Dakota Beacon

San Francisco DA George Gascon, has weighed in with his idea on how to combat what is a raging problem in fighting crime – the theft of cell phones, and so-called “smart” phones in particular.  He is advocating for development of software technology which the police or presumably other law enforcement personnel could use to “kill” or “brick” a stolen phone.  His reasons are that the data bases being developed for reporting this theft are not fast enough or efficient enough.    If only he has the tools at his command, he believes he can cut down on this criminal activity.  He says he prefers a “technical solution” to a “criminal solution” because the cost of going to court is already high for taxpayers.

Most cell phone owners, of “smart” or any other type of phone, know that they have the option to call their service provider and request that their phone be “killed” if it has been stolen.  One of the reasons these phones are such an issue for Gascon and other like-minded crusaders, is that often CEO’s keep sensitive information on their phones and use them to basically manage huge businesses.  Therefore much information is acquired by a thief.  Additionally, the phones themselves have a black market value. 

One must assume that by Gascon’s stated premise law enforcement agencies would not kill phones unless a theft is reported.  How, then, can they kill a phone faster than the victim of the theft?  That is, assuming also that the victim himself has survived this theft.  If not, we are in a new ballgame altogether.  Then, one would expect that such a matter would be taken care of individually and the provider informed of the situation.  Under the assumption that the victim of the theft is surviving, why does he not call his own provider and kill his own phone?  A DA could inform him that he might be held responsible for civil or criminal wrongs committed through the theft of the phone.  It is a safe bet that a CEO or anyone else will call his provider immediately and order the phone “bricked”.

So, now, the phone that has been stolen all taken care of, what other reason could any law enforcement or government agency possibly want with a “kill switch” that could disable any phone at any time, anywhere? 

There is good reason to harbor serious mistrust of any level of law enforcement or other governmental agencies to hold such a “kill switch”.  It is easy to imagine a scenario in which a law enforcement or government agency could use this huge power for an illegitimate purpose.  We have all heard about Ruby Ridge and the real massacre that occurred at Waco.  Today we depend upon our lines of communication.  The whole stated purpose of Gascon’s effort is to “protect” these lines of communication.  They are that important.  He wants to avoid messy court action of any kind.  He thinks he knows best. 

In the unfortunate event that we find ourselves physically at odds with the government (and this is getting easier for us all the time) would you want them to have the power to cut off your communication?  What if you found yourself under siege or captive of a rogue government?  Would you want the possibility that your phone might work?  We are already becoming aware that some government agencies, like the EPA, are accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury.  If you found yourself in dispute with the EPA would you want someone there to have a “kill switch”?

The danger doesn’t end there, either.  There’s always the “oops” factor.  Somehow the “wrong” phone is killed and it just happens that the inconvenienced citizen has been using the phone to organize a protest or a town hall meeting or is just a guy who disagrees with government policy and also happens to need his phone to run his business.

The tradeoff is too great.  Once again a government and its agent seeks to “protect” us against the “bad guys”  when there is no need.  If these phones are such a huge factor in crime in San Francisco, let the citizens of that city be told that they MUST deactivate their phones when they are stolen or risk liability if the phone is used in commission of a crime or brings civil harm to anyone.  Surely that is the efficient way to handle this.  One must conclude that there are other, unstated, reasons for Gascon’s ardent pursuit of this technology.  If he’s just mistaken, let us tell him we oppose it and why. 

I would further assert that “data bases” can have nefarious uses as well.  What do we need a stolen phone data base for?  Why not just put everyone on notice that his is responsible if he owns a cell phone?  Data bases in themselves can become a problematic issue – someone, likely the UN, will have a huge store of information – about YOU.  About your business.  The UN is aggressively working 24/7 to make an end run around our national laws and protections.  This can only help them in that effort.  We should oppose all of these “safety” programs and technology.  If an international agency has a data base it can eventually find a way to get the personal information which would help quell any opposition to such usurpation of our law.  Think about it.  Where is the greater danger?

We need to look back at the brutal methods “leaders” like Joseph Stalin used to maintain control in Soviet Russia for an example.  Dissidents in Russia frequently disappeared from polite society only to turn up in the Gulag, the grave or a mental asylum.  It helped immensely that they were kept incommunicado.  Everyone tacitly understood the rules.  Don’t criticize.  Look the other way.  Stalin was the successful tyrant in the Soviet battle for succession to Lenin’s seat of power because he understood that communication – the press, education policy, etc., was the key to controlling the discussion.  Had the citizens been able to openly discuss and debate, Stalin could not have held on.  If the people of Russia had had cell phones he would have LOVED to have the kill switch. 

This is not a “local” story.  If San Francisco law enforcement gets this in their hands it will, in short order, become a part of the arsenal of Homeland Security.  Is that who you want holding the switch for YOUR phone?  Maybe we’d better think about this one.  Clearly the technology is there – we can kill our own phones through our providers, after all.  It’s but a step away. 

Sally Morris is a journalist and member of Americans for Constitutional Government.  Visit her website at http://fromtherampart.webs.com