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:<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
Here are things we know, and that we have known since the "kill switch" was first proposed:<p>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.<p>2. The kill switch will be used against legitimate users.<p>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!
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.<p>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.<p>1. <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB962" rel="nofollow">http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...</a><p>2. <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=07001-08000&file=7901-7912" rel="nofollow">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&gr...</a>
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?
"California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests"<p>As if it were designed for any other purpose other than control. When did preventing stolen phones become such a hot button issue?
"Could"? I give it 5 years.<p>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.
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?<p>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.
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:<p><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/" rel="nofollow">http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/31/jackpair/</a>
This reminds me of Apple's patent to remotely disable protester's (cellphone) cameras: <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras-7000003640/" rel="nofollow">http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-pro...</a>
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.
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.
"Police could use the kill switch to shut down all phones in a situation they unilaterally perceive as presenting an imminent risk of danger"<p>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)
This article is FUD.<p>From the actual bill:<p>"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."