​Minnesota beats California to the punch, signs smartphone kill-switch into law

[aGameOfThrones]

The Governor of Minnesota just signed a bill that could change the cellphone industry forever: a mandatory kill-switch law. The bill was written as a criminal deterrent: if a stolen phone can be remotely disabled, stealing smartphones may become a less lucrative crime. A study conducted at Creighton University suggests that such a measure could save consumers upwards of $2.5 billion a year, but it could prove expensive for carriers. The law has the potential to gut profits from selling cellphone insurance, sure, but implementing a feature for a single state isn't cost effective -- Minnesota's kill-switch requirement might bring the feature to the entire nation.

Minnesota's law closely mirrors an active bill in California, but it goes a step beyond adding carrier features. When the law goes into effect next July it will also limit how retailers can pay customers for their second hand devices, making cash transactions illegal. Stores will have to pay sellers by check, store credit or electronic transfer, securing a paper trail for used (and possibly stolen) devices. With any luck, these measures will make smartphone-focused muggings a thing of the past.


http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/14/Minnesota-kill-switch%20/

[jtap]

Cars next?

[muh_roads]

Cars next?

They could do it already with OnStar enabled vehicles.

[Wooden Indian]

We already have such a system. It's voluntary.
Consumer calls in and makes report. A few clicks and the SIM is disabled. Few more clicks and the IMEI is blocked from accessing the networks (new new SIM can NOT be added).

So, why the law? Hmm...

[Reason]

We already have such a system. It's voluntary.
Consumer calls in and makes report. A few clicks and the SIM is disabled. Few more clicks and the IMEI is blocked from accessing the networks (new new SIM can NOT be added).

So, why the law? Hmm...

Not correct.

The phone can be unlocked by anyone that knows what they are doing and use it on other compatible carriers.

[ZENemy]

"When the law goes into effect next July it will also limit how retailers can pay customers for their second hand devices, making cash transactions illegal."

[jtap]

They could do it already with OnStar enabled vehicles.

Yeah, but that's up to you whether you buy a car with that or not. If they make a law to force all vehicles made to have a kill switch that would be crazy. I'm already skeptical of newer cars with too much electronics in them.

[Wooden Indian]

Not correct.

The phone can be unlocked by anyone that knows what they are doing and use it on other compatible carriers.

Obviously the IMEI can be spoofed. But that's no difference if there is a law in place or no. This already exists in the private sector on a voluntary basis.
My question is, why the law...?

[DamianTV]

Not correct.

The phone can be unlocked by anyone that knows what they are doing and use it on other compatible carriers.

Like Cops. And if a backdoor is built into a device, that backdoor can be accessed by ANYONE, not just Cops, Crooks, or the NSA.

I'd expect to see this completely backfire. Instead of stealing peoples phones, crooks instead remotely lock phones, just to be spiteful. Companies wont care as it means that most people will have to come in to get their phones working again. It uses a defensive technique against itself. Imagine if you had seat belts that could also be remotely locked, not as a safety measure, but by cops to prevent you from getting out of your car. Right now, your seat belt is fully under your control, but with remote control over your seatbelt, it might as well be a pair of handcuffs. Thats the equivilant of Remote Locking. It needs to be Optional for the User to buy or not buy.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Like Cops. And if a backdoor is built into a device, that backdoor can be accessed by ANYONE, not just Cops, Crooks, or the NSA.

I'd expect to see this completely backfire. Instead of stealing peoples phones, crooks instead remotely lock phones, just to be spiteful. Companies wont care as it means that most people will have to come in to get their phones working again. It uses a defensive technique against itself. Imagine if you had seat belts that could also be remotely locked, not as a safety measure, but by cops to prevent you from getting out of your car. Right now, your seat belt is fully under your control, but with remote control over your seatbelt, it might as well be a pair of handcuffs. Thats the equivilant of Remote Locking. It needs to be Optional for the User to buy or not buy.

Delete that post before you give them any ideas!!!

[idiom]

Blackberry phones already get blacklisted.

the company that opposes this is Apple. They like it when your iPhone gets stolen, because you have to buy a new one.

If you couldn't fence iPhones, then they wouldn't get stolen so often. Apple sales would plummet. The market would collapse.

Device kill switches don't cost anything to implement because they already have been. Apple just keeps them deactivated for profit and consumers don't care.

Its not a backdoor, its just a unique device ID. Every device has one, it has to have one to function.

Carriers just need a blacklist of devices.

Because of the market failure to deter theft with such a simple system, we are getting horrors like this from the government.

[DamianTV]

Delete that post before you give them any ideas!!!

Im quite sure someone has already thought of it. We will be required to pay for the tools of our own enslavement.

[PRB]

Yay for states' rights! Doing the dirty work so the feds don't have to!

[Keith and stuff]

Imagine if you had seat belts that could also be remotely locked, not as a safety measure, but by cops to prevent you from getting out of your car. Right now, your seat belt is fully under your control, but with remote control over your seatbelt, it might as well be a pair of handcuffs. Thats the equivilant of Remote Locking. It needs to be Optional for the User to buy or not buy.
That's really scary stuff! Thank goodness seat belt use isn't mandatory.