California “Kill Switch” Bill Could Be Used to Disrupt Protests

[WanderingFool]

I wasn't very worried but I thought of a couple scenarios.

Have you seen those police brutality videos where there's always at least one cop telling the recorder to move away and stop recording? Imagine having the video and everything else you had on your phone deleted, therefore removing any proof you had.

 

I think like most things, it can be used for good or evil. Sadly the hands it's in don't have a very good record/reputation.

I don't think it is that simple to trigger the phone locking *in that it isn't something they can just turn on with a switch, even internally it would take time to lock phones*....also I believe you have gotten a few details wrong.  The phone locking, via police would be a temporary act...in the event of a police brutality even if they managed to turn it on afterwards they could not keep it locked.  The other big thing is locking of the phones do not cause a loss of data, the phones can still be unlocked.

 

To discuss the issue a bit, it is a bit of a mixed bag.  In general I believe there should be a "kill switch" and also giving the user the ability to enable that switch for their phone....to Bogica locks can be bypassed *especially if they factory default the phone*, sim cards are almost always removed first when stolen, and a locked down phone can often be shipped and sold overseas where a blacklist of phone id's aren't used.  So in this case a kill-switch would prevent the phone from being reset, making it more time consuming to sell abroad.

 

For the government being allowed to use the kill switch, I can see the benefits and negatives behind it.  To be honest, if a national law is put into place that protects the authorities from abusing it *like clear definitions of what public danger constitutes* I feel that it is wise to have.  I guess a big thing is in hostage situations, where on a few occasions people have tweeted or the media has been filming about a police raid and it has ended in tragedy *hostage takers being alerted of the actions*...so in certain scenarios it can actually be good to have a way to kill all communication *Vancouver hockey riots*.  As a note I could be wrong on this next point but from what I have seen the police's kill switch might only affect the communication, not full lockout

 

Indeed. I also love it when people say "only the police and military should have guns!" when those two institutions account for most of the gun deaths world wide, year after year.

That mentality ignores the fact that guns can be very easy to conceal.  Also guns do attribute to homicide, by merely the fact they are more effective at killing *and again concealment is a large issue*.    The way I look at it is the homicide rates http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738/c-g/desc/desc02-eng.htm

I am aware there are other factors in place, that include things such as wealth and general mentality of it's people...but considering the top homicide rates (per capita) occur in places where gun ownership is easier, there is a trend.  Yes I admit that many things could be used as weapons, but guns are designed to be weapons

[Heisenbleurgh]

For the government being allowed to use the kill switch, I can see the benefits and negatives behind it.  To be honest, if a national law is put into place that protects the authorities from abusing it *like clear definitions of what public danger constitutes* I feel that it is wise to have.  I guess a big thing is in hostage situations, where on a few occasions people have tweeted or the media has been filming about a police raid and it has ended in tragedy *hostage takers being alerted of the actions*...so in certain scenarios it can actually be good to have a way to kill all communication *Vancouver hockey riots*.  As a note I could be wrong on this next point but from what I have seen the police's kill switch might only affect the communication, not full lockout

Indeed, my first reaction was that in theory in does sound like a good idea to protect my information if lost or stolen. I think it has potential if used in a sensible manner rather than a form of blackmail or personal gain.

I think you're right, I might've misunderstood how it works and what things police forces would have access to but in the end it depends on what entities get access to what.

[WanderingFool]

Indeed, my first reaction was that in theory in does sound like a good idea to protect my information if lost or stolen. I think it has potential if used in a sensible manner rather than a form of blackmail or personal gain.

I think you're right, I might've misunderstood how it works and what things police forces would have access to but in the end it depends on what entities get access to what.

Yea, I will agree to that point.  If the authorities have full access then I believe the bill would be too encompassing

[Trik'Stari]

I don't think it is that simple to trigger the phone locking *in that it isn't something they can just turn on with a switch, even internally it would take time to lock phones*....also I believe you have gotten a few details wrong.  The phone locking, via police would be a temporary act...in the event of a police brutality even if they managed to turn it on afterwards they could not keep it locked.  The other big thing is locking of the phones do not cause a loss of data, the phones can still be unlocked.

 

To discuss the issue a bit, it is a bit of a mixed bag.  In general I believe there should be a "kill switch" and also giving the user the ability to enable that switch for their phone....to Bogica locks can be bypassed *especially if they factory default the phone*, sim cards are almost always removed first when stolen, and a locked down phone can often be shipped and sold overseas where a blacklist of phone id's aren't used.  So in this case a kill-switch would prevent the phone from being reset, making it more time consuming to sell abroad.

 

For the government being allowed to use the kill switch, I can see the benefits and negatives behind it.  To be honest, if a national law is put into place that protects the authorities from abusing it *like clear definitions of what public danger constitutes* I feel that it is wise to have.  I guess a big thing is in hostage situations, where on a few occasions people have tweeted or the media has been filming about a police raid and it has ended in tragedy *hostage takers being alerted of the actions*...so in certain scenarios it can actually be good to have a way to kill all communication *Vancouver hockey riots*.  As a note I could be wrong on this next point but from what I have seen the police's kill switch might only affect the communication, not full lockout

 

That mentality ignores the fact that guns can be very easy to conceal.  Also guns do attribute to homicide, by merely the fact they are more effective at killing *and again concealment is a large issue*.    The way I look at it is the homicide rates http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738/c-g/desc/desc02-eng.htm

I am aware there are other factors in place, that include things such as wealth and general mentality of it's people...but considering the top homicide rates (per capita) occur in places where gun ownership is easier, there is a trend.  Yes I admit that many things could be used as weapons, but guns are designed to be weapons

Not just many things, everything, there is literally no object on the planet that cannot be used to kill someone. That's actually a scientific fact. you could slit someone's throat with a blade of grass, or force them to swallow something on which they choke, hell you can kill people with your bare hands, lets outlaw hands since those are actually humanities original weapons.

 

And the simple fact remains that the police aren't really there to protect you anymore, look at what just came out in the news today in seattle. A 15 year old girl got attacked by some other young kids or something while 3 security guards just stood there and watched and did nothing to help, and when it was all over, they didn't even check to see if she was ok. The girl had earlier asked two cops for help because these other kids had been threatening and harassing her, and they basically told her "there's nothing we can do about it, go home" and then she gets assaulted and brutally beaten. I can't find anything about it online yet but it was on TV.

 

The simple fact remains that by taking guns out of the hands of ordinary people who obey the law, you only leave them in the hands of those who are supposed to uphold the law(which isn't what they always do, sometimes their corrupt, sometimes they dont give a fuck and just want the job and the authority, and sometimes they can't be there to stop something from happening), and those who don't give a shit and are intent on causing severe bodily harm to anyone they can and or doing whatever they feel like, and leaving the normal people defenseless. Look at China, they aren't allowed to have guns either, so instead you have mass knife attacks where a lot of people still get killed, and no one can really defend themselves. This isn't really something that can be argued against, yes the US has alot of gun crime, we also have a much higher population, more physical territory to cover, and yes we have a very large gun industry, and today roughly 60 million gun owners didn't kill anyone.

 

Yes you could outlaw guns for everyone but police, but then, all some random criminal has to do is surprise a cop in an alley from behind with a knife or a baseball bat or any number of weapons, and now he has a gun, and anyone he encounters doesn't, with the exception of other cops, which there aren't a whole lot of compared to innocent people.

 

Edit: Here's the story.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/02/15-year-old_girl_beaten_while.php

[WanderingFool]

-snip-

If you look at the way I worded my post, I didn't say guns should only be in the hands of the cops.  Although my opinion is they should be tight controls over ownerships of guns *this is not to be taken that I believe guns should automatically be illegal everywhere, I feel that especially in the US with the number of guns it is already past the tipping point of being able to truly ban them in a safe manor*

 

You mention China, yet that ignores the fact that homicides per capita are a lot smaller and of the knife attacks from all the ones I have seen there are less deaths and the attacker was able to be taken down.  Also I clearly stated per capita, which is population independent....actually if you want to bring populations and physical territory to cover, lets compare Canada, US and China then.  Canada has a larger territory than US (especially population density), and China has by far more people than the US.

 

To address your criminal with a gun, guess what...if a criminal has a gun and pops out at you, and you try to draw a gun and he shoots you...or better yet someone who didn't see the full things decides to shoot you for drawing a gun and firing.  The problem I have with the if we don't have it and the criminals do have it argument is that it creates a cat and mouse scenario.  Under the logic of the gun analogy, I could argue that North Korea is justified to own nuclear missiles *which I'll assume everyone here disagrees with*.

 

In terms of the Security Officer, it is important to notice the distinction of a Security Officer vs an actual cop...and it was actually in their contract to observe and not engage, so it isn't necessarily fair to blame the cops *as they weren't even involved*.

[Trik'Stari]

If you look at the way I worded my post, I didn't say guns should only be in the hands of the cops.  Although my opinion is they should be tight controls over ownerships of guns *this is not to be taken that I believe guns should automatically be illegal everywhere, I feel that especially in the US with the number of guns it is already past the tipping point of being able to truly ban them in a safe manor*

 

You mention China, yet that ignores the fact that homicides per capita are a lot smaller and of the knife attacks from all the ones I have seen there are less deaths and the attacker was able to be taken down.  Also I clearly stated per capita, which is population independent....actually if you want to bring populations and physical territory to cover, lets compare Canada, US and China then.  Canada has a larger territory than US (especially population density), and China has by far more people than the US.

 

To address your criminal with a gun, guess what...if a criminal has a gun and pops out at you, and you try to draw a gun and he shoots you...or better yet someone who didn't see the full things decides to shoot you for drawing a gun and firing.  The problem I have with the if we don't have it and the criminals do have it argument is that it creates a cat and mouse scenario.  Under the logic of the gun analogy, I could argue that North Korea is justified to own nuclear missiles *which I'll assume everyone here disagrees with*.

 

In terms of the Security Officer, it is important to notice the distinction of a Security Officer vs an actual cop...and it was actually in their contract to observe and not engage, so it isn't necessarily fair to blame the cops *as they weren't even involved*.

If you didn't see, and that story doesn't say this, but they did state it on the news program I saw, the girl had asked police for help beforehand and they merely told her to "go home".

 

The fact still stands, and this is what happens in most "active shooter" situations, the moment a "good guy" with a gun shows up, the "bad guy" generally runs, or takes himself out of the equation. I do believe there should be controls, such as background checks, like the ones we already have. As well as gun handling classes, which aren't mandatory but readily available in most cities. Most criminals are only aggressive when they think they have the upper hand, and when they are made "equal" they usually run.

 

How do you explain that in cities like detroit, where gun ownership was pretty much illegal for a while, at least in public, basically became a warzone?

 

As with the nuclear weapons analogy, the simple fact is that the only current method of deterence is having nuclear weapons, it is something we wish that we could disinvent, but the fact remains that come countries, like north korea, would attack everyone else, if they were the only one with nuclear weapons, it's sad, but true.

[Silent_Xaxal]

Ideal socialism would have no government, living under a "socialist" government is essentially the same thing as facism, please see: Every socialist society ever. They all do the same thing, intrude upon and trample upon personal rights "for the good of the whole"

 

My point is that we need to dispence with the idea of elected officials (or government as a whole) and simply have a true democracy, majoritarian rule.

 

Anything other than liberal democracy at this stage sounds better. And if anything, the Republicans and NRA have a very valid point, because armed citizens with proper training are a far more ready defense against criminals than a Police force whose response may be limited by one factor or another. And lets face it, a welfare state will run out of resources, because that's how the real world works.

 

And if the direction of the world is any indication, be prepared to see more and more of it tilt towards the right.

[Trik'Stari]

Anything other than liberal democracy at this stage sounds better. And if anything, the Republicans and NRA have a very valid point, because armed citizens with proper training are a far more ready defense against criminals than a Police force whose response may be limited by one factor or another. And lets face it, a welfare state will run out of resources, because that's how the real world works.

 

And if the direction of the world is any indication, be prepared to see more and more of it tilt towards the right.

Careful there, when faced with logic and reason the left tends to respond with hate, fear mongering, and insults. Not that the republicans are any better, I am for neither party since both are essentially the same thing in reality.