Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

California Rejects Phone "Kill Switch" Law

posted by Woods on Friday April 25 2014, @02:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the my-favorite-kind-of-switch dept.

AnonTechie writes:

The California Senate on Thursday voted down a state measure that would require smarter anti-theft security on smartphones. The bill, introduced by State Senator Mark Leno and sponsored by George Gascon, San Francisco's district attorney, would have required a so-called kill switch which would render a smartphone useless after it was stolen on all smartphones sold in California. The proposal needed 21 votes to pass in the 40-member chamber. After debate on Thursday morning at the Capitol, in Sacramento, it fell two votes short of passing, with a final count of 19 to 17 in favor.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
California Rejects Phone "Kill Switch" Law | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 39 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:06AM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:06AM (#36471)
    We're talking about two different things. This bill was about the carrier blocking that specific phone after it has been reported stolen, it has nothing to do with software on the phone.
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 29 2014, @08:04PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @08:04PM (#37820) Journal

    So in other words, we're talking about implementing the same thing they've already implemented just with an extra middle-man this time?

    It's gonna take a minimum of a day for me to get it blocked through the carrier; but it only takes a few seconds for me to get it blocked myself. So what possible value could this add?

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 29 2014, @08:23PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 29 2014, @08:23PM (#37827)
      "So in other words, we're talking about implementing the same thing they've already implemented just with an extra middle-man this time?

      Nope. "It's gonna take a minimum of a day for me to get it blocked through the carrier; but it only takes a few seconds for me to get it blocked myself. So what possible value could this add?"

      The phone would become a brick and have no resale value.. hence the need for ALL the carriers to get involved.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 29 2014, @08:29PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 29 2014, @08:29PM (#37830)
      I apologize for the bad formatting of my post. I'll resubmit it fixed:

      "So in other words, we're talking about implementing the same thing they've already implemented just with an extra middle-man this time?

      Nope.

      "It's gonna take a minimum of a day for me to get it blocked through the carrier; but it only takes a few seconds for me to get it blocked myself. So what possible value could this add?"

      The phone would become a brick and have no resale value.. hence the need for ALL the carriers to get involved.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈