Smartphone Kill Switch, Consumer Boon Or Way For Government To Brick Your Phone? 299
MojoKid writes We're often told that having a kill switch in our mobile devices — mostly our smartphones — is a good thing. At a basic level, that's hard to disagree with. If every mobile device had a built-in kill switch, theft would go down — who would waste their time over a device that probably won't work for very long? Here's where the problem lays: It's law enforcement that's pushing so hard for these kill switches. We first learned about this last summer, and this past May, California passed a law that requires smartphone vendors to implement the feature. In practice, if a smartphone has been stolen, or has been somehow compromised, its user or manufacturer would be able to remotely kill off its usability, something that would be reversed once the phone gets back into its rightful owner's hands. However, such functionality should be limited to the device's owner, and no one else. If the owner can disable a phone with nothing but access to a computer or another mobile device, so can Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia or Apple. If the designers of a phone's operating system can brick a phone, guess who else can do the same? Everybody from the NSA to your friendly neighborhood police force, that's who. At most, all they'll need is a convincing argument that they're acting in the interest of "public safety."
Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your sarcasm aside, turn the idea around and convince me there is any situation short of an emergency where the big evil government would use this power even if they had it? Bricking phones would Streisand effect whatever situation they were trying to clamp down on. And, it doesn't necessarily prevent data from being exported off the flash drives. I can't imagine this being useful to any sort of authoritarian power in any regular way. Sure you could probably imagine one scenario where they use something like this to stop a story getting out -- but it wouldn't always work, and they would never get to use it again.... This isn't an illegal search of someone's phone, there is no point in abusing the power to brick someone's phone.
Conversely there is very real and tangible benefit to crime reduction.
So, yes, why such paranoia?
Someone leaks sensitive information to the media. Government tracks phone. Government dispatches goon. Government bricks phone to prevent victim from alerting the medial, recording the incident, calling for help, etc. Victim is disappeared.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:4, Insightful)
So your situation is something you saw on 24?
Unless the guy is live streaming 24/7 then your goon can brick the whistleblower's phone with an actual brick.
Also, look at real whistleblowers and try to explain how the government would have stopped Snowden with this power? Stop imagining spy drama fiction.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
So your situation is something you saw on 24?
Before Snowden we would have said the same thing about mass government surveillance.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
They would, however, be able to keep the story about what's happening in Ferguson, MO (for example) from ever trending on Twitter, simply by killing every phone talking to a particular tower.
Or by shutting down the tower or by saying, "Phone number (whatever) cannot communicate with this tower."
And yet, somehow they haven't done this.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
And ...what, also delete photos already uploaded elsewhere? Or stop new phones coming in ? Or TV crews? Or does in your scenario the government bricks phones continuously, and yet somehow you think people would just be "ok" with this and it's a function you'd ever be able to use more then exactly once?
Re: (Score:3)
The cell phone, complete with camera and upload ability is carried by nearly everyone the police meet. Not so for the computer - ever tried to use the web cam on the lap top to film something out of a window or on the street? Pretty awkward. The regular camera has been around for decades and the police are used to those, see them, and often take them for evidence, but they are not carried around by the majority of people - and haven't ever been carried by the majority of people. Tablets are huge compare
Re: (Score:3)
They would, however, be able to keep the story about what's happening in Ferguson, MO (for example) from ever trending on Twitter, simply by killing every phone talking to a particular tower.
Or they could just turn off the tower? That gives them the added benefit of deniability, they could claim the tower suffered a power outage or other technical fault.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:4)
As if someone can't buy a pre-pay phone from any Wally-mart, move their SIM to another phone, or simply use an unassociated phone to communicate with. I realize the tin foil to make a hat is cheaper, but that's not a good rationalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's not about "me". You don't have to be black to appreciate what Rosa Parks did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
She carried two phones all of the time, which is why she succeeded. Who's the lunatic now?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a prepaid phone that you used cash for, the government has no idea who owns the phone in the first place.
Also, it is doubtful that the time frame for bricking phones is all that precise. There will likely be some formal process done through the carriers that takes some time to go through. All that bricking a phone would do is tip off the suspect that the government is on to them.
Re: (Score:3)
So obviously what needs to happen is when a mobile phone account is activated or transferred it should be done in person, so that a meeting can be arranged between the holder of the phone and, the legal authorities representing the owner. So a little less convenience to facilitate phone owner safety.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What the US gov is seeking is a wifi, cell and upload block per city zone. A member of the press would have to find their van, a citizen journalist would seek the working internet thats open to the wider public in real time if they had phone upload "account" issues
Be fun if working free internet was offer
Or, you know, you could just use a VPN. . . (Score:2)
. . . if you're that paranoid.
Re:Or, you know, you could just use a VPN. . . (Score:4, Informative)
We saw the free UK offer of wifi to attempt get to phones of interest under
"UK spy agency reportedly intercepted email of delegates at G20 meetings in 2009" (Jun 17, 2013)
http://www.pcworld.com/article... [pcworld.com]
"... set up Internet cafes at the G20 meetings in order to extract key logging information and credentials from foreign delegates, giving the agencies “sustained intelligence options” against the targets even after the events ended."
"...allowing the reading of people’s emails before or at the same time as they do"
A few sites kept open to herd the press too, with CCTV and dat collection? All other easy to find sites closed thanks to tame telco help?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/... [theguardian.com] 17 June 2013
"Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers"
"Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls"
"Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit"
In any city for local police work soon
Re: (Score:3)
In 2014 all a gov with a tame telco has to do is find your phone trying to upload. The unique video never gets out anymore. The citizen journalist is swept up and phone lost.
Okay, fair enough, I'll play into your fantasy.
Now, what's stopping the eeeevil people from doing that now? All they'd have to do is have software that says IMEI 07 345927 087947 7 can't talk to this cell tower. They can do that now. Your phone's IMEI number is the same, even if you switch SIMs, so that's no help.
Re: (Score:3)
The government needs to "brick" phones to protect classified information in the same way that Superman needs to throw bricks to win a street fight, which is to say, not at all.
The government has a myriad of resources at its disposal to deal with security leaks, the most obvious being simply sending someone to take you into custody. Bricking phones of suspects would do very little other than possibly tip them off that they are in trouble with the authorities.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ability to brick phones without the consent of the one who possesses the phone inherently indicates that the user does not actually control their phone. Software on phones must be free software so that users can know exactly what the phone is doing, and can modify what it does. Hardware must be fully open.
Re: (Score:2)
Software on phones must be free software so that users can know exactly what the phone is doing
Good luck accomplishing that when cellular carriers routinely abandon previous network stacks before their respective 20-year patents expire.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Funny)
I have altered your calling plan, yada yada
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, or course, the fact that the phone was bricked for no reason. Also, the video will be recoverable.
I don't think they are talking about putting a button in every police car that bricks phones.
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, or course, the fact that the phone was bricked for no reason. Also, the video will be recoverable.
If video is recoverable then the bricking process is defective.
I don't think they are talking about putting a button in every police car that bricks phones.
Not yet they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be more likely to be some portable MIB style device that sends a code to halt/delete recording. Something similar is already done for scanners and currency
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if the police actually want to "brick" a phone, they'll use a literal brick. They'll snatch the phone off the person (gathering evidence for their investigation) and the video or the phone will mysteriously disappear.
The cops are not going to have some "bricking gun" they can point at protesters to delete video. Heck, if the video is on an SD card (like it should be if you're not an Apple fan), you can probably just swallow the card discreetly and retrieve it later.
Pictures not just on device (Score:3)
They'll snatch the phone off the person (gathering evidence for their investigation) and the video or the phone will mysteriously disappear.
No it will not because most photos and video syncs to a network service now, and the police know this (mostly).
Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine this being useful to any sort of authoritarian power in any regular way.
I'd say you lack imagination then, because the first thing that came to my mind was "Boy I bet the police in Ferguson would love to be able to disable people's phones right now."
Used on people en masse it'd be a great way for governments impede and control the flow of information around all sorts of events.
Re: (Score:2)
"right now"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
So that when they do things like fire tear gas at journalists, there's no one with a phone out to record it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's easier to just shoot everyone holding a phone and claim it looked like a gun.
Re: (Score:3)
Police routinely abuse laws as shields to prevent people from recording public police behavior they'd rather no one know about. It's pretty obvious that officers are being trained to respond this way. Most agents from three letter agencies pull this shit now too.
Sorry, my hardware is my hardware.. remote bricking is just ripe for abuse. I'd rather retain control over it and accept the slight risk of it being stolen than have it remote bricked by power tripping assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm aside, turn the idea around and convince me there is any situation short of an emergency where the big evil government would use this power even if they had it?
They don't even need to ever brick a phone. The knowledge that the government could, should they choose to, brick your or even everyone's phones would have a chilling effect. And that's assuming that the government requested backdoor only bricks your phone, as opposed to also having the capability to track your GPS and activate your microphone and camera. And if that's not the current step it's the next step.
Re: (Score:3)
baloney coolaid.
Worst flavor of Kool Aid evar!
Bricking or Tracking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should THE MAN want to brick your phone, when instead they can just track you - that's what they want - then they can brick *you* as needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they want to brick your phone? For the same reason they'll hold you for a few hours and then release you without charge, for the same reason they will confiscate your property without arrest, for the same reason they'll rough you up and then not charge you with anything. They are ways to punish people who come into their field of view for real or perceived transgressions without going through that pesky process of proving that something illegal actually happened. If this capability is realized
Re:Bricking or Tracking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider what the gov would call 'emergencies'. We may call them protests, even rebellion. Suppose the next banking crisis has come around. Suppose this time things don't evolve so orderly for all those presidential advisors and what have you. Suppose these, those protests, get out of hand -- from the perspective of the gov, mind you. Yes, they would see it as rebellion. Now is the gov gonna want to track you and the rest of your 10,000 protestors? No, they just want to kill any organizational aspects of it asap and thus disperse the lot into chaos. Divide and conquer, on the street level, so to speak. I don't think I have to tell you where your phone came into this picture. Comms, pictures taken, police being filmed, free YouTube placement -- bah!, don't want any of that anymore. The gov want to be able to brick it -- even if temporarily, while at the same time having their own communications channels up and running in spiffy order all the time.
You can seen where all this fits in, our latter days of class warfare.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, they can do this now. Turn off the cell tower. Doink, problem solved. They can also generate a list of their IMEI devices so that only those devices will work.
Re: (Score:3)
How would self organisation make roads magically get built, garbage magically get picked up, and the firefighters magically get paid on time?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u... [mirror.co.uk]
Re:Bricking or Tracking? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them. If you are referring to the Highway programs, those were not Federal Government ideas. Those were citizen and business owner ideas. The program went to the Feds because it was easy at the time, and saved States from having to negotiate connecting points.
The Government may have expedited some of the process, but we don't know how much because we only implemented one Federal highway program. In other words, it's impossible to measure help or harm from the Federal program. Did it add some benefit, sure, but you can't truthfully claim that it's all because of Government.
I'm not sure how many photos you have seen from the 1800s, back before the Government handled trash pickup, but I have never seen any that show giant trash piles in every lot. As with roads, trash pickup was happening without Government intervention as well. The Government didn't come up with concepts like "If you drink water with trash in it, it's not good water", we knew that well before a take over by the Government.
Your last example is the worst. Firefighters used to be all volunteers, and many fire departments still run on a measurable percentage of volunteers. Large cities collect taxes for dedicated people, and people can choose to live there or out in the sticks where they lack the services and don't pay the premiums. Believe it or not, Firefighting has happened in communities for as long as we have had communities without Government intervention.
In all of your examples, there is not a single case where you can claim that Government is needed. You can in some cases claim it adds benefits, but at the same time it's difficult to measure how much. Road building (construction in general) has, and historically has had, significant levels of political corruption.
It's impossible to provide hundreds of pages of concept in a post, so I'll recommend you read Stephan Molyneux or listen to his podcasts on anarchism. I don't agree with him on everything, but it's good for the brain to contemplate alternative opinion.
Re: Bricking or Tracking? (Score:3)
I'd recommend reading "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin.
My perspective is that governments and economies are command and control technologies for civilizations, and the ones we have are ill suited to a world without scarcity. They destroy wealth to make the system work as it is, and with the technologies emerging, it's going to become ridiculous. So, the imperative is to create a better command and control technology, one that is fair, makes everyone feel suitability represented, elevates the rig
Re: (Score:3)
The Government did not invent roads. Roads existed long before the Government made them, in fact most towns and cities had roads without a Government mandating and taxing people for using and building them.
Surveying a road, grading and maintaining it always comes with a pretty stiff price tag.
Local roads and bridges were traditionally paid for by taxes, tolls and contributions of labor and materials.
Long distance travel by car was damn near impossible before the US federal government became directly and deeply involved. [untitled photograph] [ [imgur.com]
All roads lead to Rome. (you're both silly) (Score:3)
You're both being silly. Roads, including PAVED roads, have existed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Appius Claudius Caecus, a government official in Rome, commissioned the Via Appia (Appian Way) over two thousand years ago, but thousands of years before that there was a road to Bethhoron. Consider also:
Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of
Re:Bricking or Tracking? (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is that when self organizing takes place and organization is formed. When that organization get complex enough it looks very much like a government.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, bad, I'm the collective with the gun.
That's the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
so government a key portion of civilization is no longer needed once our corporate overlords take their place? and these $800 com devices that have $160 worth of parts every 18 months is better than taxes how? oh and hey the phone company will drop the price $200 if only you agree to pay $15 a month more cause a $600 phone is more affordable than if you pay $280 over time. sure there are pay as you go wireless... but they are carried in some markets they don't have towers in. same for contract based phone
I wonder ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If bricking a phone would also result in any stored photographs going "bye bye".... I can think of quite a few police who would like that feature.
I wonder ... (Score:2)
The more a person wants to upload, the more interesting the user is.
Let voice only work to see if any unlisted friends are called in real time for much needed tech help, if the media captured is described.
A person cannot upload, but the phone still seems to work and is very trackable. A gov could then send some new software down too?
Hoping a person of interest
Re: (Score:2)
they hold you at gunpoint until you unregister the phone from iCloud.
Sucks for you if the honest answer to that demand is "My password is a 20-character random string, stored on my computer 2 hours away".
Undo! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you can un-brick the phone after it has been bricked, I'm sure someone will figure out a way to do this without involving the official channels. Theft might go down for a while, and it might never be as high as it once was, but once someone figures out how to un-brick the phone, steeling a phone will still get you something, even if you have to use it on another network or another country. Think blocking the IMEI is going to do it? There are already methods of changing or spoofing IMEI codes on lots of phones. This will stop casual theft, but like most locks, it won't deter determined thieves.
Re: (Score:3)
There's also nothing stopping a thief from stealing a phone, dismantling it for the screen, then selling the screen.
So because it will only stop most phone theft crime instead of ALL phone theft crime that it's a bad idea? Is THAT your argument?
I am tin foil, fine. (Score:3)
>"Here's where the problem lays: It's law enforcement that's pushing so hard for these kill switches. "
Yeah, like I have been warning people for years anytime the topic comes up. Government misuse. Security nightmare when it gets hacked. Etc. They just say I am paranoid or "tin foil" or whatnot.
I guess I can remind them about my warnings over the last decade about the fed and big business spying on USA citizens. I am amazed at how little most people care about privacy/freedom.
Now, let me get back to reading this letter I got from State Farm today explaining how wonderful it will be to save "up to 5%" on my State Farm car insurance if I am willing to plug in a device that constantly tracks my braking, acceleration, turns, speed, distance, and location.
IEDs (Score:2)
Mobile phones are easy triggers. They just want a way to blanket turn off if they have security recording of a terrorist buying x brand phone at y store.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's hope... (Score:2)
Let's hope that the logic to brick is in some piece of code that can be subverted via a custom OS build and not something close to the radio receiver.
Also: I will laugh really hard as soon as the blackhats release a tool to bypass security and auto-brick, and then someone heads to the nearest mall on a Saturday with a high-power radio.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's just a change to /etc/hosts.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe. mod up :)
Just like a Govt Backdoor. (Score:2)
While I actually agree that this type of feature SHOULD exist I think it is better implemented at the Operator level by them implementing IMEI blocking like every other major carrier around the world. This "kill switch" sounds like a huge target for hackers as all they need to do is break down one wall and they have access to everyones phones kill switch. Much like when China and other Rogue states infiltrated Gmail and other mail carriers years ago it wasnt through the front door but the secret back door
All of the Above (tm) (Score:2)
It's actually All of the Above (tm).
It's a way for you to turn off and disable a stolen phone.
And it's a quick way for the Thought Police to turn off all cell phones which take nasty pics and vids and audio when they go all East Germany Stasi on your First Amendment and other rights.
By the way, in case you didn't know, even when they "turn off" wireless and cell node tracers in urban centers that could track your cell phone, they can always turn them back on with 5 minutes. So those cities that "removed" th
My phone's already a brick (Score:2)
In fact my current brick-like antique Nokia doesn't have a kill-switch, but it can certainly be used as one.
Re: (Score:3)
YOU are why IT has such a bad reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
You must do IT consulting. While satisfying as a business strategy, I guess it limits revenue.
The government doesn't need this (Score:2)
when they can just have your cell company shut down you service.
Device to brick all phones in an area (Score:3)
The next step will be a modification to the "stingray" fake cell site unit to brick all phones in an area and prevent uploading of audio or video. This will be used during demonstrations.
One word (Score:2)
The police is not a concern (Score:5, Interesting)
As in any good police state, if the police does not like you, the relevant US police force will just shoot you in your home and either claim they had the wrong address, or place some drugs or hints of terror-support. Bricking phones is for children.
Unintended consequences, or intended consequences? (Score:2)
.
Why would anyone think that governments would show the least bit of hesitation to brick smartphones under similar circumstances?
FUD (Score:2)
Way for *any hacker* to brick your phone (Score:2)
Who actually wants a kill switch? Anyone on /. at all?
This anti-feature will be used by not just government but any suffiently motivated hackers to kill your communications. The one ostensible benefit mentioned here is anti-theft, but of course that relies on the mechanism working reliably in the first place and secondly not being circumvented by a thief five minutes after they have acquired it.
Just like the idiotic remote car immobilisers that people who should know better are so quick to adopt. Just wa
Re: (Score:2)
I want a kill switch, in fact I have one on my phone right now in the form of an IMEI blocking scheme by my telco. If someone nicks my new phone it will be worthless within a day.
So far the schemes seem to be working fine and has been adopted across most of Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. It's not actively enforced in many parts of asia and as such has become a hotspot for stolen phone sales.
IMEI Blocking in Australia (Score:2)
In OZ, the carriers block at the IMEI level, so if a phone is stolen you can't use it in Australia (unless you can change the IMEI to one that the carriers recognise as valid)
http://www.lost.amta.org.au/ [amta.org.au]
Why doen't the USA do this as a sterting point?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of countries do this already. The US is one of the few that doesnt, and seem to be getting their panties in a knot trying to figure it out. I dont know if it's a "not invented here" issue or just a deep seated mistrust of their government.
The fact is:
- IMEI blocking has generally been working fine. There are supposedly methods to reflash the IMEI on *some* phones but it's quite difficult.
- We are not seeing reports of governments abusing the feature.
God forbid, we're all doomed. (Score:2)
God forbid America implement a feature that already exists in the rest of the world and has worked perfectly for many many years. Clearly copying a working implementation from some other country will doom all citizens. We don't need that "public safety" thing.
They can already cut off your service (Score:2)
You don't need a kill switch built in to the phone. You just cut the service off at the carrier.
The capability already exists.
All this paranoia about "Oh no, the government could silence me when I'm at a protest!". They could already do it if they wanted to.
They could ask your carrier to cut off your network access. You'd be restricted to WiFi.
If a kill switch was built in to the phone but you've taken out your SIM and only used WiFi, they wouldn't have access to the kill switch.
If you're paranoid, there is
Re: (Score:3)
Asking your carrier to cut off your network access doesn't prevent you from taking pictures and videos with the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a kill switch built in to the phone. You just cut the service off at the carrier.
The capability already exists.
Denial of Service has happened in the past. I believe BART did this to try and deal with protesters. The thing is that cell phones still connect to towers even if the SIM card is removed, and you're excluding the phones that don't even have SIM cards. As has been previously mentioned we're going to start seeing stories about "undesirables" phones being wiped.
Is this a rhetorical question? (Score:2)
Sad we need to think about this, but we do. (Score:2)
However, this angle on things, which I hadn't thought of, is totally on target - this is totally ripe for abuse by the NSA etc. when the correct number comes up..political or otherwise. Remember we have seen one of these agencies erase information that the Senate was looking at to audit them with, then that agencies leade
This story paid for by AT&T and Verizon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Enabling a kill switch is not really creating a new kill switch... It's simply giving you, the purchaser, the right to tell the phone company to block the IMEI using the same tools that law enforcement does now. It literally costs them nothing to allow, since it already exists, but, as noted in the Summary, will result in a huge drop in the number of re-purchased phones after theft/breakage... phones that are frequently re-purchased at full price, due to the multi-year contract lock-ins. This is all about money, not freedom.
brick - unbrick (Score:2)
If your phone is bric
Kill switches are probably a bad idea (Score:2)
It isn't enough to simply look at the world as is. You must consider the world with universal deployment of kill switches and fully understand likely consequences as much as possible.
Stolen phones can be taken apart and sold for parts... Thieves doing this may well end up making more money than phone as a whole can be sold in an underground market.
If users have ability to opt-out then anyone taking phones by force could demand victim "opt out" putting owner in increased risk of harm v. lift 'n dash encount
Dumb paranoia (Score:2)
If the state wants to cut off your mobile phone access they don't need to brick your phone they just ask your carrier to turn off your services.
First its raging against the "Walled Garden" App store, now it's "we don't need no anti-theft kill switch".
Well maybe you don't, my techno friend, but you're in the minority.
The majority of smart phone users do want a device that they
a) can safely install non-trojan software from a verified & reviewed source
b) not be mugged for carrying an expensive toy
Brick your phone? (Score:2)
They can already brick your phone today.
Mr. Phone, meet Mr. Brick. *smash*
Smartphone violent muggings (Score:5, Interesting)
Why Law Enforcement in California pushed for the law was that there is a real problem with violent smartphone robberies. The victim steps away from her friends to talk on her smartphone. The thief hits her from the back so she falls forward grabbing her phone and runs. She would not see who the thief was. This is an every weekend occurrence in San Francisco and the San Francisco Police don't like this. A kill switch would make smartphone theft less profitable.
This is about Protests. (Score:3)
What is going on is the governemnt/police want a way to turn off phones when protests are going on. They don't want protestors to communicate. My guess is they know that people are going to be getting sick of the bullshit the government/police pull and will start protesting more.
This isn't about theft, it's about anonymity. (Score:3)
Or rather lack thereof.
Right now I can walk into a T-Mobile store, buy an iPhone with cash, pay the first month with cash, and get a burner smartphone with a data plan. No ID, no name, no address, no credit check.
If this law is implemented, the ability to buy a smartphone anonymously goes away. You'll have to show an ID. For this law. How else will they know whether you're the person who can request that that phone be bricked?
This isn't about theft, the police don't give a shit about theft. If you don't believe that, try reporting one. This is about removing the anonymity of burner phones.
Re: (Score:2)
If the owner can disable a phone with nothing but access to a computer or another mobile device, so can Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia or Apple.
Not necessarily true... It's entirely possible that you could implement this by encrypting a lock/unlock token with a key known only to the user. Google/Samsung/MS/Nokia/Apple would be no more capable of generating such a token than anyone else.
If you can initially set the key, then the key is capable of being reset or even read.
If you cannot initially set the key, then the key is set before hand, and is thus known to other parties.
If you use e-fuses or something similar in order to prevent resetting of the key, it just means you have to deal with shit at the hardware level to reset or read the key.
The manufacturer of a phone will always be able to fuck ur shit, though GP is incorrect in asserting that they'd be able to do it over the web as easil
Re: (Score:2)
If you can initially set the key, then the key is capable of being reset or even read.
Unless it's stored in memory that the user is only given write-only access to, and the only thing that can read it is the chip it got burned in to (and which provides black-box encryption/decryption). It's technically readable, if you wish to de-cap the chip an analyze it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even then, reading the key may not be useful if it can only be used to decrypt and not encrypt.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and there are no other radio technologies. Or fibers. Or wires. Or lasers.
Re: (Score:3)
Blanket bricking of cell phones, or selective bricking of those of "ringleaders", is an inevitable problem for the most peaceful and well behaved political rally with this kind of technology in government hands. Remember the "Arab Sping", and Tianenmen Square, and even the more recent and quite peaceful "Occupy Wall Street" protests.in the US, and understand exactly why and how law enforcement want this kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
you're really asking why this would be useful? (Score:2)
In other nations its just a nice, helpful, free telco feature stopping a working phone after its been lost.... built in as sold