Minnesota has become the first state in the nation to require smartphones to carry a so-called kill switch that will disable the devices remotely if they are lost or stolen.
"This law will help combat the growing number of violent cellphone thefts in Minnesota," said Gov. Mark Dayton as he signed the bill Wednesday.
The University of Minnesota, in particular, has experienced a rash of such thefts, with students being targeted for their smartphones and tablets. Officials say that up to 62 percent of on-campus robberies now are cellphone related.
The legislation requires that by July 1, 2015, any new smartphone sold or purchased in Minnesota must be equipped a "kill switch" or be capable of downloading such an anti-theft app at no cost. The technology allows smartphone or tablet owners to remotely disable their devices. The law also prohibits retailers from paying cash for used devices, limiting payment to mailed check or electronic transfer.
There are no specifics in the measure that dictate how the kill switch requirement should be implemented, leaving that to the nationwide wireless industry that vocally resisted Minnesota's measure and others like it before reversing its stance last month and pledging to develop the technology for use across the country by next year.
Cellphone manufacturers and carriers have come under increasing pressure nationally to provide a means of disabling the costly electronic devices that have made their owners targets for thieves. Last month industry leaders agreed to develop smartphone software by 2015 that can remotely wipe a device and prevent reactivation by an unauthorized user. Such phones would still be capable of dialing 911 for emergencies.
Jamie Hastings, vice president of external and state affairs for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, said that should be enough.
"Given the breadth of action the industry has voluntarily taken, we question if the Minnesota bill was unnecessary," he said. "State-by-state technology mandates stifle innovation to the ultimate detriment of the consumer."