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."

[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."

[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."

[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.

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.

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.

Unconstitutional

[The Cat]

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.