Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ap3604

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 11, 2011
1,929
0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577334152199453024.html

The nation's major wireless providers have agreed to a deal with the U.S. government to build a central database of stolen cellphones—part of a broad effort to tame an explosion of thefts nationwide.

The database, which the wireless companies will build and maintain, will be designed to track phones that are reported as lost or stolen and deny them voice and data service. The idea is to reduce crime by making it difficult or impossible to actually use a stolen device, reducing resale value.

Currently, Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. block phones that are reported stolen from being reactivated. AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile USA don't. All four have agreed to be part of the new database.

If your buying an Att iPhone on Craigslist make sure to have an Att rep check the phone if its stolen first before handing over your money.
 
Long overdue.

Now if those idiots in Washington can only do something about the gas prices.
 
What difference does it make? If you think phones are going to be stolen less often, you are mistaken. Even a blacklisted phone has value as a media player. People sell blacklisted devices all the time. At the end of the day this only hurts consumers trying to sell their legit phones because prospective buyers might be weary of buying a blacklisted phone.

P.S. I know the down votes are coming. They often do when people speak the truth that others just don't want to hear. :rolleyes:
 
What difference does it make? If you think phones are going to be stolen less often, you are mistaken. Even a blacklisted phone has value as a media player. People sell blacklisted devices all the time. At the end of the day this only hurts consumers trying to sell their legit phones because prospective buyers might be weary of buying a blacklisted phone.

P.S. I know the down votes are coming. They often do when people speak the truth that others just don't want to hear. :rolleyes:

A phone that's only useful as a media player will have a much lower resale value. That might reduce the temptation to steal them in the first place.

Though unless they can prevent international use, there won't be a major impact. Especially since nowadays many iPhones are getting unlocked
 
A phone that's only useful as a media player will have a much lower resale value. That might reduce the temptation to steal them in the first place.

Though unless they can prevent international use, there won't be a major impact. Especially since nowadays many iPhones are getting unlocked

Doubtful. If I am a theif, 200 easy smackers is just as good as 500 easy smackers. The key here is EASY. If you saw a phone that you wanted to steal and it was easy to do so, would you first think "nah, I can only got $200 when yesterday I could get $500, not worth it". No... that $200 is still an easier $200 than going out and working for it.
 
What difference does it make? If you think phones are going to be stolen less often, you are mistaken. Even a blacklisted phone has value as a media player. People sell blacklisted devices all the time. At the end of the day this only hurts consumers trying to sell their legit phones because prospective buyers might be weary of buying a blacklisted phone.

P.S. I know the down votes are coming. They often do when people speak the truth that others just don't want to hear. :rolleyes:

Excellent post, I'm with you.

Theft will continue to be an issue. Always has, always will be.
 
Doubtful. If I am a theif, 200 easy smackers is just as good as 500 easy smackers. The key here is EASY. If you saw a phone that you wanted to steal and it was easy to do so, would you first think "nah, I can only got $200 when yesterday I could get $500, not worth it". No... that $200 is still an easier $200 than going out and working for it.

Well not that I engage in theft - but generally for a risk vs reward scenario, the reward has to be large enough to warrant a sufficiently large risk. For example, I almost never follow the speed limit - mostly because the fines are usually only a couple hundred bucks for anything under 100mph, and it's not terribly difficult to beat a ticket in court. But if I lived in a place like Virgina where one can theoretically get a $3000 fine for going above 80... I probably wouldn't risk it.

Similarly, one might be willing to risk getting caught with stolen property over $500+, but not $200.
 
T-Mobile has been doing that already. They also block the IMEI when the person cancels the contract and refuses to pay the fine or keeps the phone. It's a cool feature to be honest.
 
What difference does it make? If you think phones are going to be stolen less often, you are mistaken.

Here in Europe it's reduced phone thefts - although that's with a more comprehensive system than proposed in the US.

It's certainly not completely eradicated theft, but it's kept it lower than it would have been otherwise.
 
Here in Europe it's reduced phone thefts - although that's with a more comprehensive system than proposed in the US.

It's certainly not completely eradicated theft, but it's kept it lower than it would have been otherwise.

Are there statistics to prove this? How long has the system been in place?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.