Why cell phones are so often scams
I think the reason is that the cell phones are high dollar items WITH INSURANCE. It's a very safe scam for a criminal. They get a subsidized phone with little money out of pocket that is worth many hundreds of dollars. They sell it on CL or eBay then file a claim on their phone as lost or stolen and insurance sends them a replacement. AT&T etc don't really care so long as the person keeps paying their monthly bill. I believe the insurance payout is handled by (usually) a 3rd party.
Once AT&T blacklists a phone as stolen or lost there is NOTHING the buyer can do. AT&T won't take any action. There is no recourse for the buyer. The whole situation sucks, but it's most specific to cell phones because the seller can get a quick replacement via insurance and pocket hundreds of dollars and the buyer cannot do ANYTHING. Very safe for the criminal.
Any item MIGHT have a credit card provision for purchase insurance for loss (I've used this myself), but neither AT&T nor even Apple have a way (currently) to blacklist a computer and keep it from being usable. And, we had to file a police report when someone stole my wife's BB. The credit card company required that step before they'd pay on the claim. No such hurdle that I know of before AT&T will screw the buyer. AT&T completely protects the criminal seller and doesn't even require a police report, just an allegation that the phone was lost or stolen.
Cell phones are uniquely "safe" for criminals because the buyer has zero recourse and AT&T and the cops don't care.
<rant> Truthfully if a buyer buys in good faith from a legitimate owner/seller, the buyer has done nothing wrong and having AT&T blacklist the device seems like "theft" of what is private property legally sold by a willing seller and a willing buyer. That the buyer has no recourse is the real problem, and frankly I think AT&T would lose a lawsuit for interfering with private property that wasn't AT&T's property. I'm not a lawyer, it just seems like AT&T is violating Constitutional private property rights of legitimate buyers. Sadly, the Constitution doesn't carry much weight in today's "legal" system. We have a legal system, not a system of Justice, otherwise the NSA couldn't be spying on Americans without probable cause and the POTUS couldn't assassinate American citizens without at least a show trial in abstentia. POTUS doesn't even bother with a show trial because the Constitution doesn't guide America anymore, $$$ guide America. </rant>
I think the reason is that the cell phones are high dollar items WITH INSURANCE. It's a very safe scam for a criminal. They get a subsidized phone with little money out of pocket that is worth many hundreds of dollars. They sell it on CL or eBay then file a claim on their phone as lost or stolen and insurance sends them a replacement. AT&T etc don't really care so long as the person keeps paying their monthly bill. I believe the insurance payout is handled by (usually) a 3rd party.
Once AT&T blacklists a phone as stolen or lost there is NOTHING the buyer can do. AT&T won't take any action. There is no recourse for the buyer. The whole situation sucks, but it's most specific to cell phones because the seller can get a quick replacement via insurance and pocket hundreds of dollars and the buyer cannot do ANYTHING. Very safe for the criminal.
Any item MIGHT have a credit card provision for purchase insurance for loss (I've used this myself), but neither AT&T nor even Apple have a way (currently) to blacklist a computer and keep it from being usable. And, we had to file a police report when someone stole my wife's BB. The credit card company required that step before they'd pay on the claim. No such hurdle that I know of before AT&T will screw the buyer. AT&T completely protects the criminal seller and doesn't even require a police report, just an allegation that the phone was lost or stolen.
Cell phones are uniquely "safe" for criminals because the buyer has zero recourse and AT&T and the cops don't care.
<rant> Truthfully if a buyer buys in good faith from a legitimate owner/seller, the buyer has done nothing wrong and having AT&T blacklist the device seems like "theft" of what is private property legally sold by a willing seller and a willing buyer. That the buyer has no recourse is the real problem, and frankly I think AT&T would lose a lawsuit for interfering with private property that wasn't AT&T's property. I'm not a lawyer, it just seems like AT&T is violating Constitutional private property rights of legitimate buyers. Sadly, the Constitution doesn't carry much weight in today's "legal" system. We have a legal system, not a system of Justice, otherwise the NSA couldn't be spying on Americans without probable cause and the POTUS couldn't assassinate American citizens without at least a show trial in abstentia. POTUS doesn't even bother with a show trial because the Constitution doesn't guide America anymore, $$$ guide America. </rant>
