4 ms·

No, the article is right. The law mandates kill-switches into existence and then says law enforcement can't violate the utilities code when using them. This is

by fenomas 12y ago

No, the article is right. The law mandates kill-switches into existence and then says law enforcement can't violate the utilities code when using them. This is equivalent to saying law enforcement can use the switch so long as it's in accordance with the utilities code. Either way access to the feature comes from the law. The EFF letter even makes this same point: > ..the presence of such a mechanism in every phone by default would not be available but for the existence of the kill switch bill. In essence, SB 962 mandates the technical ability to disable every phone sold in California, and PUC § 7908 provides the necessary legal roadmap to do the same.

tzs 12y ago
I'll comment on you argument in a moment, but first I want to comment on your EFF quote. I don't know what is going on with the EFF, but they are seriously botching it on this. I have a hard time believing that whoever wrote the excerpt you quote from their letter even read the law. They say, "In essence, SB 962 mandates the technical ability to disable every phone sold in California". Every phone? The bill only applies to smartphones. It explains what a smartphone is thusly: -------- begin quote (1) (A) “Smartphone” means a cellular radio telephone or other mobile voice communications handset device that includes all of the following features: (i) Utilizes a mobile operating system. (ii) Possesses the capability to utilize mobile software applications, access and browse the Internet, utilize text messaging, utilize digital voice service, and send and receive email. (iii) Has wireless network connectivity. (iv) Is capable of operating on a long-term evolution network or successor wireless data network communication standards. (B) A “smartphone” does not include a radio cellular telephone commonly referred to as a “feature” or “messaging” telephone, a laptop, a tablet device, or a device that only has electronic reading capability. -------- end quote (It's interesting that under that definition, no iPhone prior to the iPhone 5 is a smartphone). The original article says "The law raises concerns about how the switch might be used or abused, because it also provides law enforcement with the authority to use the feature to kill phones". What does "authority" mean? I generally take it as something more positive or more active than "not forbidden". Suppose the bill said nothing at all about government agency use of the kill switch. Would you say that the bill gives them authority to use the kill switch. I would say no. The provision in the bill adds a restriction to what might be allowed if the bill was silent on this. (I say "might" because I think one can reasonably read 7908 as applying even if the bill were silent on this). Since I think silence would not be a grant of authority, I don't see how allowing less than what silence would allow can be a grant of authority.

by fenomas 12y ago

tzs 12y ago

I'll comment on you argument in a moment, but first I want to comment on your EFF quote. I don't know what is going on with the EFF, but they are seriously botching it on this. I have a hard time believing that whoever wrote the excerpt you quote from their letter even read the law. They say, "In essence, SB 962 mandates the technical ability to disable every phone sold in California". Every phone? The bill only applies to smartphones. It explains what a smartphone is thusly: -------- begin quote (1) (A) “Smartphone” means a cellular radio telephone or other mobile voice communications handset device that includes all of the following features: (i) Utilizes a mobile operating system. (ii) Possesses the capability to utilize mobile software applications, access and browse the Internet, utilize text messaging, utilize digital voice service, and send and receive email. (iii) Has wireless network connectivity. (iv) Is capable of operating on a long-term evolution network or successor wireless data network communication standards. (B) A “smartphone” does not include a radio cellular telephone commonly referred to as a “feature” or “messaging” telephone, a laptop, a tablet device, or a device that only has electronic reading capability. -------- end quote (It's interesting that under that definition, no iPhone prior to the iPhone 5 is a smartphone). The original article says "The law raises concerns about how the switch might be used or abused, because it also provides law enforcement with the authority to use the feature to kill phones". What does "authority" mean? I generally take it as something more positive or more active than "not forbidden". Suppose the bill said nothing at all about government agency use of the kill switch. Would you say that the bill gives them authority to use the kill switch. I would say no. The provision in the bill adds a restriction to what might be allowed if the bill was silent on this. (I say "might" because I think one can reasonably read 7908 as applying even if the bill were silent on this). Since I think silence would not be a grant of authority, I don't see how allowing less than what silence would allow can be a grant of authority.