Slashdot Mirror


Federal Smartphone Kill-Switch Legislation Proposed

alphadogg writes "Pressure on the cellphone industry to introduce technology that could disable stolen smartphones has intensified with the introduction of proposed federal legislation that would mandate such a system. Senate bill 2032, 'The Smartphone Prevention Act,' was introduced to the U.S. Senate this week by Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat. The bill promises technology that allows consumers to remotely wipe personal data from their smartphones and render them inoperable. But how that will be accomplished is currently unclear. The full text of the bill was not immediately available and the offices of Klobuchar and the bill's co-sponsors were all shut down Thursday due to snow in Washington, D.C."

25 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. The Safe Bet Here by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This technology will be co-opted and otherwise downright available to the TLA government agencies.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:The Safe Bet Here by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "When I wanted a phone "killed" I'd just call up the CEO of that phone company and have him have his people disable the phone plan for "non-payment" or whatever."

      You've missed the point.

      It's not about having "a phone" killed. It's about the ability to have phoneS killed. Plural.

    2. Re:The Safe Bet Here by khasim · · Score: 2

      It's not about having "a phone" killed. It's about the ability to have phoneS killed. Plural.

      No. I intentionally decided against the paranoid option.

      What purpose would it serve for the NSA to brick a bunch of phoneS at one time?

      Other than making a very big, very public story? Which would get a LOT of airplay in the media.

      If the NSA needs service cut in a specific area they can already do that.

    3. Re:The Safe Bet Here by ChristopherMcGinnis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The NSA could use it to kill communications when the uprising begins.

    4. Re:The Safe Bet Here by mjwx · · Score: 2

      The NSA could use it to kill communications when the uprising begins.

      Why would they need to target individual handsets?

      If an uprising gets to the point where you need to censor communications en mass they'll just switch off the towers.

      Identifying all the people in an uprising is extremely difficult and getting disposable burn phones is extremely easy... and when the govt can simply take over the underlying infrastructure both are entirely pointless.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:The Safe Bet Here by Sowelu · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, you are wrong: Violent muggings IS the way they are stolen. Many cities have seen a downturn in most violent crime, BUT a sharp rise in cell phone muggings. There is a wide demand from police stations all over the country to find some way to reduce the value of stolen cell phones and thus prevent those cell phone muggings. Bricking stolen phones would accomplish that very quickly, stop thefts, and even save lives.

    6. Re:The Safe Bet Here by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just so you don't think I'm pulling it out of my ass:

      http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...
      Official police statistics show that there were more than 40 cell phone muggings in November. The number may not seem high, but it is unsettling with just a portion of the crimes reported, and virtually all of them involve a gun, knife or physical assault.

      http://mashable.com/2012/12/20...
      Officer Gordon Shyy, media relations unit of the San Francisco Police Department, tells Mashable they don't have any data about whether cellphones deterred crime in the 90s, but said today cellphone muggings are "an epidemic nationwide."
      From January 2012 through Nov. 30, 2012, there were approximately 1,732 cellphone related thefts reported in San Francisco out of a total of 3,487 robberies — making 50% of all robberies cellphone related.

    7. Re:The Safe Bet Here by tsqr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly. The Republicans will use it to devastate the used phone market.

      I guess you missed the part where the bill's author is a Democratic Senator.

    8. Re:The Safe Bet Here by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah yes, I remember also when those evil Republicans devastated the used car market with that "cash for clunkers" programme.

      Oh, wait...

  2. I assume it's a typo... by mhkohne · · Score: 2

    But if it really is called the 'Smartphone Prevention Act', that would pretty much say everything needed about this government, wouldn't it?

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re:I assume it's a typo... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Somehow Dice can keep people on staff to do an interface rewrite that nobody wants, and yet they can't find somebody to proofread a dozen paragraphs of text per day.

      The mistake is in the original article as well (actual name is of course the "Smartphone Theft Prevention Act"), but that doesn't excuse the /. editors for not engaging their brains.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  3. No Thanks by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I can brick my phone over the air, so can THEY, and I don't trust THEM.

    1. Re:No Thanks by sexconker · · Score: 2

      "They" can already brick your phone over the air. How do you think the phone communicates with outside world?

      Uh, however I want it to? My phone isn't a brick without a cellular connection to the PSTN.

      My phone has WiFi, Bluetooth, USB, HDMI, local storage, a microSD card, a camera, a microphone, etc.
      It's an extremely useful device without phone service, and it's an extremely useful device without WAN access as it will still have LAN access.

    2. Re:No Thanks by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Nope. The telecoms will have master keys since grannyw ill forget her code and the government will have backdoors to fuck your shit.
      Your error was in thinking that we'd get a reasonable implementation that focused on security.

    3. Re:No Thanks by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Most phones sold through carriers can be bricked remotely. Your comment seemed to imply that a smartphone is still useful without a WAN. While that may be true if it isn't bricked, the vast majority can be bricked remotely. That you imply otherwise makes you the contrarian dumbass.

  4. Just because you can... by DittoBox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Just like the remote kill switch that was proposed in cars. This is a solution looking for a problem, and more over it's a solution that's ripe for abuse.

    --
    Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    1. Re:Just because you can... by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      But there is no public safety or public health argument here. It is strictly a matter of convenience.

      Sure there is. Smartphone robberies are spiking crime rates. If thieves were aware that a stolen phone was useless then the crimes should go down.

    2. Re:Just because you can... by khasim · · Score: 2

      Smartphone robberies are spiking crime rates. If thieves were aware that a stolen phone was useless then the crimes should go down.

      As seems to be the case in Australia where they are already doing this.

      http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/An-easy-way-to-curb-smart-phone-thieves-2344797.php

    3. Re:Just because you can... by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      Even if the phone is tracked and located, law enforcement doesn't care unless it involves a hot girl or someone politically connected.

  5. Apple is already compliant by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

    As others have stated, this is exactly how Apple's iCloud lock works. If the owner of the device remotely locks it or it is factory reset through iTunes, it will be useless except for displaying a screen prompting for the owner's Apple ID and password. So far, all it has really accomplished is giving some extra headache to businesses that accept phone trade-ins and slightly lowering the value of lost/stolen iDevices on eBay. We also already have a national IMEI blacklist, which mostly seems to have succeeded only in increasing the number of scam artists re-selling unusable phones to gullible people (in most cases, they're generally not stolen - the sleazy cell phone companies here in the US are happy to block a phone's serial number if the phone was associated with a service contract or handset financing plan and the previous owner defaulted on it).

    Besides, what's to stop a thief from taking a page out of the trade-in services' books and simply demanding you turn off/sign out of your phone's remote kill switch feature? If they're threatening someone at gun/knife point, it's not exactly like the victim would have much choice in the matter.

    If people are being robbed, your city has a crime problem that needs to be solved with good, old fashioned police work.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  6. Devil's Advocate by JonBoy47 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's spurred mostly by the fact that AT&T and T-Mobile have been sand-bagging, claiming GSM/SIM's don't allow for black-listing. The utility of Sprint and Verizon's blacklists is predicated on the "SIM" being integral to a CDMA phone; they can limit access to their networks to phones locked to their networks. The proliferation of phones containing GSM, CDMA and LTE hardware regardless of the carrier's network, opens the distinct possibility of a stolen phone being unlocked/jailbroken/rooted and re-used on a different carrier, rendering even Sprint and Verizon's blacklist useless.

    This law is looking to have all the carriers actually implement a lost/stolen black-list, and to further have communication between the carriers, so that a black-listed phone can't be re-used on anybody's network. This sounds like something that could (and should) be implemented in response to market forces. The proliferation of passive anti-theft systems in late model cars provides a good model. There's no legal requirement for car-makers to implement RFID-encoded key-fobs, yet they are nearly ubiquitous and have massively reduced theft of vehicles so equipped.

  7. Re:Stream it by mysidia · · Score: 2

    This is already circumvented by the fact you can live-stream to the internet.

    Tablets and Laptops will be included.

    Your desktop is sure to follow.

    Also... I believe when they say "wiped" they really mean "Locked", so that only law enforcement such as the NSA folks can get the secret keys from the phone company, required to decrypt the data

  8. Why smart phones? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Why not laptops?
    Why not cars?
    Why not any of a thousand things that are stolen all the time.

    I wouldn't mind this as much in cars or laptops. I'm pretty sure I could disable it if I wanted. But in a smartphone? How?

    This whole thing gives me the creeps.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Why smart phones? by JonBoy47 · · Score: 2

      Theft by mugging is People don't carry laptops around at nearly the same rate they do smartphones, so the theft by mugging isn't nearly as big a problem. When laptops get stolen it's typically because the owner was careless and left it unattended. Meanwhile violent muggings, where people's cell phones are stolen, is reaching epidemic proportions in major cities. In the 90's people got jacked for their Air Jordan's, now it's for their iPhones. And unlike many other commonly stolen items, this anti-theft capability can be added at no incremental cost. Hell, the iOS Find My iPhone function is already nearly compliant with the proposed California and federal "kill switch" legislation. If they changed the initial setup such that it was enabled by default, it would be compliant in all respects.

      As for cars, just about every car made in the last decade and a half has a passive anti-theft system. These systems have been credited with reducing theft of certain models by 90%. Don't have the right programmed smart key? That car isn't starting without some major effort. The process to replace lost or stolen keys is byzantine, inconvenient, and unique to each manufacturer, by design.

  9. Kill by koinu · · Score: 2

    The kill switch has its name, because now the mugger needs to kill the one who he stole the mobile phone from to make sure that he does not report it as stolen.