California may mandate 'Kill Switch' on smartphones, tablets from 2015

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 Garcetti and Police Chief Charlie Beck.

The proposed requirement, intended to tackle a growing problem of smartphone robberies, would go into effect from January 1, 2015 onwards.

Apple's iOS 7 operating system introduced some anti-theft with Activation Lock, if enabled by the user. Coupled with Find my iPhone, Apple has taken steps against the problem largely in response to calls from lawmakers and law enforcement officials across the U.S. and elsewhere. Apps are also available for Android devices.

By making a stolen device an inoperable useless brick, you clearly remove its resale value, and the long-term hope is that it will remove the incentive to steal mobile devices altogether.

A growing problem

According to a report from the LA Times, almost a third of all robberies in the United States are now related to mobile devices. In San Francisco, more than half of all robberies involve mobile devices.

That is according to San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon, who believes it is time to utilize deterrent technology. "The wireless industry must take action to end the victimization of its customers," he said.

Gascon formed a coalition with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman last year to address the growing problem, which has been dubbed "apple picking."

Given the size of the market in California for mobile devices, enforcing a Kill Switch mandate on products sold in the state would probably result in it becoming a standard feature in mobile devices sold throughout the United States.

Some industry insiders have questioned the need for a government mandate, pointing out that some of these features are already coming along without one, but manufacturers have also been accused at times of dragging their feet and potentially profiting from victims of crime having to buy a new device following a theft.

Written by: James Delahunty @ 7 Feb 2014 13:42

GryphB

And most likely the makers will be like, well California, we don't care about you and we will sell in states that don't have this requirement. Now you'll create a nice black market for those that have to look elsewhere to get a phone because they are no longer being sold in your state. Fine with me.

As far as it is concerned, the thieves are going to be one step ahead of the law and protections.

7.2.2014 19:06 #1

bbbob

Dead phones are still good for parts.

7.2.2014 19:17 #2

jjmehm

that's exactly it, crooks are always one step ahead in the cat and mouse game. plus, can't they just reflash the device and sell it again? Sure, it will have a bad ESN, but they're getting around that now anyway. All this is, is lawmakers wanting to make it look like they care about an issue that's been getting a lot of attention lately.

8.2.2014 01:59 #3

Bozobub

Waitafreakinminnit. That exact same logic can be used for door locks on houses or cars, because they can be bypassed by determined and/or skilled criminals. It does NOT wash!

Any practical measure that makes the criminals' life more difficult, expensive, or otherwise a pain in the ass is a good thing, full stop. Especially considering that this is a very easy, inexpensive change to make, that many people have been requesting for years. It's definitely not "lawmakers wanting to make it look like they care", it's "lawmakers doing what people have been prodding them to do for ages".

This change won't stop the pros, certainly. That's always been the case for every security measure ever invented throughout history. This will, however, put a definite crimp in the casual/unskilled thief's plans. And all apocryphal tales aside, most thieves aren't particularly skilled, especially in fencing off their loot; frankly, most people steal stuff they want for themselves.

By the way, supposedly you cannot "just reflash the phone", according to what I've read on the subject; it's a separate switch, outside of the OS. I'm sure there will be workarounds soon enough, as there always are eventually, but unless you feel that no one ever needs door locks, you should applaud this move.

8.2.2014 03:37 #4

xboxdvl2

i see an issue with it,if it permanently renders the phone useless even if the victim gets the phone back it can't be used???if its reversable theives will find ways to reverse it?

People could also accidently report the phone stolen.

i have locks on my doors as by the time they get past the fly screen lock and start on the front door itself i will be next to the door with a hammer, if i'm not home they could pretty much kick the door in, walk in take everything and be gone.

i know someone with a mazda with an ignition lock,basically no key no changing gears,1 day someone did try and steal it got as far as in the car screwdriver in the ignition started it and got sterio on but couldn't put it in gear.

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.

8.2.2014 06:07 #5

DarkJello

Just wait until someone spams the 'kill' message to thousands of peoples phones for fun.

8.2.2014 14:27 #6

Bozobub

The kill switch requires a device-specific cryptokey to either activate or deactivate it. Again, while it's very possible this could be abused, it's going to be a serious PITA to do so.

8.2.2014 16:18 #7

Justoneguy

Seems like cutting of your nose to spite your face. If it's stolen, and you don't get it back, you end up without. If you get back a useless brick, you end up without. Only the consumer loses.
It also sounds like a great way to cut off communication to millions of people by our government or another should the need arise. Seems to me they should be spending more time on the real problems, and worry less about device theft.

9.2.2014 18:32 #8

Bozobub

Onc e you get the phone back, the carrier can then use the phone-specific cryptokey to reenable the device. Pay attention.

9.2.2014 20:15 #9

Justoneguy

Originally posted by Bozobub: Onc e you get the phone back, the carrier can then use the phone-specific cryptokey to reenable the device. Pay attention. Maybe you need to wake up and see there is more uses for this other than just keeping the petty criminals at bay.
But your probably one of the sheeple that think their government is just out to "help" them.

9.2.2014 20:19 #10

Bozobub

Dude, you're a paranoid doof. The government can completely shut down and/or monitor cellphones at will NOW! The only thing that stops them from doing it blatantly in public is the law, for what that's worth. What makes you think the phone companies (you know, the ones already in the pocket of the NSA) won't do exactly as Uncle Sam demands, pretty much any time? Furthermore, it'd be far quicker and cheaper to just shut down cell towers (which require government approval to operate), than to individually disable phones.

The purpose of this "kill switch" is to make life somewhat more difficult for criminals, without drastically increasing costs, and save law enforcement some manpower, that simple. Any paranoid ideas you have otherwise, you're just going to have to accept can already be (and probably are) realized with current technology. Either stop using cell/smartphone technology altogether, or deal with this sad fact.

No, I don't particularly trust the government. But senseless distrust of government is just as silly and dangerous as blind trust.

10.2.2014 02:16 #11

Justoneguy

Originally posted by Bozobub: Dude, you're a paranoid doof. The government can completely shut down and/or monitor cellphones at will NOW! The only thing that stops them from doing it blatantly in public is the law, for what that's worth. What makes you think the phone companies (you know, the ones already in the pocket of the NSA) won't do exactly as Uncle Sam demands, pretty much any time? Furthermore, it'd be far quicker and cheaper to just shut down cell towers (which require government approval to operate), than to individually disable phones.

The purpose of this "kill switch" is to make life somewhat more difficult for criminals, without drastically increasing costs, and save law enforcement some manpower, that simple. Any paranoid ideas you have otherwise, you're just going to have to accept can already be (and probably are) realized with current technology. Either stop using cell/smartphone technology altogether, or deal with this sad fact.

No, I don't particularly trust the government. But senseless distrust of government is just as silly and dangerous as blind trust. Well your obviously the authority on all of this, sorry for bothering. Wake up.

10.2.2014 02:28 #12

Bozobub

Look, I gave a real argument, how about you try returning the favor? Snarky silliness is not debate, sorry.

How about you start by telling us exactly why the government would bother with such an approach, when they have the power to do so anyway?

"Wake up", indeed. I know what our government can already do, which is scary enough.

10.2.2014 03:16 #13

KillerBug

Gotta wonder about carrier and device restrictions being tied into this. Are they going to set it up so it stops working with a hacked rom...so hacking roms effectively becomes illegal in california? Will carriers be allowed to use a "call in" approach to the kill switch, so that hacked phones stop working a few days after the mod?

Bozobub...I do have a scenario for you, one that wouldn't be possible just by shutting down towers. Let's imagine we had a president that took extreme measures against protesters and reporters like throwing them in prison for trumped up charges or having the IRS go after them. I'll just make up an imaginary name and call him "Mr. O". Let's say "Mr. O" wants to shut down just certain phones, and maybe get the owners hassled by the police when their phones show up as stolen...what is to stop him?

10.2.2014 15:45 #14

Bozobub

Again, a President could do that now; just lean on whatever provider to suspend service, mission accomplished, no phone for you. And all a President needs to do to get you "hassled by police" is put you on the Terrorist Watch List (AKA the "No Fly" list). In other words, I don't believe your scenario is any more useful than Justoneguy's.

Regarding the usage of alternate ROMs, no, it shouldn't be an issue, at least as presented. Nor would you be able to install an alternate ROM with the switch active (the phone is a brick, otherwise), and an alternate ROM wouldn't negate the switch, either (it's not within control of the phone's main OS).

Until/unless someone manages to hack the cyptokey system involved - not a given at all - I really don't see this as being the issue you guys are making of it. The government doesn't need it to shut down your phone/net access at all, and abusing the system will NOT be easy.

10.2.2014 16:09 #15

KillerBug

Well, I still don't have too much faith in anything the government does...especially when it doesn't make sense for the stated goal.

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. This is just a minor inconvenience to thieves and a reassurance to people buying used phones that they are not buying stolen property.

While scientifically speaking anything is possible, I have serious doubts that it will be secure.

10.2.2014 20:20 #16

Bozobub

So, what do you suggest for CDMA phones, which have no SIM..? lol

10.2.2014 21:19 #17

Jemborg

Originally posted by Justoneguy: Originally posted by Bozobub: Dude, you're a paranoid doof. The government can completely shut down and/or monitor cellphones at will NOW! The only thing that stops them from doing it blatantly in public is the law, for what that's worth. What makes you think the phone companies (you know, the ones already in the pocket of the NSA) won't do exactly as Uncle Sam demands, pretty much any time? Furthermore, it'd be far quicker and cheaper to just shut down cell towers (which require government approval to operate), than to individually disable phones.

The purpose of this "kill switch" is to make life somewhat more difficult for criminals, without drastically increasing costs, and save law enforcement some manpower, that simple. Any paranoid ideas you have otherwise, you're just going to have to accept can already be (and probably are) realized with current technology. Either stop using cell/smartphone technology altogether, or deal with this sad fact.

No, I don't particularly trust the government. But senseless distrust of government is just as silly and dangerous as blind trust. Well your obviously the authority on all of this, sorry for bothering. Wake up. 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

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.

10.2.2014 23:23 #18

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.

11.2.2014 00:28 #19

Jemborg

Indeed

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.

11.2.2014 07:25 #20

senator29

If they want a kill switch they can access then I suggest everyone buy your phones off the internet from your carrier.

If that is not the case then California proves once again they are man'd by 2 year olds.

My past 4 cell phones have had "kill switches" by way of free to use apps stretching back 5 years. Android now includes such a mechanism. You can encrypt or delete data. One app will even secretly take pictures of those trying to unlock the phone and send over the net.

The problem is corporate greed. Wages have frozen or fallen but cost of living and price of goods have gone up. My phone cost me 680 dollars. According to a few websites less than 200 to manufacture.

Lobbyists are probably behind this lining the state officials pockets. I don't disagree robbery cases are over loading our law enforcement but it is a bandaid once again on a huge open wound. Raising the level of living for those who choose to rob is part of the real cause. The real problem is deep rooted and will not be easy or fast to fix.

14.2.2014 11:34 #21

Bozobub

You are confused, senator29. The type of "kill switch" referenced in the article, UNLIKE the software methods you are referring to, cannot be bypassed anywhere near as easily. Currently, no matter what software you have on your device, a malefactor can relatively easily reflash either a stock or modded ROM and change the IMEI with a specialized bit of hardware. That's not so easy with a switch that's OUTSIDE the ROM's control.

Nor is a "band-aid" uncalled-for. As I mentioned above, simply because door locks won't stop a sufficiently determined and/or skilled intruder, does NOT mean you shouldn't use them, or that they don't have an impact on crime. It should be rather cost-effective, considering how little it will cost to implement.

It's also not "big government" that's behind this move. In fact, this has been a request by many civilian AND law enforcement groups for a good number of years.

14.2.2014 15:24 #22

rbi149

Originally posted by Justoneguy: Originally posted by Bozobub: Onc e you get the phone back, the carrier can then use the phone-specific cryptokey to reenable the device. Pay attention. Maybe you need to wake up and see there is more uses for this other than just keeping the petty criminals at bay.
But your probably one of the sheeple that think their government is just out to "help" them. "you're", MENSA.

14.2.2014 16:47 #23

Bozobub

Originally posted by rbi149: Originally posted by Justoneguy: Originally posted by Bozobub: Onc e you get the phone back, the carrier can then use the phone-specific cryptokey to reenable the device. Pay attention. Maybe you need to wake up and see there is more uses for this other than just keeping the petty criminals at bay.
But your probably one of the sheeple that think their government is just out to "help" them. "you're", MENSA. Ehh... He got his point across, silly as it was. Pointing out grammar/spelling flubs really should only be done when the post is literally incomprehensible (or at least difficult to read) OR if the poster was busy insulting others' intelligence. While I agree you could read his post as doing so, I took it as a more general insult.

I find it's generally far more effective, as well as more amusing, to simply dismantle their argument and let it collapse around their ears =) .

Remember, no matter how smart you are, anyone can commit a typo.

14.2.2014 16:55 #24

senator29

Bozobub it is a bandaid to deter theft. The point I make is we have a lot of unemployed, uneducated who cant get decent paying jobs. If you read my whole statement you would understand.

A kill switch outside the ROM can be gotten around. Hardware mechanisms such as that have been bypassed before. One who can flash a rom and replace the IMEI number can bypass the kill switch. The first step to any working method is wireless connectivity to the device. Steal and immediately remove that you can do whatever to the virgin device. Stopping the theft of cell phones will create a new ticket item to steal. Which comes back to my point of not solving the root cause.

And big government can stop being used in this thread. It is California right now. Eventually other states will though. And you have to realize the Feds will be able to use it when they want. We are losing our freedom and rights daily for the most ridiculous reasons.

It isn't a matter of who wants it. It is a matter of solving the effect and never the cause yet again.

I am very far from confused.

14.2.2014 17:27 #25

Bozobub

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.

14.2.2014 18:54 #26

senator29

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.

14.2.2014 19:26 #27

Bozobub

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.

14.2.2014 22:46 #28

senator29

still not justifying a need for cellular kill switchs

15.2.2014 00:48 #29

Bozobub

The justification has already been given. The fact that you don't accept the justification is immaterial.

15.2.2014 12:53 #30

senator29

It won't stop or reduce theft, NEXT!

15.2.2014 13:40 #31

Bozobub

Explain how it wouldn't. Yelling "NEXT!" is apropos of exactly nothing; this isn't 4chan =) .

15.2.2014 17:40 #32

senator29

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.

15.2.2014 19:04 #33

Bozobub

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.

15.2.2014 20:56 #34

Jemborg

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.

16.2.2014 00:09 #35

ChiknLitl

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)

16.2.2014 13:07 #36

KillerBug

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.

16.2.2014 19:42 #37

Bozobub

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.

16.2.2014 20:35 #38

Jemborg

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.

17.2.2014 03:13 #39

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.

18.2.2014 12:53 #40

xboxdvl2

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 Gasc�n, 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.

18.2.2014 13:24 #41

senator29

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.

18.2.2014 14:04 #42

hathu

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.

18.2.2014 23:19 #43

senator29

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.

18.2.2014 23:20 #44

AfterDawn: News