California Phone Kill-Switch Bill Fails Vote in State Senate

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
For better or worse, the California Senate failed to pass what would have become sooner or later, a nationwide cause by defeating the state’s attempt to pass a mobile phone kill-switch bill.

“We need to get into the minds of those that have shifted their criminal activities to this new crime, that it’s not worth it,” Leno said of his bill. “That it’s not worth the risk because the benefit will not be there.”
Click to expand...
 
You could always just install a jammer in your car so that people around you are affected :D
 
While having the ability to call up my carrier and say "Hey I just got robbed, I need you to disable my phone" would be super duper awesome... well if your carriers actually gave a flying fuck about you beyond collecting their monthly fees. Not so sure I like the idea that there was a bill that would mandate that all phones HAVE to have this.
 
Consider how much data people have on their smart phones though, and how many people are robbed by hooligans knowing they can often flip them for $300 pretty quickly.

Not sure that a kill-switch would really increase the price for consumers really, nor impact them negatively, so I don't really see a downside.

That said, nothing is ever simple with lawmakers, and often they will take one popular request by the people and piggy back on something completely different, hoping the representatives that don't spend five mins reading it all will notice (or better yet that the public will notice). So this may have been the bill to require kill-switches on smartphones and to terminate healthcare benefits for everyone over 60yrs old for all we know. ;)
 
They already have apps that will do a remote wipe. Hell, CM has already does this pretty much out of the box.

I would rather **I** do it, than to wait for my carrier to get around to doing it.
 
Scythe said:
They already have apps that will do a remote wipe. Hell, CM has already does this pretty much out of the box.

I would rather **I** do it, than to wait for my carrier to get around to doing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah the idea though is that if all of them did it, then they'd always get killed upon theft reducing the secondary market hence reducing the theft.
 
Finally something good out of CA. The while idea of this kill switch is so that carriers have a means of disabling your phone at THEIR discretion. Like if you decide to switch carriers, or are late paying your bill. They could give two shits if your phone gets stolen.
 
I'd like to see RFID tech, where you wear a ring with a chip in it .... like modern cars with no "ignition key" and the phone will only work in proximity to the ring. Someone steals it, it is bricked by definition.

But the phone companies and manufacturers need to implement Stolen Phones are Dead policy. Otherwise, they are co-conspirators in a grand theft ring, predicates for a giant multi-billion $ RICO suit from the Justice Dept.
 
Yeah the idea though is that if all of them did it, then they'd always get killed upon theft reducing the secondary market hence reducing the theft.
Click to expand...

And I still say disabling the phone is stupid when it is loaded with sensors to help catch the bad guys and recover the stolen property. You guys have seen the new smart watches and such, just tie them together so that if you get separated from your phone you start getting an alert, this already exists, now add your ability to put your phone into "Help I've been stolen mode". The phone calls the cops itself, starts broadcasting location data, recording all audio and video, and any calls or texts sent on the phone are also sent to the owner's email address on record for the phone. Because Bluetooth range is only about 32 feet let the phone recognize that it's not with it's owner anymore and when it does decide that it's not with it's owner then it just goes into the mode, as long as it's on then it's screaming that it's stolen digitally and passively collecting all the info it can.

If anyone thinks have a stolen phone turned off is a deterrent, imagine the deterrent factor of having them scream as loud as they can that they are stolen while recording on all cameras, mics, and GPS.
 
Jack, I left home yesterday without my phone, I don't want my phone "bricked" because I screwed up. I just want that device to vibrate and tell me I left the damn phone so I can catch it before it goes into "Help I'm a stolen phone mode".

The phone is loaded with sensors to help recovery and catching of the thieves and all people can think of is turn the damn things off :(
 
Finally something good out of CA. The while idea of this kill switch is so that carriers have a means of disabling your phone at THEIR discretion. Like if you decide to switch carriers, or are late paying your bill. They could give two shits if your phone gets stolen.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's the carriers that DON"T want this and fought against it. They don't need a kill switch to force you to pay your bill or stay with them, god get a clue and think.
 
lcpiper said:
And I still say disabling the phone is stupid when it is loaded with sensors to help catch the bad guys and recover the stolen property. You guys have seen the new smart watches and such, just tie them together so that if you get separated from your phone you start getting an alert, this already exists, now add your ability to put your phone into "Help I've been stolen mode". The phone calls the cops itself, starts broadcasting location data, recording all audio and video, and any calls or texts sent on the phone are also sent to the owner's email address on record for the phone. Because Bluetooth range is only about 32 feet let the phone recognize that it's not with it's owner anymore and when it does decide that it's not with it's owner then it just goes into the mode, as long as it's on then it's screaming that it's stolen digitally and passively collecting all the info it can.

If anyone thinks have a stolen phone turned off is a deterrent, imagine the deterrent factor of having them scream as loud as they can that they are stolen while recording on all cameras, mics, and GPS.
Click to expand...

Fine in theory except... the police won't go to that level of care. They'll tell you to call your carrier, your carrier won't give two shits about you, and when you ask them to turn on all this shit for your to do the investigating they'll say they can only do that with a court order, and you're not going to get a court order to track down a stolen phone.

It's a numbers game, and the cost of tracking someone who stole your phone is not worth it. They'd much rather entrap people by offering to sell iPhones and slip that they were stolen, so that desperation of something too good to be true turns people who ordinarily would not be criminals into criminals.
 
sfsuphysics, well if they can write a bill in order to try and pass a law to turn the phones off, they can write one that's even smarter to do what I suggest. That is the point of the discussion anyway, not what the carriers or the cops will or won't do currently, but what can be signed into law and mandated. So I think turning on the sensors and capturing the data is better then bricking the phone. So then you won't need a court order if the requirement is mandated by law.
 
So then you won't need a court order if the requirement is mandated by law.
Click to expand...
Or, the Court Order will be a sure thing as there is a legal requirement for it, either way.
 
lcpiper said:
And I still say disabling the phone is stupid when it is loaded with sensors to help catch the bad guys and recover the stolen property.
Click to expand...
HPD will laugh at you. They even ignored my report of a drunk driver who JUST left, I had his description, his car color, his license plate, and a picture of him putting his beer bottle on the street and driving off.

Unless someone dies, they don't care.
 
Ducman69 said:
HPD will laugh at you. They even ignored my report of a drunk driver who JUST left, I had his description, his car color, his license plate, and a picture of him putting his beer bottle on the street and driving off.

Unless someone dies, they don't care.
Click to expand...

that's pretty fucked up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top