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."

[DriveDog]

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?

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."

[i kan reed]

The patriot act's language always targeted everyone.

the cellphone owner is the only person who should have the option to "kill" the device.

Until some enterprising young hacker finds out the developer, paid too much for too little work, used the same packet with a obvious identifier for all phones, and you can start trolling people in very expensive ways.

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.

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

[jellomizer]

For most criminals, it is a huge leap from stealing a phone to murdering a person.
Most criminals steal either due to desperation (the really need the money, often for drugs) or convenience (the phone was was just sitting there unlocked, or at least an easily broken into).

Jumping to murder offers a new set of risks.
1. If the person knows he is going to get killed, he will most likely fight back, and chances are the thief will get hurt or killed in the process, if hurt he will end up in jail. As it was self defense.

2. Police will take notice and actually try to find the criminal. Petty theft, the cops are just there to give you an insurance report, they will not try to find your goods, if someone is murdered (especially if they are a non-gang member or unfairly not a minority).

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

[drainbramage]

Not just Rolexes, all exes.

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

[AthanasiusKircher]

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?

Yes. Cars. Except they're generally worth thousands of dollars, instead of hundreds. (And though little kids generally want them, they generally don't own them.) Also, unlike watches and phones, we tend to leave these many-thousand-dollar devices laying around.

Cars are in some ways both more and less "portable" than watches or cell phones, so they pose somewhat different problems from a theft perspective. But it seems like we have developed a whole boatload of regulations and various technologies to try to prevent car theft.

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

[davecb]

There is a stolen IMEI list, but it's not used much, possibly for this very reason. Car thieves have to forge a VIN, why shouldn't phone thieves have to forge an IMEI?

--dave

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

[bsDaemon]

With Rolex, when you buy it the jeweler usually registers it with Rolex for you. If it is ever sent for servicing (which legitimate owners should do about every 5-7 years if they actually care about the movement of the watch), Rolex checks the registration and check to make sure that it hasn't been stolen. Pawn shops could (but many probably don't) call Rolex and ask. Other thing is -- don't forget to have the registration updated in your will or something, otherwise your children might be in for a hassle if they send it for servicing. At least, this is how the dealer explained it to me.

So, assuming the watch gets sent for servicing (most likely by whomever buys it after the thief hocks it), there is sort of a remote kill-switch for Rolex.

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

[Lumpy]

Herp Derp, they already have that and DO that. they can disable all Cellphone towers instantly. That went into place right after 9/11

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

[Lumpy]

Then let me remotely detonate it. Take my phone, BOOM your pocket explodes 10 minutes later.
In fact that should be required, Solves the robbery problem overnight.

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

[alta]

what makes you think this isn't already available, on many, many levels?

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

[Lumpy]

3. their chances of being killed instead go way up. there are a lot of concealed carry people out there that will empty their gun into the scumbag if they think they will be killed.

Take my wallet, but even a hint of real danger and I empty 13 9mm rounds into you as fast as I possibly can.

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

[AthanasiusKircher]

Oh, and if you're willing to expand the term "device," we might include things like rings, necklaces, and other jewelry. Not so much little kids, but sometimes teenagers also some valuable jewelry; definitely grandmothers.

Even people without a lot of money often tend to wear wedding or engagement rings worth hundreds (often even thousands) of dollars around in public every day.

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

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

The patriot act's language always targeted everyone.

the cellphone owner is the only person who should have the option to "kill" the device.

Until some enterprising young hacker finds out the developer, paid too much for too little work, used the same packet with a obvious identifier for all phones, and you can start trolling people in very expensive ways.

... or until someone develops an app that exploits insecurities in the phone's software to remotely brick specific/all phones nearby and sells the app or gives it away. Then anyone could brick anyone else's phone for fun or use the threat of bricking to extort money from the phone's owner.

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

[Joce640k]

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.

It it's done right you could have a little scratch card with a secret number on it. You need the number to kill the phone and the Men In Black don't know it.

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

[Joce640k]

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.

Why would they do that? They can use the phones to identify the owners (and track them afterwards).

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

[mindcandy]

True .. it's like the stupid car radios where you have to enter a code when the battery dies.
If it gets stolen, the thief realizes sometime later that it's useless, and it's still stolen.
Meanwhile, every time YOU have a dead battery or replace it, you have to dig around and find the stupid tag, or pay the dealer $100 to tell you.

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

[mindcandy]

Why not a remote kill switch for Rolexes?
Or money ..

be careful what you ask for.

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

[Hamsterdan]

If they can't sell them, they might stop stealing them after a while

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

[MozeeToby]

This is perhaps a stupid question but one worth asking. For what it's worth I originally agreed with your stated concern and I'd much prefer the ability to disable this functionality on any device I own but I digress.

What would this hypothetical ability to brick your phone give the government that they don't already have? The government having this ability in the event of a revolution presupposes cooperation with the carriers. The very carriers that can already block your phone by number or location. For that matter, the army could send a small force to each and every cell tower in the area and shut them down manually (violently) if necessary. For that matter it would probably be more useful for them to just listen in on anyone they are worried about, which again they can already do.

So I just can't buy that this is some kind of government power grab. It's still a terrible idea IMO, but that particular argument just doesn't ring true to me.

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

[DickBreath]

> 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.

I wonder if dumb-phones would have the kill switch? I don't see them, or maybe I just don't notice, but I hear that a lot of people use dumb-phones.

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

[bill_mcgonigle]

Oh, that's silly, the President of Ukrane would never have ordered the protesters' phones bricked!

The only thing I have to add is that the Statists will keep coming back and back for this kind of killswitch, and eventually it will pass, and they'll have the FCC mandate such a feature.

In such an environment, Free Hardware will have to become illegal. But keep voting for those who seek to rule you - it's for your own safety.

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

[DickBreath]

> 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.

Actually, a more effective way to do that is to have a way to shut off communication at the towers. This would preserve the ability to send out mass propaganda to still working phones in the event of an 'emergency'. Also, I hear that there is some value in the metadata. Also the phones are tracking devices. It might be more effective and valuable to fake busy signals, and other communication interruptions rather than to outright kill smartphones.

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

[imrahilj]

Agreed. If this is such a great feature that consumers want, someone will build a handset with it and it will be popular. The feds are getting their fingers in way too many pies these days... that's what happens when the Commerce Clause gets interpreted ever more broadly.

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

[poetmatt]

Actually, don't forget - if there's a killswitch on your phone, then the people up top would also have it.

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

[ottothecow]

A lot of phone thefts in big cities like NYC/Chicago go like this:

Person is on the train, engrossed in their facebook news feed (and probably have their headphones on so as to be further zoned out). Train pulls into stop and doors open. Thief rips phone out of person's hand and dashes out the closing doors. By the time the victim or anyone nearby recognizes what just happened, the doors are closed and the train is pulling away (and to an outside observer on the platform, it just looked like a guy who forgot it was his stop and dashed to get off the train). Less pro thiefs may not have the timing down, but they can probably run fast enough to still avoid getting caught.

If everyone knew that that phone would become worthless, these types of thefts would calm down. You might have a phone to play with for an hour (and if you were savvy, you might try using the linked email to break into some financial accounts), but the sketchy guy in the ice cream truck with a "cash for phones" sign isn't going to want soon-to-be bricked devices.

As an aside, if I were a robber, I am not sure if I would take the phone or not. Maybe take it and toss or break it (especially if it will be bricked remotely). The last thing I would want after robbing someone is something that is so easily tracked. My movements after the theft might be recorded and the phone might be hard to sell since they are much easier to check the history on than cash or random jewelry (and I would have to turn it on show any potential buyer that it was working).

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

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I bet that in such a situation, you'd reach a point where we see an interesting market where the parts to the device sell for less than it costs to make them.

I mean think about it: Instead of stolen smartphones being exported to china, they're instead parted and sold domestically, flooding the parts market.

We could possibly solve that problem by making it illegal to part out phones that are known to be stolen. Dealers that sell parts could also be required to certify that they came from legitimate sources (and be held liable for contributing to theft if they aren't.)

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

[Artraze]

Temporarily disabling cell towers is completely different from permanently disabling phones. In one case a phone will work the next day or in the next town or as a music player. In the other, you're out a couple hundred bucks and all the data you had on it.

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

[DarksideDaveOR]

No, it's a means to reduce theft of service by uppity customers who think that just because they pay for a phone, they actually own it.

I'm less worried about the government (at least in the US) than I am about service providers deciding to brick my phone for non-payment, or simply to force me to upgrade.

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

[CrimsonAvenger]

Two things:

1. Evidence is that for the most part, just showing the gun to the bad guy convinces him to go bother someone else. Note that we seldom see news stories about people emptying their pistol into a (potential or actual) robber, which suggests it doesn't happen all that often.

2. Whyever would you be using an old Browning Hi-Power (that's about the only gun I know of that carries 13 9mm rounds in a magazine), when there's a much better .40 caliber Browning Hi-Power? Much less a variety of other .40 or .45 pistols, all with 10 round magazines. Trust me, 10 .40 or .45 is way better than 13 9mm.

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

[VortexCortex]

It's for targeting just the vocal the activists not everyone. This way less people bitch about their inability to access the networks. Gasslighting works. The majority can remain non silenced, and complacent while the activists are silenced, as usual.

Bonus, the bricked devices don't start working again if the protesters leave the protest.

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

[Agent0013]

I can certainly see the point that stealing a phone that will be disabled will prevent the victim from calling the cops. On the other hand, the theft deterrent in car radios has done a lot to make that crime pretty much disappear.

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

[Beardo the Bearded]

Mine's trackable, lockable, and erasable from any web connection.

It's also password protected and encrypted.

I'm not sure what a kill switch would do that's better than that.

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

[ottothecow]

To play devil's advocate--If I stole your phone...I'd probably want to wipe all of your crap off of it anyways. Flash a fresh OS on there and it is good as new.

Just like if I stole your laptop to use it myself, I would wipe the drive first (though many thieves are not so clever), or if I wanted to sell it, I would put a clean OS on it. Might be some valuable information stashed on your drive, but if I am a petty thief, I probably care more about the easy money of selling electronics vs the more complex prospect of figuring out how to profit off a stolen identity (much more difficult than cash).

A kill switch that bricked the phone (or made it unable to join a mobile network or fully boot until disabled) would kill the residual value of the phone. Sure, maybe you could harvest it for parts, but if the bootloader is locked and the OS is hosed, nobody is going to be using it as a phone again.

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

[Maxo-Texas]

The catch is that a LOT of people are being robbed specifically for their phones.
And (no idea why) there is a high rate of violence associated with the thefts.

If the only reason you were going to rob someone was for their phone, then knowing the phone will be worthless kills your incentive.

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

[Maxo-Texas]

Except you risk the car being lo-jacked.

However, I can see your point.

If phones had reliable loud alarms when stolen and had reliable lojack technology that might also be a viable solution.

However, it's easier to stick a phone in a soundproof faraday cage than a car.

When I was in my 20's cars were stolen a lot more than today. It's apparently harder to steal a car and get away with it today.

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

[CODiNE]

However, be warned that, when you say "the hoi polloi" you are actually saying "the the herd." Indicating that you too are "hoi polloi".

- Robin Williams. Dead Poets Society

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

[CODiNE]

I don't see the kill switch reducing the number of stolen phones being sold...
I see it increasing the number of stolen phones being sold "as is".

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

[gIobaljustin]

If someone is able to remotely brick your phone, you obviously don't control your phone, and it consequently can't be trusted. This is the problem with proprietary garbage, and it's partly why I don't own a cellphone (other than them being tracking devices by their very nature).

Yes, if it's done 'right', it doesn't have to be that way. But let's face it... corporations rarely do things the moral way.

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

[rtb61]

How about if phones once reported where not allowed to be connected to a phone network. You could do neat stuff like say, you want to connect that phone (stolen), we can only connect used phones to the network with a personal visit, how about you drop by the nearest network store and we will arrange (the police to meet you) for that. Bricking the phone is stupid setting up a system to return it to it's owner is smarter. Want the easy fix, fine telephone network companies when the connect a stolen phone to their network, you'll see that stolen phone problem pretty much solved overnight.

After that report about the NSA illegally psychologically targeting people, giving the ability to brick peoples main means of communication doesn't seem very reasonable at all.

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

[mjwx]

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 addition to this, 5 minutes after the technology is introduced, there will be a way to disable it before it kicks in. 5 minutes after that the information will be available to street thugs.

What people forget is that a lot of smart people are born and grow up in the "hood". Not all of them can leave due to them family, poverty or prejudice. So these people are more than capable of disabling a kill switch and they learn to survive in violent neighbourhoods by being useful to someone who's powerful enough to protect them (Classic Example, in a mob town, everyone ingratiates themselves to the Don). When a thug steals a phone, they'll learn pretty quick to turn it off immediately, after this they'll take it to one of the hood's geeks who'll disable the kill switch and wipe the device or straight to a pawn shop who'll do the same.

Some will even sell a broken phone, knowing that its useless, under false pretences.

A mandated kill switch wont affect phone thefts one iota.

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

[mjwx]

Temporarily disabling cell towers is completely different from permanently disabling phones. In one case a phone will work the next day or in the next town or as a music player. In the other, you're out a couple hundred bucks and all the data you had on it.

Erm, if things get that bad, they're going to have to disable entire towers because disabling a few thousand phones is not going to cut it and identifying that many people is going to be expensive, time consuming and painful (it's like worrying about a leaky pipe compromising the wall when barbarians are battering the gate).

Further more, if they disable individual phones, they'll just have a few dozen burn phones so that communications can continue unabated. The govt knows targeting individual phones is pointless because it's that easy to get around it with minimal planning (and if there's a real uprising that doesn't consist of thousands, the conspirators will have planned for this as well as the shut down of the mobile networks).

The only people who don't seem to understand this are paranoid nutbars. This is a knee jerk reaction to a small problem, not an attempt to keep the people down (especially seeing as they already have that capability)

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

[kenshin33]

it does existe, it's called google device manager or cerberus or .... etc for Android. Or iCloud or something like that for iphones/ipads
On android, for instance to brick the phone destoy the EFS partition and "voila" ( dd if=/dev/random of =PATH_TO_EFS) the phone is useless for the thief! (if you recover it and have a back up you can restore it).

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

[hypergreatthing]

It won't prevent anyone from reselling them.
Cell phones can be broken down to parts and resold regardless of any kill switch that might be put in.
You can't kill switch a led screen.

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

[kenshin33]

I almost forgot this: what you want it the ability to track the phone, for that you need a functioning phone not a bricked one.
having control over the trust chain in the boot process with prevent the thief from installing anything on the phone hence preserving any tracking software present!

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

[amRadioHed]

Except it's not like that, because if it's mandatory then the robber knows ahead of time that the thing is useless to steal. That's the idea, at least.

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

[Beardo the Bearded]

I can report the IMEI number to my provider if I really want to brick it. I have a hunch that a portion of these "mysterious black man stole mah phones!" are people that dropped them and just want to get a new one on their insurance.

I believe that they get stolen, sure, but at least 10% are mishaps.

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

[Lumpy]

CZ75 carries 14 rounds, and you can get extended mags for nearly any pistol. Plus you would never dump the whole mag into the perp, you leave one round just in case.

a CZ75 is a fantastic platform It's the AR15 of the 9mm pistol world.

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

[Lumpy]

I can go to any drugstore and buy burn phones that I can get turned on with minutes and data and no attachment to me at all. This is utterly trivial.
Most airports have "PRE ACTIVATED" cellphones in the vending machines. So you can get a phone that has 100 minutes on it and is already activated 100% anonomously.

Turning off a "dissidents" phone is a waste of time.

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

[Maxo-Texas]

Part of the challenge is that by changing an inexpensive SIM card- you basically make it a new phone.

They need a mixture of hard coded ID and SIM card id perhaps.

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

[rtb61]

Perhaps you are referring to this http://www.wikihow.com/Find-th.... So problem is already largely solved it just requires full implementation, the fine system seems like the logical route.

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

[Maxo-Texas]

That's very INFORMATIVE.

I'm going to let my friends know about it!

The dialing method worked on my android device.

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.

Re:New method of attack against consumers

[rsborg]

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.

s/malicious crackers/the security state/

Well, disregard that, they're essentially the same thing.

Fine, if and only if it can be turned off.

[Valdrax]

Fine, if and only if it is also mandatory that a customer be allowed to disable the feature and not activate it. I do not want this on my phone. I consider it remote disabling to be a bigger risk to my enjoyment of my phone than physical theft.

Re:Fine, if and only if it can be turned off.

[Andy Dodd]

Yup. There are plenty of "opt-in" solutions to mobile device management right now.

Thing is, I know of none that can completely brick a device after a wipe, and I have grave concerns over such a capability because of the damage it does if it accidentally goes off. If it can't completely brick a device, at best it can protect your data but not the smartphone itself.

The thing is, there are already solutions for smartphone theft. A smartphone, to be fully useful, needs service from a wireless carrier. To get service, a device must report its IMEI or ESN. IMEI/ESN blacklists already exist and are in use today.

Re:Fine, if and only if it can be turned off.

[alta]

What if, for the feature to work, you had to contact the carrier and give them the phone's PIN. Only then would it wipe. The carrier wouldn't be able to wipe until you contacted them with said PIN.

Or maybe when you set up the phone a 'wipe pin' that doesn't get reset when the phone is wiped?

Re:Fine, if and only if it can be turned off.

[DickBreath]

In addition to making it Opt-In, or even Opt-Out, there is no reason that the government needs to hold the switch to remotely disable a phone. If the purpose is as stated, then only the carrier needs to be able to remotely disable a phone, and only on a one-by-one basis.

So make sure that the bill makes it illegal for anyone but the carrier to remotely disable a phone, and then only with the express permission of its owner. Make it expressly illegal for the government to have direct access to the kill switch. Make the kill switch implementation be such that only a single phone can be disabled in a single manual operation -- no mass remote disabling.

Also, if they don't already do this, mandate an industry wide blacklist of IMEI's (or some other un-alterable baked -in number) in case the phone can be loaded with a new ROM image. That way at least, the phone can never be activated.

Why not extend this to WiFi only tablets as well? The manufacturer, and any manufacturer designated party (eg, Google?) can remotely disable a non-phone device if it ever phones home and has been registered by its owner as stolen.

Re:Fine, if and only if it can be turned off.

[mattventura]

It doesn't necessarily need to be a permanent kill switch. It could disable the phone until it is returned to the rightful owner. Besides, if the kill switch doesn't physically damage the hardware of the phone in some way (or some other irreversible action), people will almost certainly find a way to bypass it.

Re:Fine, if and only if it can be turned off.

[gnasher719]

It doesn't necessarily need to be a permanent kill switch. It could disable the phone until it is returned to the rightful owner. Besides, if the kill switch doesn't physically damage the hardware of the phone in some way (or some other irreversible action), people will almost certainly find a way to bypass it.

You mean like iOS 7. To use the phone, you need the passcode (unless the user didn't bother to use a passcode, in which case it's their own fault). To reset the phone, you need the AppleID + password. If you buy a used phone, the seller has to reset it before sending it to you.

Unconstitutional

[The Cat]

The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.

Re:Unconstitutional

[XxtraLarGe]

The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.

And that has stopped them from doing these things when exactly? Ignoramuses will point to the Interstate Commerce clause, which was specifically put in place to prevent one state from interfering with the commerce of another state (i.e. New York imposing a levy on goods moving from Pennsylvania through New York to Massachusetts, etc.), not the way the SCOTUS has "interpreted" it.

Re:Unconstitutional

[drainbramage]

Hey, that's no Ignoramus, That's my senator!

Re:Unconstitutional

[bsDaemon]

Regulation of Interstate and International Commerce? They could ban the importation of devices which do not have this feature. Maybe they can't require you to purchase a phone that has it, but they can make it impossible not to. Or, do you know of a cell phone that was made entirely in the town/state you live in and which doesn't at any times cross state borders? Didn't think so.

At least, that's the argument that they'll make -- the same one they always make when people claim that the Federal government doesn't have the "constitutional authority" to do something. Arguing against it isn't going to get you very far, whether or not you're right.

Re:Unconstitutional

[DickBreath]

> The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.

Friend, you use such strange words. What is this 'constitutional authority' thing you speak of?

The overlords have always had the authority to do anything they please. It has been this way since the ancient time of the great change that came after the falling of two towers.

Re:Unconstitutional

[imrahilj]

Hit the nail right on the head. As long as SCOTUS is willing to let Congress get away with things, and people aren't holding Congress responsible, there is basically nothing to be done.

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.

Re:Central Control

[slew]

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

Don't worry about it, the government can already just commandeer the cell tower backhaul network and/or central office. This would be a simple escalation from what they are doing in the Ukraine right now by identifying phones near a protest area and sending them this text message...

"Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a riot."

The whole illusion of being able to use your cell phone when the government doesn't want you is really just a delusion anyhow...

Re:Central Control

[AHuxley]

Yes you try and capture and upload free speech in your community. You may find your fancy new networked HD recording device stops until the speakers have been herded into a small, distant free speech zone.
Good luck getting that city parade permit to enjoy free speech next time.

Open Source Community

[giltwist]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. The open source community will have a high incentive to resolve this problem. The next version of ClockworkMod will come standard with a kill-switch disabler or there will be a step by step soldering guide posted to Instructables.

Re:Open Source Community

[giltwist]

I agree that I should not have to, but the nice thing about being a regular /. reader is that I will be able to do so. We've survived DRM, we can survive this. However, I do hope it goes down the drain without passing.

Re:Open Source Community

[Joce640k]

What if it needs a secret number on a scratch card to disable it?

Would that work...?

Re:Open Source Community

[AHuxley]

The good part now is quality "recored" material can be streamed to a distant site.
Local efforts to drop, hold as evidence and erase or in other ways ensure that material never makes it online/to the media gets more difficult.
With next gen trendy devices having an off switch recording free speech in your local area becomes more difficult by average people.
Your device may just not work at that time. Nothing will stream or save. Calls will be restricted to the emergency services. Any incoming data will be from approved gov sources.
Wifi will be jammed, domestic telco data services will not work. Hours later approved edited footage will make it out and political spin will be ready.

Priorities

[kc-guy]

Of course this is before the bill allowing cell phone users (apparently not owners) to legally unlock their phones clears the Senate.

Bad Legislation With Darker Possibilities

[BrendaEM]

This is a piece of legislation dangerous to our freedom. During peaceful demonstrations cellphones could be id'ed can be gathered and be deactivated at will.
If we are ever in a war in the mainland, an invading army could deactivate our cellphones, thereby compromising our infrastructure.

A better piece of legislation would be to require a 3-day delay and used cellphones to be checked against a national database to check for theft.

Re:Bad Legislation With Darker Possibilities

[rogoshen1]

my idea for the ideal legislation on this matter: fuck all. our government shouldn't be wasting it's time on trivial shit like this. if there is a market for this kind of ability, let the carriers and subscribers sort it out.

Re:Bad Legislation With Darker Possibilities

[BoberFett]

This already exists. Buy a phone off Craigslist or eBay and you're taking your chances on the IMEI being blacklisted. No need for some federally mandated killswitch.

The whole "theft" excuse is a smokescreen for something else.

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.

Re:Iran, Russia, Venezuela approve

[sjbe]

They'd love a way to be able to brick cell phones of protesters and stop videos from getting out into the world.

Last time I checked regular digital cameras still worked and the internet was still a thing. Might be less efficient but if they shut down the internet the cell phones wouldn't be any help either.

Re:Iran, Russia, Venezuela approve

[imatter]

Because I always carry a digital camera in the case that the government decides to brick my phone and it fits nicely in my pocket next to my phone.

Why are the corps against this?

[koan]

I find it interesting that the phone companies are against this, why?

Re:Why are the corps against this?

[Andy Dodd]

Because it's a shitty law that has too many dangerous drawbacks, and they already have a better solution (IMEI/ESN blacklisting) in place.

Re:Why are the corps against this?

[bsDaemon]

The way I heard it described on the news this morning, the proposal was to allow you to "cancel a phone like a credit card," which sounded to me like you could call up with the ESN and have it black listed and they would have to do it. Right now, the phone companies have a conflict of interest in that they get to sell you a knew phone, and sell another service plan to your old phone, assuming it stays in the country. They make probably at least as much, if not more, off of cell phone theft than the muggers who swipe it out of your hand on the Metro do.

I think there are other proposal that allow you to have the phone bricked via some technical control, but it seems like that is open to all kinds of abuse.

Re:Why are the corps against this?

[Joce640k]

Because it's a shitty law that has too many dangerous drawbacks

Huh? Why would they be against it if it means they get to sell more phones?

Re:Why are the corps against this?

[suutar]

if it succeeds in its stated goals, there will be less thefts, therefore they won't get as many replacing-stolen-phone sales. And there will be less phones out there, because the stolen ones will be bricks, so less phone plans get sold. They lose money on both ends. (Yeah, they think of "a reduction in possible future profits" as "a loss".)

Awesome!

[Jaysyn]

Anyone want to take bets on how soon someone figures out how to disable every cell phone in their office?

Very constitutional

[Valdrax]

The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.

Oh yes, they do, and wishful thinking doesn't make Congress's Article I powers go away. They have the right to regulate this under the Interstate Commerce Clause for several reasons:

1) The sale of the physical phones across state lines.
2) The sale of telecom services across state lines.
3) The fact that the phone is a radio transmission device whose signals cross state lines.
4) The fact that some phones are used to conduct business across state lines.
5) The presence of an interstate black market in stolen phones.

And of course, many of these also extend to international commerce. Some of these would be considered straightforward interstate and international commerce even under far more restrictive 19th century precedents.

Re:Very constitutional

[The Cat]

No. They don't. The Interstate Commerce clause does not give the federal government the authority to mandate the process of manufacturing a product. They can only regulate its sale and only if it crosses state lines.

1) The sale of the physical phones across state lines.

Which this proposal is not limited to.

2) The sale of telecom services across state lines.

Which this proposal isn't even related to.

3) The fact that the phone is a radio transmission device whose signals cross state lines.

Which has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

4) The fact that some phones are used to conduct business across state lines.

Then the business might be regulated under Article I, but that by no means gives the government blanket permission to alter the design and manufacture of the device.

5) The presence of an interstate black market in stolen phones.

Red herring.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.

Re:Very constitutional

[Valdrax]

No. They don't. The Interstate Commerce clause does not give the federal government the authority to mandate the process of manufacturing a product. They can only regulate its sale and only if it crosses state lines.

Yeah, find that in the Constitution. The actual text of the clause is "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

You'll note that there is no definition of "regulate" that limits them to only the powers you ascribe. It isn't defined at all, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide, like the vast majority of the Constitution, which was written for a common law system in which courts had long held the role of statutory interpretation. Reasonable readings of the word "regulate" includes far more than just a simple "thumbs up/down for all cell phones." It includes the ability to regulate the types of phones being sold, and that includes mandating certain features -- like requiring seat belts in cars.

For that matter, "Commerce" is not defined anywhere either. The Court has sensibly held that the ability to regulate commerce that crosses state lines must also include the ability to regulate (a) products made from components that cross state lines, (b) the methods of production of a product intended to be sold across state lines, and (c) instances of a product that does not cross state lines if the same product is also sold across state lines by the seller.

So, unless cell phone manufacturers intend to set up an entire supply chain and factory to make a phone which will never be sold outside the state in which it is completely and wholly manufactured from scratch, then interstate commerce applies to it under even a restricted reading. (And it certainly applies the majority of phones made in China and shipped across the country.)

Basically, what it comes down to is that, you don't seem to respect the Court's authority to define words in the Constitution that are ambiguous in nature when they don't come to a conclusion that you like. Who exactly does have the right to define "Commerce" and "regulate," then?

Re:Very constitutional

[XxtraLarGe]

Basically, what it comes down to is that, you don't seem to respect the Court's authority to define words in the Constitution that are ambiguous in nature when they don't come to a conclusion that you like. Who exactly does have the right to define "Commerce" and "regulate," then?

What it comes down to is that if words don't have meaning, then the entire point of having a Constitution to limit the power of government is meaningless. Also, the meaning of those words you ascribe as vague had very clear meanings when written, and were never intended to be used as they are today.

Re:Very constitutional

[suutar]

They've also decided that it covers production of stuff for personal use (specifically, growing corn in your back yard), because that affects whether you would buy it from a market which could include selling across state lines. So in practice, the ICC means they can regulate anything.

Re:Very constitutional

[Valdrax]

It is NOT solely up to the Supreme Court to make the kinds of decisions you claim they have the authority to make. Rights retained by the people (9th Amendment), by definition, are retained by the people, and it is up to the people -- not the government -- to decide what those rights are.

So, who gets to interpret that Amendment? Might it be the same people who interpret the rest of the Constitution? Why, it turns out that it is, especially since the question of the Supreme Court's power of review was settled during the lifetimes of the framers.

By the way, here's the full text of the 9th and 10th Amendments:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of Article I, defining the powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment explicitly does not trump those powers defined in the main body of the Constitution, because that is the document which defines the powers delegated to the United States. Both amendments are catch-all clauses for "things we didn't think of," and not a negation of the things they did think of.

Re:Very constitutional

[The Cat]

So, who gets to interpret that Amendment?

The states and the people. This theory that the Supreme Court somehow wields exclusive power to interpret the Constitution is a throwback to the oracles of ancient mysticism.

They have no such authority either implied or exclusive, and if there is any chance the Constitution can be interpreted that way, then it is time it is amended to clarify that loophole through which the federal government has gone on an extra-constitutional adventure that would make Frodo himself pause.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly does not trump those powers defined in the main body of the Constitution

But the ninth amendment does, and the combined weight of the ninth and tenth amendments draws a very clear dark line around the limited powers of a limited government and says in a very clear and unambiguous voice: "this far, and no further."

Re:Very constitutional

[Valdrax]

This theory that the Supreme Court somehow wields exclusive power to interpret the Constitution is a throwback to the oracles of ancient mysticism.

They have no such authority either implied or exclusive.

Well, there's the Court's appellate review power in Article III, Section 2. You know, in the Constitution itself. Then there's Marbury v. Madison (1803) which solidly lays out the reasons for judicial review and points out that the Constitution has absolutely no force if the courts are not bound by it and that being bound by it requires them to interpret it when laws are in conflict.

Also, you have to understand that the Constitution didn't appear out of a vacuum and set the starting point from which an entire legal system would sprout. The Constitution was written in context of an existing English common law legal system used across the 13 colonies and uses terms that would have been well understood in that context and did not need specific definition, as you would see in a modern contract or statute.

For example, what is "corruption of blood" in Article III, Section 3? If you aren't an 18th century lawyer, you probably would have no idea since it isn't defined. A much bigger definition problem: What exactly is "due process?" It's not explained anywhere in the Constitution itself and is defined solely through court decisions.

But the ninth amendment does, and the combined weight of the ninth and tenth amendments draws a very clear dark line around the limited powers of a limited government and says in a very clear and unambiguous voice: "this far, and no further."

Doubtful. It's highly unlikely that the framers who wrote Article I intended to immediately neuter all powers Congress had at the time of ratification and to toss everything out. The intention was simply to state the the Constitution didn't grant the government the power to take away all rights not covered by the Bill of Rights and that it was limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Of course, the problem here is that the ability to regulate interstate commerce is enumerated in the Constitution. You can't really get around that fact.

Re:Very constitutional

[The Cat]

Well, there's the Court's appellate review power in Article III, Section 2. You know, in the Constitution itself.

The Article III review power is not exclusive, and it is subject to numerous checks both within and outside the federal government.

Legally speaking, the ninth and tenth amendments are equal in weight to Article III.

Marbury vs. Madison's primary effect was to limit the government's ability to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Their review power was clarified by the case, not established by it.

It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court routinely (and illegally) abdicates their original jurisdiction (as recently as 2011, for example in National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius), while exercising appellate jurisdiction in cases where they have none (Arizona v. United States)

You'll find that jurisdiction clearly spelled out in Article III Section 2. You know, in the Constitution itself.

It's highly unlikely that the framers who wrote Article I intended to immediately neuter all powers Congress had at the time of ratification and to toss everything out.

That may be true. It's also highly unlikely that the framers went to so much trouble to enumerate Congress' powers and then granted them unlimited power in the Commerce Clause.

Re:Why are the Telcos against this?

[davecb]

They need a motivation to honour a customer's request to be placed on the list. Right now, they're in a conflict of interest.

Politicians Creating Mischief

[hackus]

This has nothing to do with Theft.

I am glad most people on this forum understand what it is really about.

Although this is just another banker instigated piece of mischief, what you should be really paying attention to is the bankers, now knowing they have no way to destroy Syria and Iran, are now going after Russia.

Russia, is not a country full of old 1960's military grade hardware like Iran, Syria and Iraq.

They have Nukes.

These bankers try to do to Syria, Iraq, Libya thing in Russia, guys we are going to wake up and cities are going to be missing.

Re:Simpler solution

[maharvey]

I don't want a phone, I want a small but working computer with 24/7/anywhere connectivity. The only way I can get that at present is with a smartphone. (Well, if I want it pocket-sized anyway.) I hate phones and I hate phone companies, but there are no good alternatives.

Overestimating the danger?

[sjbe]

This is a piece of legislation dangerous to our freedom. During peaceful demonstrations cellphones could be id'ed can be gathered and be deactivated at will.

And what exactly is to prevent said people from using someone else's phone? Furthermore people managed to protest successfully long before cell phones existed. Cell phones are helpful but hardly vital.

If we are ever in a war in the mainland, an invading army could deactivate our cellphones, thereby compromising our infrastructure.

I think you are grossly underestimating the difficulty of actually doing that. An invading army could simply bomb the cell towers and accomplish substantially the same goal if we're going to talk about unlikely hypothetical situations. That said, exactly what army are you worried about given the size and strength of the US military? Do you think anyone really wants to tangle with the USA in an actual combat operation? Add in the number of citizens that own firearms, the size of the country, physical geography and I can't think of any country less likely to be invaded. You think Canada or Mexico is going to suddenly get all uppity?

A better piece of legislation would be to require a 3-day delay and used cellphones to be checked against a national database to check for theft.

Why is this suddenly sounding like a gun control argument?

Re:Just wait until things go wrong

[maharvey]

Users probably won't have that ability. Also I have no doubt that the lawmakers will put a backdoor in for law enforcement to un-brick it.

Re:You can't cure Stupid

[bobbied]

If the system can only be activated by the "consumer", then why is it needed? This can already be accomplished.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4065/text

You got that right. Folks, READ THE BILL! It doesn't really solve ANYTHING that setting an unlock pin on your phone doesn't already do now. In short, I see only ONE requirement imposed by this bill that isn't already addressed by current phones, and even that one is arguable. Set an unlock PIN and you've made your phone and that data on it inaccessible, you cannot use it on any carrier.

If I can read the proposed law this way, you can bet carriers will too. I know what the *intent* is, but the bill doesn't actually do that.

Instead of wiping

[alta]

How about, instead of wiping it, it just automatically sends all outbound calls to the carrier's customer service number for stolen phones?

Where are stories of maliciously erased iPhones?

[swb]

This has been an iPhone/iPad feature for a while, yet I don't recall hearing a lot of stories about maliciously erased iPhones.

There seems to be a lot of assumptions that phones will be targeted, but given that hasn't happened, why assume some new system would fall victim to this?

Re:How long before thieves discover Faraday Cages?

[mindcandy]

You can already buy them .. police have been using them in the form of evidence bags for phones for a while now.
For example .. this : http://www.paraben.com/strongh...

Re:Simpler solution

[Joce640k]

I am always amazed how much people are willing to spend on a hand held device for making roaming phone calls.

I've never paid for a smart phone in my life* and I'm on my third one now. The latest one is Android 4.2 with 5" screen, dual core CPU, 5MP camera. Not an iPhone, I know, but a pretty decent phone.

[*] Unless you count signing up for a $10-a-month plan with unlimited-talk and unlimited data as "paying" for a phone...

I just piggy-back the phone account on top of my $25-a-month fiber optic Internet connection (200Mbit up/down) and they usually give me a new phone to sweeten the deal.

How about law enforcement retrieves them

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

There are many aps that show where your phone is located. Cops could go retrieve your phone for you. I bet they even find more criminal activities nearby. Win win.

Re:How about law enforcement retrieves them

[dkf]

You mean cops go out and actually do work?! BAHAHAHA. They're too busy being bullies and thugs. Property theft is left to insurance companies.

Doesn't that depend on whether you're a donut shop employee?

Re:Where are stories of maliciously erased iPhones

[Mark4ST]

THIS. Apple has their Activation Lock system (AKA Find My iPhone) already, and I think this law is asking for something like that-- not a remote bricking system that can be activated by just anyone. Unauthorized bricking can only be done if someone guesses the person's Apple ID password, which is exactly as easy as it sounds. Apple's Activation Lock makes in more difficult to resell Apple phones, whether they be legit (like a phone you returned to the store) or stolen. More phones' system boards end up in the waste stream. (The other parts are usable)

Redundant

[Patent Lover]

Cerberus and Lookout for Android pretty much do this already. I believe Apple has the same thing in iCloud. Verizon will not activate a phone if it's been reported stolen.

So let me get this straight

[roc97007]

So let me get this straight. The federal government is concerned enough about the theft of consumer personal electronics, that they want a mandated kill switch installed in each device.

So as far as I remember, the feds want kill switches in three basic areas -- cell phones, cars, and the internet. Does anyone see a pattern here?

And the feeblest excuse by far is the one justifying a cell phone kill switch. Not a tablet kill switch (because they already have that functionality with an internet kill switch, perhaps) but very specifically a cell phone kill switch for the fairly feeble justification of "reducing theft", something it's hard for me to believe the federal government has any concern about.

Just curious, is anyone buying this?

Australia uses IMEI blocking

[Brulath]

Smart phone theft doesn't seem to be much of a thing in Australia (at least where I live), possibly because any phone reported stolen has its IMEI blocked from accessing any of our telecommunications providers until the owner reports it as returned (if this page is to be believed, it reduced theft by 25% over the past seven years, which is impressive given the explosive growth of mobile phones in that time). Sure, it's not perfect, because some phones do allow you to change the IMEI, it doesn't brick the device, and the device can still be disassembled for parts (though I assume it's a little more challenging to sell the parts without identifying their origins here), but it seems to be a sufficient deterrent to prevent casual theft.

It's actually super interesting to see the responses other people have posted, presumably Americans, which assume either that this type of law is fundamentally unacceptable or that their government will use it to silence dissent in the event of an uprising (which seems highly improbable, and if it did occur your cell networks would likely be shut down anyway so the phone is irrelevant). That doesn't seem to be something that people consider likely to occur with the cell blocking here - I assume, but cannot verify, that most people here find the law useful - so it's an interesting division of attitude.

Called it last year when the CA bill came about

[rsborg]

1. Take some issue and blow it out of proportion
2. Get a pet legislator (preferably in an easily corruptible state) to introduce legislation mandating some feature or restriction
3. Introduce similar bills in the Federal space to "harmonize" the legal framework
5. ...
4. Suppression capabilities fully operational.

Source: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Kill Bill 2

[Tough Love]

Get your popcorn.

Re:Paranoid Much?

[roc97007]

An important point to consider: These things are bad no matter what political party does them. It's not something we can be happy about if "our guys" have it, and concerned if "the other guys" have it. (Actually, I'm trying to think of an attack on our liberties that doesn't follow that rule...)