Federal Bill Would Mandate Anti-Theft 'Kill Switch' in All Smartphones

[pdjudd]

I'd be curious to know at which level this kill switch is located. Does the consumer have control, or is control left to the carrier?

All indications is that it’s consumer controlled. The carrier can’t exert such control on a device like that to disable it. I believe the most they can do is stop it from connecting to their network.

 

[ardchoille50]

All indications is that it’s consumer controlled. The carrier can’t exert such control on a device like that to disable it. I believe the most they can do is stop it from connecting to their network.

That was a wise move.

 

[r00fus]

Like CA and the Fed does not have more important things to worry about??? In CA, we are $Billions in debt and the Fed is $Trillions in debt and we are worried about cell phone theft?

What a joke!

But not as bad as Earwax research!

While I agree with your sentiment, your facts aren't there - the CA government is now pulling in rising surpluses and is paying back their debt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/us/with-surplus-in-hand-california-eyes-debt.html?_r=0

That said, I ***** hate this mandated kill-switch - esp. because it's completely unnecessary.

 

[h4lp m3]

A move to kill the second hand phone market.

----------

While this measure is better than nothing...

No, it's not. It's an extension of planned obsolescence.
All this does it rapidly depreciate the value of a device from $400 to worthless, forcing more sales and thus increasing Apple's bottom line.

It doesn't help owners recover their property in the slightest. In fact, it encourages thieves to get rid of them faster, by pawning them off on honest people looking for a bargain.

It's horsecrap, that's what it is.

 

[macs4nw]

No, it's not. It's an extension of planned obsolescence.
All this does it rapidly depreciate the value of a device from $400 to worthless, forcing more sales and thus increasing Apple's bottom line.

It doesn't help owners recover their property in the slightest. In fact, it encourages thieves to get rid of them faster, by pawning them off on honest people looking for a bargain.

It's horsecrap, that's what it is.

So you're saying nothing should be done about thefts? Is that what you're suggesting? According to you, that would play even more into Apple's hands; the more phones get stolen, the more phones need to be replaced, right?

 

[h4lp m3]

So you're saying nothing should be done about thefts? Is that what you're suggesting? According to you, that would play even more into Apple's hands; the more phones get stolen, the more phones need to be replaced, right?

Yea, that's what I said... NOTHING should be done about theft.

 

[Eraserhead]

A move to kill the second hand phone market.

How would it do that?

 

[pdjudd]

No, it's not. It's an extension of planned obsolescence.

How?

All this does it rapidly depreciate the value of a device from $400 to worthless, forcing more sales and thus increasing Apple's bottom line.

Well if a thief tries to steal something, it should be worthless to them - then they have less of a reason to steal it.

It doesn't help owners recover their property in the slightest

.
That’s not the point. It’s to deter thieves by making something desirable become much less. And to protect your data.

Find my iPhone and law enforcement is for recovery of stolen merchandise. That’s a separate thing that this law is not targeting.

In fact, it encourages thieves to get rid of them faster, by pawning them off on honest people looking for a bargain.

That won’t work if the thing is a brick and the buyer actually is interested in what he is buying. My guess the buyer doesn’t like to get conned. That makes the device even less desirable if they can’t sell it. And thieves would still try and do that even without that.

It's horsecrap, that's what it is.

Says you.