back to article California takes a shot at mobile 'killswitch' mandate

Lawmakers in California have introduced a bill that would force vendors to equip all mobile phones and tablets in the state with a remote-wipe tool. Senate Bill 962 would mandate that all handsets and tablets sold in California be pre-equipped with a "killswitch" option that would allow an owner or law enforcement to render a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Byz

    Read as

    Kills Witch

    I thought they'd stopped doing that after Salem :o

    1. Eddy Ito

      Re: Read as

      That doesn't mean that politicians won't partake in a modern version of a witch hunt if they think it will help them keep their job.

  2. Oninoshiko

    Can't wait to this that hacked...

    would you pass the popcorn?

  3. Charles Manning

    Get a candybar phone

    I recently switched from an Android to a featureless phone that cost me NZ$24, including some airtime and no contracts.

    It is light.

    Battery life is 1 week and counting.

    It won't be stolen.

    It does not have a Facebook button.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Get a candybar phone

      > It does not have a Facebook button.

      Mother of God!

    2. Number6

      Re: Get a candybar phone

      It does not have a Facebook button.

      I would say this is a desirable feature for any phone. A smartphone without the FB app pre-installed would be good. Are there any?

      1. Paw Bokenfohr

        Re: Get a candybar phone

        @Number6: "I would say this is a desirable feature for any phone. A smartphone without the FB app pre-installed would be good. Are there any?"

        Any iPhone or Nexus. None of them have the FB app preinstalled.

  4. ElectricFox
    Holmes

    One for all and all for one!

    Fact is, it should be an all or nothing implementation. Who will hold you at knife-point and decide whether to steal your phone, or not, based on whether it can be remotely bricked? They might realise it's not worth stealing a NZ$24 phone, but a shiney touchy black mirror; they'll take it and flog it for whatever it's worth. Make them all lock-down-able ; or else don't bother at all.

  5. Someone Else Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Leno and Gascón, meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

    1. Fatman
      FAIL

      meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

      Leno and Gascón, meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

      Which would be some enterprising hacker getting their mobe number, and bricking that damn thing.

      I wonder how long they would wait to repeal it for 'law enforcement and bureaucrats/government officials.

      Stupid assholes!!! They can't see the risks for the general populace if hackers were ever able to mass brick people's modes. Additionally, what recourse would one have if the mode was bricked by accident because a clumsy LEO got the number wrong.

      "Sorry 'bout that, I was only doing my job!!!"

      1. Charles 9

        Re: meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

        And what happens when crooks stash stolen phones in Faraday bags so they never hear the brick signals and then fence them overseas so they never hear the signals again?

      2. SuccessCase

        Re: meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

        It can already done to iDevices through Find My iPhone. The user has the option to put it in lost/stolen mode. No reports of hackers locking users out of their iPhones.

        1. Tom Chiverton 1

          Re: meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

          Bricking your own phone is one thing. Having someone else pretending to be the police and bricking any phone they like ? That's another

        2. Vector

          @SuccessCase Re: meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

          "It can already done to iDevices through Find My iPhone. The user has the option to put it in lost/stolen mode. No reports of hackers locking users out of their iPhones."

          ...yet.

          1. Terry Cloth
            Facepalm

            Too Late!

            How soon we forget: I'm sure Mat Honan hasn't.

      3. Eddy Ito

        Re: meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

        They can't see the risks for the general populace if hackers were ever able to mass brick people's modes

        I bet they can see the utility of "accidentally" mass bricking the next time there is a rumor of some "Occupy X" movement that makes his heinous late for his three martini lunch. You know how those software bugs crop up from time to time.

        1. Amos1

          Re: meet the Law of Unintended Consequences...

          It's more likely that governments around the world learned the lessons of SMS and Twitter use that were taught to the incumbent Egyptian government during Arab Spring. Up next: remote kill switches in all vehicles. Oh wait, that proposal is already pending in the UK. I'll bet the remote kill switches still allow the car and phone location to be covertly tracked and the microphones remotely enabled "to aid in recovery." Good thing the US government isn't buying billions of rounds of ammunition for DHS, eh?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Will the phones and tablets cost more to buy in California because of this? I wouldn't be surprised if this cost is not passed onto the California consumer.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > I wouldn't be surprised if this cost is not passed onto the California consumer.

      WTF? Do you think mobile phone companies are charities? Why the fuck should they absorb the cost? If it costs them $X to implement and deploy then that gets added to the cost of the phone with a markup.

  7. stizzleswick
    FAIL

    Funny old thing...

    Back when I was forced to get my first cellphone because of my job at the time, the thing was the size of a brick and could actually be turned into one by calling the supplier's hotline in case it was stolen. That was in 1994. The thing couldn't do text messages or anything, really, other than making phone calls... but you could have it bricked.

    The question I have is why current "smart"phone manufacturers do not offer that feature today, since obviously it is trivial enough to have been implemented 20 years ago on a budget cellphone.

    1. KjetilS

      Re: Funny old thing...

      The question I have is why current "smart"phone manufacturers do not offer that feature today, since obviously it is trivial enough to have been implemented 20 years ago on a budget cellphone.

      They do... Both 'droids and iShinys have a remote wipe feature built in. Not sure about BB and WinPho, but it would really surprise me if they didn't have that feature.

  8. Kanhef

    Good intention, but not a good idea

    The problem with a remote killswitch is that it can easily become a nasty denial-of-service attack target. It might be possible to implement it properly, but knowing the state of the industry, it probably wouldn't.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Not a Dos/DDos attack but

      devices with this will clearly be the target of the 'I've planted a virus/trojan/whatever on your PC. Pay me $$$$$$$$$$ or I'll brick your phone' scum.

      The Laws of unintended consequences are wonderful things. Ignore them at your peril.

      Being serious for a moment, it seems that devices that are in the Apple & MS walled gardens are much less prone to this type of hack than Android devices. I'd really love to be proved wrong here.

      With every 'choice' of AppStore, there comes a risk.

      1. itzman

        Re: Not a Dos/DDos attack but

        At which pint you backup the phone and call the supplier, saying 'someone has just threatened to brick my phone' and they send you another one.. or another sim card or something.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Not a Dos/DDos attack but

          Have you seen ransomware in action? Most of them encrypt the contents of your device, making backups useless. At this early stage, if I were an Android ransomware writer, I'd at the least use a root exploit amd remove/disable any and all backup programs. Given time, I'd encrypt the pertinent bits of data like call logs, contacts, etc. and move from there.

  9. A Long Fellow

    Who needs due process?

    The excuse that this will deter crime is absurd; it's an excuse to inject further government control into your everyday activities. If they think you're a bad 'un, this will just make it easier for somebody to shut you down. Your car, your phone, your 'leccy...

    Just waiting for them to try shoving a (figurative or literal) barcode up my butt.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Disproportionate response

    Nothing could possibly ever go wrong here, could it?

    While don't they just go the whole hog and take a leaf out of the Israeli Shin Bet's assassination of Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas bomb-maker known as "The Engineer", who was killed when the the mobile he was using was detonated by the Israelis - it had been substituted by Shin Bet for one containing 15 grams of RDX. Rumour has it that it was triggered by a call from Shit Bet's then director, Carmi Gillon.

    The Daily Mail would probably approve.

    1. itzman

      Re: Disproportionate response

      well I heard stories that the IRA lost some bomb makers to prematurely triggered devices using model radio control gear.

  11. David 45
    Alert

    Just for stolen phones?

    And this "feature" won't be abused, of course - oh no!

  12. Reinhard Schu
    FAIL

    All pointless

    It's all pointless. A hack to override the killswitch and reflash a shiny new firmware installation will become available within days of the technology being rolled out.

  13. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    Or the more cynical

    amongst us will think the venders object to the kill switch because every mobile/tablet stolen is ANOTHER SALE to replace said stolen item.......

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Or the more cynical

      That is why the killswitch will be a one-way process; it will kill the device and they won't allow it to be reactivated again. Just wait and see as the law probably never thought about a reactivation process. The problem with these type of laws, the vendors might follow the letter of the law, not the intent.

  14. JaitcH
    WTF?

    "The wireless industry must take action to end the victimization of its customers."

    So what about usurious charges for replacement SIMs? They cost me around 80 cents to change - MUCH, MUCH, MORE in North America.

    Then they could reduce roaming and miscellaneous charges to a reasonable level. Of course, being telephone companies little they do is 'reasonable'.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: "The wireless industry must take action to end the victimization of its customers."

      Their whole business model is based on victimization of its customers.

    2. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: "The wireless industry must take action to end the victimization of its customers."

      That's because there is no competition in North America. There is no real reason to choose between Sprint, Verizon, or AT&T other than whether they have coverage in your particular area. The customer service and pricing is no different between them.

      T-Mobile is the only one to wake up and realize it can upset the apple-cart by not doing business as usual. That's why they're currently the target of takeovers, and for once, the government has gotten off its ass and done its job and not allowed it.

      Replacing a lost/broken SIM at T-Mobile is $3. Verizon costs $30. AT&T sells you a replacement SIM for $5... plus a $25 "reactivation fee" Hm. I wonder how T-Mobile determined their price...?

      1. phil dude
        Thumb Up

        Re: "The wireless industry must take action to end the victimization of its customers."

        mod up, T-mobile to seem to be acting "sane" over here.

        P.

    3. John Tserkezis

      Re: "The wireless industry must take action to end the victimization of its customers."

      "So what about usurious charges for replacement SIMs? They cost me around 80 cents to change - MUCH, MUCH, MORE in North America"

      Lucky you. Here in Australia, it's anywhere between nothing and AU$20, depending on the vendor, policy, or just the current mood of the person serving you.

      "Then they could reduce roaming and miscellaneous charges to a reasonable level."

      Here in Australia, they already have. Now carrier-induced roaming charges are only 4-8 times as expensive as buying a prepaid card when you get to your destination. Needless to say, everyone still either buys a specialty roaming card before they leave, or buy a prepaid when the get there.

      <sarcasm>Wonder why?</sarcasm>

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well he's a damn sight funnier than Jay!

    (No, no icon, I'm not joking)

  16. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    But who has control...?

    This is a great idea *in principle*, but it also has the potential to be abused as a tool of repression.

    Already we've seen totalitarian regimes shutting down phone service in areas where people are protesting (or even sending messages saying "you're in a protest, we know who you are!") so now imagine that they can remotely brick any phones they want.

    The only safe (for us) way for this to work is that the "brick" code is owned and stored by the customer, not by the phone company so I can call them and say "My phone has been stolen, the brick code is 'Correct Horse Battery Staple', please shut it down."

    1. Charles 9

      Re: But who has control...?

      It's probably kept by the manufacturer. Otherwise, bricking can't be done by law enforcement.

  17. Alan Denman

    What is the Filofax method?

    Some form of spontaneous combustion switch maybe?

  18. PunkTiger
    Childcatcher

    Holy cow! A remote control to UNLOCK YOUR CAR DOORS?? What a horrible idea! It might be "convenient," but that technology is just rife to be abused! Hackers will be unlocking car doors left and right and thefts will skyrocket! What's next? Remotes that will START YOUR ENGINE WITHOUT KEYS?? Just hang a big ol' sign in your windscreen that says "STEAL ME PLEASE!" You'll get the same result!

    In other words, any technology can be looked at as being a prime choice for abuse; some more obvious than others. But, just because it could be abused in its current (lack of) standard, doesn't mean it's not worth examining, and to find ways to lessen the chances of it being either accidentally or maliciously activated. In theory, remote bricking sounds like a good idea for what is essentially a computer in your pocket. Now, let's see if it can be done reasonably with proper safeguards.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      "let's see if it can be done reasonably with proper safeguards"

      Done reasonably ? In that industry ? Imposed by law ?

      Fat chance of that.

  19. Daemon ZOGG
    Go

    "Mobile 'killswitch' mandate"

    It's just one more turn of the US gov's knife, that's in the back of every citizen. It is a mechanism designed to control communication and free speech, whenever they need to supress it. The government and law enforement should be more concerned with keeping mobile device thieves off of the street longer with stronger penalties. And, persuading more states to adopt concealed-handgun laws. Then, let the citizens and gun manufacturers come to a more sensible way of detouring this type of criminal behavior. ;-D

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: "Mobile 'killswitch' mandate"

      Perhaps you are not a "US Person" and so are led to understate our problem. Here, "the government" includes at least federal and state governments able to do serious mischief, and sometimes (e. g., New York) city or county governments as well. In this case, the California state government, pretending at sovereignty, proposes the ill-considered solution to what largely is a non-problem or at most an embellishment of an existing one. In this case as in many others, the government acts with the best of intentions, not a plan to harass and suppress the citizens.

      1. Fatman
        Stop

        Re: "Mobile 'killswitch' mandate"

        You last sentence needs some editing, as shown below:

        In this case as in many others, the government acts with the best of intentions, not a plan to harass and suppress the citizens.

        There, much better and more accurate (IMHO)

      2. Rick Damiani

        Re: "Mobile 'killswitch' mandate"

        It's actually a huge problem in the major metro areas in California, and most particularly in Oakland and San Francisco.

    2. Rick Damiani

      Re: "Mobile 'killswitch' mandate"

      So you are saying that the government need remote killswitch functionality because turning off or jamming cell towers would irritate registered voters more than destroying billions of dollars worth of privately owned property?

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If it can be killed remotely by some random bastard; then it's not my phone. Do not want.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Crowd control mechanism?

    Kill all the phones in a protest crowd, stymie the ability to organize?

  22. Anonymous C0ward

    For smartphones, remote wipe already exists. Any phone can be blocked by the operators. What exactly is this?

  23. Cipher

    Owner yes, Law Enforcement no

    Certainly the owner of the device should have the power/option to brick the device, but law enforcement? I would give it a week before abuse and out of scope kills start occuring. The last thing we need is Officer Friendly with control of our devices...

  24. Mike Bell

    Article appears to be misleading

    Senate Bill 962 would mandate that all handsets and tablets sold in California be pre-equipped with a "killswitch" option that would allow an owner or law enforcement to render a device inoperable if stolen or lost.

    The actual wording of the relevant section of the bill is as follows.

    The rightful owner of an advanced mobile communications device may affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale. However, the physical acts necessary to disable the technological solution may only be performed by the end-use consumer or a person specifically selected by the end-use consumer to disable the technological solution and shall not be physically performed by any retail seller of the advanced mobile communications device.

    Ergo, law enforcement will have no right to disable said device unless authorised to do so by the owner.

    1. The Mole

      Re: Article appears to be misleading

      The part you have quoted is only about disabling the technology ("The rightful owner of an advanced mobile communications device may affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale")

      Ergo your ergo is bogus and you haven't proved your point at all.

      1. Mike Bell

        Re: Article appears to be misleading

        Read it. The bill is concerned with disabling a device, and allowing the owner to disable the means of disablement. It doesn't say anywhere that law enforcement may disable it or, more dramatically, 'kill it'. It's under the user's control, and it says that quite explicitly.

  25. Number6

    Remote bricking should require a PIN which can be set by the owner. The default is that no PIN = no remote brick. That makes it entirely opt-in by the owner and (if you trust the manufacturers/government) means that the owner has to consent to the bricking.

    I'm still not convinced it's the best way to achieve the result though, I can see the hackers having a field day.

  26. MrDamage Silver badge

    The software already exists

    To do this job. Maybe they should pass legislation to "brick" the users who don't bother installing the software to protect themselves.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like