demand, and there are small urban retailers today that enjoy every opportunity to lower their costs, ie $5-50. Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested for robbery tested positive for a controlled substance. Does an addict have Free Will? Delayed gratification? What's a $100/day habit like? What is an addict willing to do for a Klondike Bar? (Answer: Anything.)
        12y ago

kabdib 12y ago

Won't kill non-phone devices. Those aren't as numerous, and maybe not as real-time, but they're very difficult to shut down.

lukifer 12y ago
The problem is, how many people actually carry non-phone devices? There are a small handful of folks who carry around SLRs or iPod with cameras, but not many. (Since Google glass is paired with a phone, I'm guessing it would be bricked as well.) I'm also curious if "Airplane Mode" defends against shutdown. While common sense says it should, it's an easy loophole for the thieves who are (ostensibly) the purpose of the shutdown switch.
- mikeash 12y ago
  The resale value of a phone that can never be taken out of Airplane Mode is going to be pretty bad, especially if it's "will instantly brick when you touch the setting", so it doesn't seem like much of a loophole for the anti-theft goal.
  - chenelson 12y ago
    The loophole is handset exchange at the local retailer.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Wouldn't they check the phone against the list of stolen phones, or at least make sure the thing works as a phone, before accepting it?
      - chenelson 12y ago
        Returned devices often do not work--that's why they're being exchanged. Also, just on the carrier's corporate retail side (small in comparison), we're talking about over 2,500 locations, over 25,000 reps, and over 500,000 new monthly adds and upgrades. Serialization is very expensive and does not eliminate the tricky human. Also, even a disabled device is still worth parts.

jeffrey8chang 12y ago

There's just too many backdoors in smart phones. That's why I choose to use standalone hardware that can work with any phone for my voice encryption project: http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/

Someone1234 12y ago
I don't think I see the relevance. This article isn't about spying on you, it is about disabling your phone remotely ("kill switch," etc). How does encrypting your voice before it enters your phone mitigate that? Plus if you're paranoid enough to use that then frankly you're too paranoid to own a cellphone at all. They can still use it to track your location and to remotely turn on the microphone and eavesdrop on the background sounds.
- TheBiv 12y ago
  Commenter created that company he's linking to...there is no relevance to this article! "JackPair: protect your voice phone calls from wiretapping by Jeffrey Chang & the AWIT team"
  - pyre 12y ago
    The commenter did mention that: > my voice encryption project
- tlrobinson 12y ago
  The relevance, as I see it, is that the same capabilities used to spy on mobile devices (0-day vulnerabilities/backdoors, or just leverage over telcos) could be used as a de-facto "kill switch". That said, a law that explicitly gives the state authority to shut down all cell phones in a situation "they perceive" as a risk is an order of magnitude worse. (The "kill switch" counterpart to JackPair would be systems like mesh networks, ham radio / APRS, etc. GoTenna is one recent commercial product: http://gotenna.com/ http://gotenna.com/ Of course it can probably be easily jammed)
- jeffrey8chang 12y ago

tootie 12y ago

Also, cops in California will be issued guns that they may use to arbitrarily murders citizens.

mikeash 12y ago
Such things are used much less casually, though. There is immense public pressure not to misuse guns that isn't there for other stuff. Obviously guns are not immune to misuse, but it's not all that common. "Less lethal" weapons like tasers and batons and rubber bullets and tear gas get misused way more frequently, precisely because they're less harmful than a regular gun. It's likely that the same thing could apply to a cell phone kill switch.
- pyre 12y ago
  The argument will be that you don't "have a right" to cell service everywhere at anytime. "It's not like your service isn't restored after the protest."
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Doesn't the kill switch permanently disable the phone? Edit - Nope. I just reread the bill. Sorry for any misinformation: "prevent reactivation of the smartphone on a wireless network except by an authorized user"

scelerat 12y ago

There are fundamental freedoms the government cannot and should not be able to subvert. Communicating with others, via any means necessary is one of them. I feel I am politically very far away from many guns rights activists, and am wary of the practical outcomes of widespread weapon ownership, but at the same time I believe 2nd Amendment advocates are completely right to be wary of government's ability to strip individual power to protect and disrupt.

michaelfeathers 12y ago
If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate First Amendment challenge. One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against jamming of any sort of radio signal.
- danudey 12y ago
  This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio in it. There's no FCC issue here.
  - le_meta 12y ago
    "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. "
  - michaelfeathers 12y ago
    I know. My point was that that regulation protected us in absence of having a kill switch on phones.
AJ007 12y ago
It is sad to see groups of people who strongly support the Bill of Rights fall for menial tricks for the purpose of splitting them in to marketable groups of voters/donors. All individual rights can be rationalized away in an unlimited number of scenarios, emergency and otherwise. Anyone who believes in those rights absolutely should logically appear insane at least sometimes.

joeframbach 12y ago

Does this include access points like the MiFi hotspot?

javajosh 12y ago

Call Gov. Brown (916) 445-2841 and let his staffers know how you feel. This is SB962.

colordrops 12y ago

"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests" As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

computer 12y ago
> 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 of dollars, and there's a lot of phone thefts happening worldwide.
- discardorama 12y ago
  > 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.
  - zhengyi13 12y ago
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong."
lemonlyman87 12y ago
As a critic of the bill, I'll readily concede that smartphone theft is a major problem. It's one of the most prominant crimes in urban areas, costs billions of dollars a year, and has in several occassions caused violence. Still, it doesn't justify a mandatory kill switch (there are a large number of free apps you can download), and it certainly doesn't justify letting police use kill switches that are installed.

smoyer 12y ago

"Police could use the kill switch to shut down all phones in a situation they unilaterally perceive as presenting an imminent risk of danger" That's only one step away from the use of an EMP to isolate a crowd of people from the Internet (and each other) in Cory Doctorow's "Homeland" (I'm not a teen reader but I enjoyed it anyway)

biafra 12y ago
Yeah. Keep in mind those phones are bricked forever. It is probably much easier to disable phone service in a certain region from the network side. I would imagine people suing the police for destroying their phones.
- xxs 12y ago
  I seriously, seriously doubt 'bricked' forever. Unless the hardware actually overheats, it'd be possible to replace the relevant parts with cheap China imports.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    I haven't seen anything like it in the US. But I spent some time in China, and at the local grocery store close to my apartment, there were a couple of teen-aged looking kids with a hot-air soldering station and some smt stencils who were re-working cell phones (probably failed QC) in their spare time when they weren't selling sunglasses or wristwatches and that kind of stuff.

diafygi 12y ago

Seems like the first time this happens it can be easily challenged on free speech grounds, right?

lemonlyman87 12y ago

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 approval is not required. I worry police could abuse this, using risk of violence as a pretense to shut down a protest as CA police did during the BART subway shutdown in 2011. A more broad risk is that because CA is such a large market, manufacturers/providers will likely deploy this mandatory kill switch nationally, so it could end up being used in other states (such as during protests in Ferguson, Missouri)that may have absolutely no restrictions on government use of a kill switch. Unfortunately the bill is very far along so there is not much left that can be done, but I would recommend discussing the issue on social media, and, as @javajosh suggests, contacting Governor Brown's office to express concerns and recommend a veto. The bill was passed on August 12 so he must sign or veto it by August 24.

anigbrowl 12y ago
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 and requiring the purpose of the interruption be as narrowly tailored as possibly. I don't understand why you left all this out of the original story.
- seniorsassycat 12y ago
  What is the response if the court rules that the shutdown was unwarranted after the fact?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Everyone whose cell phone service was interrupted has a good basis for civil rights lawsuit against the offending police department, for one thing.

notjustanymike 12y ago

In New York we already have a kill switch. It's called AT&T.

talmand 12y ago
Don't be silly, that's a nationwide feature.

goldscott 12y ago

This article is FUD. From the actual bill: "This bill would require that any advanced mobile communications device, as defined, that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, include a technological solution, which may consist of software, hardware, or both software and hardware, that can render inoperable the essential features of the device, as defined, when the device is not in the possession of the rightful owner. The bill would require that the technological solution be able to withstand a hard reset, as defined. The bill would prohibit the sale of an advanced mobile communications device in California without the technological solution being enabled, but would authorize the rightful owner to affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale."

lemonlyman87 12y ago
Also from the actual bill (which the post includes a link to in the first line): "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." The bill gives direct authorization for police to use this mandatory kill switch, so long as it complies with PUC Sec. 7908, which includes an emergency exception where police don't need court approval.
- goldscott 12y ago
  Ah! This wasn't in the version of the bill that I googled (first result when searching 'sb962' showed me the original bill).

plainOldText 12y ago

Surrounding ourselves with devices we cannot trust can be detrimental to us, especially if they are being backdoored, contain malware or are used against us. I'm starting to realize the only solution is open source hardware + software. There might be no other way. How else could we trust a device if we cannot inspect it?

AJ007 12y ago
Ask for the same trust & security of consumer devices as we ask of our servers -- with absolute certainty a reasonable expectation to all but an authoritarian state. Edit: it is also worth pointing out that companies which fail to do this will eventually see them locked out of selling those products in certain countries.
programmarchy 12y ago
Check out http://www.lowrisc.org http://www.lowrisc.org "lowRISC is producing fully open hardware systems. From the processor core to the development board, our goal is to create a completely open computing eco-system."

anigbrowl 12y ago

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 police and criminals or another situation involving immediate danger of death or great harm (but requiring court submissions within 6 hours). Any other situation, including one where public safety is concerned (such as a protest) requires a warrant to be obtained in advance, subject to quite stringent conditions designed to limit the scope of the communications interruption. You should read it in full to understand all provisions, rather than relying on this summary. Now, this set of rules is not perfect and could conceivably be abused by police or some other entity. But the cdt.org story ignores these rules completely and leaves readers with impression that legislators wither haven't thought about it or don't care. In reality the law is designed to prevent exactly this kind of abuse. 1. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB962 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?... 2. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=07001-08000&file=7901-7912 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&gr...

lemonlyman87 12y ago
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 exists that involves immediate danger of death or great bodily injury and there is insufficient time, with due diligence, to first obtain a court order, then the governmental entity may interrupt communications service without first obtaining a court order as required by this section." Your statement that PUC 7908 prohibits interruption only in hostage or barricade situations is incorrect; those are referred to in PUC 7907, which discusses cutting phone lines. PUC 7908 involves cutting cell service, and is more broad - it uses the language quoted above. I could easily see this applied to a protest; police say a protest will lead to looting (e.g. Ferguson), perhaps they even see plans for flash mob robbery on social media. On the basis of this, they brick every phone in a protest zone, undercutting protest organization and limiting demonstraters ability to film police abuse on smartphones. I do not know what the legislators intended; maybe they don't know about the issue, maybe they don't care, maybe they think this is an adaquete solution and are wrong. I don't try to define their intent here, I'm simply trying to point out a very real problem with this law.

miql 12y ago

Are there past, current, or future projects for launching networks w/in low earth orbit? I think it'd be effective to create an LEO, raspberry pi network for instances such as these. Remember when Libya turned off phones and the internet to stop unrest? People thought it was ridiculous and would never happen here. We're on that trajectory.

sigstoat 12y ago
you either comply with amateur radio restrictions (probably not what you have in mind; no encryption, licensing, etc), or you comply with FCC rules & regs. or just break a bunch of laws. from a technical standpoint, the amateur radio folks have tossed up repeater satellites in the past. see AMSAT.

rsync 12y ago

Here are things we know, and that we have known since the "kill switch" was first proposed: 1. Criminals/thieves will be able to circumvent/disable the kill switch, trivially, within weeks (days ?) of the introduction. Stolen phones will still have value, and theft will continue. Bank on it. 2. The kill switch will be used against legitimate users. 3. Phone manufacturers, who were against the kill switch, will find a hidden value in tying the kill switch to rooting, and using kill switch laws to impede rooting activities. If it's illegal to de-kill-switch, but legal to root, all you need to do is make it impossible to root with the kill switch in place. Presto!

ctdonath 12y ago
Unrestricted radios are widely available and easy to build.
DSMan195276 12y ago
One, not all criminals who steal phones know anything about using a phone, and unless there's a guarantee that the kill switch is actually disabled nobodies going to take that chance of buying it off of you. It also makes the process more time consuming and error-prone, and seeing as the kill-switch is something someone can do right after they realize their phone is stolen, it'd be on a limited time basis. It makes the entire thing less worth it. Two, it says RIGHT IN THE BILL that the phones are required to have an opt-out and disable feature, and they have to prompt the user to enable or disable when the phone is first setup, with the option to enable or disable at any later time. Instead of spreading FUD, read the actual bill.

lern_too_spel 12y ago

This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which point there are better ways to handle the situation.

bgentry 12y ago
Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco? Because it's not their money?
- DSMan195276 12y ago
  You don't understand what he was getting at. It's much more complicated to go through this process to brick each phone individually (Which requires figuring out who owns what phone) then just disrupt phone service for a while in the area.
talmand 12y ago
Nah, build it so that it responds to distance to tower. Send out an alert to the whole system. If the phone is within communications distance of the tower, switch off.
- lern_too_spel 12y ago
  That's not how it works. You're arguing against a system that nobody is planning to build.
  - talmand 12y ago
    I didn't say anyone was planning to build such a system nor argued against such a thing. I was suggesting another way it could be done.

kazinator 12y ago

It seems silly to disable individual devices with a remote "kill switch", when perhaps you can just do something at the network level: like block all but emergency calls, and instant messages, which coming via all the cell base stations in a given geographic area, which can be done without the inconvenience of sending configuration changes to large numbers of devices, based on where they are. There is still Wi-Fi. But most of that is connected to land lines going to telcos, with whose cooperation that could be blacked out also.

yutah 12y ago

This reminds me of Apple's patent to remotely disable protester's (cellphone) cameras: http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras-7000003640/ http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-pro...