Tracking Stolen Gadgets — Manufacturers' New Dilemma

heptapod sends in a story from the NY Times about a growing problem for the makers of high-tech gadgets: deciding when and how it's appropriate to track a stolen device. With the advent of ubiquitous GPS and connections to services like the Kindle book store, the companies frequently have a way to either narrow down a user's location or impede use of the device. But some, like Amazon, are drawing a hard line when it comes to establishing that the device was actually stolen. "Samuel Borgese, for instance, is still irate about the response from Amazon when he recently lost his Kindle. After leaving it on a plane, he canceled his account so that nobody could charge books to his credit card. Then he asked Amazon to put the serial number of his wayward device on a kind of do-not-register list that would render it inoperable — to 'brick it' in tech speak. Amazon's policy is that it will help locate a missing Kindle only if the company is contacted by a police officer bearing a subpoena. Mr. Borgese, who lives in Manhattan, questions whether hunting down a $300 e-book reader would rank as a priority for the New York Police Department."

Comments

Street justice?

[PCM2]

Mr. Borgese, who lives in Manhattan, questions whether hunting down a $300 e-book reader would rank as a priority for the New York Police Department.

If that's the case, then what does he hope to achieve by finding out the location of the Kindle? Rhetorical question -- we all know what he hopes to achieve, and Amazon wants no part of it.

Re:Street justice?

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Mr. Borgese, who lives in Manhattan, questions whether hunting down a $300 e-book reader would rank as a priority for the New York Police Department.

If that's the case, then what does he hope to achieve by finding out the location of the Kindle? Rhetorical question -- we all know what he hopes to achieve, and Amazon wants no part of it.

If you had bothered to read the entire quote, he did *not* ask for Amazon's help in finding the Kindle - what he asked them to do was *disable* it. Which has some merit - if Amazon did disable those devices when stolen, it would kill the black market for stolen Kindles. But as noted in TFA, this poses a problem, as it's too easy for someone to contact them, pretending to be you, and reporting *your* Kindle as stolen...

What *should* happen is that Mr. Borgese files a police report on the stolen Kindle, and can then contact Amazon, with the police report number as evidence that he's not some practical joker. Amazon then disables that device, so that whoever stole it (or whoever bought it from the thief) can no longer gain the benefit of having it. This reduces the potential for mischief (and, in the case that the person simply misplaced the device, puts the onus on *him* to reverse the process), while still destroying the resale value of the stolen item.

This is more or less what Mr. Borgese attempted to do. But Amazon has no mechanism for this - they want to be contacted by a law enforcement officer with a supoena. Which the police probably won't bother doing, unless the theft is tied to drug dealing, terrorism, pedophilia, or whatever BS is high on their public relations agenda this week.

Lloyd B.

Re:Street justice?

[stagg]

"Device Retrieval." This is where Amazon puts on their best, brightest smile and points to their corporate mercenaries.

Re:Street justice?

[spectral]

Why not just provide a way to disable the kindle that is associated with an amazon account until that same account enables it again? Then I can disable it if I left it somewhere.. if I recover it, I can enable it. No one else can. The kindle should not say what the name of the account is or anything that the thieves can use to identify what account to try to hack in to either. There shouldn't need to be any human involvement in here, I've already authenticated who I am by being able to login (with a password, auto-login should not be sufficient).

Re:Street justice?

[spectral]

Obviously this assumes that 1) Currently unbricked kindles can be re-associated with a different account, and 2) The person it was stolen from can still brick a kindle even after re-association for a period of time, in case the first thing the thief does is re-associate it. Say, 48 hours to report your kindle stolen to Amazon, and they'll still disable it [and remove any charges made to your account, if that's possible from the Kindle, etc.].

Re:Street justice?

[Nemyst]

And yet, when a copyright holder comes and asks for withdrawal of a book on all Kindles in the world, Amazon has a mechanism for that. I know they've already apologized, but it just felt ironic.

Re:Street justice?

[moosetail]

In 9 years of /.-ing, I have rarely seen a post that really cuts to the issue the way this does. I modded it up with my 'real' account, and made a shadow for this. Nemyst is dead on; and other services, especially iTunes, should read carefully. Amazon demonstrated they are lightweights, and the original article shows they don't really give a shit about their customers. Their customers have an obligation to return in kind.

Re:Street justice?

[ta bu shi da yu]

Yup, yet another good reason not to purchase a Kindle.

Re:Street justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe nuclear holocaust is the best thing that could happen to our species

Re:Street justice?

[Kreigaffe]

In order to disable the device, they have to be able to distinguish one device from another. That means tracking (and beyond just an account-login level).
I.. thought.. that we didn't *like* that sort of thing. My Slashdot mindthink interpreter could be malfunctioning, but I doubt it.

Re:Street justice?

[Romancer]

You actually think that they have no record of a serial number of the device that your account is linked to?
How would they send you the books you purchased? Your account is tied to the device so you can use it.
That's not any more "tracking" than your cell phone company does to give you the calls to your cell phone.
They have "activated" it to be tied to your account.

Just as Amazon should be able to have the accout owner log in online and enter in their username/password and validate a captcha to disable ther device.
They purchased it didn't they? It's tied to their credit card to be able to buy books with it right? So If you can make a binding purchase with the devices authentication and that is enough for them to charge your credit card, isn't it enough verification for them to disable the device?

Re:Street justice?

[mysidia]

In other words, Amazon is basically saying "f*** you, unless given a subpoena requiring us by law to assist, we will not."

Seems to be the corporate motto these days, only help track down lost/stolen things when legally required to do so.

It's already standard fair for asking companies to release any info. Got ripped off by an eBay seller or paypal contact you sent $$$ to and want to sue? Good luck getting any info out of eBay / PayPal themselves, even as much as an address or phone number for you to send a letter to.... (without a subpoena).

It's basically just a cover-your-ass, "me-first" strategy. A criminal could conceivably sue Amazon over releasing info that lead to their identification, I guess.

Or maybe the "criminal" turns out to be an ex-spouse or ex-girlfriend who didn't actually steal the device, but the boyfriend's a stalker and wants to figure out where she's hiding, OR to deactivate the kindle he had given her as revenge after the bad breakup.

Probably ultimately escalating into computer destruction

Re:Street justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

unless the theft is tied to drug dealing, terrorism, pedophilia, or whatever BS is high on their public relations agenda

Clearly, then, what Borgese should be doing is relying on the faceless mob to bring him to 15-minutes fame.

See also "stolen sidekick".

Re:Street justice?

[mysidia]

Ideally they should just force you to authenticate with your existing account before you can disassociate/re-associate the device.

E.g. the moment you click 'disassociate', the device actually becomes bricked until the device password is entered.

When you associate with a new account, the password you type becomes the 'device' password.

There ought to also be a way to password-lock the kindle as you can with cell phones. And they should take care to make sure a thief can't easily defeat the device password.

Re:Street justice?

[BigRedFed]

But as noted in TFA, this poses a problem, as it's too easy for someone to contact them, pretending to be you, and reporting *your* Kindle as stolen...

This is such bunk... I worked for a couple years in customer service for the cell phone industry. If you call and report your phone lost or stolen, it is automatically added to a black list and can then only be reactivated by you. It can not be activated on another account while it is on the black list and can only be added to the black list if it is part of an active account. The only time you need a police report is if you have the insurance program and you want to get a replacement under the insurance. This requirement is usually waived if it's the first time you have had your cell phone lost/stolen. I think I only took about two or three calls where someone tried to call in and activate a lost/stolen phone. Policy was that the original owner had to call in and report it as found. Plain and simple and logical. Any argument about someone calling in and pretending to be someone else being a problem is an indication of ulterior motives, as the user claims in TFA, or bad security policies to begin with. If it's easy for them to find, they should be asking people to file a police report, then have a couple of reps that work with the police dept to track them down after the police report is filed. Wouldn't cost them much and the rest could be sorted out where it belongs, small claims court.

Re:Street justice?

[icebike]

But as noted in TFA, this poses a problem, as it's too easy for someone to contact them, pretending to be you, and reporting *your* Kindle as stolen...

What *should* happen is that Mr. Borgese files a police report on the stolen Kindle, and can then contact Amazon, with the police report number as evidence that he's not some practical joker.

First: how is a practical joker going to get my Kindle's serial number, mac address, and imei number? You are imagining a problem that does not exist.

Second: Why should the police be involved? If I leave my Kindle in an airport while visiting New Mexico, do I report it stolen? To who? My home town police? New Mexico?

Third: At what price level is Police involvement warranted? Its not exactly Grand Theft Kindle you know. Cops have a few more important things to do. Cops have no authority to get involved unless a crime was committed. Losing your Kindle is not a crime.

Fifth: Cellphone companies in Europe do put stolen phones on a list. They can't be activated.
US carriers refuse to do that. Its the same problem as Kindles. They can tell you who has it by by which credit card was used to purchase books. If they won't tell you they should be obligated to disable it.

Sixth: Protecting a thief makes them Amazon a co-conspirator.

Re:Street justice?

[mabhatter654]

The whole thing is egg squarely on amazon's face for one simple reason... remember the books they DELETED REMOTELY a few weeks ago. They DO have the power to find wayward accounts, and they DO have the ability to edit materials on the Kindle against user wishes.. more importantly, they have demonstrated they CAN and WILL use this ability.

Now that they've demonstrated this ability to cover THEIR ASSES... why can't they issue a "locking" order to YOUR device? Something like pay $25 and issue a locking code to your lost device and you'd get a password via email. Then the device would display that it was locked and that that you needed to call Kindle and give them the device code...

The key to why they won't do this is simple. They can take care of THEIR liability remotely but not yours. They can cancel your account so that you don't make THEM liable for reversed CC charges. It's not AMAZON'S $300 that's lost... in fact your lost Kindle is now a potential new account that somebody might buy books for... that's marketing bucks!!

Re:Street justice?

[Herby Sagues]

OK, do really people expect that Amazon should remotely block the Kindle without any proof that Mr. Borgese is the current rightful owner? Without a court order, it would be simply irresponsible to do so. You wouldn't want to buy a used kindle just to have it blocked without reason. Amazon is doing the right thing, and Mr. Borgese is an a**hole.

Re:Street justice?

[AshtangiMan]

I think in the case of gsm phones it's new sim, no problem.

Re:Street justice?

[davmoo]

We only dislike that sort of thing when its used against us. When used the way we want, even if its the identical privacy infringing feature we used to hate, all of a sudden we like it.

Re:Street justice?

[digitalunity]

Replacing the SIM might get a GSM phone to work but there is no technological reason carriers can't block the phone by ESN.

I know for a fact that carriers keep detailed logs of network access including both SIM identity information and ESN's.

Theoretically carriers could ban a handset using it's ESN. Whether they actually do this in practice or not, I have no idea.

Re:Street justice?

[digitalunity]

As another commenter suggested, the most reasonable solution is to merely lock the Kindle and sent an unlock code to whatever email is currently on the account.

It's the Kindle owner's responsibility to maintain Amazon's contact information records. This really puts the responsibility on the Kindle owner without putting them in any particularly troublesome legal territory.

For Amazon right now, it's a lose/lose proposition; helping might cause liability and not helping might cause bad PR. The second is probably less expensive, considering consumerbots have very short memories.

Re:Street justice?

[TheLink]

Yeah Amazon show who they really care about.

They do their vigilantism not for their customers but for "copyright holders". Unless maybe they don't consider people who buy books their customers?

That said, if the people who buy the Kindles are actually legally considered the owners of the Kindles then to me it's less "vigilante-like" if Amazon disables a Kindle on the owner's request, but it is vigilantism for Amazon to delete books from the owner's device.

If the books are illegal material - they should report it to the cops, or the owners so that the appropriate action can be taken.

Re:Street justice?

[AshtangiMan]

Agreed. The point being that this precedent is set, at least in the us, as the way it works because of revenues and despite of capability.

Re:Street justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

IS your account tied to the device? Or is the device merely a novel mechanism by which to read shit what you put on it.

I suppose I'm viewing the Kindle as more of an mp3 player. If that gets stolen, you're screwed, doesn't matter if your iPod only has iTunes stuff on it. They can just wipe that off and re-use the device -- I'm assuming the Kindle is similar.

Re:Street justice?

[Kreigaffe]

Huh. Didn't think I had clicked that. Twas meee.

Re:Street justice?

[Prof.Phreak]

Indeed. Mobile phone corps can disable use of the phone (well, your sim card), and then re-enable it if you find it a day or two later.

Re:Street justice?

[leenks]

Here in the UK carriers block stolen phones from their IMEI all the time, and have a cross-carrier list of such phones.

Re:Street justice?

[Lord Bitman]

one better: take amazon completely out of the picture. Put a "lock my kindle" button on the account management page.

Re:Street justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

1.Sell unit to S Borgese
2.S Borgese unit stolen
3.Sell 2nd unit to S Borgese
4.Unit 1 still purchasing e-books ....
5.Profit!x2

Re:Street justice?

[BlueUnderwear]

Third: At what price level is Police involvement warranted? Its not exactly Grand Theft Kindle you know. Cops have a few more important things to do.

But they should a least do a report, which you can then use for your travel insurance, or (in this case) for Amazon. And here in Europe, Police usually do take the time to do a report, even for trivial thefts or losses (even if no investigation follows... but in this case, all you need is the report number).

Fifth: Cellphone companies in Europe do put stolen phones on a list. They can't be activated.

Not true, at least not in Luxembourg. A friend of mine got his cellphone stolen, he reported it to the police, but they claimed that although technically possible to block and locate it (by its IMEI number), it was policy that this was not done for a mere theft... (you'd have to wonder in what circumstances they would actually use the feature).

Re:Street justice?

[mobby_6kl]

Really? You probably weren't reading very carefully that whole time.

IIRC you can transfer your books to any other Kindle associated with your account, so as long as the thieves can't buy anything with your stolen account, Amazon doesn't owe you anything else. Will bricking the Kindle magically make it reappear in your possession? I don't think so. Call the cops if it's been stolen and then get back with Amazon, or just suck it up if you fucked up and left it somewhere.

Re:Street justice?

[rubi]

They do two things: 1- Cancel the account associated to the SIM card. 2- Block the phone's serial number (IMEI) at the network level. Only thing it's not fool-proof as there are persons that can put a different IMEI on the phone and activate it. Only way is to check the configured IMEI against the one printed outside the phone and not may dealers do that.

Re:Street justice?

[rubi]

Amazon demonstrated they are lightweights, and the original article shows they don't really give a shit about their customers. Their customers have an obligation to return in kind.

Maybe because their *real* customers are the guys that supply the goods to sell, not we buying things *trough* Amazon. The way I see it is we aren't Amazon's customers, we are *their customer's curtomers* (or something around that).

Re:Street justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Borgese, who lives in Manhattan, questions whether hunting down a $300 e-book reader would rank as a priority for the New York Police Department.

If that's the case, then what does he hope to achieve by finding out the location of the Kindle? Rhetorical question -- we all know what he hopes to achieve, and Amazon wants no part of it.

Which the police probably won't bother doing, unless the theft is tied to drug dealing, terrorism, pedophilia, or whatever BS is high on their public relations agenda this week.

Lloyd B.

He COULD say that he's downloaded some book on drug dealing for terrorists who are pedophilia fans...

Re:Street justice?

[sjames]

Perhaps he should point out that someone might make unauthorized copies of the e-books. That should get the cops, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, and Special Forces involved.

Re:Street justice?

[sjames]

It just proves yet again that anything like DRM or 'trusted computing' has nothing to do with providing benefit to the consumer, even in the few cases where it might in theory be useful.

Re:Street justice?

[Trinn]

I think you can still get the IMEI locked out, though this would require the GSM providers to work together I think

Re:Street justice?

[espiesp]

Umm. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Finders Keepers! This guy FORGOT his kindle on a plane. It's not as if someone jacked him or broke into his car. It's HIS fault, why should the lucky soul who finds it be punished for the previous owners stupidity?

Re:Street justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume wrong. That's why you can order books from it and get them in 60 seconds delivered directly to the device.

Re:Street justice?

[BigRedFed]

Here's a couple of links for everyone:
Explanation of the EIR for GSM phones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Equipment_Identity_Register
Sites in the US to check if a cellphone ESN is marked as lost or stolen:
http://www.checkmend.com/us/
A service in the UK that does everything this guy would need:
http://www.immobilise.com/
And a service on the web that is attempting to bring it all together but is apparently having some troubles with US telecom industry:
http://phonehistoryreport.com/about.html
As I said before, Amazon is full of it and any reason for not following through with the request by the guy in TFA has nothing to do with anything but their bottom line.

Re:Street justice?

[shirotakaaki]

E.g. the moment you click 'disassociate', the device actually becomes bricked until the device password is entered.

Not to be a pedantic dick but locked out is NOT bricked. People really need to stop using bricked just because they can't use a device. bricked means the device is worthless (at least it used to). Like if someone put a hammer to a kindle. That would brick it

Re:Street justice?

[mysidia]

When I say 'bricked'; I mean, bricked as far as the unauthorized user is concerned.

E.g. Useless to anyone except the rightful owner.

The device basically is worthless; the chance of the rightful owner getting it back and being able to unlock it is almost negligible.

If I said 'locked out' instead of bricked; it would imply the unauthorized user might be able to figure out a way to unlock it.

I'm saying Amazon should secure the device strongly enough that there's no way an unauthorized user could unlock it, even if one of the conspirators works for Amazon and has technical specs and complete insider knowledge of the device.

E.g. should be impossible to tamper with or use some secret backdoor to defeat the lock.

Re:Street justice?

[iamhassi]

"What *should* happen is that Mr. Borgese files a police report on the stolen Kindle, and can then contact Amazon, with the police report number as evidence that he's not some practical joker."

Actually it shouldn't even go that far. If it's linked with his Amazon account (and it most likely is), then there should be a setting in there to disable the device.

I'll take it one step further: if Amazon was smart, they'd force that feature on customers. Wanna sell your Kindle? You have to disable it on the account and enter the email address you're transferring it to... and we'll charge you $20 for this service. Ta-da! Instant money maker for Amazon. The used Kindle market can no longer go around selling Kindles without Amazon's permission. Game developers have long been whining that they want a piece of the used game market. If Amazon allowed customers to disable their Kindles and charged them $20 to resell them it would give them a revenue stream everyone has been trying to figure out how to profit on: sales of used hardware and software.

Re:Street justice?

[FireFury03]

Unfortunately the NMOs provide no way to officially transfer the ownership of a phone, so if you buy a used phone the original owner can still phone up their NMO, report it stolen and have the IMEI blocked. And I don't expect the NMOs actually *want* to make it easy to transfer ownership of a phone, so this probably won't change any time soon. What the NMOs should be concerned about though is a type of insurance fraud that seems to be rife at the moment: sell your (insured) phone on ebay, report it as stolen and get a free replacement.

What is actually needed is to separate the organisations dealing with the anti-theft measures from the organisations that make money from selling new devices. Maintenance of the blocked IMEI database should be handled by a separate (probably partly governmental) organisation who has no vested interest in selling new phones and can handle legitimate transfer of property, maybe in a similar way to how buying/selling cars is handled.

Re:Street justice?

[hkmarks]

That's what I was thinking. Unlinking it from his account is one thing, wanting it back is fair, but whoever ended up with it really didn't steal it.

If his address was on it there's a good chance they'd actually have sent it back to him.

Re:Street justice?

[Pollardito]

the point is not to magically return your kindle, the point is to remove all incentive to steal a Kindle

The real issue is probably that Amazon doesn't want to get in the middle of disputes between people who resell a Kindle and the buyers. After all what's to stop someone from reporting their Kindle "stolen" if they decide later that the person who bought it from them should have paid them more money. They want a police officer to be involved to cover that end, and they'll take action if the police officer decides the case has merit.

Re:Street justice?

[RockDoctor]

This reduces the potential for mischief (and, in the case that the person simply misplaced the device, puts the onus on *him* to reverse the process), while still destroying the resale value of the stolen item.

You're assuming that a "bricked" Kindle, or any other piece of electronic hardware, has no resale value.
This might (might!) be true if the thief or resetter (person who sells-on stolen property, "fence" in some languages) were a person with significant moral fibre, who would not sell on an impressive-looking lump of hardware to an unsuspecting purchaser if they knew that the device didn't actually work.
In practice, after selling their granny and pimping their son, the typical thief or resetter would use the bricked device by either selling it to someone who didn't understand it's failings (e.g., only showing it as far as the boot screen, before it stops working), or by using it as a substitute after showing a working device. Needless to say, customer support and the complaints department are both referrals to Big Dod in the corner, and his crowbar that likes kneecaps.

Mission Impossible got the concept of bricking right 30+ years ago ... "This analogue message transmission medium will self-destruct in 5 seconds ...". They ought to make a film of that stuff.

How, in a world where explosives and pyrotechnics are (rightly) controlled materials, to implement "bricking" like that ... I don't know. How about 3-level password failures : If you start your device and give it the wrong password, it wipes your account information and shuts down. Next time you give the wrong password, it wipes the library (not sure if Kindles in particular use DRM that would fall over about this ; DRM is a problem. But we knew that anyway.) ; third failure and it electronically buggers the battery - blows a one-time thermal fuse or something. Which wouldn't render it utterly valueless, but would seriously downgrade it.
There would have to be escape routes, such as connecting the device to a desktop machine which knows (and can prove) it's own password. A bit fiddlier, but within the range of credibility.

DRM a problem sufficient to stop this? Don't use DRM. As the meerkats say, "Seemple".

Re:Street justice?

[Chapter80]

Wow, not only do I disagree with your comment, but I disagree with your method.

First, the comment: Why should Amazon incur cost because someone lost their Kindle? There's a cost to having a "Brick the Stolen Property" department. There's a cost to Amazon if someone finds a Kindle and bad-mouths the product to ten of their friends, because it worked for a day or two, and then "the piece of junk quit working! no wonder why it was cast aside on the airplane!" There's a cost to Amazon if the person who found the Kindle calls Amazon and complains - the customer support cost. And there's a cost in the lost revenues of a bricked Kindle (which cannot buy any more books).

Second, your method: Do you think there might be a REASON why Slashdot prohibits you from moderating and commenting in the same thread? While you may not be violating the letter of the law, you are certainly violating the spirit of it. I hope that Slashdot tracks you down and suspends your account.

Your logic with Amazon (that the vendor should incur costs to penalize the bad guys) should be used against you with Slashdot!

Re:Street justice?

[Ol Olsoc]

That's the key, just call Amazon, and tell them that there is copyrighted material on the Kindle in question that shouldn't be there. They'll fix it in a minute.

But seriously, exactly why the hell would anyone want one of these pproblem particles in the first place?

If I lose a book, I've just lost a book. I'm out 15 Piasters

If I lose a Kindle, I need a subpeona?

-

Warning, I brake for Chachalacas

Re:Street justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're moving into solutions. Solutions are simple, possible, AND available. But this isn't the problem. The problem is Amazon is refusing to implement a solution. Sadly, this is probably a government regulatory area. It would be nice if companies were customer oriented though.

Re:Street justice?

[moosetail]

Kiss off.

Bottom Line

[ArchieBunker]

Buy a $3 paperback book. Be kind and leave it for the next person.

Re:Bottom Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Here let me fix that for you.
Buy a $10 paperback book. Be kind and leave it for the next person.

Re:Bottom Line

[MadnessASAP]

Let me fix that for you.
Buy a used $0.50 paper back book and not give a damn where you leave it or who has it because it was 50 cents.

Re:Bottom Line

[selven]

Buy a $30 hardcover book. Be kind to the copyright holder and burn it when you're done.

Re:Bottom Line

[ShannaraFan]

Get a FREE paperback book from PaperBackSwap.Com, then put it back into circulation when you're done.

Re:Bottom Line

[iamhassi]

"Buy a $10 paperback book. Be kind and leave it for the next person."

LOL. That's what I was thinking. Last paperback book I bought was I Am Legend when the Will Smith movie came out. Before that I hadn't bought a paper book in many years, so I was expecting about $4-$5. Imagine my surprise when it was $8 at retail.

police

[Anonymous Coward]

the police barely respond to car theft

how would you prove

[arminw]

the device was really stolen an no sold used

Re:how would you prove

[Krelnor]

I wish I had mod points, because this is exactly the issue. Let's say someone puts their Kindle up on eBay, and then after it sells calls Amazon and says that the device got stolen. How is Amazon supposed to know whether the device whether the device was stolen or not? Even worse, what happens if Amazon believes someone claiming to own your device and bricks it, where does that put them? It's entirely reasonable that Amazon won't do anything without a direct request from the cops (or presumably a court order).

Re:how would you prove

[ironicsky]

I support your position on this.
Same with any electronic device that can be remotely disabled. Wouldn't it be a bitch if I called onStar and said "Oooh, hey buddy. My car got stolen, here is my name, license plate # and my onStar ID(blah blah)" and they kill the car. But its not my car, its my ex's... I'm sure she would get a kick out of it

Re:how would you prove

[Lloyd_Bryant]

I wish I had mod points, because this is exactly the issue. Let's say someone puts their Kindle up on eBay, and then after it sells calls Amazon and says that the device got stolen. How is Amazon supposed to know whether the device whether the device was stolen or not? Even worse, what happens if Amazon believes someone claiming to own your device and bricks it, where does that put them? It's entirely reasonable that Amazon won't do anything without a direct request from the cops (or presumably a court order).

That's the role a police report should play. When you file a report with the police, the police report number can be given to Amazon as evidence that an actual theft occurred. Amazon can then query the police to verify the report is genuine (insurance companies do this all the time in the case of auto accidents, theft of insured property, etc, so the mechanisms for this are already in place), and once they've done that can disable the device.

In your Ebay example, what would happen then is that the buyer of the now useless device could contact your police department, with the records of the sale, and you'd potentially be facing criminal charges for filing a false police report (cops *really* don't like people doing this, and they know where you live, so there's a real chance they'd follow up on this).

Re:how would you prove

[stagg]

I don't think Apple, Amazon, or anyone selling software or hardware is particularly concerned about damaging the resale value of their products. Look at their recent concern about the resale of software by companies like EB Games, DRM, and online distribution. Companies don't WANT you reselling their products. If I buy a paperback I can lend it to a friend, share it, sell it, or burn it as I desire. Not so with ebooks.

Re:how would you prove

[arminw]

....Not so with ebooks....

That is one of the main disadvantages of e-books and other DRM encumbered digital goods. It also eliminates the secondhand market as you said. If publishers could figure out how to prevent you from selling your paperback book, they would also do it in a heartbeat.

Re:how would you prove

[ceoyoyo]

I doubt Amazon cares whether you loan, sell or share your Kindle. They'd be thrilled if you burned it (and bought another).

They do have this little bug where you can't loan, sell or share an individual book on it. But were talking about the device itself here, right?

Re:how would you prove

[icebike]

And why would they do that?

They sold it. They got their money.

Turning around and screwing the person who bought t does not bring the kindle back to their hands to sell again.

Amazon knows who owns it, that owner can prove who he is and which kindle he owns. Its this little magic thing called an Original Amazon Bill of Sale, you know, the one with your credit card and the serial number on the same piece of paper?

Just where do you get your gadgets that such things are unfamiliar to you?

Re:how would you prove

[icebike]

> Wouldn't it be a bitch if I called onStar and said "Oooh, hey buddy

Stolen cars show up in police reports.

So would you if you pulled this stunt.

Re:how would you prove

[icebike]

Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost? Even if it was Stolen out of your back pack, who has time to have cops filling out paperwork for a 300 dollar device?

You might get away with filing such a report in Pincushion Arizona, but they will laugh you out of the station in Dallas.

Re:how would you prove

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost? Even if it was Stolen out of your back pack, who has time to have cops filling out paperwork for a 300 dollar device?

You might get away with filing such a report in Pincushion Arizona, but they will laugh you out of the station in Dallas.

First off, let's clarify things. An item that you *lost* is not something you'd ordinarily file a police report on.

Second, the value of the device shouldn't be significant, except for determining whether it's petty or grand larceny. I know, in practice it is, but that's an issue with the police being focused on the wrong things (like harassing prostitutes and low-level drug dealers).

Third, why do the *cops* have to fill out anything? Have standard forms, which the person filing the complaint fills out, and an officer on duty (you know, one of those overage/overweight desk types who wouldn't be doing anything important anyway) reviews, points out any problems, and accepts once properly completed (checking ID and whatever to keep everything kosher).

Re:how would you prove

[icebike]

Getting Amazon to brick your LOST device is just as important as getting them to brick you STOLEN device. Lost and Stolen are equivalent as far as your device being in someone else's hands.

I'm telling you that walking in any busy police department in any city bigger than 100,000 people and asking for signatures on paper so that you can force Amazon to do something is a fools errand.

(Which is precisely why Amazon insists you do it, knowing full well you can never succeed).

Cops will tell you to file an insurance claim and move on with your life.

You will walk out, trudge to your insurance company and file a claim only to be told you need a copy police report.

I'm glad you live in such a peaceful small town where you can get cops to pay attention to a 300 dollar claim. Must be nice there. You should visit a big city some time.

Re:how would you prove

[im_thatoneguy]

If your bike is stolen in Seattle they'll not only happily fill out a form they'll even send a squad car to bring the form to you if need be. How's that for service?

Re:how would you prove

[mabhatter654]

but you can't USE the device unless you transfer the account to a new credit card. As the device is completely locked to Amazon it could be treated much like a WoW account sale where you have to sell your serial number through Amazon's service or it's not legit. Just handing the device off wouldn't be official and you'd have to prove you bought the device somehow.

Re:how would you prove

[mabhatter654]

That's sad because $300 is still more than a week' s pay for many young and older people.

Ironically, Cops spend a good deal of time at the local mall arresting people for shoplifting stuff under $50.

Re:how would you prove

[mabhatter654]

The Kindle is a resource for Amazon's marketing whether YOU own it or not. If it's lost they can easily take away THEIR books and THEIR liability to the credit card company. What's left is an empty device waiting for a new credit card to start buying stuff.... Amazon's knows YOU will pay another $300 to read the books you've bought so a "free" Kindle in the wild is easy money for them.

Re:how would you prove

[icebike]

In the mean time, Seattle is awash in Gang murders.

Re:how would you prove

[BlueUnderwear]

I'm telling you that walking in any busy police department in any city bigger than 100,000 people and asking for signatures on paper so that you can force Amazon to do something is a fools errand.

Not true. My father successfully got a police report in Lisbon (564657 inhabitants) for a stolen wallet, which contained far less than $300. And there was a huge queue, so it's not as if the police were underworked either.

Re:how would you prove

[misexistentialist]

They seem to have plenty of time to wait around for speeders and road construction. Of course they and their departments get a cut of that money, so maybe an incentive can be created by cities fining thieves? Or maybe property recovery should be outsourced to repo-agencies and bounty hunters, who could eventually take over all police duties if cops refuse to work?

Re:how would you prove

[celtic_hackr]

The real point is, this guy still has options. He should have: filed a report with the police, which he did, then file a claim with his homeowner's/renter's insurance letting them know that Apple can track the device. Then he could let the insurance company fight Apple for him, because insurance companies don't like to pay out money. They'd be motivated to kick Apple in the shin and tell them to report the location of the damn thing. I suppose it's possible for him to also request the police send a subpoena to Apple for the device location. After all, it should be in their interest to solve a solvable crime. Although, the owner really should ask Apple to submit the information to the police, and if they refuse, then maybe he should file a criminal complaint against Apple for conspiracy to theft and aiding and abetting a theft. Since, it really is Apple's responsibility to report the information, if they have it, of criminal activity. Once Apple has the police report information, and the guy really should send them a copy of the report, then they are aware of a stolen device and know it's location and it is their duty to report it. Apple seems to be opening themselves up to a whole world of trouble by demanding a subpoena, rather than just proof of an actual theft. Of course, I'll never have this guy's problem. I would never own a digital reader that wasn't open (that doesn't mean one that allows copying of said digital books). I'm perfectly happy to buy paper books, or get them from the Gutenberg Project.

Re:how would you prove

[drinkypoo]

Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost?

Better? No. More lucrative? Probably.

The cops are supposed to be there to provide for the punishment of criminals (protect and serve? they do neither) and finding them is part of that job. So no, they don't have anything better to do than to fill out paperwork on something possibly stolen. People usually don't lose something the size and cost of the Kindle.

Re:how would you prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost?

I guess you are right. Too many 19 year old kids out there with broken backs that need tazored!

Also there waay too many quadriplegics in wheelchairs these days, which they are also busy fixing.

With so many legal injustices being done in this country, I totally understand how they don't have time left in the day to do their jobs and enforce the actual laws on the books. /sarcasm

Posting anon so I am not next on their list...

Re:how would you prove

[dissy]

Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost? Even if it was Stolen out of your back pack, who has time to have cops filling out paperwork for a 300 dollar device?

Just make sure you buy enough ebooks for it so the value is closer to $30000 instead of $300, then it will be over the limit of being worth finding.

Or just say they plan to copy the 24 ebooks you have, and will causes a couple hundred million dollars of damage to the intellectual property economy.

Re:how would you prove

[celtic_hackr]

I've had numerous cases of vandalism done to property I own. I report them, but it's really pointless. I live in a town of about 10,000. Most petty crimes go unsolved, or are unsolvable. Size of the town doesn't matter much. Only when there are witnesses or the victim can give names of people who might be the culprit can you reasonably hope to solve it. Of course, this Kindle thing is a whole new ball game. If I were a cop, I'd get Apple to provide me with the GPS signature and follow it around for a while. tracking as it goes from one felon to the next. I'd build up a case and bust the lot of them. The original criminal, and those who help traffic it. I'd almost certainly bag a lot more than just one 300 dollar device.

Police ought to be jumping for joy when someone reports one if these high tech toys stolen. Of course, it would pretty much kill the market for such devices. Once cops get wise and start tracking these things and bringing down the fences in large enough numbers, the market will go away, because it becomes so worthless on the black market that most criminals wouldn't waste their time on them.

Until another criminal comes along and disables the GPS.

Re:how would you prove

[Anonymous Coward]

The police are obliged to make a report on a reported theft, otherwise theft is effectively legalised. Second, a police report should be available as a matter of public record. However bothering to investigate it is a different matter. My experience of it has been call in to the police, get a crime reference number for your dealings with insurance, and then the investigation is dropped after a while.

Re:how would you prove

[Ziwcam]

Apple's position on stolen iPods is the same, for similar reasons. They won't even add a note to the service record so that if the iPod comes in for service the tech would see it. And even if there was such a note, the techs hands are tied. He does his job: Service the iPod, instead of that of the police: Track down stolen goods.

Re:how would you prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they put the radar gun long enough to pick up a pen they could find some time.

Re:how would you prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidently, Dallas sucks. Move to Pincushion.

Re:how would you prove

[sdpuppy]

First time is a Freudian slip. Don't know about second.

It is impossible for Apple to track or do anything with the device.

Try Amazon who makes and markets the Kindle.

and watch those banana peels...

Re:how would you prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost? Even if it was Stolen out of your back pack, who has time to have cops filling out paperwork for a 300 dollar device?

You might get away with filing such a report in Pincushion Arizona, but they will laugh you out of the station in Dallas.

Compare this to the prosecution in courts of a song "stolen" over the internet.

Re:how would you prove

[arminw]

... sell or share an individual book on it....

Which is probably the biggest problem with DRM encumbered books and other digital goods. Content companies are desperately trying to figure out how to kill used merchandise market. Also, just because a company or individual CAN do something, doesn't mean they should be required to do it. Amazon can if they want to help you get your gadget back, but they should not be forced to.

Re:how would you prove

[stagg]

That's a very good point. With that in mind... the best way to deter theft would be to lower the price of the Kindle to a more reasonable number. You're locked into Amazon marketing anyway, so it's kind of like a restaurant charging you for the cutlery.

Re:how would you prove

[winwar]

"Don't you think cops have more to do than fill out paper work on a kindle you lost?"

They do. Or at least believe they do. Many places have an online system for you do to their work for them. Most of the time, they will even insist on self-service....

Re:how would you prove

[iamhassi]

" Let's say someone puts their Kindle up on eBay, and then after it sells calls Amazon and says that the device got stolen. How is Amazon supposed to know whether the device whether the device was stolen or not? "

Does Amazon really want Kindle's sold on eBay? Doesn't that dip into their sales a bit? Sure more books might be purchased, but do they make more on ebooks or Kindle sales? And just because they're not on eBay doesn't mean people won't just suck it up and pay full price, and it'll add more value to the Kindle since you don't have to worry about going online tomorrow and finding your new Kindle for $200 less on eBay.

Re:how would you prove

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of a cops job is to do things like take reports on stolen property. 300 dollars is enough for a charge to turn into a felony in my state when it comes to stolen property. There is a national database full of stolen property from bicycles and ipods to lawn care equipment.

Cops have to write reports for just about everything, including when people call because they find a bicycle on the sidewalk and no one has come to claim it.

Not reporting it is the mistake. Once its reported something can come off of it. Getting a subpoena to Amazon is not a big deal or a lot of paperwork. Amazon is simply using legal channels to protect its customers because, sadly, we canâ(TM)t just take the word of a person anymore.

Re:how would you prove

[Ol Olsoc]

Let's just complicate the hell out of life, eh?

Lost my book on the subway.....crap!, I guess I'll go buy a new copy.

Lost my Kindle on the subway....Crap!

Lessee, I need to file a police report

I need to call my insurance company

I need to cancel my account

Ach, I need to buy a new Kindle and open up another account.

Why on earth do people buy those things?

-

Warning, I brake for Chachalcas

Presumably

[Dorsai65]

He bought it from them and they have the serial number of the device they sent him. Why should it be a big deal for them to brick it on HIS request? If there's an issue with whoever wants to use it, it's between the other user and him, not him and Amazon.

Then again, I can understand how they wouldn't want to get into something where they don't know the gory details (i.e. he sold it and wants to ransom it for more money).

Seems like there might be a niche market here for a service to track (possibly using add-in 'root' software) high-end devices that are stolen.

Me, I don't have enough money that I can afford to forget and leave a $300 device laying around on an airplane... :-P

Re:Presumably

[PCM2]

Why should it be a big deal for them to brick it on HIS request? If there's an issue with whoever wants to use it, it's between the other user and him, not him and Amazon.

And what's the issue? He's mad because he left it on the table when we went up to the counter to get another latté?

I get it. Theft is bad. But how is bricking the device the answer? It won't un-steal the Kindle. So they brick it and what then? It goes into a landfill? Charming.

Re:Presumably

[Anonymous Coward]

If thieves know they are useless after being stolen they will not steal as many.

Re:Presumably

[holophrastic]

...and Amazon isn't in the business of such things. They service of bricking even your own devices isn't teh service being offered. They'd have parents wanting to brick children's toys within a week's time. Besides, I think Amazon handled it incredibly well. They'll obey law enforcement. Beyond that, the ability to brick the device isn't a consumer feature. Sorry.

Re:Presumably

[Captain Spam]

Unless Amazon has some explosive charges tucked away in the Kindle, all it'll take is one geek friend of the thief to take it apart and do whatever unbricking is needed to make it a not-useless device again.

Re:Presumably

[T Murphy]

Electronics companies could make versions that have restricted usage requirements (like it won't function without phoning home within a week), and the original registered owner has the right to order the company to activate some sort of kill switch. It would have to be clearly advertised so people become aware the devices are not for resale, but this might solve the theft problem. There is little use in stealing a product that is designed to self-destruct*. As long as the effort required for a thief to get around the bricking mechanism or salvage parts is great enough, 99% of them will not gain from taking the item- assuming people buying stolen goods learn fast enough to not buy dead products.

The phone home function could also be enabled/disabled by the owner so it doesn't encumber normal use, but then the device might be easier to alter to defeat this, so it might have to be encumbered by this DRM-like effect as a trade off for added security. I don't like how this idea prevents resale, but the only other solution I can think of is to have the device associated with a primary account that has the power to disable and re-enable the device- it would be hard to both make sure buyers are aware of the account-change process and to make it easy to change the primary account upon sale without the buyer or seller being put at risk. It is easier to get across to people that there is no feature to resell the item than to explain the process how to properly change ownership.

*A credit card can buy things during the few hours it stays enabled- a Kindle or laptop or similar has to be sold to be worth money.

Re:Presumably

[Dare nMc]

it is a fair question about our society. What good does it do to punish any law breakers. IE when you jail a murder does the victum return to life... (be it any un recoverable crime, murder/rape/molestation/arson/securities fraud) Sometimes it helps the victims feel better... However in this case with a device, and likely a opportunity thief, they may call amazon for help/support or decide once it is of no value for them they may return it. Or a reward may be much more affective (at a lower price.) Or even if it is a young person they may decide crime doesn't pay.

Re:Presumably

[SanityInAnarchy]

That is, however, still a fair amount of work, and it's never going to be as useful as it was, since a lot of its usefulness was tied to Amazon's service.

And keep in mind, it's only worth $300 in the first place. Stolen, it would be worth much less even if it was fully featured, and it's not -- so, we're already down to, what, $100? A geek capable of unbricking it is likely able to make enough money at a legitimate job that this doesn't sound that good, especially when you now have to split it with whoever is doing the theft.

Oh, and it doesn't have to be explosive charges to truly "brick" it -- the term "unbricking" is really a misnomer, as "bricking" generally involves making the device into an expensive paperweight, that cannot be restored to usefulness. One really simple example would be to adjust voltages and timings so that some crucial piece of hardware (like the CPU) gets fried.

Re:Presumably

[PCM2]

it is a fair question about our society. What good does it do to punish any law breakers.

Theft is a crime. When criminals face justice, society benefits. If the police were able to track down this thief, establish that he or she committed the crime, and bring him or her before a court of law to judge the offense, that would be OK. This isn't that. This is an individual saying, "They took my stuff, so I want them to get burned because of it." That's not justice, not in the societal sense.

I get the "if people think it's useless to steal them, they won't steal them so much" idea. Fine. But I'm not sure your average junkie casing a coffee shop is thinking that far ahead. They're just thinking, "I see some kind of laptop."

And again, so the device gets bricked, the thief can never get it to switch on, and it ends up in a landfill. Is that justifiable? How many days of use should an electronic device have before we tally it up as waste? What if every Walkman that was ever stolen had the same remote bricking capability? You'd see a little mountain of Walkmans at every city dump. I guess then you'd get a little cottage industry of Walkman recycling...but still, what's the point if there was nothing wrong with the Walkman before it got bricked?

And just to turn the melodrama up to maximum: What if it became common practice to bake a little device into every loaf of bread, so that when someone steals the bread, the baker can flip a little switch and have it turn to poison in their mouths? Is that justice?

Re:Presumably

[arminw]

....so that some crucial piece of hardware (like the CPU) gets fried....

Oh yeah, some hacker figures out how to do that and starts frying gadgets left and right; oh what fun! I would never buy a gadget that I know can be fried permanently, unless it was really cheap. The Kindle with its DRM basically allows the the erasing of legitimate data remotely and does not allow legitimate passing on of a book to a friend, such as normal dead tree books allow. A device that allows remote killing of content is never really yours, but always belongs to the company that has the ability to kill content for whatever reason. In the case of the hardware of the device, if it can be bricked remotely, even the hardware is no longer yours, although you may have paid good money for it.

Re:Presumably

[arminw]

...Electronics companies could make versions that have restricted usage...

Why should electronics companies do this when they have no incentive whatsoever for it? If your precious little gadget is stolen, you can replace it if it was insured and buy another one and thus they have another sale. If the gadget is tied to a service, such as a phone, the thief or the buyer of the stolen phone or other gadget, will subscribe to the service and thus there is another sale. Companies are in the business to sell stuff, not to help you or police departments recover stolen devices. If your device is stolen, suck it up and buy another one, or maybe hopefully it was insured. Now for really expensive items, that cost thousands of dollars, such as automobiles, there might be a legitimate need for such a thing. The cops have enough to do, without bothering with the loss of your cheap little device costing a few hundred dollars or less. Next time, watch your precious toy a little more carefully.

Re:Presumably

[icebike]

Un-brick a device that requires a network connection to work?

You don't just open the cover and flip a switch you know. You need access to Amazon's computers.

The people who have the skills for this don't need to steal their toys.

Re:Presumably

[SanityInAnarchy]

some hacker figures out how to do that and starts frying gadgets left and right; oh what fun!

"Figures out" depends how this is exposed to the user.

For instance, "some hacker" (you do realize you're abusing that term, right?) could just as easily take most desktop machines and overclock them, or flash the BIOS with garbage, etc etc. Which makes this comment especially funny:

I would never buy a gadget that I know can be fried permanently, unless it was really cheap.

Chances are, you're posting this on just such a device.

Now, as to whether Amazon has actually built in support for remote detonating of that, I doubt it -- though I suspect they could update the software and do it anyway. But I don't doubt it's possible.

And if you're specifically complaining about the ability to do this remotely, well, how many PCs have some auto-updating software? Windows itself is usually set for that, these days, as are dozens of pieces of third-party software -- so even barring a malicious "hack", there are still multiple companies who could probably fry your desktop if they wanted to.

Or, at the very least, force some re-soldering to fix it.

Re:Presumably

[masshuu]

then you don't know theves. Most are to stupid to know anything.
"HAY lets break into this security store and steal these security cameras, theres no way theres security cameras watching us"
"Hay lets steal this phone then answer and ignore the person who calls it asking for it back"
If they do steal it, knowing it can be bricked, thats not gona stop them from selling it to someone who doesn't know its hot

Re:Presumably

[Prof.Phreak]

bricking it prevents theft of future devices, as they lose the resale value.

Re:Presumably

[Anonymous Coward]

I get it. Theft is bad. But how is bricking the device the answer? It won't un-steal the Kindle. So they brick it and what then? It goes into a landfill? Charming.

No, the idea is that the word gets around that a stolen Kindle will soon be bricked, so it's of no use to your customer (or your fence). Ergo -- no percentage in stealing it in the first place.

Re:Presumably

[drinkypoo]

What if it became common practice to bake a little device into every loaf of bread, so that when someone steals the bread, the baker can flip a little switch and have it turn to poison in their mouths? Is that justice?

A stolen kindle represents theft of services: unapproved use of the network. It harms paying subscribers. Bricking the unit might produce a visit to a repair facility, probably by a secondary buyer who will be told "my kindle stopped working, if you can fix it, you can have it." Of course, what they SHOULD be doing is just tracking it; since it's a cellular device, that's trivial using TDOA.

Re:Presumably

[arminw]

....Chances are, you're posting this on just such a device.....

I have not yet heard of Apple doing such a thing on their Macs, but I have heard of Amazon deleting files. Apple has and is still working hard to eliminate all DRM, with its remote tracking and deleting ability, but they still have to play ball with the content providers who insist on it. Just because the ability exists to track and delete, does not mean it should be done, especially by force of law. Ultimately, a lot of this is built on trust and it appears that some companies are more trustworthy than others. Amazon has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, at least in regards to their Kindle. They are more on the side of the content providers than their customers.

Re:Presumably

[SanityInAnarchy]

I have not yet heard of Apple doing such a thing on their Macs,

Doesn't mean they're unable to.

I have heard of Amazon deleting files.

Doesn't mean they could brick the device.

The means to brick the device is the fact that they can likely send some sort of a software update to it -- just as you probably get software updates from Apple.

Apple has and is still working hard to eliminate all DRM,

Bullshit.

Actually, let me try that again...

<ut2003_announcer>B-B-B-BULLSHIT-SHIT-SHIT</ut2003_announcer>

Apple has been against DRM on music -- that's it. They've been very pro-DRM on software. Why else would an iPhone have to be jailbroken to run any software that's not approved?

I mean, the iPhone alone makes you look really stupid here. Can you name a more locked-down application platform? I can't. The only ones that come close are game consoles, and those were never intended to be general-purpose application platforms.

Never mind that they have used Trusted Computing, among other things, to ensure that OS X can only run on OS X hardware.

Oh, and they're a board member of the Blu-ray Disk Association, meaning they (and 18 other companies) are more or less directly responsible for the AACS and BD+ DRM schemes that are on Blu-Ray at the moment.

It really seems like Apple only really wants to eliminate DRM on music -- anything else is fine by them.

Re:Presumably

[arminw]

...and those were never intended to be general-purpose application platforms....

Neither was the iPhone. It was intended to and is intended to be primarily a phone which can also run computer applications. The iTouch is an iPod which can do almost everything the iPhone can do, except be a phone. Neither one of these devices was ever intended to be a general purpose computing platform, such as a Mac or Windows machine.

The Mac is an integrated machine in the same way that my Toyota Prius is a whole integrated car even though it is run by software that boots like and has a power button like my computer. I have never heard of somebody wanting to run Linux, Windows or OS X or some other software on their Toyota in order to control the car differently or give it other functions. That is why Apple discourages but not totally prevents people from running their software on other hardware, but only get upset if someone is trying to make money at it. Even if you want to build a Hackintosh, Apple does not use sophisticated DRM to prevent you. The same goes for an iPhone. It can be and has been hacked, in order to accept other applications not from the iTunes store and of course viruses and Trojans too.

The Blu-ray Disk has been a sales disappointment and is likely to wither the way because it does not really offer anything besides a better picture. This especially true, because downloaded videos are pretty good and very convenient. It appears that most people much rather pay for greater convenience than a marginally clearer picture, especially if there is a marked cost differential between good enough and the best. What has happened to CD sales will eventually happen to the DVD and even more so to the much more expensive Blu-ray players and discs. Apple with its iTunes video store, where movies and TV shows can be both rented and purchased is actively trying to destroy the market for the Blu-ray Disk because there is no future in it. In 10 years it is unlikely you will be able to walk into the average department store and buy either a CD or a regular DVD. Also, eventually, the movie and TV companies will get around to realizing, just as the music industry has, that DRM is unnecessary and reduces sales.

Re:Presumably

[SanityInAnarchy]

It was intended to and is intended to be primarily a phone which can also run computer applications.

Thus, a generic application platform.

Or, if you like, a specific application platform. You're still not going to find applications on a game console.

The Mac is an integrated machine in the same way that my Toyota Prius is a whole integrated car even though it is run by software that boots like and has a power button like my computer.

It also lets you run whatever you want once you boot it.

That is why Apple discourages but not totally prevents people from running their software on other hardware,

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with it being an integrated platform?

No, the reason for this is plain and simple: Greed. Even if Apple hardware is fairly priced -- and I'm not convinced it is -- this is their way of forcing you to buy all your hardware from Apple, if you want to run Apple software.

I can see why they might not want to encourage people from running OS X on non-Mac hardware. They do, however, take steps to discourage that, up to and including DRM.

So your argument that they are anti-DRM fails, no matter what excuse you want to use, as if they were anti-DRM, you'd think they wouldn't, y'know, use DRM.

Imagine if, for a moment, they took the same attitude towards the iPod and music that they are towards their software. Would you really try to argue that the iPod is sold as an entire integrated device including the iTunes store, and that I shouldn't be able to use the iTunes store with a non-Apple portable media device, and that Apple is therefore justified in encrypting each song?

I mean, would you then go on to suggest that it'd be OK for the iPod to be Mac-only, since it's all about this integrated software experience?

does not use sophisticated DRM to prevent you.

Oh, so it only counts if it's sophisticated? And they certainly use lawsuits to prevent me.

The Blu-ray Disk has been a sales disappointment and is likely to wither the way because it does not really offer anything besides a better picture.

Not true. It does offer more interactivity, it's just that people don't tend to care much about that -- it's lacking a "killer app", so to speak.

Still, I did some pretty cool things with HD-DVD (if I say so myself), which could not have been done with DVD.

But what does this have to do with the fact that Apple supports an organization -- is even a board member of said organization -- which is so rabidly pro-DRM?

Apple with its iTunes video store, where movies and TV shows can be both rented and purchased is actively trying to destroy the market for the Blu-ray Disk because there is no future in it.

Then why are they on the Blu-Ray board?

Also, eventually, the movie and TV companies will get around to realizing, just as the music industry has, that DRM is unnecessary and reduces sales.

And why hasn't Apple helped them understand? Why are they instead encouraging DRM-laden platforms?

For that matter, if Apple truly is in favor of the advantages of a DRM-free world, why can't I buy music from the iTunes Music Store, without using iTunes? Why isn't it a web-based system, like just about every other music store out there? And don't say "ease of use", because there's nothing preventing them from offering both ways.

Re:Presumably

[arminw]

....They do, however, take steps to discourage that, up to and including DRM....

If you were better informed, you would know that it is not DRM, but the booting system differences. The PCs still uses the almost 30-year-old BIOS booting system, whereas the Mac users enjoy a much more modern contemporary system for booting. It is possible and is being done all the time, to boot OSX on non-Apple hardware. I am sure you can find the necessary instructions and boot loaders as well as the appropriate hardware if you really want to.
(...OK for the iPod to be Mac-only...)
the iPod is indeed an integrated device, which for a while was Mac only, but Apple also writes iTunes to run under Windows. However you still need iTunes in order to work properly with an iPod and the iTunes store.
(...what does this have to do with the fact that Apple supports an organization...)
The Blu-ray organization was formed before video downloads from the Internet became popular and of good enough quality. Like so many technologies, the disc technology, CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray are becoming dinosaurs, courtesy of the Internet. It is convenience that people will pay for, not marginal increases in quality. Why bother buying a disc or renting one when you can just download the same entertainment material from the Internet? If Apple knew then what they know now, they might never have joined the organization.
(...why can't I buy music from the iTunes Music Store, without using iTunes?...)
Your argument might hold water, if iTunes were an expensive program you had to buy, but it is totally free. If there were a single Linux variety, rather than the sad mishmash of incompatible of versions, Apple might have made a version of iTunes for that by now. You also seem to be forgetting that Apple is not a charity or nonprofit but a profit-making American corporation looking out for the interests of their stockholders. There are plenty of other places besides the iTunes store, where you can buy music on the Internet.

Re:Presumably

[SanityInAnarchy]

it is not DRM, but the booting system differences.

It's actually quite old news that it's DRM.

Yes, there are booting differences also. And yes, Apple's method of booting is probably superior. But that doesn't preclude actual DRM.

the iPod is indeed an integrated device, which for a while was Mac only, but Apple also writes iTunes to run under Windows.

Why do you think they did that?

If Apple knew then what they know now, they might never have joined the organization.

And yet, they are still in that organization. If they really believe it's irrelevant, and if they're really trying to eliminate it, why haven't they left?

Your argument might hold water, if iTunes were an expensive program you had to buy, but it is totally free.

It is, however, a proprietary program only available for a proprietary platform. It is thus exactly as "free" as Internet Explorer.

I assume you run a Mac. What do you think when you run into a website that requires Internet Explorer?

If there were a single Linux variety, rather than the sad mishmash of incompatible of versions,

"Incompatible of versions?"

But... uhm... Amazon MP3 has a Linux version. So does Skype, for that matter. It's clearly not that it's hard, it's that Apple doesn't care.

You also seem to be forgetting that Apple is not a charity or nonprofit but a profit-making American corporation

I haven't forgotten.

What everyone who uses this argument seems to forget is that just because you're a for-profit corporation doesn't mean everything you do is ethically justified just because it gains profit.

In particular, you're the one who was bragging about how Apple's anti-DRM. Plenty of for-profit companies are pro-DRM. Clearly, you're trying to make some moral superiority argument which falls flat on its face when you consider something like iTunes -- which, properly engineered, would work on the Web, and in iTunes, and easily allow AmaroK and Songbird to add support, as they have for Magnatune.

Why is it engineered to only work with iTunes?

As much as you'd like to say "integration", the real reason is very simple: It originally came with DRM, and DRM works better (to the extent that it works at all) on closed systems. It's only once they started to ship DRM-free songs that it might've occurred to them to publish an API.

Re:Presumably

[arminw]

...What do you think when you run into a website that requires Internet Explorer?....

Increasingly, most websites these days are browser gnostic, although there are a few that still put up a message that their website only works with Internet Explorer. The first thing I do then is tell my Mac to lie to that website by telling it that Safari is now Internet Explorer under Windows, and 90% of the time it works just fine after that. Apparently, the website looks at the browser and OS string and then no longer complains that Internet Explorer and Windows isn't at the other end.

Re:Presumably

[SanityInAnarchy]

Increasingly, most websites these days are browser gnostic,

I wonder what that would look like?

<pedantic>It's browser agnostic.</pedantic>

The first thing I do then is tell my Mac to lie to that website by telling it that Safari is now Internet Explorer under Windows, and 90% of the time it works just fine after that.

And the other 10% of the time?

That's a small taste of how "free" something like iTunes is. (Remember: OS X isn't free, Windows isn't free. Would you really recommend I try it under Wine?) Never mind the hassle of booting another OS, even in a VM, just to buy a fucking song -- much like you must be irritated by having to boot Windows in Parallels, or reboot with Boot Camp, just to view a website.

Of course, if you're like me, most of the time you won't bother.

Re:Presumably

[arminw]

...OS X isn't free, Windows isn't free..
Of course, Linux is not free either, unless the only cost you consider his original purchase price. If your time is truly valuable, so that you can do other things besides futzing with your computer, get yourself a Mac. On the other hand, if you enjoy surfing the web for hours, trying to find that driver that will work under Linux, for that new really nice scanner with all those bells and whistles, then that is another story isn't it? Linux is probably the best operating system there is for use by those people who like to tinker with their computers for enjoyment and gratification.

Re:Presumably

[SanityInAnarchy]

Of course, Linux is not free either, unless the only cost you consider his original purchase price.

That's pretty much what I'm considering, here.

If your time is truly valuable, so that you can do other things besides futzing with your computer, get yourself a Mac.

I spent far more time futzing with my Mac to get it working the way I like than I do with KDE. And it still wasn't anywhere close to what I'm used to.

On the other hand, if you enjoy surfing the web for hours, trying to find that driver that will work under Linux, for that new really nice scanner with all those bells and whistles, then that is another story isn't it?

Where to begin?

• I can't remember the last time I've used a scanner.
• Digital cameras work fine. "Out-of-the-box" fine.
• I've had exactly one Linux driver issue with this computer, and easily ten or more Windows driver issues.

Your stereotype isn't entirely unfounded, but it's getting a bit old and often dead wrong.

Regardless, I think the point stands. If I had a Linux computer -- or BSD, or Solaris, or Plan9, or Haiku, or OS 9, or Win2k, or anything except OS X or Windows XP+ -- then iTunes is not free, it's an expensive upgrade.

So, where'd your "it's free" argument go? You instead dropped to, "Oh, well, nothing's free." I think you've made my point for me.

Why should they?

[ironicsky]

I mean, seriously. Why should companies like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, or any manufacturer spend any amount of time helping to track down your stolen property to begin with. It is your responsibility to keep track of your property, not theres. Now, nice automated solutions like Apple's Mobile Me allows you to basically brick a stolen iPhone and track its position, but that was nice to have feature that they added but was in no way required too. If someone steals your car, do you call the car manufacturer and ask them to disable the car remotely so no one can drive it? No... you report it to police and call your insurance company. IMHO this applies to electronics as well.

Re:Why should they?

[Fished]

Because it's a trivial amount of effort for them to do so? Because they know that I own it, they know it's registered to me (via my mobile account, credit card, etc.) and all they need to do is have a hash file somewhere?

Re:Why should they?

[RobVB]

If someone steals your car, do you call the car manufacturer and ask them to disable the car remotely so no one can drive it?

Some high-end car manufacturers offer this kind of service. And who knows, maybe this story will make Amazon think they can sell Premium packages, for people who are willing to pay more for the guarantee that they'll track down your Kindle if you leave it on a bus.

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked no one could charge anything against me using a stolen paperback, nor do they have any chance to pry my personal or financial information from said book.

By linking the device to your finances they gain a responsibility beyond normal goods manufacturers.

Re:Why should they?

[Threni]

That's not going to track it down. They could easily stop people from using it on their network, but it's worth £0 to try and physically locate it. Don't you normally pay people if you want them to perform a service for you?

Re:Why should they?

[v1]

well they don't WANT you to locate it. They WANT you to buy another one...

Re:Why should they?

[joeyblades]

If someone steals your car, do you call the car manufacturer and ask them to disable the car remotely so no one can drive it?

No, you have the police call OnStar and they disable it...

The surprising thing for me is that the companies that have this capability and are resisting this are missing an opportunity to make a lot of money on what some people obviously think is a valuable service.

Re:Why should they?

[Dutch Gun]

I mean, seriously. Why should companies like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, or any manufacturer spend any amount of time helping to track down your stolen property to begin with.

For the same reason a company may provide services above and beyond what they technically *have* to... it builds customer loyalty. It's up to them to decide whether that's worth more than the potential hassle of dealing with issues like these.

Personally, I suspect it's for fear of lawsuits. Generally speaking, in this country, it seems like it's almost always safer to *do nothing* rather than trying to do the "right thing", which is sort of a sad state of affairs.

Re:Why should they?

[ironicsky]

You are right. It is trivial for them to assist with tracking just one kindle. But if they do it for one person, why not the next? And the next? Until they have thousands of people asking for help finding their kindle, which is no longer a trivial task.

Re:Why should they?

[olsmeister]

Make the person provide copies of reasonable proof of ownership (a receipt) and theft (the police report). When these are provided, brick the Kindle with a message to send it back to Amazon for repair. Send it back to the legitimate owner with a bill for $50 recovery fee.

Then make a TV commercial and buy lots of airtime.

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "OnStar" and "Stolen Vehicle Slowdown Service". The truth is that consumers *want* features that deter theft, and theft of devices is a real problem. The vendors can easily provide services to (a) help with recovery of 'lost' devices i.e., disable all functions and put a 'return me', followed by a wipe (timeout?). Corporations demand remote wipe capability (BES, etc). Consumers deserve the same security.

Re:Why should they?

[Tanktalus]

Why? Simple. Conflict of interest, and the appearance of impropriety. They stand to make money from the thief (or whoever they fence it to, or whoever the fence sells it to). They will make money from stolen goods. This is not the case for products that do not have on-going service charges applied. This appears to be a conflict of interest between them and their primary customers.

By helping track down a device reported stolen, they can appear to be above base profit motives, and, instead, appear to help deter crime. This would make their devices more valuable because thieves would be less interested in stealing the devices if they knew they could be tracked, or, at the very least, that the device could not be registered to someone else without the original owner explicitly okaying it.

There is a concern with legitimate resale of these devices, of course, but it doesn't take much imagination to deal with this (original owner calling in to cancel "for the purposes of resale" vs "because the damned thing was stolen"). What if someone sells you such a device and then reports it stolen? About the same thing as when someone sells you a car and reports it stolen: the police get involved and work through the stories, eventually arresting the guy who falsely reported it stolen. In this case, probably a civil suit, which would gain the buyer the ability to send a subpoena to the manufacturer to find the original owner's name and address in case you didn't already have it, although going to the police with a report of fraud would probably work, too. We already have laws dealing with this, so it really isn't a problem.

I see no reason why a company shouldn't be helpful to their customer, especially one that is paying a recurring fee for continued use (e.g., OnStar).

Oh, and, yes, you call the car manufacturer (in the case of OnStar-enabled vehicles, and probably others) to ask them to disable the vehicle. You may need a police report, and it may need to be the police contacting OnStar for you, but it's still basically you causing the manufacturer to be notified and the vehicle disabled (safely). OnStar even advertises this as a feature. (I have a 2007 Saturn VUE Hybrid. I've cancelled OnStar, but got an earful when I bought the thing new, as well as when I cancelled and they turned on the heat trying to convince me not to cancel.)

Re:Why should they?

[fermion]

On one hand you are correct, and there are scenarios that would indicate for manufacturers to not interfere. For instance, I am mad at a friend of mine, so I report a device stolen to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer turns it off. The manufacturer is then in the middle of a domestic squabble, which may incur significant cost, and probably raise the price for the rest of us.

Or take a look at it this way. I could sell the device, and just to be a prick,report it stolen to the manufacture. It would not be a rational thing to do, but a few of these would kill the second hand market for these devices. Instead of whining that the manufactures are not doing anything to make a profit, we would be whining that they are killing the used market to make a profit.

However, if I file a police report and send a copy of the police report to the manufacturer, I do not see how they can in all good faith not disable the device, if they indeed have the option. I mean, in many cases I am sure they would do so if I stopped paying, so why not if the device is part of suspected illegal activity. By not doing so they are accomplices. This is not like a car, as a car does not come standard with kill software, as the kindle does. If a car did come with such control, I can assure you they would use it, with little more than a police report.

No, the requirement for personal police and court attention definitely makes them accomplices to criminals. They are hiding behind the law to minimize the responsibility to the customer, maximize the risk of the customer, and maximize the potential for profit from the criminal behavior. A police report fine,but a visit from a police officer, standard corporate waste of our court system.

Re:Why should they?

[Roger W Moore]

I know this is Slashdot so you are not expected to have RTFA but could you at least read the summary?

After leaving it on a plane, he canceled his account so that nobody could charge books to his credit card.

They did not stop him unlinking the device from his finances which is something they should be (and probably are) required to do. Beyond that it might be nice if they helped him further but there is certainly no responsibility for them to do so.

Re:Why should they?

[Barny]

You, sir, just won the whole thread.

Very well pointed out and executed, great capitalization and the end, the ellipses, GENIUS.

But yeah, very good point.

Re:Why should they?

[arminw]

....although going to the police....

  is largely futile for small ticket property crimes these days. They are far too busy these days with more serious crimes. The best thing is to have a personal property insurance that will replace the item or just eat the loss and be more careful next time.

Re:Why should they?

[arminw]

...No, the requirement for personal police and court attention...

is really only good for something more valuable, such as a car but not a cheap piece of junk that can be replaced for less than what it would cost for all the paperwork to be done. Many police departments are so overworked these days, they do not even bother with property crimes, unless the value stolen gets into the thousands, not a few hundred dollars. It may be cheaper just to get insurance or kiss off the loss. Certainly, manufacturers have no obligation and have no incentive to do police work for their stolen cheap gadgets. Except for cars, most gadgets are just too cheap to warrant so much work.

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do it (both find it and brick it). The fact that the tech support dudes just shrugged and say 'oh cant do that' really means amazons tech support has f'd up.

Trust me on this the CAN find it. And the ones who have access to the info just havent been given a request to do it, (the request must come from amazon by contract). They can get the thing down to about 20ft of where it is and totally disable it remotely. The system it is based on was meant to find things and say where it is. Its BUILT into the system. The system is there. Its not even that hard to use.

This smells of a tech support screw up and no one wants to say and do the right thing. Much like the deletion of 1984 a few weeks ago. It will take upper level vp's saying 'fix it'. Knowing the tech supports in question it always does.

The story could have been 'how amazon helped me get my kindle back'. Instead it is 'amazon is acting like douchebags'.

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are far too busy these days with more serious crimes.

Yeah, serious victimless crimes like smoking pot and prostitution.

Re:Why should they?

[arminw]

...Some high-end car manufacturers offer this kind of service....

  For cars, which costs thousands of dollars, this is worthwhile. However, for your cheap little hundreds of dollars gadget, it is not. Besides, locating stolen property is a service that must be paid for. How much are you willing to pay for someone to locate or brick your stolen device?

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

On that same sort of analogy, credit cards are now electronic devices. Why visa, master card or amex should care if it gets lost? It was your problem and they are going to collect more money from you, when the thief uses it

For that very same reason. People shouldn't be allowed to take your things and do stuff you don't want them to do on your behalf.

Re:Why should they?

[AshtangiMan]

Victimless? Those plants are living things dood. Think of the plants. But hookers, yeah that's ok.

Re:Why should they?

[mabhatter654]

most people on the board don't want the device tracked down, just disabled. That would discourage petty theft of things like Kindles and Cell phones and is trivially easy to do considering ownership of the network and the CONTENTS OF THE DEVICE are claimed by Amazon/Telcos under TOS. Considering Amazon can remotely take back a book and there's nothing the OWNER of the device can do it's entirely hypocritical not to at least disable a device reported lost or stolen...

They could at least take a registration number and make the person in possession of the device phone in to reactivate it.

Re:Why should they?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a concern with legitimate resale of these devices, of course, but it doesn't take much imagination to deal with this (original owner calling in to cancel "for the purposes of resale" vs "because the damned thing was stolen").

This is not a problem for GPS manufacturers. People grouse a lot about the way Garmin locks maps to one or two devices, but it's not their rules. The map provider (Navtech, I believe) insists on Garmin protecting the restricted distribution of their maps, so Garmin has to go along or make do with someone else's inferior maps.

But they do have processes in place for an orderly transfer of ownership, including previously purchased maps.

Re:Why should they?

[couchslug]

"The surprising thing for me is that the companies that have this capability and are resisting this are missing an opportunity to make a lot of money on what some people obviously think is a valuable service."

Any car recent enough to have OnStar is worth far more than an ebook reader, even if the car is being parted out and on its way to the shredder.

Re:Why should they?

[joeyblades]

I'm not talking specifically or exclusively about cars, I'm talking about and product/device that is technically capable to lo-jack and/or brick.

Sigh...

[Arsenal4rs]

Im gonna bet its a really interesting article, but since I have to register to view it, I guess I ll never truly know...

Re:Sigh...

[PoopMonkey]

http://www.bugmenot.com/

On the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Amazon sells you an e-Book on your precious Kindle, they will steal it back from you if the publisher changes their mind about selling an electronic version.

Seems Sensible

[Quothz]

Not doing it on request is a very sensible policy. Harassment seems just as likely as theft, or at least likely enough to be wary of. Many folks might buy a device for a significant other, then when their relationship hits the skids they may try to report it "stolen".

I also can't imagine the police ignoring a request like that. Even if it's a $300.00 device, I've never met a cop who won't pursue a theft if they think it's likely they'll catch the perpetrator and recover the item. For all the police's faults, ignoring a solvable, easily-prosecuted crime ain't one of 'em. Mind you, if a company won't cooperate with a police request relating to an investigation - subpoena or no - the company should be prosecuted itself.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Antique Geekmeister]

You've apparently never tried to report a stolen wallet or backpack, or even modest laptop. You fill out forms, answer questions,a nd they do _nothing_. It's just not important enough.

Re:Seems Sensible

[scheme]

You've apparently never tried to report a stolen wallet or backpack, or even modest laptop. You fill out forms, answer questions,a nd they do _nothing_. It's just not important enough.

What exactly are they supposed to do? A stolen or lost wallet/backpack/laptop is pretty hard to recover especially if you don't know who did it and more than a few minutes have passed since the theft. Unless whatever is stolen is fairly rare and easily identifiable, the cops can't really do much.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose the police wanted to do something. What would they do? They can't go around asking everyone if they've seen the item - they don't have the resources, and the thief, if he's even questioned at all, is just as likely to lie and say "no, officer, I haven't seen that item, whatever gave you the idea that I might have?". They can't go around stopping people and inspecting them for items matching the description of stolen items - the fourth amendment activists would eat them alive (and rightly so, IMO). If you give them no information to go on, you can't really expect them to do anything.

Maybe next time, you could report the theft to a psychic, and see if you get any better resuts.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Runaway1956]

"if a company won't cooperate with a police request relating to an investigation - subpoena or no - the company should be prosecuted itself."

Did you really think about that sentence, or you posted in haste? There are multiple reasons why subpoena's are required of the police. I hope that you aren't advocating that we should surrender our civil rights.

The police may request all day long, but I am under no obligation to grant their request. Only when they bring a subpoena to the equation am I obligated to comply with any request.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Antique Geekmeister]

Actually look at the CCTV recordings of the coffee shop where the laptop was lost? Actually tell you how to contact the lost and found offices of _both_ bus lines that pick people at that terminal? Actually help you act against the spammer forging email in your name?

I've had all of these happen to me or to friends in my presence. They just didn't bring enough traffic ticket money or rise to the level of political significance to pull police out of their cars or out of their construction site traffic duty to pursue smaller crimes. (Don't get me started on the overtime duties that could be filled by a much less expensive traffic guard to free police to do real work.)

I do respect most police officers: they do hard, difficult work. But where I live, at least, they lack resources to pursue many smaller issues that don't raise money for the city, such as theft or loss of property.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not, there's potheads out there that they could be busting for an easy $1-2k to the drug enforcement fund each.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Trepidity]

if a company won't cooperate with a police request relating to an investigation - subpoena or no - the company should be prosecuted itself

That doesn't sound like the kind of society I want to live in. A subpoena is the process by which the police make a request you cannot legally refuse to cooperate with--- subpoena means "under penalty", and a subpoena is a "request" that carries a penalty for noncooperation. Most free societies have some sort of judicial oversight of this process. You sound like you're arguing for any request by the police to be treated as if it were automatically a subpoena?

Re:Seems Sensible

[arminw]

...if it's a $300.00 device....

many, if not most law enforcement agencies will ask you to fill out a report, file it away and that's pretty much the end of it. Most police departments cannot afford the manpower required to pursue such trivial property crimes. In many places these days there are enough violent crimes to keep most police departments more than busy. If a gadget is really valuable to you, get some insurance.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Quothz]

There are multiple reasons why subpoena's are required of the police. I hope that you aren't advocating that we should surrender our civil rights.

I s'pose I did post in haste, at that. I posted sloppily and didn't check my terminology. I had thought the police would need a warrant for the information, not a subpoena, believing that the latter required that they have a charged suspect awaiting arraignment or trial. I see now that it's possible to get a subpoena as part of an investigation - although inasmuch as a warrant needs a judge's signature and a subpoena generally doesn't, I'd still prefer they use warrants.

Re:Seems Sensible

[ceoyoyo]

He said "solvable" and "easily-prosecuted."

"Hey, cop, someone swiped my wallet. I last saw it at 3 pm at work and noticed it was missing at 7 pm when I went to pay for dinner."

That's a bit different than "here is the SSN, name, address, phone numbers and a picture of the person who has my notebook." (true story)

In the first case it's a lot of work to investigate and very little chance of finding anything. In the second there's an excellent lead and a good chance of catching a thief.

Re:Seems Sensible

[mabhatter654]

usually what happens is that they do find somebody with a horde of stolen stuff.. and they prosecute for X number of stolen items from X places. They just never bother to tell YOU where they put the evidence and it goes out the back door of the police station. The reports help find a pattern of habitual offenders in the area and that is useful to them... but YOU will never here about that... after all, EVERYBODY is a suspect.

Re:Seems Sensible

[BlueUnderwear]

You've apparently never tried to report a stolen wallet or backpack, or even modest laptop. You fill out forms, answer questions,a nd they do _nothing_. It's just not important enough.

But at least you get the report form, needed to claim damages from your insurance company.

And if the stolen item does happen to fall into their lap, you do get it back. Case in point: my father got his wallet stolen in Lissabon, reported it to the police, and a couple of months later, he got it back.

What happens usually with wallets is that the thieves are "only" interested in the cash, and throw away the wallet (along with papers "useless" to them) as soon as possible (because it's dangerous to them to have id papers on them, which are not theirs). Eventually, somebody finds the wallet (because the thiefs don't bother with properly putting it into the trash, but rather throw it into the nearest bush or whatever), and brings it to the police... which then can send it back to you, if they've got a report on file.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'll grant you they'll give you the report form paperwork. If they're actually there. I swear, where I lived after college, one of my roommates actually came home when a thief was in the house stealing the TV. He struggled with the guy, who got away, went down the street to the police station, and there was no one in the entry hall, no one answered the buzzer, no phone to call in, nothing.

He only found them when he went around the corner to the coffee shop to get his nerve back, around people. They took his report, but it was pretty embarassing all around.

I also think your dad was were lucky. I strongly suspect that a real thief will take the money _and_ the credit cards, and throw it in the trash. They've little to risk by doing so, and much to avoid by getting it out of circulation. It's the casual thief, the "Oooohhhh, look, a wallet! With cash!" person who'll leave it to be found. Credit cards are potentially as valuable as cash: professional or semi-professional thieves can do quite a lot of damage with them.

Re:Seems Sensible

[Antique Geekmeister]

Ouch. I hadn't been thinking about that: and after all, a professional or semi-professional thief has little interest in keeping inventory around, so I'd be surprised if they still have a majority of the stolen goods when found, so it would still be unlikely that they'd get your goods even if they catch the thief. But I can easily believe that they wouldn't try hard to tie the local lost or stolen reports to the goods, and it would be pilfered (by bad cops) or auctioned with other "unrecovered" goods at the annual auctions.

Most cops I've known work hard at dangerous work, and actually try to stop guilty people. But it only takes a few bad quartermasters, or "policy" decisions to spend time on running the auction instead of digging up the original owners to stolen goods, to keep finding lost goods a profitable sideline.

Re:Seems Sensible

[i.r.id10t]

"here is the SSN, name, address, phone numbers and a picture of the person who has my notebook."

I did the same thing, but it was for a firearm. Gun was found in a pawn shop, but I was not allowed to get it back for some reason... even with police report, etc.

Re:Seems Sensible

[mabhatter654]

most of the time it would be that they don't have time to look up your info when they do find stolen stuff... They'd read off 2-3 numbers that hit the list then stock the rest and probably never even enter the stuff as "recovered". It's just "stuff" after all.

More sales of course ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The stolen unit gets sold and the new owner starts buying content. The original owner will most likely buy a new one to replace it. Now Amazon has two revenue streams instead of one.

Not Bricking Makes Little Sense

[eeebbb]

Tracking is going way overboard... but bricking on demand is a good idea. Why wouldn't a manufacturer want their electronic devices to have a "useless to steal it" reputation?

Re:Not Bricking Makes Little Sense

[nrlightfoot]

Because they don't want a "we can brick your device if we feel like it" reputation.

Re:Not Bricking Makes Little Sense

[FrozenGeek]

On the other hand, they probably don't want a "if it's stolen, you can lose a lot of money and we won't help you avoid that" reputation either.

Re:Not Bricking Makes Little Sense

[cdrguru]

Look, Amazon gets to benefit from a stolen device in two ways: if the owner was affluent enough to buy one, they will buy two, and the end purchasor of the lost or stolen device might buy books on it after reregistering it.

Both ways, Amazon wins. Same with cell phones. Probably same with GPS receivers and just about any other electronic gadget you can think of.

This also helps out the folks finding or stealing electronics. They get to make some money along the way and maybe someday hit a big enough score to become Amazon customers. So then Amazon wins with all three people in the transaction.

Theft is away of life in the US. Even if you aren't participating, you are probably assisting others in one way or another. "Losing" stuff, buying cheap stolen property, or by just ignoring theft when it occurs - it is all helping out the folks depending on theft for their income.

Re:Not Bricking Makes Little Sense

[noidentity]

[...] bricking on demand is a good idea. Why wouldn't a manufacturer want their electronic devices to have a "useless to steal it" reputation?

Maybe they don't want their electronic devices to have a "useless to buy used and then have remotely bricked" reputation.

Choosing family

[gmuslera]

Who you want to be your next Big Brother?

Re:Choosing family

[stagg]

They don't want to watch you. They just want to increase their profit margin. Killing resale and locking devices can't hurt their profits, can it? Especially if it bricks if you try to tamper with it, or kill its access to the internet.

Re:Why should they? Because they win loyalty

[ctmurray]

If this happened to me and Apple/Amazon helped me recover my device I would be quite grateful. In the end I would be more loyal to them, purchase more of their products and be less critical of their failings in the future. It is quite expensive to get a new customer, and if you can retain a customer at low cost you have save that money replacing or regaining them.

$300 Value is nothing

[whoda]

Any police department anywhere pretty much won't try to recover anything worth $300 unless it falls into their lap.

Require a police report

[Roger W Moore]

how would you prove the device was really stolen an no sold used

You do what they do for passports: you require a police record indicating that you have reported it stolen. That way if the person you track down did not steal it the person who lied to you can end up in hot water for lying to the police, wasting police time etc. plus you have a reasonable defence.
Of course the better way to do it is the way that Apple does with the iPhone: you let the user trace their own device without company intervention. That way the end-user is directly responsible provided that the mechanism is appropriately secure.

High end devices should come with a user url

[S1ngularity]

Seriously, why don't expensive GPS/internet enabled devices come tied to an online user account from which the user could track, brick a-splode their own device?

Re:High end devices should come with a user url

[genericpoweruser]

Because it'd be too easily abused. What would happen if some guy bought his girlfriend one for Valentine's day then disabled it out of spite when their relationship went south?

Re:High end devices should come with a user url

[Jared555]

In theory that device wouldn't be attached to his account.

GM's OnStar

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

GM OnStar can disable your car on your request. It is considered another benefit when people are looking at competing products.

Security...

[stagg]

It's easy to give these devices GPS locators or some kind of backdoor that will allow the owner to disable them. But that raises the issue of security. If you can disable or find your device you can bet that other people will be able to as well. Sure you can talk firewalls and secure connections, but the more they try to seal it and make it uncrackable for your protection, the more proprietary and closed the system is going to become.

I think they should track

[IMNTPC]

Last year I absentmindedly left my GPS and Cellphone in the car (was running late to work). About an hour later I realized I didn't have my Cell on me and went out to the car to retrieve it. Lo and behold my TomTom 920T GPS, and my Motorola Q9c were both gone and the window in my car was smashed out. Rough retail value of the phone and gps together were around the $1000.00 range. The police came and took a report, I even actually still had the boxes for both units with the serial numbers. I've not heard anything since.
          What really irks me is that I know for certain that the Cell Phone should be traceable. At least the police could have called Verizon and checked to see if it showed up in any of the 50-100 pawn shops in town. We're not talking major investigate work here, we're talking about what should be a 10-20min call. I called TomTom and also asked them if they could at least make it where that unit will never get an update.. they said it was a feature that many have requested, but at this point in time they didn't offer that.
          I know that there are more important things like murders, etc.. but hey they had to take the time to take the report, could at least do a little diligence.

Re:I think they should track

[TheRealRainFall]

Key word "Retail" value. What you value as high MSRP is probably a few hundred tops on ebay combined. I don't fault our officers for not spending time looking for them if there are more pressing issues. Exaggerating stories by overstating value may fool maroons, i doubt it fools many at slashdot

Re:I think they should track

[Siridar]

See, the problem I have there is a simple one - where do you draw the line at "not worth the time"? if, as you say, $300 isn't worth it...does that also work in the other direction? Speeding fines and such are generally in the 2-300 dollar range...if its worth them prosecuting me for this trivial amount, why isn't it worth them doing a similar level of "work" to recover a $300 device?

Re:I think they should track

[initialE]

Second hand phones are usually sold to customers overseas. Probably true for stolen phones as well.

Re:I think they should track

[herojig]

The recovery goes into their pocket and not urs, that's why:)

Re:I think they should track

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the police called Verizon. And, maybe they hit an endless phone tree menu followed by seven clueless support people and gave up. Or, maybe they try calling Verizon once a year, realize it is a hassle, and give up.

Re:I think they should track

[cdrguru]

The current ecconomy is partly driven by theft. People less affluent get to buy stuff on the cheap and the affluent folks just buy more stuff. The police are hardly in a position to interfere with this underground economy.

Yes, it would be nice if it became common knowledge that if you stole something like a cell phone that it could be tracked to you and you would be arrested. Or even that stealing a cell phone is useless because as soon as it is reported stolen it is useless. That sounds like it might be the case in UK. In the US it is how the poor people get cell phones.

The police are all nice and friendly about writing up a report for insurance purposes. However, nobody really cares after that. Had it happen several times and the answer is always the same from the police. The stolen items are already fenced and there is nothing that can be done.

Re:I think they should track

[ozbird]

Lo and behold my TomTom 920T GPS, and my Motorola Q9c were both gone and the window in my car was smashed out.

It must have been an inside job, otherwise the window would have been smashed in.

In reverse

[Roger W Moore]

If there's an issue with whoever wants to use it, it's between the other user and him, not him and Amazon.

Supposing it happened the other way around. He left his Kindle in a coffee shop and the person who found it, rather than steal it, decided to note down the serial number and call Amazon to have the Kindle bricked as a mean-spirited prank. Amazon should require some level of "proof" of theft but a police report of the device being stolen should be enough to discourage any prank calls since falsifying one will land you in trouble. They should not need direct police involvement and a court subpoena.

Re:In reverse

[Dare nMc]

How do you verify a police report? Should amazon then call to verify the report is really over a kindle?
Their are answers to those and more exist, they may even be simple enough for just a few cases. But amazon is a big retailer and obviously doesn't want to deal with the issues for little reward for them.
Having been a AT&T victim 10 years ago, where they got the wrong address for my cell phone account, and thus labeled my $125 purchase of phone as fraudulent, and couldn't ever get that label removed (and thus I have never dealt with AT&T since because of this.) I can understand a smart company just not wanting to get involved.

Re:In reverse

[AshtangiMan]

Dubious, as in a reasonable system you'd verify with some account details not available on the device.

Re:In reverse

[Roger W Moore]

How do you verify a police report? Should amazon then call to verify the report is really over a kindle?

The police report should be required to list the kindle as one of the stolen items. If someone fakes a police report they will get into trouble which should be enough of a deterrent for common pranks. It won't stop more serious attempts but there should be far fewer of those.

A police report should do

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see them wanting me to "be serious" about reporting my device as stolen, but a copy police report or insurance claim will do. Lying to the police or your insurance company will get you in a lot of hot water, which creates a deterrent to frivolous or fictitious claims.

Don't shut it off!

[PktLoss]

The person currently able to login to the Amazon account claims to have purchased lost the device.

Amazon doesn't know if he's sold it, given it away
Amazon doesn't know if someone else logged into his account (ex-partner/significant other?)
Amazon doesn't know if the device was repossessed by a credit card company.

Amazon doesn't have anywhere near enough information to start bricking, or reporting on the location of devices.

Anti-theft systems

[bl968]

It's simple when the registered owner of the device reports it stolen they add the serial number to a list. Devices in the list can not be updated and will present a message giving the owners phone number to contact about returning the device. Owner is happy because they either get the device back, or they know it can't be used. I asked Apple to do much the same thing when I lost my iPod last year. I feel it is negligence on the manufacturer's part when they do not implement some form of an anti-theft system especially when the device requires access to propriety company owned and operated services. In this instance DRM can work truly on behalf of the consumer.

Re:Anti-theft systems

[vxvxvxvx]

I know with my Nuvi GPS if I report it stolen (not sure if a police report is required, but I have no issue with that anyway) the new owners will not be able to update it. I also like the security features where you have to enter a code each time it starts. My JVC stereo has a similar feature, if it loses power you have to enter a code to use it. I assume there are ways around these security features, but for the common thief (which seems to be adolescents in my area) I doubt they go through the trouble. Then again, until the majority of devices start using features like this the kids will steal the stuff anyway not knowing they can't use it. The pawn shops might not be smart enough to test the goods before buying either.

Re:Anti-theft systems

[arminw]

...I feel it is negligence on the manufacturer's part....

What incentive does a manufacturer have to do this? If your precious gadget gets stolen, you or your insurance will likely buy another one and they have another sale. Also, the thief of whoever buys device will likely subscribe to a service attached to the device and the manufacturer or somebody will make more money. A $300 or $400 gadget just isn't worth the time and effort for either the police or a manufacturer. Get some insurance or eat the loss.

Re:Anti-theft systems

[rkww]

Mobile phones reported stolen in England can be blocked within 48 hours.

Re:Anti-theft systems

[bl968]

For example with a iphone or ipod the functionality can be included in the itunes software. Owner goes in program and selects block device. That device can no longer connect to the apple store. It's that simple if the device is returned or found the owner can select unblock device. Simple. Requires one database on apple's end, a couple hundred lines of code, and a check be made each time that device is connected. It is simple, foolproof, low maintance on Apple's part, and kills any incentive someone has to rob or kill you for that device.

Re:Anti-theft systems

[arminw]

....the functionality can be included in the itunes software....

Yes, of course it CAN be but what does Apple get out of the deal? If the iPod is lost you or your insurance company will likely replace it. Bingo, Apple gets another sale! Besides, just because something can be done does not mean it should be, especially if it is done by the force of law. People here on /. complain all the time about being tracked on the Internet, but if it suits them, such as recovering a lost or stolen item, they seem to have no problem with giving up a little privacy.

Easy: A L W A Y S !

[redelm]

Finders are not keepers. The device remains his property, and Amazon ought to help him recover it. In fact, if they are found to have dealt with the device (accepted a CC & downloaded a file), they could be charged with abetting the theft.

The correct thing for a finder to do is to turn it in to the airline or airport lost-n-found (however inefficient they might appear). If it is not duly claimed within a specified period, then they can claim the device. To protect themselves, Amazon ought to require such proof, especially if a device has been reported lost or stolen.

Otherwise, I fail to see any privacy issue. A thief is not entitled to any I can see: the owner remains owner of the device, and can legitimately authorize the execution of any program, even remotely. Even a microphone program unless the microphone where surrupticious and otherwise unexpected (bug on the device).

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say it has some CP on it and I'm sure the police would give it a higher priority.

Their reluctance is bunk!!!!!

[onyxruby]

I used to work for Polaris (Snowmobiles, ATV's, Motorcycles etc). They actively tracked and helped out with stolen equipment on a routine basis. Working these issues was my responsibility at the time. Worked with law enforcement, took reports from civilians and similar things.

You know how much work this took on my part? Very little - this fell under "other duties" while I worked there, and I was the only person at the time who worked these. The vendors like Amazon are refusing to help seeing only an expense and a loss of sales. This sheer and utter greed on their part with justifiable reason. If they can't do this because it's the right thing, than somebody needs to legislate good companies morals on their part.

Re:Their reluctance is bunk!!!!!

[MartinSchou]

Generally speaking vehicular theft is seen as high priority in the police. When's the last time you saw footage of six police cars chasing down a pick pocket?

In this case it's not even about someone picking someone else's pockets - it's the crew noticing something left behind on the plane and thinking "I'm having that".

Owner bricking & selling process

[mulaz]

Reading the comments, I saw two problems:
1: who can brick it
2: is it really stolen or just sold?

The best solution would be to track ownership online, and that every owner can (temporarily) brick and unbrick his device whenever he wants.
The second problem is dealing with reselling... This could be solved by using a two-part code. The seller would get a "sellers code" from amazon (apple,...), which he would give to the buyer at the time of selling (or even post it on the ebay page). The buyer would have to register the device in his name (as he has to do now), but the device wouldn't work without the sellers code. After the registration and entering the code, the new owner (only him) could un/brick the device whenever he wanted.

Re:Owner bricking & selling process

[mulaz]

Oh yes... and of course, the buyer should be able to verify the sellers code prior to paying.

Good for Amazon

[chord.wav]

If they had bricked it, they wouldn't be helping to solve the problem. The guy would have bitched about them not requiring any legal order and how easy would be for a social engineer to brick any device.

They actually taught the guy a valuable lesson: You are responsible for your property. You are a grown up, act like one.

Selling an electronic device

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling your electronic device should involve de-registering it first. When the seller receives it, the first thing they do is confirm that it's no longer registered to anyone -- so they can now register it.

This way Amazon doesn't have to adjudicate disputes over re-registering a stolen device. Their policy can be simply: "If you are going to buy a kindle, make sure the previous owner unregisters it *first*. Because if you accept the device before they've unregistered it, and they later report it stolen, we will disable it." Why is that so hard?

To all of the people justifying the pain the provider would have to deal with -- if they wanted to go with a policy like I describe above, they wouldn't have to adjudicate anything.

The PROBLEM is, they don't want to make it EASY for people to resell kindles. They'd rather it was a PAIN-IN-THE-ASS so people will be less likely to do it!!

Re:Selling an electronic device

[mabhatter654]

Exactly, they could put a "ready for resale" screen on the device when you remove the account properly, something different than when it's new from the box.

The whole deal is that Amazon reserves the right and has demonstrated they will take THEIR property back from the device... if the IP owner demands, but they won't use similar technology to secure the device for it's OWNER. They HAVE ALREADY done this for themselves, they just won't do it for YOU... that's why people are questioning it.

Re:Easy: A L W A Y S !

[Philip_the_physicist]

Actually, in some places if an item is found, the finder can put up a notice to that effect, and if no-one claims it they become the rightful owner (naturally there would be all sorts of protections against abuse of this).

The content probably wouldn't be transferred though, but IANAL, and there might not be any specific law at all on the matter in your jurisdiction. This might also mean that if you find a laptop and it is unclaimed, you might not be allowed to destroy the data if there is a DMCA-like law in your area, since a password might count as technological protection.

Yarr, twas booty fair and square!

[Moof123]

Sorry, but if I leave a non-E book on a plane, it's too bad, someone else gets it. Why is the e-book any different?

Re:Yarr, twas booty fair and square!

[mabhatter654]

Because a Kindle or Cell phone is tied to it's network 24x7 and THEY retain complete rights to modify the devices content under the software EULA and network TOS. If they can remotely deactivate it or modify it's content, why can't they mark the device "lost or stolen" at the owner/contract holder's request? A big part of criminal enterprise and drug trading is stealing phones to use with "throw away" SIM cards they get away with it for a few days then move on. Returning a lost phone for a regular person is pretty much dumb luck. Nobody really wants to take the devices back, let alone look them up to reconnect with their owners...it's damn sloppy and they benefit from continually tying you to extra contract extensions rather than trying to lock the merchandise you already purchased from them.

I don't see any theft here.

[TheRealRainFall]

He *LEFT* it on a plane. When i was a kid my mom said finders keepers after 2 weeks if noone comes to you for an item. Honestly only now that i'm successful and older would i return an item. If i was 19 and in college and found a laptop/kindle/etc i'd just keep it.

Re:I don't see any theft here.

[Anonymous Coward]

He *LEFT* it on a plane. When i was a kid my mom said finders keepers after 2 weeks if noone comes to you for an item. Honestly only now that i'm successful and older would i return an item. If i was 19 and in college and found a laptop/kindle/etc i'd just keep it.

If I was 19 and in college and ran into some fucker carrying my laptop around 2 weeks after I lost it I'd beat his fucking ass and take my laptop back unless he was very apologetic and quick to hand it over after I shout "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING WITH MY LAPTOP MOTHERFUCKER?!?!?" at him.

Come to think of it, I'd do the same exact thing now that I'm older.

GPS no, nuke switch, yes

[ILuvRamen]

okay, so tracking it might be fun but...I'd prefer to just have a remote detonate switch. Why catch the thief when I can just blow him up with my hand grenade Blackberry and Toshiba Satellite claymore?

It's a design issue.

[WoollyMittens]

I don't want the manufacturer to have a kill-switch for my device. Rather I want myself to have the kill-switch to my device to use as I see fit myself. Could I screw over a second hand buyer? Sure I could, but he'd know who I was and could sue me for damages if I did, now couldn't he?

Re:Why should they? Because they win loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

*rotfl* Do you really think a corporation gives a rat's ass about customer loyalty?

Selling cheap crap and then hiring cheap call-center morons who fuck with you until you eventually go away is still cheaper than making a quality product they can only sell to you once in 10 years.

It is MY fault

[alexmagni]

I recently lost my Glofish phone - at a railway station, and never saw it again.
I immediately disabled the phone account, but resisted when my wife insisted that I had to brick it.
Why should I? I was so stupid to lose it ... let the next bugger who finds it enjoy it!

Stop misunderstanding the purpose of the Police!

[JakFrost]

GPS Theft - Very Common Occurance

This story of GPS disappearing within 1-hour of leaving it in a car is something that I hear very often from many people who I have personally known to have their cars broken into because of this. Just two weeks ago a friend of mine took his GPS with him but left the sticky window mount in the car and his car was broken into and searched for the GPS but he had it with him.

Stolen Item = Revenue Restart

I'm surprised that Amazon doesn't just disassociate the user's account from the device until he buys a new one, and leave the lost or stolen device as available for new activation by the new person who finds it or steals it. Knowing Amazon's business ethics it would be profitable for them to active these missing devices to new users to restart the revenue stream from these users purchasing new books with their new accounts. As long as they don't tell anyone and nobody gets access to their information they should be good to go with this plan. Until someone rats them out for activating stolen devices, but who's going to prosecute them or fine them?

Misunderstanding Police - They're NOT Here To Help You

It seems that you are one of the many people here who misunderstand the purpose of Police and believe that they are an agency to aid individuals-in-need like yourself. The Police are not here to help individuals they are here to uphold the law for the common good of society as a whole. They deal with crime and apply the law en-mass to prevent the communities that they are based in from falling into chaos. It only appears that they deal with individual cases to the people involved and those who fail to see the big picture of how the Police apply their efforts to trim certain crime outbreaks down to manageable levels before focusing on other areas.

Even the US Supreme Court ruled that they police do not have to protect you as an individual from certain and imminent deadly harm because that is up to their discretion. So if the Police don't have to save your life why would they care about saving your property?

NY Times - [US] Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

Take a good look at a Police officer tomorrow when you see one and try to realize that his job is to protect the community and society and that he has full discretion backed by the highest court in the land to watch you get killed or your property taken without having the obligation to help you in any way shape or form. When you come to this realization that not even the Police are here to help you, you will start learning and appreciating personal independence and you will start taking better care for your personal safety, freedom, and your property. The idea of taking responsibility for your own actions and more importantly, the ability to imagine future outcomes of your actions will start coming to you when you break out of the fog thinking that there will be help available anytime you need it. Learn to help yourself first.

My Lost Full GPS Enabled Cell Phone Experience

My wife left her Sprint HTC Mogul (PPC-6800) that has a full GPS enabled receiver in a bathroom at Universal Studios Florida. Within 30-minutes we contacted park authorities who came to the bathroom to investigate only to find that the purse and phone were missing. The office on duty said that the most common outcome is that the cash money is taken out of the purses or wallets and they are discarded into the trash cans to hide the evidence. They contacted the cleaning crew right away by radio but were told that the garbage was already taken out and cleared out to the back. My wife's phone was turned on in the purse so it was active. Calling it gave the standard 4-rings then voice mail response confirming that it was still operational and powered on, otherwise it would be 1

My laptop phones home on a timer

[Anonymous Coward]

cron makes it check a webpage for instructions every hour or so. the webpage is on a server in my living room. if the laptop is stolen, i swap the default page (noop) for one that makes it enable the "scream bloody murder while displaying the text "STOLEN LAPTOP - CALL THE POLICE" on the screen, flashing like the blink tag was going out of style - while simultaneously allowing my home system to track the IP of my newly-internet-connected stolen laptop. i am currently trying to decide if watching for a phone line to be connected to it and dialing 911 with a recorded voice saying "i am a stolen laptop with serial number XXXXXXXXXX. please trace this call and retrieve me." is just too over-the-top.

Diligence?

[denzacar]

could at least do a little diligence.

You mean like...
Taking care of YOUR OWN property and not leaving it in plain sight, and thus not promoting criminal activity?
Sure... yeah... some diligence was due here.

Better change...

[denzacar]

Before you go into "senior" years, and you start forgetting things left and right and your eyesight goes.
Otherwise, you will be very busy explaining all those attacks on innocent people to the cops.
That is, until you come across another 19-year-old buck who, just like you, won't take no shit from anyone - and he beats you to death.
And then ends up in prison for murder.

Wasn't Darwin a great guy?

Perhaps the better policy...

[TemporalBeing]

Amazon's policy is that it will help locate a missing Kindle only if the company is contacted by a police officer bearing a subpoena. Mr. Borgese, who lives in Manhattan, questions whether hunting down a $300 e-book reader would rank as a priority for the New York Police Department."

Perhaps the better policy would be to require the user to provide (i) a copy of the police report, and (ii) contact information for verfication - may be even provide a FAX number that the user may have the police fax the information to them. (I would also argue the cost of the FAX should be charged to the person requesting it - which should only be a few dollars, at least in the US; and not the responsibility of the police to cover.)

Of course, you ask why?

The primary problem for Amazon is liability. They don't want some random person calling in and requesting someone else's device be disabled, and then get sued for the wrong thing. The current policy protects them against that, but it fails to enable users to make valid causes since it would require a subpoena, which is not easy to come by for that purpose - not only would the police officer involved have to care enough, but so would a prosecutor since it is the prosecutor (not the police) that must get the subpoena from the judge.

On the other hand, if they require just the police report, then something is filed. The owner can request a copy be sent to Amazon (or whoever) and communicate the information with Amazon. If they filed the report and they did not own the device, or have any reason to - then they are liable under the law for filing a false police report - Amazon may have to reactivate the device in such a case, but the legal system would provide all the documentation necessary, and the owner would likely be able to after it without much problem. Amazon (or whoever) is covered; and would have sufficient documentation to show they only acted upon lawful information, so a lawsuit would likely only cost them a little in terms of filing, should one happens. Regardless of what they do - one will happen eventually; and it's just a matter of how they have their bases covered.

So I do agree that Amazon (et. al) needs to cover their legal bases in some manner and should do so using lawful information (e.g. the subpoena or a police report), but the device owner should have some recourse as well, recourse that a standard and verifiable police report would provide.

access control and security bracket on tables

[Max_W]

My expensive digital camera does not have a password option at all. Anyone, who gets it in hands can start using it immediately. It is like in American football, holders are keepers.

But on my HP laptop there is an option to set a password on the hard disc access, in addition to BIOS and Windows passwords. I set for hard disk a simple password which is impossible to forget.

Still if the laptop is lost or stolen it would not be easy to crack this password for a stranger as it includes letters and digits.

Yes, probably the password can be broken by a specialist but not by a casual criminal. And it gives me some hours to change passwords on my VPN, FTP, e-mail, etc.

On all laptops there is a socket which can be used to fix a security steel cable with the combination lock. I hope the producers of tables for universities, offices, cafes, etc. will include a special security bracket on tables to fix this security cable to the table. Because sometimes there is nothing to fix the security cable too. The same for tables in trains.

I would not mind the same feature for digital cameras too, the same for an access password.

I think we should build infrastructure (furniture, trains, hotel rooms, etc.) with a possibility to use security cables. Simply speaking there should be strong brackets for security cables. Because people do carry their whole lives in these devices. And even if they want to be careful and fix it with the security cables, often there is nothing to fix them to. It should be legislated in building and engineering code.

Let The Owner

[DeanFox]

Let the owner of the device have some control over it's operation. When I buy [rent] a book from my Amazon user account it would downloaded to the device(s) I bought and have registered to that account. The device by serial number, MAC or whatever is obviously tied to that account.

Have a 'device' tab on the account giving the user some control over the device. Like a login display message I can set. I could set it to "This Device is Stolen, Contact XYZ..." Maybe allow me to deactivate that device from further updates. I'm the owner, give me some control of my device from my Amazon user account I use to rent books for it.

The only thing they'd have to resolve is device transfer to another account. They could do the same thing registrars do with domains. Give me, the owner, a transfer confirmation number that must be entered into the receiving account for the transfer to occur. If the transfer confirmation number is entered then the new account now has control over the device.

If after I sell the device on ebay I refuse to release the transfer authorization that's a civil matter between parties. Amazon could waive responsibility until theirs a court order. I'd be more confident to buy the product because it is theft proof in that the device is useless if stolen. I'd still control the device. Seems simple to me and a great for marketing plus the owners would be responsible to device-to-account maintenance relieving the manufacture from the process.

-[d]-

Re:Let The Owner

[cdrguru]

De-registering and re-registering a Kindle can be done on the device itself, today, without any interference or assistance from Amazon or the original owner.

If I were a dealer in stolen Kindles, this makes the entire process easy, transparent and simple. With the economy the way it is today, selling discounted (at a steal, you might say) Kindles is a good thing for Amazon, as is the toll for the original owner of buying another. If they could afford one, I guess they can afford two, especially considering the price recently dropped.

If I were an irate owner of a stolen or lost Kindle, I guess I am SOL because it is almost intentionally made easier for dealers in stolen property.

He is a very brave man

[MartinSchou]

Considering the amount of trouble you're in if you forget to take something with you from an aeroplane, I'm surprised he's willing to go public with that information.

We all know that only terrorists intent on blowing up a plane would ever leave anything behind on one, so ... why hasn't he been sent off to Gitmo?

Her next-of-kin are prolly too dumb to sue Amazon

[xigxag]

I agree 100% with Fished. It's dead easy for these companies to track down your device, so they should just do it. I mean, I bought my girlfriend a bunch of gadgets last year for her birthday, and this year, after we kind of had a minor scuffle, which she started btw, not my fault she lost a couple of teeth, she had the nerve to move out of the state. Ingrate. If I can get Amazon et al to disable those gifts, at least she'll learn who's in charge. After all, I paid for them. Even better, they need to give me the location so I can track her down and convince her to get back with me. Or maybe make sure she won't get with anyone else.

Not amazons responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't stolen, he left it on a plane. If you're stupid enough or careless enough to leave a $300 kindle behind, you deserve to lose it. Suck it up, learn from your stupidity and go buy another one. Obviously you have plenty of cash if $300 is something you just set down and forget. I don't like the idea they can delete books I bought, I sure as hell don't want them to be able/willing to kill the entire device. Whiny bitches take responsibility for your own mistakes.

RE: Tracking Stolen Gadgets

[rubi]

I can see why any one would want them to help tracking and even disabling a lost or stolen device, but I think that they then would have some kind of liability for misuse of the device.

Counterproductive for vendor

[alphad0g]

In EU they decided years ago to block EMEI numbers on stolen handsets - all the carriers participate and handset theft dropped to manageable levels. In the US, AT&T could do it for the iPhone and other phones but they do not... Why - it is not worth the hassle. They don't want the complaints from potential customers that bought an iPhone on eBay. AT&T would rather have the revenue of the new customer then deal with the complaints that someone bought a stolen phone. Why would Amazon behave any differently? They have the potential to sell hundreds of ebooks to the user of the stolen kindle and sell a new device to the victim that lost the original kindle. Amazon wins on all counts. People need to face facts - no vendor really cares. They will not bite the hand of recurring revenue.

How the hell did you get modded up?

[heteromonomer]

It should be so easy for amazon to enable the user to disable his own device. With his amazon account, he can provide enough proof, by knowing the password and the credit card number. How big of a deal is this? Defending corporations in a time where basic consumer rights are being violated and indecency and irresponsibility is the order of the day... and that too all the customer is asking is for just a bit of very justifiable assistance.... way to go dude.... and way to go slashdot mods... completely moronic.

Then so be it... let him at least disable it

[heteromonomer]

He will still go and buy another one. But no... amazon (another irresponsible company) has no interest in this because letting stolen devices be disabled destroys the blackmarket, and eventually there will be fewer thefts. What they don't realize is, if my kindle is stolen, and if I am treated like this, I am never buying another product from amazon.

Re:Then so be it... let him at least disable it

[winwar]

"What they don't realize is, if my kindle is stolen, and if I am treated like this, I am never buying another product from amazon."

And they probably don't care (or believe you for that matter). After all, the thief or the new owner will buy stuff.

Sony willing to help, police not so much

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny this should come up. I recently had my house broken into, with the burglars stealing a ton of merchandise. One thing was my ps3, which has a unique MAC address and automatically signs into the ps network. Sony was very helpful, telling me everything that I needed to do to track the unit, but for them to set it up the officer who responded to my case needed to fax them on letterhead. Frequent messages left for the officer went unanswered. So, in the end, the ps3 is just gone, free to be used by the thief or by whoever bought it, even though it has a built-in way to track it AND Sony is perfectly willing to do it.

Big can of worms for vendors

[Whuffo]

Here's a thought: if I own a Kindle and someone steals it - that creates an interesting situation for Amazon. If they use their remote control ability to brick the Kindle or provide its current location they are expending time and money - and there's opportunities for bad guys to social engineer some nuisances for Kindle owners. But if they refuse to do this - then it becomes a situation where your property has been stolen and the vendor could tell you where it is - but refuses to do so. That puts them in an awkward position; their actions (or failure to act) support the thief, not you. That's got some legal implications as well as customer service problems.

Those vendors would prefer that these questions never arise because they bought a lose / lose situation when they implemented tracking or remote control as part of their DRM.

Wouldn't it be smarter...

[leereyno]

Instead of asking Amazon to "brick" his kindle, wouldn't he have been smarter to ask that they provide his contact information to whomever tries to use it?

He LOST this device, it was not stolen.

In theory at least, anyone finding it would contemplate returning it to the rightful owner.

If the person who found it turns out to be dishonest, then "bricking" the device isn't going to make them return it.

I'm not surprised that this guy is from NYC.

Hmmm..

[Denihil]

So, lemme get this straight. Someone wanted to do something remotely through amazon , which could have numerous privacy concerns, and they told him to get bent or get a subpeona? Everythings working fine here folks, the risks to privacy and "gifting" a kindle to someone you could later track down outweigh the benefits of disabling and tracking. I applaud amazon, personally.

More like a business opportunity

[winwar]

"But Amazon has no mechanism for this - they want to be contacted by a law enforcement officer with a supoena."

Oh, they have a mechanism. After all, they obviously CAN do it.

But they have no reason TO do it. After all, another kindle will have to be bought. And someone else may want to buy stuff. Sounds like a corporate win to me....

Re:Stop misunderstanding the purpose of the Police

[winwar]

"It seems that you are one of the many people here who misunderstand the purpose of Police and believe that they are an agency to aid individuals-in-need like yourself."

True. Unless you are "important" in some way.

Of course they cultivate that very belief in the public, so it isn't unreasonable for people to expect it. After all, if the "public" didn't see them as the "thin blue line" they might become irrelevant (or the thin blue stain....)

Cops don't care

[Anubis333]

I had 20k of stolen tech. The thieves played my xbox on xbox live for weeks. The SFPD only had to fax a single sheet of paper to Microsoft to get the ISP/IP addy of the people, they refused.

Consider resale.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess one issue is resale. If someone sells their Kindle and then asks Amazon to brick it, how does Amazon know that it still belongs to that person?

They would not benefit from the extra sales of ebooks that the new owner would have.

Ultimately, the guy should not have left it on the plane. His mistake. By disabling his Kindle account, he basically did all he could to stop it except for possibly insuring it against loss or theft.

Re:Why should they? Because they win loyalty

[noidentity]

If this happened to me and Apple/Amazon helped me recover my device I would be quite grateful. In the end I would be more loyal to them [...]

And if you bought such a device used and then had the seller disable it via the company, what would your response be? That's why it's a tradeoff, and apparently they determined that it tilts in favor of not disabling simply because the original owner calls.

Re:Why should they? Because they win loyalty

[ctmurray]

I would be mad at the seller. But in general I also would not purchase a used Kindle/iPhone device, for fear of just such things.

Best method of protecting assets

[Anonymous Coward]

The best method to protecting asset from theft is tracking it with a gps tracking or a RFID Tag. Obviously, the cost of the asset has to be greater than the cost of the theft protection device. GPS would work well, but the issue here is the cost of $200 or more. There are two types of FRID: Passive and Active. A passive RFID tag will only report on contact. An active RFID will report within about 1,000 feet. Battery life of smaller and inexpensive devices impedes longer distance tracking.