
California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests - conorgil145
https://cdt.org/blog/california-kill-switch-bill-could-be-used-to-disrupt-protests/
======
lemonlyman87
Hi all; original author of this blog post, happy to see it getting so much
feedback. I think it's important to highlight the risks in and out of state:

The bill says that police CAN use this mandatory kill switch, but must comply
with Public Utility Code Section 7908 in doing so; that law generally requires
police to get a warrant before shutting down cell service, but has an
"emergency" exception where court approval is not required. I worry police
could abuse this, using risk of violence as a pretense to shut down a protest
as CA police did during the BART subway shutdown in 2011.

A more broad risk is that because CA is such a large market,
manufacturers/providers will likely deploy this mandatory kill switch
nationally, so it could end up being used in other states (such as during
protests in Ferguson, Missouri)that may have absolutely no restrictions on
government use of a kill switch.

Unfortunately the bill is very far along so there is not much left that can be
done, but I would recommend discussing the issue on social media, and, as
@javajosh suggests, contacting Governor Brown's office to express concerns and
recommend a veto. The bill was passed on August 12 so he must sign or veto it
by August 24.

~~~
anigbrowl
Yes, the bill has an emergency exception, but you omitted to mention that it
_still_ requires police to go to court afterwards (within 6 hours, or with
additional submissions to justify the delay if that is not possible) to make a
showing of why a communications interruption was necessary, and requires the
court to balance police claims with First Amendment freedoms, strictly
limiting the scope of acceptable reasons and requiring the purpose of the
interruption be as narrowly tailored as possibly.

I don't understand why you left all this out of the original story.

~~~
lemonlyman87
Because prior judicial approval is the key check to preventing government
abuse; if police want to shut down a protest a judge potentially telling them
they went too far 6 hours later is not going to help.

~~~
anigbrowl
And they're supposed to get prior judicial approval. It's only acceptable to
file retroactively in cases where there is an _imminent_ risk of death or
great bodily harm, such as a hostage or barricade situation or other 'extreme
emergency situation.'

You're assuming the worst possible outcome (police overreach, court apathy)
and using that as a justification to omit any mention of the copious rules
limiting official use of this power. I find it rather ironic that you decided
to leave your readers poorly informed about this, not least because it would
put them at a disadvantage in any argument with a supporter of the bill.

~~~
kabdib
The problem is that "imminent risk" tends to creep downward over time, to the
point that it becomes "imminent risk that a citizen unit will improperly fail
to bow and scrape."

If you're going to shut off several thousand cell phones, you can bloody well
get a judge out of bed for that.

~~~
anigbrowl
Perhaps, but I don't think it's fair to judge this bill on how legislators
might amend it in future, or we'll never pass any laws at all.

~~~
CodeDiver
Laws have unintended consequences. It's good to slow down the creation of laws
and weigh tradeoffs. Laws are intended to be solutions. But the cure may prove
worse than the disease.

------
scelerat
There are fundamental freedoms the government cannot and should not be able to
subvert. Communicating with others, via any means necessary is one of them.

I feel I am politically very far away from many guns rights activists, and am
wary of the practical outcomes of widespread weapon ownership, but at the same
time I believe 2nd Amendment advocates are completely right to be wary of
government's ability to strip individual power to protect and disrupt.

~~~
michaelfeathers
If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate
First Amendment challenge.

One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against
jamming of any sort of radio signal.

~~~
danudey
This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio
in it. There's no FCC issue here.

~~~
michaelfeathers
I know. My point was that that regulation protected us in absence of having a
kill switch on phones.

------
rsync
Here are things we know, and that we have known since the "kill switch" was
first proposed:

1\. Criminals/thieves will be able to circumvent/disable the kill switch,
trivially, within weeks (days ?) of the introduction. Stolen phones will still
have value, and theft will continue. Bank on it.

2\. The kill switch will be used against legitimate users.

3\. Phone manufacturers, who were against the kill switch, will find a hidden
value in tying the kill switch to rooting, and using kill switch laws to
impede rooting activities. If it's illegal to de-kill-switch, but legal to
root, all you need to do is make it impossible to root with the kill switch in
place. Presto!

~~~
DSMan195276
One, not all criminals who steal phones know anything about using a phone, and
unless there's a guarantee that the kill switch is actually disabled nobodies
going to take that chance of buying it off of you. It also makes the process
more time consuming and error-prone, and seeing as the kill-switch is
something someone can do right after they realize their phone is stolen, it'd
be on a limited time basis. It makes the entire thing less worth it.

Two, it says _RIGHT IN THE BILL_ that the phones are _required_ to have an
opt-out and disable feature, and they have to prompt the user to enable or
disable when the phone is first setup, with the option to enable or disable at
any later time.

Instead of spreading FUD, read the actual bill.

------
anigbrowl
This is a rather irresponsible article. The bill as passed by the CA
legislature [1] addresses this possibility. In section 2, Section 22761(e) of
the code limits the scope of law enforcement use in accordance with section
7908 of the Public Utilities Code [2], which prohibits interruption of
communication by law enforcement in anything other than a hostage or barricade
situation, ie an ongoing standoff between police and criminals or another
situation involving immediate danger of death or great harm (but requiring
court submissions within 6 hours). Any other situation, including one where
public safety is concerned (such as a protest) requires a warrant to be
obtained in advance, subject to quite stringent conditions designed to limit
the scope of the communications interruption. You should read it in full to
understand all provisions, rather than relying on this summary.

Now, this set of rules is not perfect and could conceivably be abused by
police or some other entity. But the cdt.org story ignores these rules
completely and leaves readers with impression that legislators wither haven't
thought about it or don't care. In reality the law is designed to prevent
exactly this kind of abuse.

1\.
[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB962)

2\. [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=puc&gr...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=07001-08000&file=7901-7912)

~~~
discardorama
You're not considering the second-order effects. Sure, the law in Cali says
police must do X, Y and Z before killing the phones. But the phones already
have the kill switch; and, because of convenience, all phones sold in the
country will have this kill switch. Now what's to prevent the police in, say,
Ferguson MO to just nuke everyone's phones in a region? California law doesn't
apply in MO, and the police there will be free to do whatever they want with
this switch.

~~~
DSMan195276
Counter-argument: If what you're saying is really how the law works, then why
is CA attempting to pass this at all? By your logic, if they _don 't_ pass it
then they can use it all they want, but if they _do_ pass it then there are
restrictions.

The entire reason for attempting to pass a law like this is because it's
assumed it would be illegal for the police to do it without a law passed
specifically saying they're allowed to (Like everything else). If the police
in MO did this, they'd have tons of lawsuits against them.

~~~
talmand
The argument is that they would have to pass the law first to compel the
manufacturers to implement the switch in every phone. Then any other agency
outside that law's jurisdiction can take advantage of the presence of the
switch with little oversight.

It would still likely result in lawsuits anywhere it was used regardless of
the law.

~~~
anigbrowl
That doesn't explain why the bill includes all the restrictions on government,
though. If the aim was to empower government, they could simply have been
omitted.

~~~
talmand
I haven't seen anyone claim the bill empowers the government implementing the
law beyond what it states.

The bill includes restrictions on the government at the level that falls
within the jurisdiction of the law. The argument is what about jurisdictions
that have no such law nor restrictions and take advantage of the existing
hardware feature?

If we're talking Federal law then what you say makes sense, but as far as I
know this is about a state law.

------
plainOldText
Surrounding ourselves with devices we cannot trust can be detrimental to us,
especially if they are being backdoored, contain malware or are used against
us. I'm starting to realize the only solution is open source hardware +
software. There might be no other way. How else could we trust a device if we
cannot inspect it?

~~~
programmarchy
Check out [http://www.lowrisc.org](http://www.lowrisc.org)

"lowRISC is producing fully open hardware systems. From the processor core to
the development board, our goal is to create a completely open computing eco-
system."

------
colordrops
"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests"

As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did
preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?

~~~
lemonlyman87
As a critic of the bill, I'll readily concede that smartphone theft is a major
problem. It's one of the most prominant crimes in urban areas, costs billions
of dollars a year, and has in several occassions caused violence.

Still, it doesn't justify a mandatory kill switch (there are a large number of
free apps you can download), and it certainly doesn't justify letting police
use kill switches that are installed.

~~~
discardorama
This theft could be eliminated __today __: let there be a shared registry of
stolen IMEI codes. Problem solved.

~~~
krasin
Many devices allow changing IMEI codes. See
[https://www.google.com/search?q=imei+code+change](https://www.google.com/search?q=imei+code+change)

~~~
kazinator
Furthermore, _not allowing_ an identifier such as IMEI to be changed is a
potential privacy problem!

------
wyager
"Could"? I give it 5 years.

How do people see this as a good idea? There are already voluntary methods for
this, so there is literally no good justification for forcing a state-
controlled version on everyone.

~~~
dllthomas
The advantage to mandatory and default-to-on is that it will be _prevalent_
and will therefore decrease the expected value of mugging someone for their
phone. That is a legitimate benefit, and is not worth nothing. I'm still not
happy about the trade-off, if the disable doesn't depend on an owner-
controlled code or similar.

~~~
chenelson
Fifteen years ago people were stealing mock-ups and pretending they had cell
phones. I'm not sure those that commit felonies subscribe to the same value
chain that you do.

Besides, assuming the device doesn't self-destruct Mission Impossible style,
at worst it'll still be worth parts to someone. So there will be many more
parts available--and possibly more victims to make up the difference (assuming
muggers are working for something).

~~~
dllthomas
You can't possibly believe those are reasonable points.

~~~
chenelson
What--that trying to stop an opportunistic crime with white market reason is
idiotic?

~~~
dllthomas
Inasmuch as that is even coherent, yes.

~~~
chenelson
Assumption: A Kill Switch will render a $500 device worthless, and thus
eliminate the incentive for theft.

So, a couple of theft cases to frame: 1\. People steal fake phones (shiny
objects) that have NEVER worked, ie aesthetic value only. 2\. Parts, such as
replacement screens, are in great demand, and there are small urban retailers
today that enjoy every opportunity to lower their costs, ie $5-50.

Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested for robbery tested
positive for a controlled substance. Does an addict have Free Will? Delayed
gratification? What's a $100/day habit like? What is an addict willing to do
for a Klondike Bar? (Answer: Anything.)

~~~
dllthomas
_" Assumption: A Kill Switch will render a $500 device worthless, and thus
eliminate the incentive for theft."_

That is clearly wrong, but it is not the assumption. The "assumption" (and not
a very big one) is that a kill switch will substantially _reduce_ the value of
the device, which will _reduce_ the incentive for theft. And that's almost
certainly the case.

 _" Following 1991 crime statistics, over 2/3 of those arrested for robbery
tested positive for a controlled substance."_

What percentage of the population at large would "test positive for a
controlled substance"? Particularly in the demographics in question (young and
risk-taking)? That's not a terribly meaningful figure. _Some_ portion of these
crimes doubtless are drug related, some portion of those crimes would likely
still occur. So? If we can get rid of some other crimes that's still a boon
(and may, as I've said, nonetheless not be worth the trade-offs).

 _" Does an addict have Free Will?"_

In a meaningful sense, less than the rest of us, but that doesn't mean they're
going to react the same regardless of circumstances. If robbery is _working
less well to get them their fix_ then it certainly seems like they might be
less likely to pick robbery next time. For those that _do_ respond by engaging
in more robberies to pay for a fixed cost habit, they are more likely to get
caught as they are forced to attempt more difficult opportunities and leave
more of a pattern.

Flip it around. Say phones were cheap, and someone was proposing something to
artificially make them more valuable to criminals. Would you think that likely
to make the number of robberies go down, up, or not move?

~~~
chenelson
Robbery has been trending down since the 90s. What was being stolen before the
proliferation of cell tech during the 2000s? I think it's clear cellular
phones do not cause theft. Though, I do think those robbed, are robbed of all
of their valuables. I also think it's clear that those robbed were targeted,
and a valuable phone suggests other valuables. I also am aware of existing
parts markets including eBay and traditional retail. Will this Kill Switch
render a device worth less than its weight in copper? Probably not. "I want
your wallet, watch, and such--keep the phone."

I think if we were actually serious about victims, instead of using that
warrant for a Kill Switch, we'd use it to query the networks and track the
breadcrumbs; it's even richer than metadata sourced from billing systems. (It
works for finding missing hikers.) And I'm pretty sure existing law covers
this already.

~~~
dllthomas
People don't _carry_ much of value any more except their electronics. Before
the 90s, people carried more cash, more regularly.

 _" I think if we were actually serious about victims, instead of using that
warrant for a Kill Switch, we'd use it to query the networks and track the
breadcrumbs"_

I don't know that I'd object to that. I'd still demand an owner-provided code.
Note that I've never been saying "this system is amazing and exactly what we
want", I've been saying "there is a legitimate up-side" \- which I stand by,
and which the existence of better alternatives don't undermine.

~~~
chenelson
If something is better than nothing, instead of expending capital on owner-
supplied code infrastructure, why not pay robbers not to rob? That way,
there's greater chance the owner is alive to use their device. (I'm thinking
more control for you.)

And people carry much of value besides electronics today. You can use NYC
seizure records and ATMs as proxies.

~~~
dllthomas
_" If something is better than nothing"_

Of course something is better than nothing in the one dimension where it's
something rather than nothing. I've never been arguing that this is the best
solution or even a desirable solution. I've been stating (repeatedly) that
there's a dimension (that doesn't involve being recipient of the contracts or
similar) along which it's a positive thing. This was in answer to the strong
statement, _" How do people see this as a good idea? There are already
voluntary methods for this, so there is literally no good justification for
forcing a state-controlled version on everyone."_

 _" why not pay robbers not to rob?"_

Depends what you mean. A benefit solely for people who would otherwise rob
seems obviously impractical - how do you verify that 1) they would rob absent
the money, and 2) they refrain from robbing after you've given the money?
Something broader like a Basic Income is actually something I favor, though
I'm not certain that it will have a tremendous value in reducing robbery
(though that's certainly conceivable).

 _" And people carry much of value besides electronics today. You can use NYC
seizure records and ATMs as proxies."_

You'll have to expand on this. Note that my argument was not "no one _ever_
carries anything of significant value", but that the _typical_ (black market)
value of what's carried by even wealthy individuals has fallen if you exclude
electronics.

~~~
chenelson
Is nothing finite, infinite, undefined, or? What you're calling "nothing" is
actually everything not in your artificial construction.

If we unpack "nothing" further, we'll find any number of 'somethings' that are
worse than what you're attempting to measure and affect. That's what we call
Unintended Consequences, and not simply tautology or Begging the Question.

It is far from clear that this measure will have any significant affect on
crimes such as robbery. And if we begin to unpack the "something" we quickly
get to questions like, "Is it really a good idea to design a method for
centrally destroying critical communication infrastructure?"

Following your logic, shouldn't we expect more robberies to make up for lost
revenue?

If you're still in search of "cause", I'd suggest that the rate of robbery is
inversely proportional to the typical waist size over time, i.e. we're
wealthier now than we were.

~~~
dllthomas
This has gotten even more inane. You ignore things I've said, attribute to me
things I haven't, and generally aren't making a lot of sense. I'm done with
this thread.

------
lern_too_spel
This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and
likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they
can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or
block specific subscribers at the telco?

Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to
identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which point there
are better ways to handle the situation.

~~~
coldtea
> _Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when
> the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt
> phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific
> subscribers at the telco?_

Because they can demand that power and have it offered to them?

~~~
lern_too_spel
Read the second half of the sentence you quoted.

~~~
coldtea
What makes you think I didn't read it?

That was exactly my point in answering it: the fact that there is another,
already existing, way to effect the same thing, doesn't negate the fact that
police often demands whatever they can get away with, even if its superfluous.

It's just another capability to block phones that they can have, and if they
can have it without needing to even ask a telco to do it for them, even the
better.

------
kabdib
Won't kill non-phone devices. Those aren't as numerous, and maybe not as real-
time, but they're very difficult to shut down.

~~~
lukifer
The problem is, how many people actually carry non-phone devices? There are a
small handful of folks who carry around SLRs or iPod with cameras, but not
many. (Since Google glass is paired with a phone, I'm guessing it would be
bricked as well.)

I'm also curious if "Airplane Mode" defends against shutdown. While common
sense says it should, it's an easy loophole for the thieves who are
(ostensibly) the purpose of the shutdown switch.

~~~
mikeash
The resale value of a phone that can never be taken out of Airplane Mode is
going to be pretty bad, especially if it's "will instantly brick when you
touch the setting", so it doesn't seem like much of a loophole for the anti-
theft goal.

~~~
chenelson
The loophole is handset exchange at the local retailer.

~~~
mikeash
Wouldn't they check the phone against the list of stolen phones, or at least
make sure the thing works as a phone, before accepting it?

~~~
chenelson
Returned devices often do not work--that's why they're being exchanged.

Also, just on the carrier's corporate retail side (small in comparison), we're
talking about over 2,500 locations, over 25,000 reps, and over 500,000 new
monthly adds and upgrades. Serialization is very expensive and does not
eliminate the tricky human.

Also, even a disabled device is still worth parts.

~~~
mikeash
I don't think I understand what you're proposing.

Before, I thought "handset exchange" would be something where you bring in an
old phone to get credit towards buying a new one. Like trading in a car. And
like trading in a car, they'll want to make sure the old phone is actually
worth something before they buy it from you.

Now... you're proposing a warranty exchange? Surely they check to make sure
the device is actually eligible for the warranty (i.e. that you bought it, and
within a certain timeframe) before they accept it?

Or is it something else entirely?

The fact that it would be worth the value of the parts is a good one, but not
related to the question of whether Airplane Mode makes for a loophole.

~~~
chenelson
Within 14 days, anyone can cancel or exchange.

So, here's an overly complicated example: 1\. Steal Nexus 5 2\. Buy Nexus 5
from local retailer 3\. Exchange the back from the stolen Nexus 5 with the
clean Nexus 5 4\. Return stolen Nexus 5 for full refund

What if they try to power-up or troubleshoot the stolen Nexus 5? While you're
exchanging the back, damage the power leads.

~~~
mikeash
I assume the back is where the serial number lives?

Seems like that would work... once. The ID and credit check requirements would
probably not make it a viable long-term solution though.

And, again, irrelevant to Airplane Mode.

~~~
chenelson
I don't care about Airplane Mode--if the device has been killed, why would one
wish to power it on?

So, what about prepaid? No credit check or ID required. One just requires
front money.

Also, keep in mind that the carriers have been fighting Identity Theft and
handset upgrades for quite some time. For instance, people steal an identity
and use it to get 5 free handsets. This is a on-going problem. Identity is a
hard problem.

Also, a swap doesn't even require a purchase--just sleight of hand. If we go
through the sale process, if the rep turns their back, I may be able to swap.

And this doesn't even take into account inside activity. I worked at T-Mobile
for 8 years, starting as a part-time sales rep and ending a senior manager of
business process. During my time, we fired the entire market of Houston twice.

There are many types of thieves, but in the case of those attempting to
support a habit, with their will, they will find a way. Some claim they have
no choice.

Finally, don't assume a perfect system. Telecom is a mess.

~~~
mikeash
Apologies, I thought you were continuing the original discussion of how
Airplane Mode could provide a loophole.

Anyway, the system doesn't have to be perfect. If you significantly raise the
barrier to turning stolen phones into cash, you'll significantly reduce the
rate of theft.

~~~
chenelson
Even if it were possible to raise the barrier on turning stolen phones into
cash, it does not follow that it will reduce the rate of theft in the least.
Do you think those that risk so much for so little are just going to roll over
and die? Did you not learn the lesson of Whac-A-Mole?

If you really care about the victims, you'd use the warrant not to attempt to
render tools to trash dumps, but instead use the warrant to query the
networks. You know, perhaps give SWAT something legitimate to do... That seems
like a deterrent for future thieves and a way to catch current thieves; or at
least easier than catching copper thieves.

~~~
mikeash
Crime is subject to supply and demand like everything else. Reduce the reward,
reduce the activity.

The argument could be made that you'll merely shift theft into other areas
rather than reducing it overall. But it's real hard to make the argument that
making it hard to fence stolen cell phones won't reduce _cell phone_ theft is
a pretty hard sell, especially if a carnival game is the best argument you
have.

------
jeffrey8chang
There's just too many backdoors in smart phones. That's why I choose to use
standalone hardware that can work with any phone for my voice encryption
project:

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/](http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/)

~~~
Someone1234
I don't think I see the relevance. This article isn't about spying on you, it
is about disabling your phone remotely ("kill switch," etc). How does
encrypting your voice before it enters your phone mitigate that?

Plus if you're paranoid enough to use that then frankly you're too paranoid to
own a cellphone at all. They can still use it to track your location and to
remotely turn on the microphone and eavesdrop on the background sounds.

~~~
TheBiv
Commenter created that company he's linking to...there is no relevance to this
article!

"JackPair: protect your voice phone calls from wiretapping by Jeffrey Chang &
the AWIT team"

~~~
pyre
The commenter did mention that:

> _my_ voice encryption project

------
yutah
This reminds me of Apple's patent to remotely disable protester's (cellphone)
cameras: [http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-
pro...](http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-
phone-cameras-7000003640/)

------
kazinator
It seems silly to disable individual devices with a remote "kill switch", when
perhaps you can just do something at the network level: like block all but
emergency calls, and instant messages, which coming via all the cell base
stations in a given geographic area, which can be done without the
inconvenience of sending configuration changes to large numbers of devices,
based on where they are. There is still Wi-Fi. But most of that is connected
to land lines going to telcos, with whose cooperation that could be blacked
out also.

------
miql
Are there past, current, or future projects for launching networks w/in low
earth orbit? I think it'd be effective to create an LEO, raspberry pi network
for instances such as these. Remember when Libya turned off phones and the
internet to stop unrest? People thought it was ridiculous and would never
happen here. We're on that trajectory.

~~~
sigstoat
you either comply with amateur radio restrictions (probably not what you have
in mind; no encryption, licensing, etc), or you comply with FCC rules & regs.
or just break a bunch of laws.

from a technical standpoint, the amateur radio folks have tossed up repeater
satellites in the past. see AMSAT.

------
smoyer
"Police could use the kill switch to shut down all phones in a situation they
unilaterally perceive as presenting an imminent risk of danger"

That's only one step away from the use of an EMP to isolate a crowd of people
from the Internet (and each other) in Cory Doctorow's "Homeland" (I'm not a
teen reader but I enjoyed it anyway)

~~~
biafra
Yeah. Keep in mind those phones are bricked forever. It is probably much
easier to disable phone service in a certain region from the network side. I
would imagine people suing the police for destroying their phones.

~~~
xxs
I seriously, seriously doubt 'bricked' forever. Unless the hardware actually
overheats, it'd be possible to replace the relevant parts with cheap China
imports.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I haven't seen anything like it in the US. But I spent some time in China, and
at the local grocery store close to my apartment, there were a couple of teen-
aged looking kids with a hot-air soldering station and some smt stencils who
were re-working cell phones (probably failed QC) in their spare time when they
weren't selling sunglasses or wristwatches and that kind of stuff.

------
tootie
Also, cops in California will be issued guns that they may use to arbitrarily
murders citizens.

~~~
mikeash
Such things are used _much_ less casually, though. There is immense public
pressure not to misuse guns that isn't there for other stuff. Obviously guns
are not _immune_ to misuse, but it's not all that common. "Less lethal"
weapons like tasers and batons and rubber bullets and tear gas get misused way
more frequently, precisely because they're less harmful than a regular gun.
It's likely that the same thing could apply to a cell phone kill switch.

~~~
pyre
The argument will be that you don't "have a right" to cell service everywhere
at anytime. "It's not like your service isn't restored after the protest."

~~~
freehunter
Doesn't the kill switch permanently disable the phone?

Edit - Nope. I just reread the bill. Sorry for any misinformation:

"prevent reactivation of the smartphone on a wireless network except by an
authorized user"

------
javajosh
Call Gov. Brown (916) 445-2841 and let his staffers know how you feel. This is
SB962.

------
diafygi
Seems like the first time this happens it can be easily challenged on free
speech grounds, right?

------
notjustanymike
In New York we already have a kill switch. It's called AT&T.

~~~
talmand
Don't be silly, that's a nationwide feature.

------
joeframbach
Does this include access points like the MiFi hotspot?

------
goldscott
This article is FUD.

From the actual bill:

"This bill would require that any advanced mobile communications device, as
defined, that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, include a
technological solution, which may consist of software, hardware, or both
software and hardware, that can render inoperable the essential features of
the device, as defined, when the device is not in the possession of the
rightful owner. The bill would require that the technological solution be able
to withstand a hard reset, as defined. The bill would prohibit the sale of an
advanced mobile communications device in California without the technological
solution being enabled, but would authorize the rightful owner to
affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale."

~~~
lemonlyman87
Also from the actual bill (which the post includes a link to in the first
line): "Any request by a government agency to interrupt communications service
utilizing a technological solution required by this section is subject to
Section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code."

The bill gives direct authorization for police to use this mandatory kill
switch, so long as it complies with PUC Sec. 7908, which includes an emergency
exception where police don't need court approval.

~~~
goldscott
Ah! This wasn't in the version of the bill that I googled (first result when
searching 'sb962' showed me the original bill).

