5 ms·

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 bil

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.
    - msandford 12y ago
      A civil rights lawsuit is fine. But the problem is that doesn't PREVENT any police behavior. 1. hit the kill switch 2. tell protesters to GTFO 3. they don't comply so start shooting 4. no recordings of what happened are made so it's he said she said 5. innocent people are dead and the only recourse is a lawsuit based on conflicting sworn testimony where officers are generally held to be more reliable than non-officers Contrast this with the no-kill-switch situation 1. tell protesters to GTFO 2. they don't comply and are filming 3. knowing they are filming, use less lethal means of dispersal 4. nobody is dead and the police are held accountable for the actions they took The problem here is that in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary the 6hr window gives the police plenty of time to either find a good reason for why they did what they did or if there's some particularly bad actors around, make up a good reason. I think the vast majority of police departments wouldn't abuse their power especially considering how very nearly everybody doesn't get shot by the cops on any given day. But the concern here isn't that they'll shut down people's phones when making a traffic stop; people are concerned about the possibility of really bad actors who haven't been caught yet using this as a tool to conceal something really bad.
      - cag_ii 12y ago
        The "essential feature" that are disabled under this bill do not include the camera (or emergency calls).
        msandford 12y ago
        Being able to take pictures or video but not upload them destroys a lot of the utility of a mobile device. If you can't take a picture and upload it before you get arrested then whatever was on your phone can go away. But once it's uploaded it gets much, much harder to make it disappear. I will concede that it's not as bad since the camera still works. But that doesn't make all my worries go away either.
- lemonlyman87 12y ago
  Because prior judicial approval is the key check to preventing government abuse; if police want to shut down a protest a judge potentially telling them they went too far 6 hours later is not going to help.
  - tcoppi 12y ago
    That may be true, but it should still be mentioned in the article in the interests of a fully informed electorate.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    And they're supposed to get prior judicial approval. It's only acceptable to file retroactively in cases where there is an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm, such as a hostage or barricade situation or other 'extreme emergency situation.' You're assuming the worst possible outcome (police overreach, court apathy) and using that as a justification to omit any mention of the copious rules limiting official use of this power. I find it rather ironic that you decided to leave your readers poorly informed about this, not least because it would put them at a disadvantage in any argument with a supporter of the bill.
    - kabdib 12y ago
      The problem is that "imminent risk" tends to creep downward over time, to the point that it becomes "imminent risk that a citizen unit will improperly fail to bow and scrape." If you're going to shut off several thousand cell phones, you can bloody well get a judge out of bed for that.
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        Perhaps, but I don't think it's fair to judge this bill on how legislators might amend it in future, or we'll never pass any laws at all.
        mikeash 12y ago
        Can we judge it on how the police interpret these things now? For example, the police are only supposed to shoot people when there's imminent risk of death or great bodily harm. Yet there is routine, if not common, overreach there, including one notorious recent incident that people are currently protesting with great vigor. If you can't reliably enforce the rule that police aren't supposed to kill people except in dire emergencies, how will you do it for cell phone kill switches?
- Shivetya 12y ago
  I don't understand why there is any support for this ability in a phone. So they can prevent you from calling for help, from recording them, or what not? How much of a phone is disabled? Finally, if they can do then its likely they will have phones produced only usable by important people who will be immune so who will those people be? How do they get their phones. Let alone, if its in the phone some group will figure it out and trigger it which would be pretty much awesome in my book Government should never be given any ability to suppress speech or the expression of it and my communicating with another person is expression. They have no right to prevent it, especially under the guise of get them all and let God sort it out mentality that they hide behind to trample individual rights
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Because there's an epidemic of cell phone theft, many cellphone manufacturers don't provide a reliable mechanism for the victim of theft to deactivate their phone, and third party solutions are hit-and-miss. The primary purpose of the legislation is to require manufacturers to provide users with a way to remotely brick their phone. They're also required to get the user's permission for this as part of the phone setup, and make it easy for the user to disable the feature at any time. That's why there is support for this ability in a phone.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Also, the bill requires that owners of the phone be able to disable the kill-switch functionality at any time if they want. So anyone heading to a protest or other activity there they anticipate police interference can immunize themselves against such service interruption if they are so inclined.
- cag_ii 12y ago
  This is a very important point. Also, the limited scope of the "essential features" which are disabled.
NoPiece 12y ago
If cell service can already be at the tower level, being able to kill individual phones seems like it would be very impractical in a protest situation. This seems less prone to abuse than a mass shutdown.
- RAB1138 12y ago
  I'm not sure the analogy holds. Yes, the tower level of control can be used to remotely disconnect thousands of people from the net, but this just separates people from the network. The remote kill switch disconnects people from their ability to document what's happening. This frees the state from a sousveillent presence because it robs people of the ability to record what's happening at all. Remotely shutting down devices isn't about preventing people from tweeting - it's about preventing people from being able to create durable records of what happens.
tzs 12y ago
> The bill says that police CAN use this mandatory kill switch, but must comply with Public Utility Code Section 7908 in doing so. The actual wording is this: "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". This looks more like an IF than a CAN to me. It's saying that they cannot evade the requirements of 7908 by using the kill switch instead of some other mechanism that is covered by 7908 to interrupt communication. It's preempting a potential argument that using the kill switch would not count under 7908, and so the police could use the kill switch with less restriction and oversight than 7908 requires. This seems a more natural reading to me than your reading of it...although I haven't looked at prior drafts or the legislative history to see if there is something that indicates your reading is what is intended.

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.
  - msandford 12y ago
    A civil rights lawsuit is fine. But the problem is that doesn't PREVENT any police behavior. 1. hit the kill switch 2. tell protesters to GTFO 3. they don't comply so start shooting 4. no recordings of what happened are made so it's he said she said 5. innocent people are dead and the only recourse is a lawsuit based on conflicting sworn testimony where officers are generally held to be more reliable than non-officers Contrast this with the no-kill-switch situation 1. tell protesters to GTFO 2. they don't comply and are filming 3. knowing they are filming, use less lethal means of dispersal 4. nobody is dead and the police are held accountable for the actions they took The problem here is that in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary the 6hr window gives the police plenty of time to either find a good reason for why they did what they did or if there's some particularly bad actors around, make up a good reason. I think the vast majority of police departments wouldn't abuse their power especially considering how very nearly everybody doesn't get shot by the cops on any given day. But the concern here isn't that they'll shut down people's phones when making a traffic stop; people are concerned about the possibility of really bad actors who haven't been caught yet using this as a tool to conceal something really bad.
    - cag_ii 12y ago
      The "essential feature" that are disabled under this bill do not include the camera (or emergency calls).
      - msandford 12y ago
        Being able to take pictures or video but not upload them destroys a lot of the utility of a mobile device. If you can't take a picture and upload it before you get arrested then whatever was on your phone can go away. But once it's uploaded it gets much, much harder to make it disappear. I will concede that it's not as bad since the camera still works. But that doesn't make all my worries go away either.
lemonlyman87 12y ago
Because prior judicial approval is the key check to preventing government abuse; if police want to shut down a protest a judge potentially telling them they went too far 6 hours later is not going to help.
- tcoppi 12y ago
  That may be true, but it should still be mentioned in the article in the interests of a fully informed electorate.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  And they're supposed to get prior judicial approval. It's only acceptable to file retroactively in cases where there is an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm, such as a hostage or barricade situation or other 'extreme emergency situation.' You're assuming the worst possible outcome (police overreach, court apathy) and using that as a justification to omit any mention of the copious rules limiting official use of this power. I find it rather ironic that you decided to leave your readers poorly informed about this, not least because it would put them at a disadvantage in any argument with a supporter of the bill.
  - kabdib 12y ago
    The problem is that "imminent risk" tends to creep downward over time, to the point that it becomes "imminent risk that a citizen unit will improperly fail to bow and scrape." If you're going to shut off several thousand cell phones, you can bloody well get a judge out of bed for that.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Perhaps, but I don't think it's fair to judge this bill on how legislators might amend it in future, or we'll never pass any laws at all.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Can we judge it on how the police interpret these things now? For example, the police are only supposed to shoot people when there's imminent risk of death or great bodily harm. Yet there is routine, if not common, overreach there, including one notorious recent incident that people are currently protesting with great vigor. If you can't reliably enforce the rule that police aren't supposed to kill people except in dire emergencies, how will you do it for cell phone kill switches?
Shivetya 12y ago
I don't understand why there is any support for this ability in a phone. So they can prevent you from calling for help, from recording them, or what not? How much of a phone is disabled? Finally, if they can do then its likely they will have phones produced only usable by important people who will be immune so who will those people be? How do they get their phones. Let alone, if its in the phone some group will figure it out and trigger it which would be pretty much awesome in my book Government should never be given any ability to suppress speech or the expression of it and my communicating with another person is expression. They have no right to prevent it, especially under the guise of get them all and let God sort it out mentality that they hide behind to trample individual rights
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Because there's an epidemic of cell phone theft, many cellphone manufacturers don't provide a reliable mechanism for the victim of theft to deactivate their phone, and third party solutions are hit-and-miss. The primary purpose of the legislation is to require manufacturers to provide users with a way to remotely brick their phone. They're also required to get the user's permission for this as part of the phone setup, and make it easy for the user to disable the feature at any time. That's why there is support for this ability in a phone.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Also, the bill requires that owners of the phone be able to disable the kill-switch functionality at any time if they want. So anyone heading to a protest or other activity there they anticipate police interference can immunize themselves against such service interruption if they are so inclined.

cag_ii 12y ago
This is a very important point. Also, the limited scope of the "essential features" which are disabled.

NoPiece 12y ago

If cell service can already be at the tower level, being able to kill individual phones seems like it would be very impractical in a protest situation. This seems less prone to abuse than a mass shutdown.

RAB1138 12y ago
I'm not sure the analogy holds. Yes, the tower level of control can be used to remotely disconnect thousands of people from the net, but this just separates people from the network. The remote kill switch disconnects people from their ability to document what's happening. This frees the state from a sousveillent presence because it robs people of the ability to record what's happening at all. Remotely shutting down devices isn't about preventing people from tweeting - it's about preventing people from being able to create durable records of what happens.

tzs 12y ago

> The bill says that police CAN use this mandatory kill switch, but must comply with Public Utility Code Section 7908 in doing so. The actual wording is this: "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". This looks more like an IF than a CAN to me. It's saying that they cannot evade the requirements of 7908 by using the kill switch instead of some other mechanism that is covered by 7908 to interrupt communication. It's preempting a potential argument that using the kill switch would not count under 7908, and so the police could use the kill switch with less restriction and oversight than 7908 requires. This seems a more natural reading to me than your reading of it...although I haven't looked at prior drafts or the legislative history to see if there is something that indicates your reading is what is intended.