or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California Senate passes cellphone 'kill switch' bill, awaits governor's approval
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California Senate passes cellphone 'kill switch' bill, awaits governor's approval

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
The California state Senate on Monday passed a bill crafted to protect against smartphone theft by requiring manufacturers turn on a "kill switch" when a device is first activated, something Apple currently employs in iOS as an opt-in feature.

Activation LockScreenshot of Apple's Activation Lock feature. | Source: Apple


California's legislative push to require so-called "kill switches" of smartphone manufacturers moved closer to becoming law, as a bill passed through the Senate with a final tally of 27-8, reports The Wall Street Journal. The state's governor, Jerry Brown, has 12 days to sign the bill into law.

State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who introduced the bill, believes the effort will help discourage smartphone thefts, a problem grown pervasive in some major metropolitan areas. According to the publication, California's initiative differs from similar legislation up for consideration in other states like New York in that it places an onus on manufacturers to have the security feature activated during initial device setup.

California's bill is joined by a federal anti-theft proposal called the Smartphone Theft Prevention Act, which would require all cellphones sold in the U.S. to include free kill switch technology. The proposal was introduced to Congress in February.

In April, Apple joined Google, HTC, Huawei, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia and Samsung, as well as all five major U.S. cellular providers, in supporting the CTIA's "Smartphone Anti-Theft Voluntary Commitment." The CTIA program is also opt-in, however, which Sen. Leno says is not enough to thwart the growing "epidemic" of smartphone thefts.

For its part, Apple already incorporates a remote locking mechanism into iOS with Find My iPhone, which uses an app and iCloud service connection to track, lock, disable and wipe data from an iPhone iPad or iPod touch. The most recent enhancement to Apple's security system came with the inclusion of Activation Lock in iOS 7.

Rolled out alongside new Find My iPhone password policies, the feature provides an extra layer of protection for users whose device was recently stolen. When enabled, the system prevents thieves from signing out of iCloud or erasing and reactivating the device without first entering preset credentials. Stripping away the ability to disable iCloud and restore the phone as new could dissuade theft and, in cases when an iPhone has been stolen, improve chances of recovery.
post #2 of 32
I'm curious to know the reasons why nearly a quarter of the senators voted against it.
post #3 of 32

The iPhone already has a better version of this, provided you've set a password (and TouchID makes that much more palatable).

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by grblade View Post

I'm curious to know the reasons why nearly a quarter of the senators voted against it.

 

Wait until hackers figure out how to activate smartphone kill switches, then get back to us.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #4 of 32
It's a bandaid. There are other ways to turn a profit so will this really stop the thefts. Laws requiring cops to follow up on thefts where such tracking exists and prosecuting the thief might put a stop to them. But the kill switch really does nothing

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by grblade View Post

I'm curious to know the reasons why nearly a quarter of the senators voted against it.

 

This article explains it a little: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/with-a-change-of-heart-california-senate-approves-smartphone-kill-switch-law/

 

Basically the wireless carriers are against it.  They say they're afraid of hackers gaining access, but with 3.1 million phones stolen in 2013, most consumers should be more worried about petty thieves than hackers.

post #6 of 32
It's a bad idea for legislators who have little understanding of technology to write laws mandating specific implementations of a desired concept.

If they want to regulate security, they should set minimum standards and allow the market to compete with different approaches.

Currently, Apple solved the problem for most users who decide to opt-in, and everyone else waited on the sidelines to see if they'll be forced to deliver a similar solution.

Apple even developed Touch ID as a very simple way to unlock your device without needing to punch in a passcode all the time, making it significantly easier to live with a passcode, and therefore much more likely that people will actually opt-in to Activation Lock.

Saying that users must be forced to configure this, and then only have the option to shut it off afterward if they want to opt-out, is not an improvement.
post #7 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by grblade View Post

I'm curious to know the reasons why nearly a quarter of the senators voted against it.

 

It would be helpful to see the voting history of those senators.  Do they vote in favor of free market or more regulation on other issues?

post #8 of 32
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
Saying that users must be forced to configure this, and then only have the option to shut it off afterward if they want to opt-out, is not an improvement.

 

And this concept extends to a great deal of things beyond physical security; most social networking services opt-in on transfer of personal information, software automatically opts-in on sending “anonymized” data about use to the developer, etc.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #9 of 32
Apple needs to require a password to power off an iphone. This is the first thing thieves do.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #10 of 32

why does calif senate have to mandate this happen? I truly don't understand. While they are at it, I think keeping one's shoes tied at all times (remember safety first) should also be mandated. Am I out of line? 

post #11 of 32
Originally Posted by digitol View Post
why does calif senate have to mandate this happen? I truly don't understand. While they are at it, I think keeping one's shoes tied at all times (remember safety first) should also be mandated. Am I out of line? 


All shoes will henceforth be forcibly modified to include laces, such that they can comply with the new law.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Apple needs to require a password to power off an iphone. This is the first thing thieves do.

Touch ID style.
post #13 of 32
Can a Senator be equipped with a kill switch?
post #14 of 32

I wonder how many future phones will be bought outside of CA just to take this control away from the state. They could have simply mandated the option being there without mandating activation. Does anyone know if there is an opt-out option when you buy one? I could really care less about the issue, but I am more concerned about the mandatory inclusion of a kill switch controlled by someone other than the user. 

post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post
 

I wonder how many future phones will be bought outside of CA just to take this control away from the state.

What makes you think this is controlled by the state?  The state are requiring it, but as far as I'm reading it's still very much at the control and discretion of the user?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

It's a bad idea for legislators who have little understanding of technology to write laws mandating specific implementations of a desired concept.

If they want to regulate security, they should set minimum standards and allow the market to compete with different approaches.

I don't think "a kill switch" is a particularly specific implementation, sounds very much like a minimum standard to me.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #17 of 32
Since I was assaulted on the sidewalk in a busy part of the city in April by smartphone theives, even though I have an iPhone that was bricked within 1/2 hour. This wouldn't have happened if all smartphones had a kill switch.
Edited by JONOROM - 8/12/14 at 5:31am

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #18 of 32

The kind of "kill switch" I want is similar to the one you get when you put in the wrong code ten times.  If I put in a specific wrong code, wipe and lock/kill (not brick) the phone immediately, making it impossible to reactivate without restoring a backup, or connecting it directly to my computer, or some other step that physically cannot be done while the police officer is trying to illegally search my phone.

/bs
Reply
/bs
Reply
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Since I was assaulted on the sidewalk in a busy part of the city in April by smartphone theives, even though I have an iPhone that was bricked within 1/2 hour. This wouldn't have happened if all smartphones had a kill switch.

You were most likely targeted because you had a iPhone. Until it becomes virtually impossible to activate a stolen iPhone the thives will continue stealing them.
"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 #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by grblade View Post

I'm curious to know the reasons why nearly a quarter of the senators voted against it.

 

Simple - as @Haggar says, worries over hackers gaining access.  These are probably the senators who have Android phones.  The others have iPhones, so naturally they're not concerned about hackers :)

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Since I was assaulted on the sidewalk in a busy part of the city in April by smartphone theives, even though I have an iPhone that was bricked within 1/2 hour. This wouldn't have happened if all smartphones had a kill switch.

You sure about that? You were probably assaulted by a bunch of young punks, right? The young and thieves tend to lack impulse control. If they see something they want, they'll take it, unless you can prevent such an occurrence with overwhelming force.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #22 of 32
I am pretty sure the actual intention of the bill is to damage the secondary market and get more people to just buy phones new instead of used, for fear that their secondhand device will get bricked after coughing up a bunch of money.
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzypaws View Post

I am pretty sure the actual intention of the bill is to damage the secondary market and get more people to just buy phones new instead of used, for fear that their secondhand device will get bricked after coughing up a bunch of money.

That would definitely be an unintended side-effect.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #24 of 32
I thought the title said, "...kill bill, switch"
post #25 of 32
Since when do politicians care about the personal property of their constituents? A kill switch is a convenient way to keep people from organizing, witness the Green Spring in the middle east.

One more way to ever so slightly remove your freedoms under the guise of protection.
post #26 of 32

Shouldn’t that be 'Kill Bill' switch? 😉

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Apple needs to require a password to power off an iphone. This is the first thing thieves do.

 

Not that simple. If your phone freezes, you may need to do a hard reset. That wouldn't be possible with a password or Touch ID.

 

Edit: actually, yes, you could have a requirement for a password to turn the phone off. A hard reset would still require a password on restart.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Apple needs to require a password to power off an iphone. This is the first thing thieves do.

Why? Even if they power it off, they can't wipe and re-activate it. There's really no benefit to preventing power-off.

post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Apple needs to require a password to power off an iphone. This is the first thing thieves do.
Why? Even if they power it off, they can't wipe and re-activate it. There's really no benefit to preventing power-off.

Tracking. If you turn it off, it can't be tracked or deleted.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


Tracking. If you turn it off, it can't be tracked or deleted.

Are you likely to buy a phone without seeing it turned on?

 

But I guess you could use it as a paperweight.

post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Tracking. If you turn it off, it can't be tracked or deleted.
Are you likely to buy a phone without seeing it turned on?

But I guess you could use it as a paperweight.

Your comment has plomelled me into confusion.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #32 of 32
This still won't defer thieves from taking the iPhone apart and selling individual parts. The screen, motherboard, and battery alone is worth quite a bit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • California Senate passes cellphone 'kill switch' bill, awaits governor's approval
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California Senate passes cellphone 'kill switch' bill, awaits governor's approval