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

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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: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?

[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).

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.

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?

[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?