This makes zero sense. Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco?
Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which point there are better ways to handle the situation.
>Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco?
Because they can demand that power and have it offered to them?
That was exactly my point in answering it: the fact that there is another, already existing, way to effect the same thing, doesn't negate the fact that police often demands whatever they can get away with, even if its superfluous.
It's just another capability to block phones that they can have, and if they can have it without needing to even ask a telco to do it for them, even the better.
Why would they brick phones, costing each user (and likely themselves when the users sue) hundreds of dollars in damage when they can easily disrupt phone service in an area for a controlled period of time or block specific subscribers at the telco?
You don't understand what he was getting at. It's much more complicated to go through this process to brick each phone individually (Which requires figuring out who owns what phone) then just disrupt phone service for a while in the area.
Nah, build it so that it responds to distance to tower. Send out an alert to the whole system. If the phone is within communications distance of the tower, switch off.
Note that the kill switch operates at a per phone level, so they would have to identify every user at the protest they want to brick, at which point there are better ways to handle the situation.