Posted: 2/7/2014 5:12:23 AM EDT
|
Summary: A bill has been introduced in California, which if accepted, would require all smartphone manufacturers operating within the state to include a kill switch in the devices. The ability to remotely disable a device may be an effective way to combat the stolen phone market, now that phone theft has become the most common type of property theft in the US.
Is it ever a good idea to let the Government be able to "kill" something? |
|
Quoted:
Summary: A bill has been introduced in California, which if accepted, would require all smartphone manufacturers operating within the state to include a kill switch in the devices. The ability to remotely disable a device may be an effective way to combat the stolen phone market, now that phone theft has become the most common type of property theft in the US. Is it ever a good idea to let the Government be able to "kill" something? IIRC, the "Remote Kill Switch" is like the Activation Lock on iPhones. It is user enabled, not government enabled. After all, the govt. can order the cellular networks to shut down already, so a phone kill switch wouldn't do anything for them, only users. I believe the law is in response to what cell carriers were trying to do with Samsung smartphones. They were refusing to let Sammy put in an Activation Lock type of service out of fear it would cut into sales of carrier phone insurance. ETA: http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5122798/us-carriers-reportedly-oppose-samsung-anti-theft-kill-switch |
|
Quoted:
IIRC, the "Remote Kill Switch" is like the Activation Lock on iPhones. It is user enabled, not government enabled. After all, the govt. can order the cellular networks to shut down already, so a phone kill switch wouldn't do anything for them, only users. I believe the law is in response to what cell carriers were trying to do with Samsung smartphones. They were refusing to let Sammy put in an Activation Lock type of service out of fear it would cut into sales of carrier phone insurance. ETA: http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5122798/us-carriers-reportedly-oppose-samsung-anti-theft-kill-switch Quoted:
Quoted:
Summary: A bill has been introduced in California, which if accepted, would require all smartphone manufacturers operating within the state to include a kill switch in the devices. The ability to remotely disable a device may be an effective way to combat the stolen phone market, now that phone theft has become the most common type of property theft in the US. Is it ever a good idea to let the Government be able to "kill" something? IIRC, the "Remote Kill Switch" is like the Activation Lock on iPhones. It is user enabled, not government enabled. After all, the govt. can order the cellular networks to shut down already, so a phone kill switch wouldn't do anything for them, only users. I believe the law is in response to what cell carriers were trying to do with Samsung smartphones. They were refusing to let Sammy put in an Activation Lock type of service out of fear it would cut into sales of carrier phone insurance. ETA: http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5122798/us-carriers-reportedly-oppose-samsung-anti-theft-kill-switch Why would it be ok for Apple that has one in iOS7 but not for Android? |
|
Quoted:
Why would it be ok for Apple that has one in iOS7 but not for Android? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Summary: A bill has been introduced in California, which if accepted, would require all smartphone manufacturers operating within the state to include a kill switch in the devices. The ability to remotely disable a device may be an effective way to combat the stolen phone market, now that phone theft has become the most common type of property theft in the US. Is it ever a good idea to let the Government be able to "kill" something? IIRC, the "Remote Kill Switch" is like the Activation Lock on iPhones. It is user enabled, not government enabled. After all, the govt. can order the cellular networks to shut down already, so a phone kill switch wouldn't do anything for them, only users. I believe the law is in response to what cell carriers were trying to do with Samsung smartphones. They were refusing to let Sammy put in an Activation Lock type of service out of fear it would cut into sales of carrier phone insurance. ETA: http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/11/19/5122798/us-carriers-reportedly-oppose-samsung-anti-theft-kill-switch Why would it be ok for Apple that has one in iOS7 but not for Android? Apple didn't ask, just announced and let the chips fall. (Same with iMessage if rumors are to be believed) Carriers get a lot of power with other phone manufacturers. Sammy probably doesn't realize it could pull the same thing if it wanted. That or they don't want to take the risk. |