The Rule of Law - California edition

[Telarus]

(Great start, Cain. Thanks for the idea.)

Note in the below that the concept of killing all the cell phone in a region at once is never mentioned. Also, most cell IP holders are incorporated in California, and if this is the spec required by law, its the spec in all phones everywhere. The push for this, then is probably from out-of-state interests.


http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/State-Senate-passes-cell-phone-kill-switch-5464302.php

Sacramento --

California moved one step closer to requiring all smartphones sold in the state to come pre-equipped with antitheft technology in hopes of curbing street robberies that target the pricey devices.

The state Senate approved a bill Thursday that requires kill switches to be activated on smartphones, a mandate that the wireless industry said is unnecessary, although major cell phone manufacturers Apple and Microsoft removed their opposition this week.

The bill's author, San Francisco Democratic Sen. Mark Leno, said he's pleased the bill passed, particularly because it failed its first vote in the Senate last month after several Democrats voted against it. The bill needed 21 votes to pass and garnered 19 ayes on April 24 when it was first heard in the Senate.

On Thursday, the bill was sent to the Assembly after a 26-8 vote.

"This is about making our communities safe," Leno said. "A crime that didn't exist several years ago is rampant in our neighborhoods. Those caught and convicted refer to it as apple picking, because it's such low fruit and it's so easy to do, and we want to make sure that convenience is taken away."

Leno said SB962 would deter cell phone thefts by allowing owners to remotely render their device inoperable if it is lost or stolen, which limits the resale value of a phone.

Many law enforcement agencies and organizations backed the bill, including the California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association and BART police.

San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, one of the leaders pushing for the kill switch, welcomed the vote as a major step forward in a "very hard-fought battle."

3 million robberies
He said that within about three years of implementation, the shutoff feature should make a substantial dent into the problem of smartphone robberies, which hit 3 million people in the U.S. last year.

He said preliminary figures for last year show that smartphones and other mobile devices accounted for 67 percent of San Francisco's robberies.

"We're talking about an epidemic," he said, which had been fueled by an industry that has profited by victimization to the tune of $38 billion or more annually based on replacement of lost or stolen phones.

Oakland leaders called Leno's bill an innovative strategy to reduce robberies and burglaries. According to police data, 84 percent of armed robberies in Oakland so far this year have involved a cell phone.

Oakland Councilman Dan Kalb, who has pushed for the bill in Sacramento and was the victim of an armed robbery, said that nothing short of a mandatory kill switch would make a difference.

A legal mandate
"Voluntary efforts are all nice, fine and dandy, but they don't deter anything," Kalb said, referring to the wireless industry's plan for opt-in antitheft technology, versus the requirements in Leno's bill that would put the onus on the user to opt out.

Sean Whent, Oakland's interim police chief, said a kill switch would make cell phones much less attractive to thieves.

"One of the things robbers frequently ask is: 'Where is your cell phone? Give me your cell phone.' That seems to be the driving force," Whent said.

The wireless industry association, CTIA, said consumers should determine whether they want to have the antitheft technology on their phones.

CTIA announced last month that the wireless industry would offer optional, reversible kill switches starting next year as a way to deter thieves, a move some saw as a way to thwart Leno's legislation. CTIA said its national antitheft approach is better than inconsistent patchwork solutions by individual states.

Industry is opposed
"Given the breadth of action the industry has voluntarily taken, it was unnecessary for the California Senate to approve SB962, which would mandate a specific form of antitheft functionality," said Jamie Hastings, CTIA vice president of external and state affairs. "State-by-state technology mandates stifle innovation to the ultimate detriment to the consumer."

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

There are a lot of consumers that don't bother to activate any of their baked-in anti-theft software until after the fact (well, they try to but it's too late). It's roughly comparable to herd immunity or the implementation of seat belts.

Most people underestimate the likelihood of it happening to them as well as the importance of their phone in their lives, so they often do not set up any countermeasures. I used to talk with these people all day at work—the only way to get enough people to use anti-theft software is to force the issue.

[LMNO]

The OP talks of a "concept" that all cell phones can be killed in an area from a single point.


The article doesn't say one way or the other if it's possible to do this.  Do we know if it is?  From what I remember, the person shutting it down needs a password or something.  I mean, I'm sure it's possible to hack the kill switch, but it's also possible to set off an EMP.

[Cain]

Well....

DW.de

Its official bureaucratic name is Standard Operating Procedure 303 (SOP 303) and it was hatched during the Bush administration in 2006.

Its mundane-sounding title belies the fact that SOP 303 mandates switching off mobile phone communications for entire American cities during emergencies. That's why the directive is better known by the moniker kill switch as it more aptly describes the effect SOP 303 can have on communications.

But that is pretty much the extent of what the public knows about the kill switch. "The only information we had about the policy was a paragraph in a 2006 annual report that the Department of Homeland Security issued," David Jacobs, consumer protection counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a Washington-based group, told DW.

Admittedly, this is about killing the cell towers rather than the devices itself.  But it's effectively the same thing.

[LMNO]

Ah.  So I guess this would be to get around to the devices that have WiFi access.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Kill switch being the dumbest, most ineffective method, conceivable, short of just plain wishing for your phone to magic itself back into your pocket.

If anyone was even slightly interested in cutting back on downsizing the theft/resale side of their profitability, they'd implement a system where mac-id's were stamped into the transmitter chip and could be blocked at the carrier end.

If was conspiracy oriented I'd go with the shady government censorship angle but I live in the real world - sounds like the usual case of the guys in charge of making these decisions having little or no idea how the technology works.

Cell phone companies will be like, yeah sure we'll do that shit, cos they know it won't work, so it wont impact bottom line and it'll keep them sweet with the government.