Slashdot Mirror


California Passes Law Mandating Smartphone Kill Switch

alphadogg (971356) writes "Smartphones sold in California will soon be required to have a kill switch that lets users remotely lock them and wipe them of data in the event they are lost or stolen. The demand is the result of a new law, put into effect on Monday, that applies to phones manufactured after July 1, 2015, and sold in the state. While its legal reach does not extend beyond the state's borders, the inefficiency of producing phones solely for California means the kill switch is expected to be adopted by phone makers on handsets sold across the U.S. and around the world."

11 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. The worrisome part by timrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article:

    Police can also use the tool, but only under the conditions of the existing section 7908 of the California Public Utilities Code. That gives police the ability to cut off phone service in certain situations and typically requires a court order, except in an emergency that poses “immediate danger of death or great bodily injury.”

    1. Re:The worrisome part by edibobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... and the federal government will use the tool whenever they darn well please.

    2. Re:The worrisome part by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The language in the law matters because it mandates that carriers must make it technically possible for law enforcement to use the killswitch. Otherwise, it could have been implemented in such a way that only the owner could do it (e.g. by requiring a user-set access code).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:The worrisome part by qbast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you live in a world where almost every single person accused of a crime in US gets a trial by jury of their peers? What colour is sky in your world? Because here, in real world jury trial is a very rare thing - 97% prosecutions end with plea bargain ( http://www.thecrimereport.org/... ) . This is a real problem, because plea bargain has nothing to do with justice.

    4. Re:The worrisome part by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Choosing not to go to trial is very different than never being offered one.

      Except that the "offer" is accept a plea bargain and go to prison for five years, or go to trial and risk going to prison for twenty years. A trial by jury should be a right of every citizen. You should not have to spend your life in prison just for asserting that right.

      Many of the people exonerated and freed by the Innocence Project had plead guilty, to avoid a harsher sentence, despite being innocent of the crime.

  2. Worldwide reach by countach · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An interesting case of how one US state could change worldwide products.

  3. Bets on first use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many want to take up a bet when the next 'troublesome' protest gets targeted with the kill switch... in the name of public safety, of course....

  4. Unintended consequences ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I predict it will be less than a year before law enforcement decides to shut down all cell phones of people they disagree with (like protesters).

    I predict it will be less than a year before hackers figure out how to brick or otherwise damage cell phones.

    Because, as usual, when you try to pass a legal solution to a technical problem, you will introduce new technical problems, and if law enforcement can abuse something they will.

    This will be misused, it's only a matter of time. And, since manufacturers will decide to make the phone the same for everywhere, we're all fucked because of a decision in California. And I don't trust that the carriers won't brick a phone you own if your bill is late, instead of just cancelling your service they'll kill your phone.

    Everyone around the world will now have a phone which has a loop-hole allowing law enforcement, government, and private industry to brick it. Add to that the likely back doors for law enforcement to look into your phone, and suddenly your phone is controlled by entities which aren't you.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Tornadoes by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

    They both do. How else do you account for all the rotational energy which spawns tornadoes in the middle of the country?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  6. Re:How long will it be before script kiddies by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many iPhones and Android devices are currently being remotely wiped? I ask because both have the feature to do so currently.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  7. Why hasn't it happened already? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    iPhones have had the ability to be remote wiped for a long time. Yet I have not heard of a pandemic of hacker-led mass bricking of iPhones. Dirty hipsters and their iPhones have been at the center of a lot of protests yet we haven't heard of mass iPhone shutdowns by the police in response to demonstrations.

    I think government/law enforcement already have the powers they physically need to fuck with cell phones. Between Stingray devices and the ability to present national security letters to carriers or service providers, if they wanted to they could get IMEIs blacklisted or get someone like Apple to brick a specific phone.

    I think this just finally cuts off the ability of the cell carriers to encourage and profit from theft by activating stolen phones. Maybe if we treated AT&T stores like pawn shops and told them it was loss of their licenses and jail time for trafficking in stolen property if they activated stolen phones the kill switches wouldn't be necessary, but because corporate profits and lobbying we don't.