or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Proposed federal law would require smartphone 'kill switches'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proposed federal law would require smartphone 'kill switches' - Page 2

post #41 of 55

Do you honestly think that these people in government are availing themselves of this kind of power because of a sincere effort to shut down communications because they want to help prevent theft of telephones?

 

By that logic all they need is a nice-sounding pretense for passing laws that give them power like this?

 

You need to stop wrapping yourself up in that warm blanket of denial.

post #42 of 55

If you concede that they are willing to violate the Constitution with this NSA spying then why would they let this law not saying they can shut down phones for unjust reasons stop them?

 

From what I have seen in recent years I don't want to give this administration or any future one any new ways to shut us up and shut us down.  We shouldn't assume that this is an effort based on good intentions to protect us from theft or terrorists.

 

Granted, a decade or so ago these concerns would have sounded far-fetched.  But look at all that has happened...

 

1.  The IRS, by a vastly disparate ratio, targeted groups seemingly opposed to the president.

2.  There are new allegations of other federal agencies like the FBI, ATF, and OSHA harassing people associated with these groups.

3.  Journalists like James Rosen were targeted.

4.  Documentary film makers like Dinesh D'Souza are being targeted ostensibly on campaign finance related charges but he did make the movie "2016" which was highly critical of the administration.

 

There are probably other things that I have missed or that haven't yet come to light.

 

We can write these things off as anomalies or overblown or we can fight over them along party or ideological lines.  But for how long are we going to ignore this pattern of government abuse and stop giving them more power and control?

 

I don't mean to sound really contentious because I think that we are not too far apart on this.  I just think we should err on the side of caution with our liberties with today's US government.

post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

We don't want no Arab spring here thanks. 1rolleyes.gif  

Definitely want regular ol' spring to finally get here.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #44 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

Seems a smart idea. Over here (UK) we report the IMEI which renders the phone un-usable on phone networks.

 

The database idea is excellent, as long as people know about it. An unsuspecting buyer could wind up with a blacklisted phone if (s)he doesn't know to check the database.

 

One of my co-workers also wondered about turnaround time. How often is the database updated? How long does it take for updates to percolate down to potential buyers? If I steal your phone and post it on Craigslist right away, can I sell it before it shows up on the list?

post #45 of 55
This idiotic proposal actually gave me an idea that might be interesting if implemented... How about allow users to implement an "emergency unlock code" on their iPhone? In other words, say you're being mugged and the thief demands your unlock code or they'll injure you. You give the thief an alternate code that allows them to seemingly unlock your phone, while at the same time sending an emergency signal indicating the owner is in distress or being robbed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #46 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

The database idea is excellent, as long as people know about it. An unsuspecting buyer could wind up with a blacklisted phone if (s)he doesn't know to check the database.

 

One of my co-workers also wondered about turnaround time. How often is the database updated? How long does it take for updates to percolate down to potential buyers? If I steal your phone and post it on Craigslist right away, can I sell it before it shows up on the list?

The  market for stolen phones is worldwide.....

post #47 of 55

As a number of you pointed out, there is no reason for the government to create a law like this and propose a standard for how lock code must work. The service providers can black list the phone via the IMEI, they have chosen not to do this, why, simple it forces you to buy a new phone and the person who now using your phone is paying a cell phone bill. Why would they want to limit themselves this way.

 

The governments of the world have shown time and time again they not looking out for the best interest of the general population, so they usually have some self serving reason to pass laws like this. There could be any number of reason they have to create law like this.

post #48 of 55

I'm not sure how you make a phone permanently inoperable without a hammer. Even if the IMEI number is blocked in US, they can always send it to another country. If Apple, on the other hand, were to prevent it from connecting to their servers, that might go a long way to curbing the theft issue, but even so, there are probably ways to get around that such as using iTunes on a PC to sync it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

The reason Congress is involved is because they are trying to figure out a way to stop all the iPhone thefts and attacks on the people carrying them. This isn't about government control of phone conversations it's about reducing the reason to steal iPhones. Render them useless for the thief (the user can restart them if they are retrieved) making it useless to steal them. The fact Democrats are sponsoring the bill is obvious, they care about the common person. Republican could care less about the loss of anything by others.

 

Apple already provides the function in question on iPhones.  So, make a more valid observation as your argument is baseless.

 

Your last comment, in bold above, is baseless and a joke.

post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This idiotic proposal actually gave me an idea that might be interesting if implemented... How about allow users to implement an "emergency unlock code" on their iPhone? In other words, say you're being mugged and the thief demands your unlock code or they'll injure you. You give the thief an alternate code that allows them to seemingly unlock your phone, while at the same time sending an emergency signal indicating the owner is in distress or being robbed.


Or starts taking pictures and sending them somewhere.  Automatically connects to unsecured WiFi if needed to make transmissions.  Tracking info sent as well.  Get audio recordings and send them too.....

 

A cool "911" pin would be nice though.

post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

I'm not sure how you make a phone permanently inoperable without a hammer. Even if the IMEI number is blocked in US, they can always send it to another country. If Apple, on the other hand, were to prevent it from connecting to their servers, that might go a long way to curbing the theft issue, but even so, there are probably ways to get around that such as using iTunes on a PC to sync it.

 

No...this ability is already built into iOS7.  It MUST have the username and password for the iTunes account that it was initially set up under no matter where it winds up in the world in order to wipe it and set it back up.

post #52 of 55
There are international standards and international services to implement a "blacklist" of stolen phones and make them inoperable. Check out the latter sections of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Station_Equipment_Identity
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

The reason Congress is involved is because they are trying to figure out a way to stop all the iPhone thefts and attacks on the people carrying them. This isn't about government control of phone conversations it's about reducing the reason to steal iPhones. Render them useless for the thief (the user can restart them if they are retrieved) making it useless to steal them. The fact Democrats are sponsoring the bill is obvious, they care about the common person. Republican could care less about the loss of anything by others.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post
 

 

Apple already provides the function in question on iPhones.  So, make a more valid observation as your argument is baseless.

 

Your last comment, in bold above, is baseless and a joke.

Yes, Apple already provides the functionality.   But there are a lot of people who don't use Apple's phones.   The legislators pushing the bill want this for everyone.   So, make a more valid observation as your argument is baseless.   

 

While I disagree with the way he phrased his last comment, let me say what I think is true:  Republicans will be opposed to this legislation not because they could care less about the loss of anything by others, but because they think big business is more important than anything else and if big business is troubled by this legislation because it might cost them a little money, Republicans will be against it.   They'll also be against it because they don't want anything good legislated while Obama is President.   

 

Frankly, since I own an iPhone, I don't care whether this legislation passes or not.   Seems to me that because Apple already has the functionality, consumers have a choice.   Buy Apple or buy a phone that's not protected.   And if that starts to happen, the Android and Windows phone makers will incorporate the functionality even without a push from Congress.  So I actually think at this point that legislation is unnecessary.   It would be different if Apple had dragged their feet on this.

post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


Yes, Apple already provides the functionality.   But there are a lot of people who don't use Apple's phones.   The legislators pushing the bill want this for everyone.   So, make a more valid observation as your argument is baseless.   

While I disagree with the way he phrased his last comment, let me say what I think is true:  Republicans will be opposed to this legislation not because they could care less about the loss of anything by others, but because they think big business is more important than anything else and if big business is troubled by this legislation because it might cost them a little money, Republicans will be against it.   They'll also be against it because they don't want anything good legislated while Obama is President.   

Frankly, since I own an iPhone, I don't care whether this legislation passes or not.   Seems to me that because Apple already has the functionality, consumers have a choice.   Buy Apple or buy a phone that's not protected.   And if that starts to happen, the Android and Windows phone makers will incorporate the functionality even without a push from Congress.  So I actually think at this point that legislation is unnecessary.   It would be different if Apple had dragged their feet on this.

Nonsense. The current administration is beholden to as many special interests as the previous administration. This president is not special.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

Phones and Wireless spectrum are a regulated industry.   Unfortunately this is way outside of making sure the spectrum is used for the public good.

But at the same token it's a 'social good' thing, sort of like driving, and requiring you wear seat belts and have insurance.   If you lose your smart 
phone, _I'M_ at risk - of personal data theft, of being socially engineered for malicious intent, or even physical harm ('find friends'... your crazy
 ex
 steals my phone and stalks your current relationship).


While I'm not for local gov't requiring how my personal computing devices are managed... smart people will realize that the device should have minimum safety controls, but even the smart people need help in protecting themselves against the dumb ones.

That statement falls apart fast under examination. People aren't smarter because of laws like this one. If laws made people smarter or more responsible, shouldn't every single aspect of life be regulated? We're over regulated now and it's not getting any better.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Proposed federal law would require smartphone 'kill switches'