|
|
|
California may mandate 'Kill Switch' on smartphones, tablets from 2015
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 7 February, 2014
California lawmakers will propose mandating that all smartphones and tablets sold in the state from next year come equipped with a 'Kill Switch' that can render them useless if stolen.
State Sen. Mark Leno and other lawmakers said they will introduce legislation proposing the requirement on all such mobile devices sold in the state, with the vocal support of Los Angeles City Mayor Eric ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
14. February 2014 @ 18:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Once again, you are arguing that because it's possible that someone may be able to bypass the kill switch with the right (NOT free) equipment, that it should not be used. I still do not agree. You're completely missing the point that most thieves are NOT pros, in any way, shape, or form; most theft, in fact, is done on impulse.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
14. February 2014 @ 19:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
starting to get off topic. thieves steal and quickly sell to those who rework products that either sell outright or hand off to those who specialize in selling. that whole sector of "illegal" runs like a business just like legit ones.
more than likely this will be useful to kill stolen phones of gov and law officials. as any and all forms of gov have shown true, you give them a little room and they end up abusing it.
the reasoning here is not justified that is the point plain and simple without considering the bigger picture. reducing theft is not the real reason. why do we not have kill switches in vehicles? we make law enforcement research and develop pulse guns to disable vehicles? we the tax payer pay for that, it would be more cost effective to put in a kill switch. go ahead mention onstar. that is a single maker product. the consumer has the choice not to buy a car with it. and no gov mandate requires it.
many laws start in 1 state and spread. that is why organizations that do not reside in an affected state fight dumb laws in other states.
oh, and to simply shut off towers does not work. look at lybia. they did just that but wifi and bluetooth still enabled the spreading of information the gov didnt want out.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
14. February 2014 @ 22:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
a) You have an unrealistic view of how theft actually works. PROFESSIONAL thieves, a tiny minority, steal to sell to others. Casual thieves steal because they want something themselves, or to pawn off, but they don't really know how to fence the goods very well. Only pros are going to have access to the necessary equipment (which does not exist yet to break the kill switch.
Installing a kill switch in personal vehicles is actually a great idea, but thing is, only a few vehicles are actually connected to any kind of network, to make this feasible. Sure, in a few years, but for now only services like OnStar and Lojack fill this void. Smartphones and tablets, on the other hand ARE pretty much always connected to networks. The costs to implement the technology for vehicles would, in the current market, be quite high. Maybe in 5-10 years, sure, but til then... Nah.
Furthermore, you're going to have to choose: Is the technology going to be easy to bypass, making it feasible for criminals AND unjustly-deprived citizens bypass it, or not? You simply cannot have it both ways. Additionally, this was the request of citizen action groups LONG before CA contemplated this issue; people have been agitating for this feature for years.
Feel free to be exactly as paranoid as you like, but the mere fact that you are using cellular communications already makes you an open book, if the government desires. You're simply imagining something that the government does not need to do. I'm not arguing that the government (or policy) are particularly saintly, but sweaty hyperbole doesn't help one iota.
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
15. February 2014 @ 00:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
still not justifying a need for cellular kill switchs
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
15. February 2014 @ 12:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
The justification has already been given. The fact that you don't accept the justification is immaterial.
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
15. February 2014 @ 13:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
It won't stop or reduce theft, NEXT!
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
15. February 2014 @ 17:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Explain how it wouldn't. Yelling "NEXT!" is apropos of exactly nothing; this isn't 4chan =) .
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
15. February 2014 @ 19:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have made my argument. Seems like your main intent here is to squash the big government theory.
I don't want the kill switch. Many don't and many do. I bet this will be another mandate that the people, who the government are voted by and serve, do not get to vote on the matter.
It is another one of those things that can be abused, by government, law enforcement or hackers.
Car alarms were meant to stop theft...
I think you stand alone here. I was just dumb enough to open my mouth.
P.S. No hate to you. We are both strongly clasped to our views and that is that.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. February 2014 @ 19:06
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
15. February 2014 @ 20:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't "stand alone", silly, in this thread or society as a whole.
As I said before, this feature has been requested by CITIZEN groups for a long while now. You don't speak for all, any more than I do. Nor do I accept your argument that this will not reduce theft; as I noted above, most theft (estimates by sociologists run higher than 80%) is committed by people who are NOT "pro" in any way, shape, or form (in other words, it's "opportunist" theft). A dead device will be useless to them. Additionally, several large cities (NYC, LA, for example) are reporting that over 70% of thefts involve "smart" devices; even a small change will have large returns in used-up police manpower and economic loss.
Once again. by your own argument, because car or house alarms (or locks) cannot stop ALL theft, they shouldn't be used at all. Furthermore, considering that with a properly long - say, 2048- or 4096-bit - cryptokey, using a decent algorithm, you CAN make the key effectively uncrackable and the key is bound to the individual device as well, your argument re: hackers is pretty much moot. If someone ends up hacking the service provider itself, then someone turning your phone off (which is reversible) is the very least of your worries.
Nearly everything in life can be abused, whether by criminals, governments, or some combination of the two. You're just going to have to accept that; it's not a good excuse to stifle all innovation and change.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. February 2014 @ 21:00
|
Senior Member
|
16. February 2014 @ 00:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
I happen to agree with Boz.
It will be a deterrent, a simple enough concept to grasp.
Someone might disagree... they've a quantum computer in their back pocket I guess.
I have to admit the go-to "big gov" argument wears really thin. See my comment above. It used to be every internet argument would reduce eventually to Nazis... now it's "big gov". Zeus preserve me from such simplistic ideologue inanity.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
Senior Member
|
16. February 2014 @ 13:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by senator29:
It won't stop or reduce theft, NEXT!
Believe me when I saw this, most of the thefts in and around SF are due to people's blatant disregard for their surroundings. People blindly pay attention to their phones while walking, waiting for crosswalk lights, on the BART train, etc, all while brandishing their shiny new phones. So much so that they may walk out into the street without even looking. All that is required of a thief is to snatch and grab, easy as that. Would you drive a brand new, expensive car to a public place, make a show of it, park it with the windows open and doors unlocked, then walk away? Of course not, you would use discretion and common sense. There have been multiple public service announcements and news stories about the phone robberies and the sheeple continue to whine. Here we have the CA legislators ready to step in and save us from ourselves, than God! What will the rest of the country do without such caring lawmakers? (For a giggle google CA soda label warning)
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
16. February 2014 @ 19:42 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Another dittohead fool railing against democratically elected governments... until they need them. LOL.
But since you like sarcasm... yeah sure, whatever, history has shown us private interests are SO much more trustworthy than an imperfect but democratically elected gov. :D
Democracy is the forced rule of 49.9% by the other 50.1%, under ideal situations. Corporations work by serving the customers they have; Verizon may not be a bunch of saints but they don't force people to buy phone service when they don't want it. Anyway, they control the government...the fact that we don't have net neutrality is concrete proof of that.
Originally posted by Bozobub:
So, what do you suggest for CDMA phones, which have no SIM..? lol
How long has it been since someone made a 3G smartphone? LTE+CDMA=SIM CARD.
Originally posted by Bozobub:
The real deal is that police departments in several large cities are seeing a vast number of smart-device-related theft and robberies. That's a HUGE amount of police manpower, which could otherwise be used on rape, murder, felonies in general, and for that matter, other types of property crime. This measure should at put at least a dent in those numbers.
The police don't go after most smart phone thefts. If they did, they would be against kill switches, and in favor of methods to track stolen phones instead...there are already methods in place that make it easy to track a phone with the SIM card that was in it when stolen. If SIM cards were locked to phone serial numbers and there was a database of stolen phone serial numbers then a stolen smart phone would be about as valuable to an amateur thief as an orange jumpsuit is to an escaped prisoner...and professional thieves would either have to hack databases (either to remove the stolen serial, to add a new fake serial, or to try to find a serial that isn't being used anymore) or they would be limited to parts sales, which even under ideal circumstances the kill switch does nothing to stop. AT BEST this law is an empty gesture or an excuse for police not to do anything about small thefts.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
16. February 2014 @ 20:35 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
How long has it been since someone made a 3G smartphone? LTE+CDMA=SIM CARD.
Utterly false; it has been literally no time at all. My Sprint-branded Galaxy 3 does NOT have a removable SIM, just an "embedded" one for use out-of-country (I should have said "REMOVABLE SIM card"); it's a 4G/LTE CDMA phone, when used in the US.. All domestic verification is done via CDMA. All Sprint phones/tablets, no matter how recent, are the same except for the HTC One, apparently, which does have a removable SIM. In fact, it was a pain finding a good MVNO exactly because of this. Sprint is also not the only CDMA carrier in the US that offers 4G/LTE; Verizon and US Cellular are also CDMA-based. Although Verizon, at least, also uses embedded SIMs in some phones, including the S3, S4, and the like, as well as some phones with removable SIMs.
tl;dr? Removable SIMs are not required for LTE, and CDMA does work with LTE just fine. Embedded SIMs, however, as well as the fact that CDMA is still used, completely put the kibosh on "swapping out" SIMs. You can find an interesting PC World article here.
Furthermore, as noted in the article above and in several other news sources, yes, police ARE in support of this measure. Time for a bit of research, I'm afraid.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. February 2014 @ 20:45
|
Senior Member
|
17. February 2014 @ 03:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Democracy is the forced rule of 49.9% by the other 50.1%, under ideal situations.
Sorry to give you a lesson here KB because I really like you but there's NOTHING whatsoever ideal about democracy. There never has been, never will be. That's the point. It's a work-in-progress and has been for thousands of years. It's a system that allows someone to hold any point of view without persecution... except, perhaps ironically, an anti-democratic one.
?It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried? ? Winston Churchill.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
18. February 2014 @ 12:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
what citizen groups support this? What agenda is behind it? What law groups are behind it?
This kill switch can be disabled or worked around.
Ultimately it is a mechanism inside a consumer device the consumer has no control over. It will be abused. If the kill switch is totally in the consumers hands then I will consider what they propose. We all know this won't be the case.
Everything that is ever passed now a days has agenda behind it. The public is falsely informed to accept it. Not a single bill passes without something unrelated in it.
Your focus is on this single kill switch concept. My over all reasons for not wanting it is much bigger than just this concept. However, focusing on this alone is enough to say it is not needed or wanted.
Mark my words, if this is implemented it will become an issue in the future. Hopefully after I die.
|
Senior Member
|
18. February 2014 @ 13:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by senator29:
what citizen groups support this? What agenda is behind it? What law groups are behind it?
This kill switch can be disabled or worked around.
Ultimately it is a mechanism inside a consumer device the consumer has no control over. It will be abused. If the kill switch is totally in the consumers hands then I will consider what they propose. We all know this won't be the case.
Everything that is ever passed now a days has agenda behind it. The public is falsely informed to accept it. Not a single bill passes without something unrelated in it.
Your focus is on this single kill switch concept. My over all reasons for not wanting it is much bigger than just this concept. However, focusing on this alone is enough to say it is not needed or wanted.
Mark my words, if this is implemented it will become an issue in the future. Hopefully after I die.
the idea behind making the mandatory kill switch is.
Quote:
the bill, introduced on Friday by State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), and sponsored by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, would impose fines of up to $2,500 for each phone sold by companies without a kill switch preinstalled
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
18. February 2014 @ 14:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I won't argue new revenue stream from it at all. That is what most things are for.
But I was asking a more in depth question. Just because a citizen group stands behind this as it has been said doesn't mean it is a legit mandate. Anyone can be bought and that is just the first point.
|
|
hathu
Newbie
|
18. February 2014 @ 23:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
If they wanted to fight phone theft they would lock SIM cards to serial numbers...use the phone with the old SIM card and E911 tracks you down. Try activating a new SIM card and get busted.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
18. February 2014 @ 23:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
part of my point. there are systems in place to fight theft. the new kill switch as any mechanism can be by passed. this is politics nothing more.
|
|
