Does the bill specifically say police may use the kill switch? If so, what penalties are prescribed if they do?
I can't imagine that if a law enforcement agency called, say Verizon, and said kill the phone with number 555-555-1234, that Verizon would say no to them.
I'm repeating myself from a previous comment, but...
There are already rules as to what the police can and cannot do when seizing a phone... see the recent Supreme Court case. There don't appear to be any rules as to when/how/if police can use the "kill switch" and it's not defined as to how much or how little they need to know about you to have it bricked. Do they only need a phone number? Something else? Who knows, the law doesn't say. It leaves implementation totally up to the carriers and manufacturers. And they would *never* mess things up would they?
Good point about cell towers and Stringray, they're definately bigger concerns for the time being. We'll have to see how this law is actually implemented.
There are already rules as to what the police can and cannot do when seizing a phone... see the recent Supreme Court case. There appear to be no rules as to when/how/if they can use the "kill switch".
I totally agree about script kiddies... as I said in one of my earlier posts on this thread, that's the bigger concern I have.
Good point, but there are rules in place for handling evidence seized by police, plus the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding searching cell phones. There appear to be no rules as to how/when/if police may use the "kill switch".
Difficult to prove, particularly is it's a single person who's phone and video is wiped. If it's a large enough group, of course, you get into the Streisand effort as the OP said.
If they data isn't wiped, it's still present in the flash and it can be recovered one way or another. Why wouldn't they protect against both, phone reuse and data theft? If this law prevents you from remote wiping your data, or leaves you to choose between wiping the data or preventing reuse, it's even stupider than I thought.
Doesn't the kill switch also wipe the phone? The existing Android Device Manager and whatever Apple's version is called wipe the phone remotely, to protect personal information from the thief.
The beat cop doesn't need a "kill switch", he just has to call the station and they can do it or contact whoever does it, quick enough.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with hackers or script kiddies bricking thousands of phones for lol's, than I am about hypothetical law enforcement abuse of it, but it remains a possibility.
Your Streisand effect theory works for widespeard bricking, or say a large protestors at a large protest. But it doesn't work on the small scale. Imagine if some poor schumck recorded video on his smartphone of that cop in Ferguson shooting that kid. They'd brick the phone immediately, eliminating the video, and only leaving the schumck's word that he had the video.
I think he's saying use Tor to avoid being caught in the first place. Of course there's nothing stopping Rightscorp from just accusing people at random, since there's absolutely no recourse for the falsely accused but to pay up or lose your Internet connection.
I don't really care which way they go. My point was they haven't decided anything, but in typical/. fashion, the summary makes it sound like it's happening.
As for politians making decisions on technology, that's usually a bad idea.
One politician said it failed... all other reports of the project (even very recently) have said it's been a success. The actual article says they are convening a panel of experts to consider whether to go back to Microsoft, so despite the misleading summary here, nothing has been decided.
Yep... if they had been forthright about what they were buying and why in the first place, there likely wouldn't be any controversy here. The controversy is that they lied about it.
The same applies to Cellphones. And yet Apple takes about 90% of the profits.
Selling at a loss and making up for it in volume does not seem to have worked for all the other phone manufacturers. And Apple is selling at a premium.
Tell that to Samsung... they're doing just fine. And LG, and Motorola, and Lenovo, etc... Only HTC is hurting, and even they just turned a profit for the first time in awhile.
I agree... we don't really know what his demeanor was. If he was loud, abusive, or threatening, he should have been kicked off the flight for that, not for a tweet about rude service. If he stayed calm and complied with the airline employees' instructions, then only the gate agent was in the wrong.
Nowhere in TFA did it say he had a "temper tantrum" nor did it say he yelled at the agent. True it only tells one side of the story, but you're applying your own imagination as to how things really went down.
And the slashdot summary states the children were age 6 and 9.
Southwest allows families with children aged 4 or under to board between the 'A' and 'B' groups, or during the 'A' group if the parent is in the 'A' group.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I tracked down the actual bill text:
SB 962
The bill says absolutely nothing about how the kill actually happens and who can do it. The EFF expressed that exact concern here:
EFF letter opposing SB 962
I meant "may not" in the first question.
Does the bill specifically say police may use the kill switch? If so, what penalties are prescribed if they do?
I can't imagine that if a law enforcement agency called, say Verizon, and said kill the phone with number 555-555-1234, that Verizon would say no to them.
I'm repeating myself from a previous comment, but...
There are already rules as to what the police can and cannot do when seizing a phone... see the recent Supreme Court case.
There don't appear to be any rules as to when/how/if police can use the "kill switch" and it's not defined as to how much or how little they need to know about you to have it bricked. Do they only need a phone number? Something else? Who knows, the law doesn't say. It leaves implementation totally up to the carriers and manufacturers. And they would *never* mess things up would they?
Good point about cell towers and Stringray, they're definately bigger concerns for the time being. We'll have to see how this law is actually implemented.
There are already rules as to what the police can and cannot do when seizing a phone... see the recent Supreme Court case. There appear to be no rules as to when/how/if they can use the "kill switch".
I totally agree about script kiddies... as I said in one of my earlier posts on this thread, that's the bigger concern I have.
Phones with SD card slots are a dying breed, like it or not.
Good point, but there are rules in place for handling evidence seized by police, plus the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding searching cell phones. There appear to be no rules as to how/when/if police may use the "kill switch".
Difficult to prove, particularly is it's a single person who's phone and video is wiped. If it's a large enough group, of course, you get into the Streisand effort as the OP said.
If they data isn't wiped, it's still present in the flash and it can be recovered one way or another. Why wouldn't they protect against both, phone reuse and data theft? If this law prevents you from remote wiping your data, or leaves you to choose between wiping the data or preventing reuse, it's even stupider than I thought.
Doesn't the kill switch also wipe the phone? The existing Android Device Manager and whatever Apple's version is called wipe the phone remotely, to protect personal information from the thief.
The beat cop doesn't need a "kill switch", he just has to call the station and they can do it or contact whoever does it, quick enough.
Frankly, I'm more concerned with hackers or script kiddies bricking thousands of phones for lol's, than I am about hypothetical law enforcement abuse of it, but it remains a possibility.
Your Streisand effect theory works for widespeard bricking, or say a large protestors at a large protest. But it doesn't work on the small scale. Imagine if some poor schumck recorded video on his smartphone of that cop in Ferguson shooting that kid. They'd brick the phone immediately, eliminating the video, and only leaving the schumck's word that he had the video.
Extortion laws ought to apply here as well.
As the article states, it's very rarely only $20... they're charging $20 per song. And yes, they expect you to admit guilt along with the payment.
I think he's saying use Tor to avoid being caught in the first place. Of course there's nothing stopping Rightscorp from just accusing people at random, since there's absolutely no recourse for the falsely accused but to pay up or lose your Internet connection.
I don't really care which way they go. My point was they haven't decided anything, but in typical /. fashion, the summary makes it sound like it's happening.
As for politians making decisions on technology, that's usually a bad idea.
One politician said it failed... all other reports of the project (even very recently) have said it's been a success. The actual article says they are convening a panel of experts to consider whether to go back to Microsoft, so despite the misleading summary here, nothing has been decided.
The actual source article says they are *considering* going back to Microsoft, while the title and summary here imply its a foregone conclusion.
Yep... if they had been forthright about what they were buying and why in the first place, there likely wouldn't be any controversy here. The controversy is that they lied about it.
The same applies to Cellphones.
And yet Apple takes about 90% of the profits.
Selling at a loss and making up for it in volume does not seem to have worked for all the other phone manufacturers. And Apple is selling at a premium.
Tell that to Samsung... they're doing just fine. And LG, and Motorola, and Lenovo, etc... Only HTC is hurting, and even they just turned a profit for the first time in awhile.
I agree... we don't really know what his demeanor was. If he was loud, abusive, or threatening, he should have been kicked off the flight for that, not for a tweet about rude service. If he stayed calm and complied with the airline employees' instructions, then only the gate agent was in the wrong.
Nowhere in TFA did it say he had a "temper tantrum" nor did it say he yelled at the agent. True it only tells one side of the story, but you're applying your own imagination as to how things really went down.
And the slashdot summary states the children were age 6 and 9.
Southwest allows families with children aged 4 or under to board between the 'A' and 'B' groups, or during the 'A' group if the parent is in the 'A' group.
http://www.southwest.com/html/...
They're aren't rude and irrational people in the 3rd world?
Calling someone "rude" is neither intimidating nor harassment.
Their policy says it extends to children aged 4 and under, his kids are older than 4.