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

State and City Officials to Investigate Anti-Theft Practices of Cellphone Makers Following Summit

ConCat said:
If killing lawyers wasn't a crime, there'd be a lot of dead lawyers. :rolleyes: On-topic: Isn't theft something that law enforcement is supposed to deal with or am I being ridiculous? Sure, Apple could implement a kill-switch, but that would be abusable. Imagine a hacker gaining access to this feature and somehow bricking iPhones around the globe, or even on a small scale. Forget iPhones, Android phones too. A kill-switch like this would seem to be too risky... Just hunt the guys down and throw them in jail like good government officials and leave the job creators alone please.
Click to expand...

No. The ability is remotely disable a phone does not have much risk. All it takes is an entry in a database at Apple. Periodically the phone sends out it's serial number to Apple. It is checked and if the number is in the database. If the number matches, the phone erases all of it's firmware and puts a display on the screen saying to return it to any Apple store.

No risk. If the phone is not on the list it will work just fine.
 
"Though the implementation of the Activation Lock will likely cut down on thefts, Schneiderman and Gascón believe that it is ultimately inadequate as a kill switch because it requires customers to utilize both iCloud and the Find My iPhone app."

I do not understand the reasoning here whatsoever. I was expecting them to say that you can wipe the thing in DFU mode. Can you? :confused::confused::confused:
 
I guess according to these guys, Nike should've put anti-theft devices on their sneakers 20 years ago.
 
BiggieFats said:
I'd like to know which politicians campaigned and got elected on anti-theft devices.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know whether or not George W. Bush campaigned and got elected on invading Iraq and Afghanistan. It was his job (not that invading Iraq was necessarily a good idea, but it was his call).

----------
BiggieFats said:
I guess according to these guys, Nike should've put anti-theft devices on their sneakers 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Nike doesn't already have serial numbers, SIM cards, and 4G connectivity on their sneakers.
 
Why's there always a lawsuit?

Browsing the net yesterday, I came across three lawsuits:

(1) A transgender sues about which bathroom to use

(2) A number of companies and their CEOs get sued because the government snoops on its citizens

(3) Manufacturers of popular goods are threatened to be sued because their goods get stolen a lot


A friend of mine who went to business school in the US told me the professor she had suggested students be creative about who they can sue and what for, saying that's a proper business model. With that spirit in mind I can see why there would be so many lawsuits, but that aside I struggle to understand why everyone is so happy to sue, as opposed to actually solve underlying problems for example.
 
Peace said:
Here's an easier,less intrusive,less costly and more responsible way to cut down on cellphone thefts. Don't leave the darn thing laying around for someone to snatch up.
Click to expand...

If you carelessly leave it lying around in a public place, I agree you were asking for it, and deserve what you got. But many phones get stolen on crowded sidewalks, or other crowded public places, by snatch-n-dash criminals who then disappear into the crowd, and leave the victim wondering for a second, what just happened.

I don't profess to have the answer either, but a person walking around with an expensive phone is an easy mark for a desperate criminal, and these types of crimes are bound to increase, unless nipped in the bud. Find a way to take the profit out of the crime, and it will all but disappear.
 
ChrisA said:
No. The ability is remotely disable a phone does not have much risk. All it takes is an entry in a database at Apple. Periodically the phone sends out it's serial number to Apple. It is checked and if the number is in the database. If the number matches, the phone erases all of it's firmware and puts a display on the screen saying to return it to any Apple store.

No risk. If the phone is not on the list it will work just fine.
Click to expand...

He's saying that someone could get into that database and edit the list. Or they could hack one cell tower to redirect the "phone home" traffic to their own database, which says "lock it" to everything.

Of course, Apple could easily neutralize a big hacking attack by unplugging the database.

----------
Amadeus71 said:
Browsing the net yesterday, I came across three lawsuits:

(1) A transgender sues about which bathroom to use

(2) A number of companies and their CEOs get sued because the government snoops on its citizens

(3) Manufacturers of popular goods are threatened to be sued because their goods get stolen a lot


A friend of mine who went to business school in the US told me the professor she had suggested students be creative about who they can sue and what for, saying that's a proper business model. With that spirit in mind I can see why there would be so many lawsuits, but that aside I struggle to understand why everyone is so happy to sue, as opposed to actually solve underlying problems for example.
Click to expand...

It's America. If you hurt your knuckles when you're punching someone in the face, you sue. Why do you think we have overkill safety regulations on everything?
 
This is likely more about the officials wishing for kill switches they can utilize as opposed to trying to lower the amount of thefts. Similar to how all the NSA crap going on in the US is more about controlling US citizens as opposed to protecting them. If they really wanted to take a step toward protecting, they would do a proper job of securing the border, but that gets shut down every time it's brought up. (or they say they'll do it and it doesn't happen)

I think Apple's new implementation makes sense as it leaves the customer in control of the options available for protection and allows them choice in the matter. Sure your average user may have difficulty setting it up or even knowing it's there, but that can be remedied by Apple advertising the feature and showing it in their stores.
 
TouchMint.com said:
Seems dumb that apple is responsible for stopping theft... Not sure where in law that is required but ok.
Click to expand...

It costs much less for Apple to stop theft because they can do it much more easily, and they're private. One kill switch vs the police force taking care of it.

----------
Zachari said:
Like fix the economy? Hell NAW, we got devices to worry about.
Click to expand...

The police can't do much about the economy... unless they kill all the criminals.
 
I think the world is becoming a rather ridiculous place, officials possibly bringing lawsuits to companies that supposedly are not working hard enough to fight crime!

Do they also intend to bring lawsuits to every other company that has high demand for products and are stolen on a daily basis such as cars.

If they intend to make a lawsuit out of this then they'll need to bring a lawsuit to all car manufacturers because the manufacturers haven't worked hard enough to ensure their cars self explode once stolen!!
 
Leave it to non-engineers to know which tech solution is going to be effective. ;)

Kill switches will only be effective on the devices that have them. They don't work in the hundreds of millions of smartphones currently out there. The Activation Lock (and similar approaches) can be applied retroactively to nearly every phone capable of an OS update.

Now, these guys may not be techies, but they should know how criminal behavior works. If there's a small chance of an object having an anti-theft device, it doesn't stop them from trying. When it's highly likely that the object has a protective device, they find greener pastures.
 
The way I see it, the company should've given enough of a damn about their customers to include this from the jump. It's taken 6 years for Apple to add a feature that should have been on the devices from day one. I don't see it as an issue of legality, nothing that would warrant an investigation, but if they find evidence of a conspiracy to omit certain functions that would deter theft so that they can sell more products, then it is what it is. I just feel that they should have added anti-theft measures to these devices to ensure the security of these *hopefully valued customers' property and information.
 
Sounds like they have a bit of a budget surplus this year. Have to come up with some new study or investigation to justify their budget!
 
BlackList Database ATT and Apple choose to ignore it

Having your cell phone or tablet stolen is not just a bad day at the zoo, it potentially compromises your safety and security. Thanks to the FCC (back in the age of the dinosaurs, the early '80s), Electronic Serial Numbers were created to give a unique identifiers to mobile devices. Since then, usage of mobile devices has exploded, and the Electronic Serial Number of yore became the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) and the MEID (Mobile Equipment ID—a super set of IMEI) of today.
If a phone, iPad, or other mobile device is stolen, carriers can blacklist the IMEI or MEID so that the thief cannot use the phone in any capacity (regardless of whether or not the SIM card has been replaced). This is a number you should keep on file, in a secure place, should the need ever arise.

If Apple, Att, Verizon, Tmobile, Sprint, etc. tries to tell you this database doesn't exist there Lying. Folks I have been in the cell business for a long time (worked on the ground floor back in the day with Houston Cellular) this was a system that was implemented long ago and it worked great. I really like my iPhone but folks ATT and Apple have been making money off of stollen iPhones for awhile now and I think this might be coming to an end, and if not, there money train on stollen iPhones might be slowing down at least. Its a long story, but after my iPhone got stollen in Houston I tried my best to get an answer about there imei blacklist database and both Apple and Att told me this didn't exist, and the entire detective dept of the Houston Police Dept. new nothing about this, as most of the public also. (So Sad)
 
JordanNZ said:
No, even if you wipe it,it still won't work.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I thought DFU overrode everything. That's how you used to jailbreak.

----------
thaifood said:
Sounds like they have a bit of a budget surplus this year. Have to come up with some new study or investigation to justify their budget!
Click to expand...

Ugh. As big of a problem this is, they are really wasting money on "investigations".
 
joeip77 said:
If a phone, iPad, or other mobile device is stolen, carriers can blacklist the IMEI or MEID so that the thief cannot use the phone in any capacity (regardless of whether or not the SIM card has been replaced). This is a number you should keep on file, in a secure place, should the need ever arise.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the iPhone, but for a lot of phones the IMEI is fairly trivial to rewrite if you have the right software (a quick google search comes up with loads of android apps for doing it!) and a carrier blacklist on IMEIs is also pretty ineffective a deterrent unless it is internationally enforced.... Stolen phone blacklisted in the US? Best ship it to China or Russia or anywhere else that it will work happily because the blacklists don't extend beyond carrier or country boundaries.
 
I bought an iPhone 4S off eBay which was never activated. I went to Apple and ATT store and they said they can't activate the phone without the needed info which was the sellers last four of social security. I finally got him to tell me the number and got the phone activated. Why can't they implement a system like this? Or is that what this new system is? Seems like an easy fix for Apple since every iPhone user has an apple iD and account.
 
It's amazing how long it took my voice to be heard. This is like the first thing I thought of. I remember being on the phone with AT&T and being like... so you know my serial and you require a serial to activate, so if someone activates my serial..?!?!
 
People and their politics...

There should be a better system in place for stolen devices. Phones, laptops, even cars.

Some will always find a way around it, but it will still be a deterrent.
 
512ke said:
I kind of get government's reaction to the very real problem of phone theft, but at the same time, is it really the manufacturer's problem if your stuff gets stolen?
Click to expand...

If there is a real nice phone that I like, and value at $600, and I continuously have to fight off thieves, then I wouldn't pay $600 for it, but less. The same phone, with no threat of thieves being after it, then I would be willing to pay more. So it is the manufacturer's problem.

"Phone theft" isn't the problem of the manufacturers, but the fact that a phone gets stolen a lot is the problem.

----------
wknapp0924 said:
I bought an iPhone 4S off eBay which was never activated. I went to Apple and ATT store and they said they can't activate the phone without the needed info which was the sellers last four of social security. I finally got him to tell me the number and got the phone activated. Why can't they implement a system like this? Or is that what this new system is? Seems like an easy fix for Apple since every iPhone user has an apple iD and account.
Click to expand...

When you buy and activate your iPhone, you register it to "find my iPhone" which is handy anyway because it will find your phone if you leave it with friends, or it falls behind the sofa. You then need your Apple ID and password to remove it from "find my iPhone", so a thief can't do that, and you need the Apple ID and password to re-activate it after it is being wiped. So if a thief takes your phone, they can use it (if you didn't have a phone lock) until you go to "find my iPhone" and wipe it. They can't remove it from "find my iPhone". They can't register it again. They can prevent wiping by not turning it on and connecting it to the phone network, but that means they can't use the phone either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back