Slashdot Mirror
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."
Buy a $3 paperback book. Be kind and leave it for the next person.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
the police barely respond to car theft
the device was really stolen an no sold used
All theory is gray
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.
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.
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.
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?
If thieves know they are useless after being stolen they will not steal as many.
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.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
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).
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.
paul reinheimer
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.].
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.
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.
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.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
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?
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
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?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.