Apple IDs and passwords (especially weak ones) are not realistic defense measures against adversaries such as:
Any organized crime outfit (think eastern Europe),
Any well-sized telecom provider,
Any well-funded police department
The premise that my killswitch is safe because only I know the password is flawed. The existence of this type of feature alone is a security vulnerability in and of itself, and it is really unfortunate, because this vulnerability is actually by design.
That's like saying "only I know that I hid my house keys under that rock, no one else will ever be able to enter my house but me" -- theoretically that could be true, but realistically, that is not true.
It sucks to be a victim, but I don't think robbery of iphones is any different than robbery of wallets and dollar bills. I wouldn't want a wallet with a spontaneous combustion feature, neither would I expect federal politicians to advocate for such a feature. So why does the iphone require this kind of attention? If you can not defend your own property, that sucks, but that doesn't entitle a victim to impose that every iphone needs a killswitch. (I would almost call that the "sore loser" argument, but I will stop short of that to avoid obvious offense.) If we truly believe in the killswitch as a crime fighting tactic, then where does it stop? Let's put killswitches in cars, houses, boats, airplanes, medical equipment, tractors, cranes, bulldozers -- or anything more than 200 dollars.
What if someone steals my designer leather pants, let's put a killswitch on that too. My bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label? Let me put a remote activatable drain spout so in case my uncle gets a little too comfortable in my liquor cabinet I can put a quick end to that too.
Oh, and as an aside, just because I do not own a smartphone does not mean I am "trolling" by raising legitimate concerns about the killswitch phenominum. Just because you will never be able to convince me I need the luxury of a smartphone doesn't mean any arguments I make are invalid. I know all about smartphones, I have developed apps for them before -- I don't see the benefit. I am software developer and a systems administrator -- I know how computers and the internet works, I am not being a technophobe.
60+ dollars (depending on your provider, sometimes as high as 90 dollars) a months for "G4 LTE" -- yawn, I pay 50 dollars a month for faster internet out of my own home and my home computer is more capable and easier to use and costs less to replace. Anyone who thinks they need internet 24 hours a day has been duped and anyone who cries "technophobe" at smartphone holdouts is just a fanboi. There is a real world, and it is much more interesting and beautiful than any computer simulation. Those are my bussiness-sense and humanistic reasons for not wanting a smartphone, there are technical and legal reasons too. Why would I want to opt in to a federal surveillence network? No thanks, don't need that.
Find me something really special a smartphone can do and maybe I'll change my mind. To me, it is nothing more than an expensive computer, depending on your manufacturer (Apple) it may even have certain restrictions on it that any sane computer owner would simply not accept on their laptop or desktop computer. "But it's a phone man!" -- it is a computer with telephony capabilities, don't sugar feed me some bullshit about how my computer needs to be "easier to use" and therefore it must be less capable. I will not pay any amount of money for a self-crippling device, period. And the less people there are willing to defend consumer principals like this, the more likely it is that companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft will abuse their customer base with "innovations" like the killswitch and the walled-garden.