California Governor Signs Law Requiring a 'Kill Switch' on Smartphones

[JSDev]

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/california-governor-signs-law-requiring-a-kill-switch-on-smartphones/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=technology&_r=0

 

I don't think we're getting any more rational as a society. Discouraging.

[J-William]

 

that'll go well!

[MMX2010]

I'm not sure if this is true, but the only proposed cell phone idea I've ever adamantly supported was adding software that disables the phone if you're travelling more than 20 MPH.  Such a device would prevent people from using their cell phones while driving, but the police opposed such a device. 

[J-William]

I'm not sure if this is true, but the only proposed cell phone idea I've ever adamantly supported was adding software that disables the phone if you're travelling more than 20 MPH.  Such a device would prevent people from using their cell phones while driving, but the police opposed such a device. 

Well, under this law police will be able to disable cell-phones in an "emergency"... thus giving police unlimited power to do whatever the fuck they want.

[JSDev]

I'm not sure if this is true, but the only proposed cell phone idea I've ever adamantly supported was adding software that disables the phone if you're travelling more than 20 MPH.  Such a device would prevent people from using their cell phones while driving, but the police opposed such a device. 

 

What do you mean you're not sure it's true? 

 

Anyway, the bill text is here

 

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB962&search_keywords=

 

This part of it is alarming:

 

 

 

(e) Any request by a government agency to interrupt communications service utilizing a technological solution required by this section is subject to Section 7908 of the Public Utilities Code.

 

Here's the text of the mentioned section: (Section 7908) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=07001-08000&file=7901-7912

 

 

 

7908. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have

the following meanings:

(1) "Communications service" means any communications service that

interconnects with the public switched telephone network and is

required by the Federal Communications Commission to provide

customers with 911 access to emergency services.

(2) "Governmental entity" means every local government, including

a city, county, city and county, a transit, joint powers, special, or

other district, the state, and every agency, department, commission,

board, bureau, or other political subdivision of the state, or any

authorized agent thereof.

(3) (A) "Interrupt communications service" means to knowingly or

intentionally suspend, disconnect, interrupt, or disrupt

communications service to one or more particular customers or all

customers in a geographical area.

(B) "Interrupt communications service" does not include any

interruption of communications service pursuant to a customer service

agreement, a contract, a tariff, a provider's internal practices to

protect the security of its networks, Section 2876, 5322, or 5371.6

of this code, Section 149 or 7099.10 of the Business and Professions

Code, or Section 4575 or subdivision (d) of Section 4576 of the Penal

Code.

© "Interrupt communications service" does not include any

interruption of service pursuant to an order to cut, reroute, or

divert service to a telephone line or wireless device used or

available for use for communication by a person or persons in a

hostage or barricade situation pursuant to Section 7907. However,

"interruption of communications service" includes any interruption of

service resulting from an order pursuant to Section 7907 that

affects service to wireless devices other than any wireless device

used by, or available for use by, the person or persons involved in a

hostage or barricade situation.

(4) "Judicial officer" means a magistrate, judge, justice,

commissioner, referee, or any person appointed by a court to serve in

one of these capacities of any state or federal court located in

this state.

(b) (1) Unless authorized pursuant to subdivision ©, no

governmental entity and no provider of communications service, acting

at the request of a governmental entity, shall interrupt

communications service for the purpose of protecting public safety or

preventing the use of communications service for an illegal purpose,

except pursuant to an order signed by a judicial officer obtained

prior to the interruption. The order shall include all of the

following findings:

(A) That probable cause exists that the service is being or will

be used for an unlawful purpose or to assist in a violation of the

law.

(B) That absent immediate and summary action to interrupt

communications service, serious, direct, and immediate danger to

public safety, health, or welfare will result.

© That the interruption of communications service is narrowly

tailored to prevent unlawful infringement of speech that is protected

by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section

2 of Article I of the California Constitution, or a violation of any

other rights under federal or state law.

(2) The order shall clearly describe the specific communications

service to be interrupted with sufficient detail as to customer, cell

sector, central office, or geographical area affected, shall be

narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances under which the order

is made, and shall not interfere with more communication than is

necessary to achieve the purposes of the order.

(3) The order shall authorize an interruption of communications

service only for as long as is reasonably necessary and shall require

that the interruption cease once the danger that justified the

interruption is abated and shall specify a process to immediately

serve notice on the communications service provider to cease the

interruption.

© (1) Communications service shall not be interrupted without

first obtaining a court order except pursuant to this subdivision.

(2) If a governmental entity reasonably determines that an extreme

emergency situation exists that involves immediate danger of death

or great bodily injury and there is insufficient time, with due

diligence, to first obtain a court order, then the governmental

entity may interrupt communications service without first obtaining a

court order as required by this section, provided that the

interruption meets the grounds for issuance of a court order pursuant

to subdivision (b) and that the governmental entity does all of the

following:

(A) (i) Applies for a court order authorizing the interruption of

communications service without delay, but within six hours after

commencement of an interruption of communications service except as

provided in clause (ii).

(ii) If it is not possible to apply for a court order within six

hours due to an emergency, the governmental entity shall apply for a

court order at the first reasonably available opportunity, but in no

event later than 24 hours after commencement of an interruption of

communications service. If an application is filed more than six

hours after commencement of an interruption of communications service

pursuant to this clause, the application shall include a declaration

under penalty of perjury stating the reason or reasons that the

application was not submitted within six hours after commencement of

the interruption of communications service.

(B) Provides to the provider of communications service involved in

the service interruption a statement of intent to apply for a court

order signed by an authorized official of the governmental entity.

The statement of intent shall clearly describe the extreme emergency

circumstances and the specific communications service to be

interrupted. If a governmental entity does not apply for a court

order within 6 hours due to the emergency, then the governmental

entity shall submit a copy of the signed statement of intent to the

court within 6 hours.

© Provides conspicuous notice of the application for a court

order authorizing the communications service interruption on its

Internet Web site without delay, unless the circumstances that

justify an interruption of communications service without first

obtaining a court order justify not providing the notice.

(d) An order to interrupt communications service, or a signed

statement of intent provided pursuant to subdivision ©, that falls

within the federal Emergency Wireless Protocol shall be served on the

California Emergency Management Agency. All other orders to

interrupt communications service or statements of intent shall be

served on the communications service provider's contact for receiving

requests from law enforcement, including receipt of and responding

to state or federal warrants, orders, or subpoenas.

(e) A provider of communications service that intentionally

interrupts communications service pursuant to this section shall

comply with any rule or notification requirement of the commission or

Federal Communications Commission, or both, and any other applicable

provision or requirement of state or federal law.

(f) Good faith reliance by a communications service provider upon

an order of a judicial officer authorizing the interruption of

communications service pursuant to subdivision (b), or upon a signed

statement of intent to apply for a court order pursuant to

subdivision ©, shall constitute a complete defense for any

communications service provider against any action brought as a

result of the interruption of communications service as directed by

that order or statement.

(g) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring that

California users of any communications service not have that service

interrupted, and thereby be deprived of 911 access to emergency

services or a means to engage in constitutionally protected

expression, is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal

affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the

California Constitution.

(h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,

2020, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted

statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2020, deletes or extends

that date.

[endostate]

I'm not sure if this is true, but the only proposed cell phone idea I've ever adamantly supported was adding software that disables the phone if you're travelling more than 20 MPH.  Such a device would prevent people from using their cell phones while driving, but the police opposed such a device. 

 

Interesting, can it distinguish drivers from passengers?

[MMX2010]

Well, under this law police will be able to disable cell-phones in an "emergency"... thus giving police unlimited power to do whatever the fuck they want.

 

Didn't realize it was that bad.  Can police disrupt the video-recording features as well?

[J-William]

Didn't realize it was that bad.  Can police disrupt the video-recording features as well?

as far as I know it is supposedly an anti-theft measure and should therefore make the phone completely unusable for any purpose. So yeah, no video recording.

[MMX2010]

as far as I know it is supposedly an anti-theft measure and should therefore make the phone completely unusable for any purpose. So yeah, no video recording.

 

That's really bad.  Police behave so much better when they're being recorded. 

[kavih]

I'm planning on getting an iPhone 6 next month. Does anyone know if it can be jailbroken and, therefore, disabled the kill switch option?

[J. D. Stembal]

The law enforcement union in California is clearly trying to prevent independent journalism of police activities.

[Pepin]

I'm not sure if this is true, but the only proposed cell phone idea I've ever adamantly supported was adding software that disables the phone if you're travelling more than 20 MPH.  Such a device would prevent people from using their cell phones while driving, but the police opposed such a device. 

 

It would also stop all passengers from using their phones when someone else is driving.

[JSDev]

I'm planning on getting an iPhone 6 next month. Does anyone know if it can be jailbroken and, therefore, disabled the kill switch option?

What's not known is whether or not that just because the feature will be mandatory for manufacturers to provide, consumers would be able to just turn that feature off. I'll have to read the law again to see if there any specific bullet points in that regard.

[MMX2010]

It would also stop all passengers from using their phones when someone else is driving.

 

I've heard, second-hand, (so it may not be reliable), that 75% of driving trips take under 20 minutes to complete.  So a passenger in a 20 minute driving trip can go without cell service during that trip.  Or he can broadcast on facebook: "Will be in a car for twenty minutes, so no phone or internet for me until then." 

 

We can debate whether we want the government to be in charge of such things (I don't.), or we can debate whether celling-while-driving is really that threatening (I think it is.), or we can debate both at once. 

 

But overall, I don't see the value in allowing cell phones to work while anyone is driving. 

[J-William]

I've heard, second-hand, (so it may not be reliable), that 75% of driving trips take under 20 minutes to complete.  So a passenger in a 20 minute driving trip can go without cell service during that trip.  Or he can broadcast on facebook: "Will be in a car for twenty minutes, so no phone or internet for me until then." 

 

We can debate whether we want the government to be in charge of such things (I don't.), or we can debate whether celling-while-driving is really that threatening (I think it is.), or we can debate both at once. 

 

But overall, I don't see the value in allowing cell phones to work while anyone is driving. 

Are you against people talking on the phone? or the other functions of a modern smartphone?

 

A blanket restriction on phones working at over 20mph would mean phones won't work on buses or trains, and also I'd be willing to bet you money that the vast majority of dangerous driving and using a cellphone occurs at 20mph or less.

 

and what happens if you just turn off the GPS because your phone uses too much power when GPS is on... There are so many problems with the idea that even a politician can see the flaws.

[MMX2010]

Are you against people talking on the phone? or the other functions of a modern smartphone?

 

A blanket restriction on phones working at over 20mph would mean phones won't work on buses or trains, and also I'd be willing to bet you money that the vast majority of dangerous driving and using a cellphone occurs at 20mph or less.

 

and what happens if you just turn off the GPS because your phone uses too much power when GPS is on... There are so many problems with the idea that even a politician can see the flaws.

 

It's my fault, but we're discussing two different things. 

 

The only way I would support a kill-switch feature is if every customer could voluntarily implement it in exchange for favorable car insurance and cell-phone rates.  A driver who voluntarily renders all cell phones non functional in his moving vehicle is automatically safer than one who doesn't.  So any driver who does this ought to receive money for doing so.

 

I don't support anything large-scale and government-controlled.

[cobra2411]

The worst part of this is that it already exists. 

 

All cell phones have an ESN, a unique serial number. A simple database with blacklisted ESN's that all the carriers use to stop phones from connecting to the cell towers would achieve this. It's been around for a long time but there's money to be made selling insurance and new phones. Hence no profit motive for the carriers to blacklist phones. 

 

And... Since Joe 6 Pack needs his latest iPhone and he puts up with this crap it's what we have. It easily would have been done if people simply cancelled their service unless it was implemented. The fact that they cry to daddy government and don't stand up for themselves is telling and IMO discouraging...