Second Federal 'Kill-switch' Bill Introduced Targeting Smartphone Theft

alphadogg writes "A second federal bill that proposes 'kill-switch' technology be made mandatory in smartphones as a means to reduce theft of the devices was introduced Monday. The kill switch would allow consumers to remotely wipe and disable a stolen smartphone and is considered by proponents to be a key tool in combating the increasing number of smartphone robberies. The Smartphone Theft Prevention Act was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 4065 by Jose Serrano, a New York Democrat, as a companion to a Senate bill that was introduced Feb. 13. The two follow a similar law proposed by officials in California last month."

Comments

"... as a means to reduce theft."

[XxtraLarGe]

Yeah, right. What they want to do is be able to shut down everyone's line of communications just in case the hoi polloi get too uppity.

Re:"... as a means to reduce theft."

[gandhi_2]

someone's going to label you as paranoid here.
but the patriot act was passed to "target terrorists" and was used to target everyone.
the cellphone owner is the only person who should have the option to "kill" the device.

Re:"... as a means to reduce theft."

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming this will also allow officials to kill all the nearby smartphones when there are protests to stop people showing police violence.
Of course they'll say its so they cant text for more people to show up.

Re:"... as a means to reduce theft."

[XxtraLarGe]

Yeah, I wondered about that. Wouldn't this be a double-edged sword, for theft? Either discourages theft, or encourages hiding the victim's body so nobody will disable the phone?

I'm not a robber, but if I was, I'm pretty sure that if I was going to rob someone, I'm going to take their phone regardless of whether it can be bricked or not simply to reduce the likelihood of them calling the cops. In essence, it won't prevent the theft of phones, it will merely prevent the thieves from reselling them. Why not a remote kill switch for Rolexes?

Re:"... as a means to reduce theft."

[TheCarp]

I'm not a robber, but if I was, I'm pretty sure that if I was going to rob someone, I'm going to take their phone regardless of whether it can be bricked or not simply to reduce the likelihood of them calling the cops. In essence, it won't prevent the theft of phones, it will merely prevent the thieves from reselling them. Why not a remote kill switch for Rolexes?

Because everybody and their mother doesn't have rolexes? Notice nobody is taking about Rolex theft? Can you think of a single other device that can cost several hundred dollars, most people want, and everyone from little kids to 60 year old grandmothers carries around in public?

I am at a loss to come up with anything aside from cash itself that has similar properties. In fact, the main difference, aside from usage, is that if you whipped out a wad of cash equivalent to the retail cost of your smart phone, most people would advise you not to walk down the street flashing that wad in your hands.

I mean, I think you are right in one sence: Phones will still be stolen. It doesn't take away all reason, however, if all someone has is a cell phone, a kill switch would potentially decrease the value in robbing him; and robbers are back to trying to figure out who has money or other valuables.

New method of attack against consumers

[blandcramration]

I think it's more realistic that poor security measures will be set in place, thereby making it easy for malicious crackers to disable peoples phones remotely.

Sure, it's for the consumer...

[Anonymous Coward]

This could never be abused by governments or hackers.

Central Control

[edibobb]

This way, the federal government can prevent those irritating demonstrations like this ones in Ukraine.

Iran, Russia, Venezuela approve

[PackMan97]

...they all stopped by to give a +1 to this idea. They'd love a way to be able to brick cell phones of protesters and stop videos from getting out into the world.