Slashdot Mirror


US Mobile Carriers Won't Brick Stolen Phones

WheezyJoe writes "NBC News has some disturbing security video of people getting assaulted for their smartphones. Such offenses are on the rise. Police chiefs like D.C.'s Cathy Lanier are asking U.S. mobile carriers to brick phones that are reported stolen, in order to dry up what must be a big underground market for your favorite Android device or iPhone — but right now the carriers won't do it. Such an approach has had success in Australia and the U.K."

269 comments

  1. sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Accomplice in theft. The phone would be useless if the carrier was not cooperating. So the carrier is adding value to and encouraging the theft.

    Should be a nice massive group action lawsuit in there somewhere.

    1. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you be happy if someone was issuing a new registration to your stolen car?
      Such that it was fully legal and usable by someone else one stolen.
      That is effectively what the phone carriers are doing.

      The phones have the equivalent of MACaddress/VIN number and are fully traceable to individual sales by the carriers. And they should not be allowed to reconnect to any network.

      People are getting assaulted for this. Anyone been killed in a cell phone theft? Charge the carrier with accomplice in the murder.

      What the carriers are doing is worse than the "guy who did not know but got conned by friends into driving the getaway car".

    2. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flawed analogy is flawed.

    3. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Mabhatter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One could argue that the phone company technically "owns" more of the phone than you do because of subsidies. So in that case, "somebody" has to pay for a new SIM card so the phone company gets a customer.

      Although in the USA every boyfriend would be reporting their girlfriends phone "stolen" when she left them and it would be a support nightmare trying to keep it all straight.

    4. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that must be some good crack.

    5. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't know DVD players had to authenticate and connect to government regulated organizations to provide their basic functionality.

      Dumbass.

    6. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone been killed in a cell phone theft? Charge the carrier with accomplice in the murder.

      Really? That's..... I don't even.......*siiighh* <facepalm>

    7. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Albanach · · Score: 1

      One could argue that the phone company technically "owns" more of the phone than you do because of subsidies. So in that case, "somebody" has to pay for a new SIM card so the phone company gets a customer.

      Wouldn't that suggest you should be released from your contract of your phone is stolen?

    8. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a lawyer needs a lead plaintiff for a class action suit, post contact info here.

      I am perplexed about how lost or stolen Verizon phones don't find their way back to Verizon. They are supposedly not capable of being reactivated with their hard-coded EIN numbers. So why does anyone steal them? If only Verizon and/or Assurion marketed the fact that they don't reactivate phones reported stolen and that they'd give a $50 reward for returned phones (paid by subscriber), we'd see a drop in Verizon phones growing legs.

    9. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by ninjackn · · Score: 0

      The carrier are not adding value, they are not removing value.

      --
      [FUCK BETA 2.6.2014]
    10. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by chrb · · Score: 1

      One could argue that the phone company technically "owns" more of the phone than you do because of subsidies.

      One could try to argue that, but if you tried it in a court of law you would fail. The contract states that the physical phone belongs to you, and that you are still liable for the monthly rental fees on your contract even if your phone is lost or stolen. The "subsidy" is tied to the contract.

    11. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      How is the carrier supposed to know that the device was stolen? What would stop you as the original owner from selling the device and then reporting it stolen? Just to piss off the new owner? Now the carrier has to setup this whole infrastructure to manage all this tracking and arbitration. With a car, there's a title that has to be moved around. You want that for cell phones???

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    12. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by kyrio · · Score: 2

      If every boyfriend has the name on the phone's contract, every boyfriend has full rights to have the stolen phone bricked.

    13. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, are you so stupid you think out justice system works like that?

    14. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the phone is reported stolen, make the carriers responsible for any calls made by the handset. The victim has done the right thing by reporting the theft.

      Make it an economic penalty if the company refuses to take action. It's the language they understand. Get the courts to back up the victim and the problem will go away in weeks if not days.

      --
      A sig is placed here
      To display how futile
      English Haiku is
    15. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by BotnetZombie · · Score: 0

      Except that if you bought the phone in good faith and it then got bricked as supposedly stolen, wouldn't you take some action? If you have some trail of rightfully buying the phone (paper/electronic/witnesses), then it should get unbricked and the original owner should get the mud right back in his face.

    16. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by cjb658 · · Score: 2

      Why not just file a police report when you report the phone stolen?

    17. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why spend money on a suit? Shouldn't the police just arrest all of the employees as accomplices?

    18. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember hearing about that scam... someone selling an old phone, then turning right around and claiming it as stolen just so they can put a claim in on their $9/month insurance to buy another device for $100 or so.

    19. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      Any accomplice to a felony is automatically responsible for anyone harmed in the commission of the crime, even if they didn't do it personally.

    20. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The carrier would require a police report. Would you risk filing a false police report and being convicted of the associated crimes to screw with someone?

    21. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Safeguard that by requiring a police report to be filed first. Someone might still abuse that, but then they're guilty of a crime and have documented where to find them.

      Would you be willing to go to jail just to piss off the new owner?

    22. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      The phone would be useless if the carrier was not cooperating.

      You're taking their comments at face value. GSM network locks can be removed by third parties. Granted, it's illegal to do so, but this is not something that's going to stop pawn shops, recyclers, or fencing operations.

      That's why, I'm having trouble taking their comment at face value. They claim violent crimes in Australia went down in the last ten years. Is this really the case? Where are the actual statistics? Besides, I believe that violent crimes also went down in the United States within the last ten years. So is this really the best argument they have for supporting this kind of law?

      Network portability is always going to be easy for people who don't mind skirting the law. To make this system really tamper-proof, the entire IMSIs system would have to be re-engineered from scratch, and even then I seriously doubt that it will be completely tamper-proof (unless you're willing to make network portability almost impossible for everyone).

    23. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The carriers have no problem bricking a phone if you don't pay your bill.

    24. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      Who the heck buys a used cell phone? I admit I bought one back around 2006 but that was a different time, you see. These days, you can walk into any MetroPCS store (just to pick a random budget carrier) and buy an Android smartphone for $19. Okay, it's actually $49 with a $30 mail-in rebate but it's still a very small amount of money. How much of a discount could there possibly be on a used phone that would make it worth the risk of buying something that's been used and abused for months or years? If putting up $50 is out of a person's budget, they've got some serious problems and there's no way they'll be able to make the $40/month payment for unlimited text/talk/web.

    25. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Mullen · · Score: 1

      Although in the USA every boyfriend would be reporting their girlfriends phone "stolen" when she left them and it would be a support nightmare trying to keep it all straight.

      No, you would just walk into a store and display the bricked phone and an Photo ID attached to the account and reactivate the phone. Plus, I would assume that you have to clearly show that you own the phone by giving the phone ID and then proving that it is attached to your account by telling them your account number, SS#, home address and all that personal stuff.

      However, any person who shares that personal information with a boyfriend is an idiot.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    26. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Although in the USA every boyfriend would be reporting their girlfriends phone "stolen" when she left them and it would be a support nightmare trying to keep it all straight.

      So you're saying that every boyfriend would file a false police report?? because I'm pretty sure that a police officer would know not to get in between such a dispute, and would just refer the boyfriend to the Small Claims Court system.

      It's not like this is a new issue. When there is bad break up, there are always issues around cell phone bills, rental contracts/deposits, car leases/loans, and high penalty fees for early terminations of contracts that a couple may have gotten together (but that only one person usually paid).

    27. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could argue that the phone company technically "owns" more of the phone than you do because of subsidies.

      One could try to argue that, but if you tried it in a court of law you would fail. The contract states that the physical phone belongs to you, and that you are still liable for the monthly rental fees on your contract even if your phone is lost or stolen. The "subsidy" is tied to the contract.

      While I wouldn't doubt that is in the contract, along with the "You waive your right to sue us, so you must arbitrate." clause, I wouldn't say that a jury wouldn't side with the plaintiff if it went that far.

    28. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A carrier is an accomplice to murder because it sold the victim a cell phone that happens to be desirable to criminals?

    29. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't, probably the OP wouldn't, but others have. I'd be pretty pissed at the carrier if they bricked my phone (either accidentally because of a clerical error, or on purpose because of a false report). That being said, a system for doing just this is probably a good idea.

    30. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by hawguy · · Score: 1

      A carrier is an accomplice to murder because it sold the victim a cell phone that happens to be desirable to criminals?

      I could see this being successfully argued in court if the cell phone providers have an easy way to make a cell phone nearly worthless if stolen thereby making it less desirable to criminals.

    31. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, a carrier is an accomplice if it knowingly provides service to a stolen cellphone. Without that, there can be no profit from the crime..

    32. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by hawguy · · Score: 1

      How is the carrier supposed to know that the device was stolen? What would stop you as the original owner from selling the device and then reporting it stolen? Just to piss off the new owner? Now the carrier has to setup this whole infrastructure to manage all this tracking and arbitration. With a car, there's a title that has to be moved around. You want that for cell phones???

      I think the used phone marketplaces already have a way to take care of this - seems like you'd handle this the same way you handle it if someone sells you a phone that won't power on. You go back to the seller for a refund.

    33. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If the phone is reported stolen, make the carriers responsible for any calls made by the handset. The victim has done the right thing by reporting the theft.

      Make it an economic penalty if the company refuses to take action. It's the language they understand. Get the courts to back up the victim and the problem will go away in weeks if not days.

      They already do that - when my phone was lost and someone made $300 Verizon purchases (downloadable games, videos, ringtones, etc), they refunded all of the fraudulent purchases. Since I had an unlimited phone plan there were no call charges, but I assume they would have refunded those charges as well.

      But calls cost verizon almost nothing, so it's not really an economic penalty to them.

    34. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by bl968 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Easy they don't have to. Simply give the users abilities through their websites to indicate that a phone has been lost or stolen which would then brick the phone the next time it receives a network update. The phone could display a message informing the person in possession of the device how to contact the rightful owner. You would need the ability to assign the phone to another user if it is sold to someone, giving them control over the phone.

      There is no excuse for any portable electronic device not to have this ability especially since most of them require a service to get the full functionality of the device; iTunes for iPhones and iPads, Amazon for kindles, Cell carrier customer profiles, etc.

      --
      "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    35. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      Those phones are not actually $49. They're subsidized and you can only get that price if you sign up for a two year contract. For people who don't make a lot of phone calls and are in range of WiFi 99% of the time, buying a used phone and then getting a prepaid plan is often substantially less expensive.

    36. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm amazed that some people haven't done the simple math to figure out the "free phone" scam.
      Phone $49 + 24 month contract at $100 /month = $2449. This is not "free" in any sense of the word. It is a scam.
      Compare this to:
      Phone $500 + 24 month (no contract) at $50 (or less) /month = $1700.
      I personally have an even cheaper T-Mobile plan which costs me about $10/month since I use WiFi most of the time.
      My actual costs for past 24 months with my Android Nexus phone:
      Phone $539 + $230 service charges = $769.
      Plus, I can tether as much as I want so I've saved at least $500 in hotel WiFi access charges.
      This is the real way to get a "free phone"... not the phone company way.
      My phone is paid for and works great. I love it and it should keep me happy for quite a while.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    37. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by cmarkn · · Score: 2

      OK, then you have the police report. Once you have that, you ought to be able to get a court order easily enough. Police should not be able to walk in and say shut down this phone until they can show some evidence to a judge. But first, you need a law that defines under what circumstances such an order can be issued, and it should also make clear that the police, not the phone company, are liable when they shut down a phone improperly. Just shutting off a phone because the cops ask them to opens a phone company up to all kinds of getting sued.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
    38. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by anubi · · Score: 1

      it sold the victim a cell phone that happens to be desirable to criminals.

      Interesting....

      The thief has a stolen cellphone.

      Privacy laws supposedly exist for the paying legitimate owner of the phone.

      Do these laws also apply to someone who has NOT entered into ANY sort of agreement with the seller?

      Ehhhh. I am Law Enforcement. I know about this stolen phone. Nobody has signed any sort of agreements regarding privacy. ...

      Heck no, don't turn it off!!!! This one, in particular, gets my full attention., Juicy stuff is probably going to come over this circuit, and there is no agreement anywhere for this guy to come back after me for loss of his privacy.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    39. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree

    40. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, your argument is a strawman's argument.
      I pay the Telco for a service; my service is not their charity to me.
      So, I have a contractual right to exercise reasonable control.
      Their refusal to abide by the contract is a crime as they are
      aiding and encouraging the criminal use of the product.

    41. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In addition a police report should be filed against the person who made the false claim and a fine applied.

      With regards to telco's not bricking pones and leaving customers, especially minors vulnerable to attack, dont bloody ask for anything, demand it of your elected representative at the Federal level.

      Don't ask telcos for stuff like this, force your reps into shoving the law down the telcos throat with massive penalties for failing to do so and do it properly, including re-allowing access upon false reports.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be happy if someone was issuing a new registration to your stolen car?

      Most states already do this, it's called filing for a "salvage" or sometimes "reconstructed" title. I had a friend who had a car stolen and driven across state lines and re-titled in this manor. Once a new title is issued the police no longer consider it stolen and WILL NOT help with recovery.

    43. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      I think you are getting your terminology mixed up, this is nothing about IMSI.
      Instead, it's about IMEI numbers, which are sent from the phone to the celltower every time the phone authenticates with the service provider.

      --
      What?
    44. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a poor reason NOT to block phones. GSM Network locks are not really the issue are they, it's smart phones we are talking about, not 10$ phones.

      Also, if you make something hard enough to do, and put enough risk into the process of benefiting from the crime, then there is a lot less people out there willing to do it. If a pawn shop unblocks smartphones on the 3g and 4g networks, but then get's found out as having done this (not hard if the phones IMEI has been registered as stolen with networks) it's just not a business that's worthwhile for them.

    45. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      They aren't an accomplice to the theft, they're only facilitating the resale of the stolen device. Big difference there.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    46. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you live. The one contract I read for my mom here in Canada states that the phone belongs to the company until the contract is fulfilled.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    47. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Tassach · · Score: 1

      So why does anyone steal them?

      Why do people steal anything?

      There are a *lot* of stupid thieves. They'll steal stuff that is worthless to them just because it was there. Even if you bricked a phone and made it "worthless" they could still get a couple bucks for the battery, or even a couple cents for selling it to a recycler as scrap, and that's enough of a profit to make it worthwhile for some people.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    48. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a Hint: They CAN.

    49. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      A lot of people buy a used phone (here in Australia at least). I tend to upgrade my phone each year or two but sell the old one on Ebay (and put the money towards a new one).

      And some phones hold their value really well. iPhones in particular - I sold my iPhone 4 (which I originally purchased for $859) on Ebay for ~$700 when the 4S came out. They lose very little value if you keep in in a case + screen protector and look after them a bit.

      I imagine in the US doing this would be much more difficult though, cause your phones are usually carrier-locked, not to mention the mix of network types (CDMA, GSM) and frequencies (T-Mobile using different 3G frequencies than AT&T).

    50. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. My iPhone was $900 here in Australia. I have some American relatives and when they visited they were all like "man, you got ripped off, it's only $200 (or whatever) in the US".

      Then we added up what it cost me vs. them over 24 months. I was way ahead (since my plan is only $15/month).

    51. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes a high schooler in Atlanta was killed in the subway for his smart phone. There's no way the DA would ever think about charging AT&T they are one of larger employers in the area.

    52. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      Same people who buy ipods for 20-50 dollars. You know full well there is something sketchy going on, but it's still cheaper than buying a full blown device if you aren't up for another 'free' phone on your contract.

    53. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The power of the state needs to be limited, sure. But doesn't that seem just a little heavy on the process when it is the legal owner of the device who would essentially make the request? Don't see how paying for court time every time there is a lost mobile phone is good, and remote wiping is going to be a bit useless if it takes a week.

      Tell you what - why don't I sign that section of my carrier agreement, and the carrier can record you as "don't wipe ever".

    54. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Not easily they can't - you need to change the phone's IMEI number, which on many modern phones is way beyond the ability of your average smack-head.

    55. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, blocking stolen phone IMEIs reduces the fence value of the item. The smack head also has to know where he can fence the item. He can't sell it as easily anymore. So the smack head may choose to steal something else.

      --
    56. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      19+40*24=$979 for two years of unlimited talk/text/web using my randomly selected carrier. Add another year of service to your plan and you're at $999. Looks like you got "scammed" out of $20.

    57. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      My mistake. I thought you'd listed one year for some reason.

    58. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      I had this exactly happen to me ; my phone was placed on the IMEI blacklist and refused to connect to the network any more.

      The first service rep I contacted made a show of checking but denied that it was connected. She issued an RMA for the phone.

      The phone in question was not even in use at the time - I was going on a stag weekend and didn't want to damage my shiny new phone with drunken stripper antics, so I put my SIM card in my crappy old one. I couldn't imagine what kind of fault could develop when the phone was safely switched off in my sock drawer, so I pushed the matter on my providers support forums. It turned out that it WAS on the blacklist. This was reverted after some more phone calls.

      It was right royal pain in the arse - I was without my smartphone for a couple of weeks and had to go back to using my RAZR. I suspected that it was some kind of automated system reacting to my migration of the SIM card from phone to phone, but they flat out denied they have any such system.

      IMEI numbers do have a checksum, but apparently it's quite weak - the only other explanation is that someone else with the same phone model (IMEI numbers encode the model) reported their phone stolen and the wrong number ended up in the database.

      On balance though, I'd rather have this system, because it raises the barrier for phone theft. I don't hear stories of people being mugged for their phone any more.

    59. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Do they brick your phone, or brick your SIM? The phone doesn't pay the bills, the subscriber does.

    60. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Because filing a false police report is a crime and can get you some time? If the person goes to the trouble to 1.-go to the police, 2.-file a police report listing the item as stolen, and 3.-contacting the carrier WITH the police? Well I'd say there is a pretty damned good chance the phone is stolen.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    61. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is why I switched my kids to Walmart phones and as soon as my contract is up its adios to my phone for a Walmart phone. Got my oldest a nice phone with a flip out keyboard (he insisted as he is a texting maniac) for $69 with a free month and the charge is $45 a month unlimited everything. So $69+($45x11) = $564 which is really not bad considering he lives on the phone. For myself i hate texting and don't use the phone for anything but calls so the $20 plan ought to be fine for me and the phones are something like $14. Plus if you are the type that has to have a nice smartphone? they have a really nice Android one for $129 and again no contracts. One of my friends picked one up and I have to say its fast, nice screen, good battery life, its a nice phone.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    62. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      I think you are getting your terminology mixed up, this is nothing about IMSI.
      Instead, it's about IMEI numbers, which are sent from the phone to the celltower every time the phone authenticates with the service provider.

      Yes, in theory that's what supposed to happen, and that's what I was initially told.

      In actual practice, "10% of the IMEIs are not unique" according to BT, that's why the IMEI is usually factored with another (usually network-related) id to make sure a collision doesn't happen.

      That's why I believe the term IMSI would be more appropriate in this case.

    63. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Not easily they can't - you need to change the phone's IMEI number, which on many modern phones is way beyond the ability of your average smack-head.

      That really doesn't matter.

      A smack-head wouldn't know how to manufacture his own smack, or evaluate stolen diamonds, but he would know enough to go to find someone who does. That's the invisible hand of the grey market for you. If there is a need, someone with enough knowledge will come up and eventually fill that need.

      And sure, it may take a few months, especially the first time a new law is enacted, but you can rest assured that once a new workaround is found to a new legal problem, every criminal will be telling each other about it, and if they can't do it themselves -- they'll just tell each other where to go to find someone who can.

    64. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That works great ... when the carriers in your area offer a plan that cheap for fully-purchased phones. I tried that arrangement, but they told me the service was same price whether I bought the phone outright or went on a new contract. Worse, once the contract ends and the phone is fully paid off, they *still* charge the same rate. Nobody could explain to me why this wasn't an obvious rip-off, and all the service providers had the same deal.

    65. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by deniable · · Score: 1

      It's the same reason we have mandatory immobilizers on cars here. The pros will keep stealing but they prefer to be quiet and not hurt anyone. The idea is to remove the violent/stupid lower end of the 'market'.

    66. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I have a contractual right to exercise reasonable control.

      No.

      Their refusal to abide by the contract is a crime

      No.

      as they are aiding

      No.

      and encouraging

      No.

      criminal use

      What?

      You don't hire a lawyer to fix your computer...

    67. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by bw777 · · Score: 1

      An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense. It isn't required that they profit from the crime, and often they don't.

    68. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      But you also had to put the cash upfront to buy your phone. Those who take the 'plan' don't have to, and can still get a nice phone ( sort of like a lease to buy on a car, of course it costs you more than an outright purchase ).

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    69. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      I've bought a number of cheap MetroPCS phones online. Kids do stupid things all the time that lose "$49" phones (jump in pools, go bike riding with them in loose pockets, to name a few). You cannot replace them for $49 unless you activate a new line of service with it. The sad thing is that I can pick up used MetroPCS phones for less than MetroPCS charges to re-activate them ($15).

    70. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Just got two T-Mobile Android phones fo $50/month each or $100/month total for both (unlimited talk/text family plan, with 2gb data of 4G speeds and unlimited data after 2gb at 2G speeds). Only downside I see is that I have a 2 year contract. But since I can't just take any phone to any carrier in the US (or when coming from compatible networks there is still a $50 "flashing" fee), it seems worth while to get good service (never again, MetroPCS or Cricket - 4G at 2G speeds and constant outtages, no thanks). Phones each had a $50 off deal, but might have been specific to Costco.

    71. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      My kids phones are $10/mo for unlimited text - which is all they care about, and 500 minutes (used mostly for when we want to talk and texting is going to require too much back and forth). Only downside is T-mobile limits a "family plan" to 5 lines, and we've got 6 in our family.

    72. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      I miss my Nokia's with the SIM locks. Pull the original SIM card? Well guess who needs to know the lock code now. A bit annoyed iPhones & Android phones dropped that feature outright.

    73. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Eh, so ladies don't let men pay your bills and life will be less troublesome? Same shit happens when a guy pays for a woman's car. Breakup? Oh you bet your ass he's suddenly gona stop payments so repo comes.

    74. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Give it a few years

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    75. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why brick the phone? The police should do their job. Track down the phone and retrieve it for the owner. The person buying has to return the stolen goods and chances are they'll point out who the the sellers/thief is.

    76. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      I am quite sure IMEIs are unique among manufactured cell phones. There are grey market devices for SMS, VoIP and counterfit manufactured phones which result in that 10%. Some carriers were barring IMEI numbers when subsidized phones were taken from contracts resulting to an increase in IMEI changing for stolen phones. The BBC argument is the barring would have to be done from all carriers (which is a weak argument when we have DNS RBLs for SPAM catching 90% of the spam hosts on the entire internet). Stolen Blackberries can be banned from Blackberry service straight from RIM. Apple phones can be bricked by Apple. You can't ban by IMSI as changing the SIM changes the IMSI. The SIM has little value. Changing an IMEI is telecommunications fraud in many countries so it is a pretty clear case to throw the IMEI changers in jail. It is the responsibility of the device manufacturer to provide devices to the carrier which are difficult to change the IMEI. Most smartphones now map the IMEI to their manufactured serial number or other unique identifier... like blackberry to pin. The carriers and device manufacturers know the IMEIs which were sold through their inventory and should be able to excercise authority on barring devices they sold on subscriber request for other carriers.

      In the real world, this is not a technical problem without solutions. It is not in the carriers best interest to bar stolen/counterfit/grey market phones from their networks - phones (no matter their origin) = consumption. As long as the original owner didn't die in the last transaction, (s)he will likely be a subscriber again. Knowing that such a law and system is in place will deter crime without mass execution. Phones with grey market/unscrupulous IMEIs can be sent hourly text messages before being banned from the network (as they are doing in the UAE). The 10% number which turn out to be legitimate devices can be a problem of the device manufacturer.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    77. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by joocemann · · Score: 1

      The victim must buy a replacement.. you dont have to sqint hard to see that, for no good reason, the telcos wont disincentivize the crminal activity and make more money as a result.

    78. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by sjames · · Score: 1

      Which is part of the justification for declaring them to be an accomplice to the theft and charging them accordingly.

    79. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for other countries, but buying things in monthly installments is a huuuuuge scam over here in America. Places like Aaron's will sell a $500 computer for $1200+, but all people see is the $79/mo price tag. And because many people in this country do have no concept of saving up to buy something, they cost themselves much more in the long run.

      It's the dumbest thing ever. ...okay, not really, but it's pretty dumb.

    80. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Yep. My iPhone was $900 here in Australia. I have some American relatives and when they visited they were all like "man, you got ripped off, it's only $200 (or whatever) in the US".

      Then we added up what it cost me vs. them over 24 months. I was way ahead (since my plan is only $15/month).

      We dont always get ripped off on phones, most top shelf Android phones are around $500. You can get an unlocked Galaxy Nexus brand new for under A$500.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    81. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point of this sub-thread. The point was not that Australians get ripped off, but that they actually don't, because they have the option to buy the phone outright and unlocked and go on a cheaper 'SIM only' plan with no contract.

      To take your Nexus S example, an American might say to you "we can get that phone free! You're getting ripped off paying $500!" But that isn't considering the fact that he's locked into a two year contract paying high monthly rates compared to us. His phone isn't actually free at all, he's just paying it off over the contract duration. The problem in the US is though that even if you DO buy a phone outright and unlocked, carriers don't offer many 'SIM only' plans. They ONLY offer the plans that include a handset repayment ... even if there's no handset TO repay.

    82. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point of this sub-thread. The point was not that Australians get ripped off, but that they actually don't, because they have the option to buy the phone outright and unlocked and go on a cheaper 'SIM only' plan with no contract.

      I got your point, I just wanted to point out that most phones in Oz dont cost $900.

      I bought my Desire Z 1 year ago, $550 outright, $30 data and plan. Vodashaft wanted $60 P/M on a 24 month contract for the same thing, I paid A$910, If I had of bought it using a plan I would have paid A$720 with another $720 to go. So to me, that's a "Free" phone every 15 months by not being on a contract.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    83. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Ah right, gotcha. Yeah of course, iPhones are more expensive than most other phones, it was just the example that sprung to mind when you hear people trying to compare subsidised/contract costs with outright costs (Australians are guilty of this too, idiots on forums complaining that the iPhone is "only $200!" in America, not realising that's on contract).

      Similar story here with my iPhone ... bought it outright and went on the Vodafail $20 cap. Could barely use the data features of the phone for the first 6 months or so due to Vodafone's network congestion (though it's got considerably better now that they have the new 850 Mhz towers up and running). But that's another story.

    84. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is built into the GSM spec, there is a "database" server that stores the disallowed phones. Not sure about Verizon or Sprint though. AT&T chooses not to use it, as they see it as another customer...evil bastards.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    85. Re:sue the carrier as an accompilce in the theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, people are getting killed. We just had a local university student who was sitting in his car talking on his phone murdered because some thugs wanted his phone.

  2. Equipment identity register (EIR) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The equipment is in place. There is no collaboration between carriers and no reason for carriers to go through the hassle to enforce it.

  3. Just by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 2

    Make a law!!! get some use for the that congress.

    1. Re:Just by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Agreed - there are a lot of needless and stupid laws out there, but this would not be one of them.

      Another poster already made the analogy of cars and VINs - when a car is stolen it goes into the system and no DMV will renew registration and issue new plates for it. Pretty sure that was mandated by law. Imagine how much better it would work if it were instantly enforceable to the point of disabling the engine as soon as it was reported stolen (which is effectively what the carriers could do with technology they already have...)

      I'd love to see an actual valid argument from a legislator NOT to do this, because I'm going to bet any objection they might have would really revolve around telecommunications lobbying...

    2. Re:Just by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      So, if I don't like you, I should be able to report your car as stolen, and get them to disable the engine while you're on the highway? Sounds wonderful!

    3. Re:Just by Sentrion · · Score: 0

      You are advocating this now, but you know full well that when this law goes into affect everybody who wants to have a phone will have to first go in person to a government office downtown, stand in line for 43 minutes, then find out that they filled out the application for the wrong type of phone, then stand in line 54 minutes behind a mother and her crying infant, then have their form stamped and validated, but with your name spelled wrong, which you won't notice until you drive 16 miles to the county office where you get your sim card issued. But since your name was printed incorrectly on the application you will have to drive back to the office downtown to fill out a new application. At the end of the day you will talk about the glory days before phone registration when you could buy the phone on the free market, buy insurance for the phone if you chose to do so, set up passwords, block international calling (if you don't make such calls), and even download apps to remotely delete your info from your phone if you ever lose it, or apps to see what your camera sees, listen in on the microphone, and track the GPS location for some old-fashion vigilante justice (which I do not advise).

    4. Re:Just by Uhyve · · Score: 2

      Let me restate something for you. This has already been tried out in the UK and Australia successfully. You don't think a problem like that would've been though of and solved by now? Or are you and the other 100 people dreaming up this same stupid scenario smarter than everybody in the UK?

    5. Re:Just by Tassach · · Score: 2

      Imagine how much better it would work if it were instantly enforceable to the point of disabling the engine as soon as it was reported stolen

      I CAN imagine what would happen if that were possible, and the word "better" isn't the one that springs to mind. "Kafkaesque Nightmare" is more like it.

      Do you REALLY want to give some anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrat the ability to remotely disable your car at the touch of a button? REALLY???

      Do you really trust the government (or big business) to able to do that without making mistakes or abusing that power?

      Do you really think a system like that WOULDN'T get hacked?

      Do you really think that moneyed interests wouldn't use their influence to ensure that such a system was used to increase their profits by creating artificial scarcity and removing usable goods from the secondary marketplace?

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    6. Re:Just by Tassach · · Score: 1

      This has already been tried out in the UK and Australia successfully.

      Bandwagon Fallacy

      It's been tried. The "successfully" part is highly debatable.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    7. Re:Just by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      This isn't a new idea, it's already mandatory in some countries and equipped as an aftermarket item on plenty of cars in the US. There are safety measures in place, of course.

      And sure, if you want to file a false police report you can do so with or without an engine immobilizer (for any number of different crimes) - but in doing so you have committed a crime yourself, and in some jurisdictions it's a felony. Hell, if I didn't like you and you did it to me I'd be ok with having my car immobilized in order to get your ass thrown in prison for a few years...

    8. Re:Just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "successfully" part is highly debatable.

      And your proof of this is?

    9. Re:Just by u38cg · · Score: 1
      "Hi, is that the DMV? My name's Dahamma, and my car's just been stolen. Could you disable it for me? Thanks."

      A couple of days prior, I slip a leaflet for my local repair service - first repair free - under your door. You call me up, give me the keys, and I load your car on a flatbed and away I go.

      "Hi, is that the DMV? Dahamma here, I've just recovered my car...yeah, if you could re-enable it that would be great."

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    10. Re:Just by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      "Hi, is that the DMV? My name's Dahamma, and my car's just been stolen. Could you disable it for me? Thanks."
      "Please call your local police department for a car theft."
      "Hi, is this the police? My name's Dahamma, and my car's just been stolen. Could you disable it for me? Thanks."
      "Ok, we we'll be there in 20 minutes to take a statement, after which we will be able to disable your car. What's your address?"
      "Umm, uh, nevermind, I made a mistake."
      "You sure did, we already have your address from the call, we'll be over there in 20 minutes to arrest you for the felony of false reporting of a crime. Have a nice day!"

      There is a reason clueless people on /. are not creating these systems and policies (or hopefully trying to steal cars)...

    11. Re:Just by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Do you REALLY want to give some anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrat the ability to remotely disable your car at the touch of a button? REALLY???

      I'm not necessarily in favor of making it mandatory, actually, since there is such potential for abuse and invasion of privacy. But playing devil's advocate, it could be limited to police use, not "bureaucrats". Or the companies like OnStar who CAN ALREADY DO THIS. If you have late model GM vehicle with OnStar, it's likely they can disable it. In fact, go look it up - it's already being used (currently OnStar's policy is to require the owner's permission before police can request it).

      Do you really trust the government (or big business) to able to do that without making mistakes or abusing that power?

      I already have to trust the government/police not to break down my door, arrest me, shoot me, etc with the powers they already have. And OnStar/GM is a big business who already has this power on millions of cars, with no reports of abuse yet.

      Do you really think a system like that WOULDN'T get hacked?

      IT'S NOT A NEW SYSTEM. It's mandated in some countries, and available as an option/aftermarket in the US. If you can point to hacking of the current systems fine, but otherwise it's just FUD. And even it that weren't the case, a similar argument could be made against having a home security system that allows the operating service to turn it off and on, sometimes lock and unlock your front door, etc at will. Does that make the whole idea bad because of the remote possibility it could be hacked or abused?

      Sometimes you do have to trust people and/or play the odds. If you live and work in modern society you are unconsciously doing this 1000s of times a day. Otherwise you should probably just go live alone in an armed compound in the mountains...

    12. Re:Just by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you ranting about? Your phone is already "registered" with the carrier you are using it on, DUH.

      And the number of absurd hypothetical arguments about how difficult this is laughable, as this system ALREADY EXISTS in other countries. And in fact some carriers in the US already do it for their service (I have heard Verizon disables the IMEI of stolen phones for reuse on their network, at least).

      The problem is that not all carriers do it, and they need better communication between them. But technically impossible? Bullshit. They all whined about number portability as well but after it was made law they implemented it just fine.

    13. Re:Just by F34nor · · Score: 1

      It is cheaper to buy a senator than to build a better business model. You cannot afford a senator.The the rest of America is too fucking stupid to enforce democracy.

    14. Re:Just by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      They don't need to disable your car while it is driving (causing accidents), they can just make it not start or use the electronics to limit the speed... the phones do not need to be cut off immediately when a report is filed, sending it a text message every hour or redirecting calls will also decrease the phones fence value.

      That is how things like this usually get done... more eloquently then the laws and agreements usually state. The heavy handed approach can be used, but usually they impliment something else in the spirit of the law.

      Regarding misuse... if you ever piss off an unaccountable bureaucrat or big business, it will be much easier and effective for them to tamper with your car or put a bullet in your head. That is still probably done by pushing a few numbers and eating a tasty lunch. You probably don't get to eat lunch when disabling a vehicle through On-star.

      If you are worried about the "Kafkaesque Nightmare", I am sure it's easier to find one in your tax returns. I don't think your tin foil hat is thick enough to protect you from the dark possibilities of the real world.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  4. We can't have carriers bricking stolen phones. by idbeholda · · Score: 1

    That would be way too efficient, and would make way too much sense. And we can't be having that here, especially on this side of The Second Great Cosmic divide. Such efficiency will only lead to trouble.

  5. Brick it yourself by Guspaz · · Score: 0

    They specifically mention the iPhone, which already allows customers to remotely brick their own phones whenever they'd like via Find My Phone.

    1. Re:Brick it yourself by DaHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Brick != Wipe

      Many smartphones phones have the ability to be remotely locked or wiped... but not in a permanent way that can prevent the phone from every being used again on any cell network.

    2. Re:Brick it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find my Phone does not prevent reactivation of the phone through a different number, it allows you to deactivate it so someone can't just log in and get your pictures and stuff. Remote Wipe != Brick. The article says they want to physically deactivate the phone so it can't be reactivated under a new account.

    3. Re:Brick it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least, until the their has a chance to put the iOS device into DFU mode or just take it to the nearest Apple store claiming that it stopped working wherein Apple will issue said thief a shiny new iPhone. And my captcha is "absconds"... what are the odds?

    4. Re:Brick it yourself by Sentrion · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's why I wired my phone's flash circuit to an alternating stack of my grandma's nitro-glycerin patches and vintage cinema film soaked in 100% proof rubbing alcohol and stuffed between the lithium battery and the phone. Obviously I never use my flash when I take pictures, but I wrote my own self-destruct app that can only be activated by a text message from my other cell phone number, which I will not reveal for privacy and safety reasons.

      The hardest part of the project was building the miniature spark plug to ignite the whole thing. I can't wait to get my phone stolen so I can try it out and see if it works.

    5. Re:Brick it yourself by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Would not a remote wipe and lock basically do the same thing? Locking it with a complex password is pretty permanent unless somebody figures out a purely external exploit, I'd imagine.

    6. Re:Brick it yourself by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows you can read data right off a SIM card with an electron microscope, no password required.

    7. Re:Brick it yourself by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Would it be possible to make a "Remote Brick" app? Not that Apple would let it in the store, but maybe it'd work for Android.

      Of course, would you install such an app without being very sure about the developer?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    8. Re:Brick it yourself by deniable · · Score: 1

      No, the phone won't brick. It just won't be allowed to connect to *any* mobile network. Your shiny stolen iPhone is now a glorified iPod Touch.

    9. Re:Brick it yourself by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Brick != Wipe

      Many smartphones phones have the ability to be remotely locked or wiped... but not in a permanent way that can prevent the phone from every being used again on any cell network.

      I agree, but when it comes to stolen phones both should be done.

      Wiping them prevents data from being stolen. This is to protect you.

      Bricking them prevents them from being used on a mobile network (in Australia "bricking" consists of carriers locking out an IMEI) thus reducing their value to people who would steal them. It's a preventative measure.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. Why would they want to decrease revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your phone gets stolen, you have to buy a new phone; most often this is done by people signing up for 2 more years to get the subsidized handset since few are willing to shell out $300+ for a smartphone. And whoever ends up with the stolen phone also signs up for service. So every stolen phone results in a new customer, an extended customer, and a (subsidized) phone sale.

    But if they BRICK your stolen phone, then theft of stolen phones decreases, which hurts them because they'll have fewer new customers, fewer retained customers, and fewer phone sales.

    That hurts profits, which is un-American. I'm shocked and appalled that someone in the public / government sector would suggest this! It might be time to privatize the police forces... that way the telecoms can stop relying on 3rd parties to enhance their sales and have the cops start stealing your phones directly.

    Captcha was endemic. It's like slashdot KNOWS.

    1. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would paying $300 for the phone and getting a low-cost $25 contract be cheaper overall then paying $60 month-after-month? (Yes.)

    2. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how often you get a new phone in each scenario. Those particular numbers place the payoff for the $300 investment + $25 monthly charge a bit beyond 8 months, assuming nothing of inflation. It does make sense given that companies have a 2 year term agreement, in which you can't get a new phone subsidized, but it does need to be said.

    3. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, but you forgot to add that this is an example of what business could do and how many more people they could hire if government would just get out of their way and let the cater to criminals.

    4. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      This was my first thought. The second was "wait, there are phones that can be remotely BRICKED? 8-( "

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by Digicrat · · Score: 1

      If they can send a firmware update to the phone, then they can brick it. All they'd need to do is push a special (invalid) update only to that one user, who would then need to be dumb enough to accept it if the update can't be remotely forced.

      Realistically though, I think bricking is overkill in this case - by definition if its bricked, the phone should not be recoverable if there was a mistake.

      All they need to do is log the phones unique ID, add it to a list shared by all carriers using compatible technology and prevent any such phone from being activated on their network. I believe the Europeans have already been doing this for years - with both smart and dumb phones. Some non-GSM US carriers will do this as well (except for the sharing-the-lists part).

      Bonus points if they go to the effort of (with a court warrant) letting the phone on anyway as a type of "honeypot" while they remotely activate the GPS to track the thief.

    6. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by dissy · · Score: 1

      The second was "wait, there are phones that can be remotely BRICKED? 8-( "

      Some carriers load up their own software, such as Verizon. Some also include(d) carrier-IQ in the smartphone, so it is possible to have enabled backdoor functions. Bricking is technically possible, even if they never did it.

      Additionally if your phones unique ID was in a "stolen phone" database then it really shouldn't be allowed back on the cellular network. This is just one of those common sense things to expect, it's a bit surprising to find out the police had to request this, let alone had their request denied.

      Of course that isn't "bricked", but doesn't appear to be the original request made since they only wanted the phones be banned from the network.

      The original article doesn't mention the fact a smartphone can still be used without cellular service. Basically an iPhone becomes an iPod. An Android becomes a.. er, a really tiny tablet? Well, still a useful device!

      So there is still some incentive to steal these phones.
      But if they are banned from cellular service, they would be much less useful and a bit less desirable to steal.

    7. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not bricked, but have the registration number refused by the carrier. It is sort of the same as a sim card but is a number tied to the device. If the phone was found latter on they could easily reinstate the number.

    8. Re:Why would they want to decrease revenue? by cmarkn · · Score: 1

      The reason the police have their "request" denied is because there is no law giving them the power to make such a request.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
  7. Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable objects by couchslug · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Part of not getting mugged is not looking like a target and avoiding bad areas. If you actually NEED a smartphone ("it makes you money") then conceal it and don't answer it in Chud zones.

    The ROE for avoiding scumbags hasn't changed since Ogg coveted Zorgs shiny rock.

    Don't display shiny rocks, and if it's an option be able, willing, and ready to use lethal force in self-defence.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  8. It's all about the profit by chrb · · Score: 1

    More stolen phones means more phones being replaced, also if you are on contract you can be liable for a huge bill. The UK government had to actually bring in a law requiring carriers to block stolen phones (or threaten to legislate, I can't remember whether the carriers caved before the law was due to introduced).

  9. Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone. by Kenja · · Score: 2

    I cant speak for the other carriers, but Verizon will not activate a phone that has been reported as stollen. Sure, its not "bricked", but its near useless.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  10. Thank God by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I live in a state with strong castle laws.

    Most would-be muggers are quickly deterred by the sight of the 1911 strapped to my hip. You want my celly? Come and get it.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Thank God by toadlife · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mr. Zimmerman?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    2. Re:Thank God by Albanach · · Score: 2

      Most would-be muggers

      And for the ones that aren't deterred, you think a firefight in the street is preferable to carriers simply blocking the phones and making the mugging less attractive in the first place?

    3. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Castle laws, by definition require you to be in your home, vehicle, or place of business. Anywhere else and you have a legal duty to attempt deescalation and/or retreat. The name "castle law" is derived from the phrase "a man's home is his castle".

    4. Re:Thank God by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      HA, no, it's assholes like that who make responsible gun owners such as myself look bad.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Thank God by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most would-be muggers

      And for the ones that aren't deterred, you think a firefight in the street is preferable to carriers simply blocking the phones and making the mugging less attractive in the first place?

      No, but as an adult with full cognitive faculties, I don't believe it's anyone's duty but my own to protect myself and my property... especially considering recent SCOTUS decisions, such as the one that determined that police have no duty to protect citizens.

      Expecting others to do what you should be doing yourself belongs in the realm of childhood, IMO.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Thank God by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Castle laws, by definition require you to be in your home, vehicle, or place of business. Anywhere else and you have a legal duty to attempt deescalation and/or retreat. The name "castle law" is derived from the phrase "a man's home is his castle".

      In this state, the castle laws also apply to "any property that you have permission to be on." That includes public areas where firearms are not prohibited by law (such as courthouses).

      Contrary to what anti-2nd Amendment advocates want you to think, not all gun owners are psycho cowboys looking to get into a shootout; most of us are just law abiding citizens who know better than to expect the government to protect us.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Thank God by kyrio · · Score: 1

      I think having both is the better option.

    8. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, until that 1911 Jams up then you are shit out of luck, try a revolver.

    9. Re:Thank God by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      "Firefight" implies there was an exchange of gunfire, not a single shot and a dropped mugger.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a castle law, that's a "stand your ground" law. I also don't recall implying you were a psycho.

      Contrary to what the NRA wants you to think, not everyone who promotes the idea that the application of lethal force in self-defense must be a last resort and fully justified is anti-2nd Amendment.

    11. Re:Thank God by fermat1313 · · Score: 1

      Most would-be muggers are quickly deterred by the sight of the 1911 strapped to my hip. You want my celly? Come and get it.

      Contrary to what anti-2nd Amendment advocates want you to think, not all gun owners are psycho cowboys looking to get into a shootout; most of us are just law abiding citizens who know better than to expect the government to protect us.

      That's funny, because you sound exactly like a psycho cowboy looking to get into a shootout.

    12. Re:Thank God by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Problems with your presumption:

      1. Unless you live in an open-carry state and literally have your firearm visible to the whole world, I doubt a would-be phone thief is going to have any idea that you're packing heat.
      2. Such a thief that would steal a phone might see a firearm as an even more valuable item to fence at his favorite pawn shop, and might go for that, especially if it's just hanging there on your right hip while your distracted with a cell phone in your right hand.
      3. What are you going to do in a crowded subway with the doors about to close after you've just been pushed to the ground as a thief is running away with your phone? How many passengers and pedestrians are you willing to hit in the hopes that you will shoot your moving target?

      Concealed weapons might provide some comfort in a dark and lonely alley, but not so much help fighting petty theft in a crowded gathering spot.

    13. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, we have to ignore the statistics that a gun in the home is 11x more likely to shoot a relative than an intruder. Carrying a weapon might make you feel more protected, but the statistics disagree with you. For Mr Zimmerman, being armed contributed to the confrontation which lead to the killing. Had he simply watched and reported like a normal neighborhood watch captain is expected, perhaps the kid would have been stopped and hassled by the cops but he'd be alive.

    14. Re:Thank God by cmarkn · · Score: 1

      A 1911 is far more reliable than any revolver.

      --
      People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
  11. Not All U.S. carriers apply by bone_king · · Score: 2

    Sprint and Verizon don't need to brick the phones since they are CDMA networks and once those phones are reported stolen they are essentially black-balled from the network any way. T-Mobile, AT&T, and all other sim-card services would have to figure out some type of alternative in safe-guarding stolen phones.

    1. Re:Not All U.S. carriers apply by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I've read that piggyback carriers like Boost Mobile (Sprint) will activate CDMA phones that have had their ESNs blacklisted.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    2. Re:Not All U.S. carriers apply by toadlife · · Score: 1

      And on further inspection it appears I read wrong. People get their blacklisted Sprint phones onto Boost by getting a cheapo boost phone and then cloning the ESN from that phone onto their blacklisted phone.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    3. Re:Not All U.S. carriers apply by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      On the same carrier, maybe. But, for example, the iPhone 4s is a world phone (with CDMA and GSM), and if unlocked, etc. could be used on another company's network (in the US or another country). That's why any effective solution would need a database shared among all carriers, ideally globally so the stolen phones aren't just sent to Mexico, etc.

    4. Re:Not All U.S. carriers apply by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      It's *possible* to change the ESN, but on the hierarchy of technically-minor things that can get you sent to prison for a really long time with minimal burden of proof on the part of the prosecution, you'd almost have to be criminally insane to do it, because you could end up serving 10+ years just for knowingly being in possession of a phone with a cloned ESN & making a call with it. And if the prosecution were feeling extraordinarily kind & let YOU off the hook because you convinced them you purchased a used phone from a store in good faith, you can bet they're going to follow the chain of custody back until they get to the guy who cloned the ESN & nail HIM.

      In a way, it's almost a shame that the only way to resurrect a Sprint phone with bad ESN is to reflash it for another network. Otherwise, we could rootkit our own phones with a backdoor WE control, and have some Zoz-like fun with whomever ends up owning it down the line if it were stolen and repurposed for someone else. I can see it now... a website that turns people using stolen phones into involuntary reality-TV stars (with all business presence and infrastructure offshore, of course, since actively pwning the buyers and broadcasting their intimate lives on the internet would still probably violate a few federal laws, if only because of their friends & family members who'd be co-stars along with them)...

    5. Re:Not All U.S. carriers apply by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Yup, if you look through Ebay, they're plenty of sellers offering "Bad ESN" Sprint phones (and if the ESN status isn't made explicitly clear, better ask before buying). Not all were stolen of course -- there are also phones from broken contracts and delinquent accounts.

      No shortage of buyers apparently, and I have a hard time believing they're all being purchased for spare parts.

    6. Re:Not All U.S. carriers apply by toadlife · · Score: 1

      you'd almost have to be criminally insane to do it,

      Then there are all hell of a lot of criminally insane people out there because the practice is common.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  12. Why Not Just Track Them? by deweyhewson · · Score: 1

    Here's what I don't get: if the carriers are capable of, even if unwilling to, bricking phones remotely, that must mean they know where those phones are at any given time, at least to the level of the nearest cell tower. If the phone is on the internet, they can be even more accurate than that. So, it seems to me, the phones themselves are built-in tracking devices that would work in law enforcement's favor; something that bricking would destroy.

    Why not just work with law enforcement, through proper warrants of course, in tracking down the stolen phones and, hopefully, the thieves with them?

    Is this just not a realistic possibility from a technical standpoint?

    1. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by RichMan · · Score: 1

      Whoa There. You mean have the police work. That is crazy talk.

      And finding a cell phone theif would likely lead to larger crimes being solved.
      Think of the paper work involed there.

    2. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because while you are tracking down stolen phone/ipads you end up tripping over (and stubbing your toe to boot) on that $35M/750lbs of meth just lying around.

      Stupid piles of drugs are everywhere and are always getting in the way of real police work, like finding some poor bastard's stolen ipad.

    3. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just realized that you can be tracked whole connected to a cell network? Really?

      Also in most cases the police are more concerned with more important things like rapes, murders, etc. so someone getting an iShiny stolen is pretty low in priority. This is why bring able to brick it is good.

    4. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by jpstanle · · Score: 1

      The use of the term "Bricking" is misleading in this context. What they're actually talking about is IMSI blacklisting. Every cell phone has a unique hardware ID much like a MAC address that can be blacklisted by the carriers.

    5. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not like cops have more important cases to deal with than a petty theft, right? I'm pretty sure that solving a murder, for example, is a better way to spend their time than finding a $500 cell phone.

    6. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      If the phone is on the internet, they can be even more accurate than that.

      Uh, say what? How does DHCP provide better resolution than knowing what cell tower you are communicating with??

      Knowing a location to within a square mile - i.e. which cell tower - isn't very useful. However, most smartphones have a built-in GPS - if the carrier can remotely access the phone and provide the police with a GPS location, THAT would be useful.

    7. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think there's enough cops out there to work on murders and other things, too, hmm?

    8. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by deweyhewson · · Score: 2

      "You just realized that you can be tracked whole connected to a cell network? Really?"

      Uh, no, and I don't know how you inferred that. I was saying that, given these set of circumstances allowing tracking, why can't those circumstances be used to support actual law enforcement.

      I agree that the device's worth itself is low on the list of priority, but tackling systematic crime and criminals shouldn't be. Chances are that if someone is willing to steal a phone like this, they are likely involved in other thefts or criminal activity which would be worth stopping.

    9. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by kyrio · · Score: 1

      The huge majority of cops are not working anything even close to a murder case, and will likely never work a murder case in their entire careers.

    10. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by kyrio · · Score: 2

      The huge majority of police officers in the USA have never worked any cases of that type and never will.

    11. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      It's completely possible, the problem is neither the carriers nor the police have any interest in doing it.

      It's not in the carrier's interest to spend a dime helping to track down your phone - after mine was stolen (and then used to call several local numbers that I could clearly see in my statement!) AT&T told me it would be a waste of my time to notify the police. Unless you live in Mayberry they are just going to take your report, ignore it, and if they are honest tell you flat out they just don't have the resources to track down cell phone thefts.

    12. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Apple should refuse to allow any reported stolen iPhone or iPad to be used with iTunes.

      Wouldn't totally prevent stolen devices from being used but would make them a lot less valuable.

    13. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      If the phone is on the internet, they can be even more accurate than that.

      Ask Google. Part of the "location" info that the phone reports is what wifi it's connected to and Google has been quietly mapping wifi locations. This is why my ipod with no cell service knows my location to within several hundred feet when I go to Google Maps.

    14. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unfortunate you seem to be using sarcasm; as I for one would certainly prefer police go after crimes reported to them by people who have been victimized by a non-consensual criminal act, rather than spend their time violating peoples civil liberties because they have no other way to stop an entirely voluntary action between two consenting adults. The fact that crimes, including violent crimes like robbery and rape, are not investigated (this has been in the news lately) while so many resources are devoted to drug crimes is disgusting.
      Unless you honestly believe the guy who pulled a knife on you and took your phone should be given a pass to stop someone from hurting only themselves?

    15. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Ask Google. Part of the "location" info that the phone reports is what wifi it's connected to

      That is different. OP said "on the internet". If a phone is also connected to wifi - thereby having two internet connections - then yes, in some cases, additional information can be obtained.

    16. Re:Why Not Just Track Them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If cops were WILLING to do something, they could and for very little cost.
      Most districts/states/whatever have a technology brigade that is used, among other things, to watch kid porn and track criminals when they are not browsing reddit.

      IF they WANTED to do something, they could write a software (that's the small overhead, assuming a trustworthy software contractor. IOW: Fine, it will cost millions and be done in vb6 within 12 to 16 years) that will poll the theft database and show any stolen phones on their territory (if the police logs reported thefts at all and assuming the victim gave tracking permission) and then send a patrol to try to locate the suspect without assaulting anybody or smashing cameras on their way. That part involve no extra cost, patrol in question would otherwise spend their time at the nearest krispy kream.

      Our world is disgusting. American Army and police around the world are two major contributors to that horrible world.
      Why do you even call yourself americans, it's not like america is a country. You are unable to share your continent, poor little things? You are unitedstatians, deal with it.

  13. Not true. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    When my cousin stole my uncle's phone, he called up his carrier and it was bricked.
    He had gone through the process before apparently as well. (My cousin isn't the best of people)

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  14. Re:So... what about security apps? by DaHat · · Score: 1

    Last I checked Brick != Wipe.

    Clearing off your personal data is one thing... preventing the phone from being used again (bricking) is another.

  15. Sprint blocks the ESN of stolen phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sprint blocks the ESN of phones that are reported stolen, so they can't ever be used on their network again. Very few of their phones can ever be used on any other networks.

    1. Re:Sprint blocks the ESN of stolen phones by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Many Sprint phones are useable on Cricket.

  16. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by zarthrag · · Score: 1

    Verizon is CDMA, You could simply obtain the master lock codes and port the phone to sprint or some other carrier.

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  17. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by El+Royo · · Score: 0

    Well, I don't see why they would try to activate a phone made out of bread! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stollen

    --
    Author of Enyo: Up and Running from O'Reilly Media
  18. Re:Why brick a perfectly good phone? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Just because it gets stolen?

    RTFA.

  19. This is a no-brainer by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 4, Informative

    As per TFA, we've had this in the UK for years. As the US networks say, it's not perfect as the IMEI can be changed on some phones and they can be exported abroad but its a hell of a lot better than nothing. Most mobile phone robberies are not organised exporters, they're people after a quick profit, often to feed a drug habit.

    It's common sense, it works, do it.

    --
    "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
    1. Re:This is a no-brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got any stats that phone theft fell and stayed down after that law went in? Sincere request, not being glib. I do know phone and ipod theft was pretty bad in the UK. Wondering if you've actually had success with the legislation.

  20. Asking thieves to help stop thieves? by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 2

    It's quite clear that the Mobile carriers are robbing us blind as citizens and as consumers, not to mention the abuses of our civil liberties. It's no surprise they aren't willing to help curtail similar actions.

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
  21. Rest of the world have done this for decades by hpj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've worked developing cell phone operator software for almost a decade on 3 different continents (Not in the US though) and many different countries and as far as I know every single cell phone operator that I have worked for use the GSM standard practice of blocking the EMEI number which will cause the phone to be bricked on any GSM network in the world (AT&T & T-Mobile base their network on the GSM standard in the USA) and I was flabbergasted when a few months ago my 2 week old iPhone 4S was stolen AT&T would not do the same here.

    Normally the procedure in other countries is that you just bring your cell phone operator the police report and they will immediately block the phone, basically turning it into a big media player (Assuming it is a smart phone). I can't understand how the operators here claim that they need to investigate technical solutions. This was designed and built into the original GSM standard that has been around since the late 1980:s and as far as I know the feature has also been in use since that time.

    I totally agree with the article that it is unconscionable that operators here refuse to do this I am assuming to save a few bucks on cell phone subsidies.

    1. Re:Rest of the world have done this for decades by jimicus · · Score: 1

      My guess is the "technical solution" they need to investigate isn't "How on earth do we persuade our network to block a phone?", it's "Okay, how do we integrate a process to do this with our existing systems and processes?"

    2. Re:Rest of the world have done this for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm old-fashioned with my definitions schmefinitions but to me "brick" != "a big media player" so I'm confused whether this whole discussion is about blocking stolen devices from networks (i'm all for that) or burning their cpus from distance (which sounds a little big brotherish to me).

  22. Re:So... what about security apps? by chrb · · Score: 4, Informative

    If your *smartphone* (not feature phone) is stolen, in particular if it's Android or iOS, there are a number of solutions , other than retrieving it.

    And most of those solutions can be easily worked around by a knowledgeable person, at the simplest level by just reflashing the firmware. This is not just theoretical - IMEI reprogramming used to be common place for stolen mobile phones, and there was a whole cottage industry based around cracking IMEIs so that stolen phones could be reenabled (to be fair, there were a few legitimate uses, but the illegal usage far outnumbered that). Now that the manufacturers made it harder to reprogram the IMEI, stolen phones that are blocked by the networks are only useful for export to countries that have the same network technology. So there is still a route to profit, but it requires more organisation than just being able to list the phone on ebay or sell it down the pub, which is what used to happen in the old days.

    one could use without having to resort to calling police to "brick" your phone

    The police have nothing to do with IMEI blocking, the network operator does the blocking, and will do so when you report the stolen phone to them, which you obviously need anyway to do as you are liable for all phone calls until the theft is reported.

  23. to put it bluntly. by Truekaiser · · Score: 2

    they don't want to because it earns them money. they don't care if the phone is stolen as long as it brings in revenue. a few pissed off people getting odd bills after the phone is stolen doesn't concern them, they can wait out any customer dispute till they just give up and pay.

  24. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by UnifiedTechs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually neither Sprint or Verizon will activate a phone not originally purchased from them. And neither will activate a phone reported stolen by an owner. Honestly this seems like a problem strictly for phones with SIM cards.

  25. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by D'Sphitz · · Score: 0

    In other words, don't dress like a whore if you don't want to get raped.

  26. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the Montreal subway, there has been hit and run. The mugger will grab the phone, hit you right away and run. I think what's worse is that most people just look at the runner and do nothing while the victim yells. An other tactic is they wait in the train for the door to be on the point of closing, then grab your phone and run.

    While I agree with you, I also think that phone carriers should brick the phones if they can. It's not like the user will ever get it back anyway.

  27. Wrong term! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    when you "Brick" a phone, you make it completely useless, i.e. destroy the firmware in such a way were it cannot be restored.(anyone who did motorola p2k hacking back last decade remembers this)

    What the article mentions is "Blacklisting" a process where phones with IMEI numbers reported stolen are not allowed to be used on the network. the feature is part of the GSM spec and they do this in England.

    Again with all blacklists its subject to abuse. I'd say their needs to be an appeals process for getting a phone off a black list.(i.e. prove its NOT stolen, recovered by rightful owner, etc...). This DOES have potential for abuse Otherwise what happens when carriers start blacklisting older phones to make you buy new ones, or to keep certian phones off their network.

  28. It would be abused by amiller2571 · · Score: 1

    If they started to brick stolen phones, what would stop them from bricking jail broken/rooted phones? Personal I'm just stick and tired of smart phone and the stress that comes with them, high bills, being track every where I go,worrying if its going to get stolen, third parties stealing my personal information like contacts and emails. I'm just going back to prepaid shit phones!

    1. Re:It would be abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they started to brick stolen phones, what would stop them from bricking jail broken/rooted phones?

      In America? The US Copyright Office.
      Not to mention the fact that jailbroken phones still earn them revenue.

    2. Re:It would be abused by tibman · · Score: 1

      what would stop them from bricking jail broken/rooted phones?
      The phones wouldn't be reported stolen and so they aren't bricked.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  29. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is true... Unfortunately, the BUDGET carriers (e.g. metropcs and cricket) WILL activate the stolen verizon/sprint phones!

    Make your own determinations about the cross section of demographics between stolen phone users and budget cell carriers.

  30. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That damn iPhone had it coming... all tarted up like that, it was just asking to be stolen.

  31. Re:So... what about security apps? by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 0

    Ah, I see...

    Although, isn't "locking" the phone about as good as bricking? Or can that be disabled by connecting it to any computer with iTunes? Yes, the data would be erased, as far as I know, but would this still work?

  32. Hey, that's me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I finally made it on TV! Wooooooooo! Woooooo!!!!!

  33. measured response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bricking should be reserved for serious crimes, like unlocking and running an unapproved applications on the hardware you payed for. Who cares about theft!

  34. Don't brick: Lock, track, and seize by davidwr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Instead of bricking, lock the user interface, put them in a periodic beaconing mode, and send the posse after the phone.

    DO put the phone in a mode where if the battery dies or is removed it can't be restarted without opening the case and doing vendor magic.

    DO store all non-removable-media data in encrypted form and zap the key as soon as the phone is told that it is stolen.

    DO give the customer the option of storing data that is on removable media in encrypted form as well.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Don't brick: Lock, track, and seize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been there before. Stolen iPad's Reported Location Not Enough To Warrant Search, Say Dutch Police
      In general the police cannot act and neither can you. Once it's stolen, it's gone, so we should focus our efforts on bricking. This quote from the comments there describes the situation we're in best:

      The real lesson behind this whole story is that device manufacturers were misguided when they designed the whole location reporting in the event of theft thing. It was known at the time that there would be legal issues and that the police and public prosecutors would probably often be unwilling to do anything, and now some time has passed and we see exactly this. What manufacturers should have done instead is put some fuses inside the most important chips in the device, and make it possible to remotely wipe and disable the device if it connects and the legitimate owner has reported it stolen.

    2. Re:Don't brick: Lock, track, and seize by jcaldwel · · Score: 1

      Instead of bricking, lock the user interface, put them in a periodic beaconing mode, and send the posse after the phone.

      You'd better find your own posse because often times the police do not care (not the first time I have heard of something similar)

    3. Re:Don't brick: Lock, track, and seize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd better find your own posse because often times the police do not care (not the first time I have heard of something similar)

      IMHO, someone needs to implement a lithium ion battery detonator, which can be activated within minutes of the theft. Perhaps then, the police will realize what happens when you deny someone legal ways to solve their disputes.

    4. Re:Don't brick: Lock, track, and seize by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Perhaps then, the police will realize what happens when you deny someone legal ways to solve their disputes.

      Yes, some idiot Anonymous Coward on Slashdot makes a stupid suggestion that would result in innocent people being injured or killed.

  35. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by cdrguru · · Score: 2

    So, while Verizon doesn't like people bringing in phones, resellers of Verizon service (Cricket, Virgin, etc.) are more than happy to do so. Verizon isn't in complete control of their own mobile service since a lot (25%? 30%? more?) of it is due to resellers selling access to the same towers.

    Oh, an what do you need to use Cricket? A Verizon-compatible phone.

  36. Partially true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sprint and Verizon (CDMA) both brick stolen phones, which is easy to do since you can't just change out a SIM and be done with it...

  37. Re:Why brick a perfectly good phone? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    I think the idea is that if criminals know a phone will become a useless hunk of metal and plastic the moment it's reported stolen, it's no longer worth stealing.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  38. It would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whenever I get mad at someone, I can just report THEIR phone stolen, and it gets bricked!

    I can't wait!

    1. Re:It would be awesome by Sentrion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the person you are mad at gave you their cellular service account number, then they deserved to get their phone bricked. Otherwise, how is calling the service provider (presuming you know who they get service from), going to result in their phone being reported as stolen? Not to mention that the service providers would probably require a police report before bricking the phone. So now you are going to be charged with filing a false police report as well as wire fraud with malicious intent, depending on your jurisdiction. Smart move.

      You could just as easily call the police and say that your car was stolen and give them the license plate of the person you are mad at so that they get pulled over then next time they pass a squad car. How many days have you spent in jail each time you got mad at someone? Maybe you should just stay in your mother's basement.

  39. another easy fix by sdnoob · · Score: 2

    don't buy five hundred friggin dollar phone.

    1. Re:another easy fix by maxdread · · Score: 1

      Yeah and if you don't like your car being stolen, buy a fuckin bike!

      Wait you don't like your bike being stolen? Well walk you lazy piece of shit!

      Oh your house got broken into? Well wtf are you doing living in a house, you were totally asking for it. Sell the house, buy a tent and go live in the forest you dumbass!

  40. Concealed Carry? by Qubit · · Score: 0

    Any statistics on how much concealed carry correlates with drops in assaults such as thefts of phones?

    Also: Situational Awareness -- I'd be interested to hear if people who are engrossed in coversation and/or text messaging on their mobile device are more likely to get mugged.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
  41. RTFS - police reports is how. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 4, Informative

    How is the carrier supposed to know that the device was stolen?

    It says how right there in the fine summary -- "Police chiefs like D.C.'s Cathy Lanier are asking U.S. mobile carriers to brick phones that are reported stolen..." Presumably a police report has some legal backing.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  42. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Sprint absolutely won't activate any phone not sold by them (or at least wholesaled to someone by them). Verizon won't go out of its way to HELP you, but if you can figure out how to make some arbitrary CDMA phone work on Verizon, they won't stand in your way and prohibit you from using it, either.

    I'm not 100% sure, but I think Verizon's grudging willingness to let you use any compatible phone is an artifact of the original Bell breakup & consent decree that prohibited Bell from requiring that customers use only equipment sold/leased by them. From what I remember, the general belief was that it was somewhat up in the air and never formally tested in court whether Verizon Wireless was to be treated like a successor entity to Bell subject to the full original consent decree, but the FCC settled it once and for all by making Verizon Wireless formally acknowledge and accept it as a condition of being allowed to buy Alltel.

  43. It doesn't work... by Manip · · Score: 2

    First off I think carriers should do this; but that being as it may I will say that this doesn't really work in either the UK or Australia - phone theft has not disappeared or become less common as a result.

    It is easy to understand why when you consider how trivial it is to unlock phones and then sell them on to international customers, particularly in Europe where a blocked phone in the UK might still be worth upwards of 300 euro on eBay Germany or France.

    Another interesting question is - what, if anything, has Apple done? They could very easily block phones interacting with its iTunes stores if the phone was reported stolen in any part of the world but they haven't. Why is that?

    1. Re:It doesn't work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The statement "this doesn't really work in the UK or Australia" is either a lie or very poorly researched.

      The official figures on phone theft in Australia say it fell by 75% when blocking stolen phones was introduced, but the pub discussion research my friends and I conducted decided it was more like 95% cause we didn't know of anyone having their phone stolen in years.

    2. Re:It doesn't work... by deniable · · Score: 1

      First off I think carriers should do this; but that being as it may I will say that this doesn't really work in either the UK or Australia - phone theft has not disappeared or become less common as a result.

      Yes, it has and I've got just as much evidence as you.

  44. This used to happen by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It still can happen if the stolen-car report isn't visible to the car-title-issuing companies due to a snafu.

    However, most states require that someone post a bond if they want to get a title to a car and can't show proof of ownership. It's called a "bonded title."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  45. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Honestly this seems like a problem strictly for phones with SIM cards.

    What country is backward enough to still be using phones without SIM cards?

  46. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 2

    Love the car analogy, wait...

  47. Thieves themselves..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After telling Verizon to cancel the service on a stolen phone (I had two and only one was stolen), they reactivated it when I had the other phone reactivated after a hiatus. The next bill was over $1000 as the person in possession of the stolen phone apparently called everyone in China. It took three months to finally get the charges removed from my account and I never received a refund for the taxes and fees that were also billed.

    I no longer own a cell phone because I have the distinct feeling that many will simply pay the bill and that Verizon takes advantage of this much like credit card companies profiting from stolen credit cards/numbers (the merchant actually eats the costs).

    Fucking crooks.

  48. Re:So... what about security apps? by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 0

    Alright, so these apps would only help if the perp intended on using the device themselves and had no intention of reselling.

    But, yeah, by taking it up to the next level with IMEI cracking... That kind of nullifies any sense of security on the phone. :-/

  49. Indeed, blame the victim! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For not carrying lethal weapons and for using their device.

  50. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Serves you right for fucking around with your phone you should be watching where you're going.

  51. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    No, not in other words.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  52. Mine was 'lost or stolen' from my car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have just been checking this out. Mine was stolen this weekend from my car. I called [the carrier] and said it was stolen...they said they'd mark it 'lost or stolen' - I said, no, it's stolen, they said, ok 'lost or stolen...
    It turns out there are a bazillion phones on Ebay marked 'bad esn'...people buy and sell them all the time. The carriers don't do anything. Ebay doesn't do anything.
    Why? because if your phone is stolen, you just pay full price to the carrier for a new one, or but your old one back on Ebay, and the stolen one gets re-flashed and activated on a pre-paid carrier...which are also owned by the same major carriers.
    There is a large market for stolen cell phones, and it takes place out in the open. Everyone benefits, except the consumer, so it goes on.

  53. Re:So... what about security apps? by BriggsBU · · Score: 1

    Put the phone in DFU mode to reset it even if locked. Press and hold down the 'Home' button as you plug the phone into the computer. This places it in DFU mode which allows the phone to be restored (ie, phone is wiped and iOS is reinstalled) in iTunes. Once this is done the phone can be reactivated and used again.

  54. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by Wain13001 · · Score: 0

    watching where you're going? While you're standing on a subway car? Suddenly people deserve to be mugged or be accosted with strong-arm assault? Go fuck yourself...srsly.

  55. The same goes for Telus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From experience, Telus in Canada won't brick a stolen phone either. The theft was reported within minutes to Telus.

    The "new owner" of the stolen phone - contacted via the phone - simply claimed that they bought it on Kijiji. So we contacted police.

    A week later Telus activated it for the "new owner"even though it was reported stolen. We reported this to police, who at last report (over six months ago) were waiting for Telus to give them the name of the "new owner."

  56. Re:Why brick a perfectly good phone? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    You live in Sweden, so you probably don't have a lot of people sticking a gun in your back and demanding you hand over your iPhone. You might not care what happens to the phone, but you'd probably prefer not to be beaten up for it. If it was common knowledge up front that *all* stolen phones are useless (not some dumb "opt in" system as you seem to describe) there would be a lot less incentive to commit armed robbery over it.

    And honestly, most people stealing your phone really don't give a shit about your data, they just want to wipe it and sell it.

  57. WRONG! by meburke · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know for a fact that Sprint (I worked for them for a while) creates a "lost or stolen" database. If your Sprint phone is stolen you report it to sprint and the "lost/stolen" service is placed on your phone. This renders the phone unusable: No calls, no messages. If you get a new phone, when you activate the new phone on the old number there is a check for "lost/stolen" and the SN/MEID goes into a database and that cannot be activated on sprint again. All allegations of carriers not concerned about the theft of phones is bogus.

    My carrier is ATT. I know for a fact that they have exactly the same service although it is applied a little differently.

    However, the phone would still be usable after hacking such as cloning. The carriers can only block the phone services on their network; not destroy the phone itself.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    1. Re:WRONG! by meburke · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add that the insurance company has the ability to locate phones through the GPS, and we have found phones through the "family locator service". Unfortunately, the gps is not necessarily precise enough, and by itself is not enough to get a warant.

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    2. Re:WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked at AT&T as a CSR for almost two years, and no we don't. When you report your phone as stolen, all we do is suspend that line...there is no database. There is no policy of blocking the phones or anything...in fact, the only time we are supposed to check if a phone is stolen is if your trying to get an unlock code, and that only consists of looking for the phone via the IMIE in the caller's market (we just ask you what state your in) and seeing if the account it shows up on (if any) has reported that phone stolen. That's about it.

    3. Re:WRONG! by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      No, the point is that I can take a stolen ATT phone to T-Mobile, and T-Mobile will not brick or block it. In a perfect world, there'd be a unified ESN/IMEI stolen database that would block service across all providers. However, that hasn't happened yet.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:WRONG! by meburke · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't know about T-Mobile, but I know Sprint does not activate phones on Verizon or ATT stolen/lost lists. Furthermore, it practically takes an act of Congress to activate a non-Sprint phone on the Sprint network. In the case of the iPhone, Sprint will NOT activate iPhones not bought through Sprint authorized outlets. (The exception was a series of iPhones bought for the Sprint network from Apple stores that were mistakenly ID'd as ATT phones. We had a workaround for that, and the phones were then correctly ID'd as Sprint phones.) Basically, if it doesn't have the Sprint logo it is not activated on the Sprint network.

      I don't know what's going on, but there was a rash of iPhone thefts in January and February. I don't know what the thieves did with the stolen phones. A number of them were sold on e-bay, but the recipients couldn't activate them and were badly screwed.

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  58. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by couchslug · · Score: 1

    There is a difference between reasonable precautions and trolling for muggers.

    Just because you have the right to do X doesn't make it a smart choice in all locations.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  59. Bad environmental policy by detritus. · · Score: 1

    Speaking strictly from an environmental standpoint, If they're bricked, they go straight in the trash can and into the landfills. A waste of precious materials and circuitry that could be recycled or reclaimed if the phone is recovered. Let's not pretend this technology doesn't exist. Between CarrierIQ, E911 and gps pings, it's not hard to recover it if the device is on.

  60. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by Sentrion · · Score: 1

    I think what's worse is that most people just look at the runner and do nothing while the victim yells.

    No offense, but what do you expect most people to do? Chase after the bastard and take him down like Chuck Norris or something? It's not like they're just standing there watching you getting beaten or raped. How are they going to know the other guy didn't track you down using a GPS app after you stole his phone?

  61. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Wait what? Phones don't have SIM cards? How are you supposed to port your phone to another carrier, or use your account on another phone?

  62. Password your phone, install Cerberus by technomom · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I would never count on any third party to protect MY property, whether that be Verizon or the government. So I password my phone and installed Cerberus on it in such a way that it cannot be removed without a bit of effort. Those two steps alone will ensure that the thief will not get far. As soon as the thief tries a password and gets it wrong, my phone snaps a picture. If I can get to a web console or even another phone that has SMS capability, I can send all sorts of messages to my phone to track the location, sound an alarm, take video, movie or record audio, wipe memory, wipe the SD card or reboot, The phone will become all but useless once that's done. Sure, we might get a particularly talented thief who would know enough to root and install a new ROM, but that procedure takes time and the chances of that happening are pretty low given that a thief with that kind of know-how is likely to make a good living without risking jailtime.

  63. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not, apparently.

  64. I'm Wary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hop between a number of countries (mostly the U.S. and Japan) and use a couple of carrier locked phones (iPhone 3GS, Google Nexus S), and I'm vehemently against carriers having to do any "magic" in order for my phone to work with their network: I want a SIM card, and then I want to be left alone.

    I don't know the details of a bricking (like if my phone were bricked in Japan would it still work in the U.S.?), but I assume I'd have to go to a carrier with proof of identification, explain my phone was stolen, and ask that they brick the phone with the associated SIM in it? What could would this be if thieves immediately switched out SIMs?

    1. Re:I'm Wary by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I've had several phones blocked in NZ. The carriers only require a police report. If you claim phone insurance for a phone as well they will block them. They essentially block the phones IMEI number so the phone can't be registered on their network.

    2. Re:I'm Wary by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      No, it's done with IMEI.

      I had my phone stolen a couple of years ago in Australia (it was a Motorola feature phone of some description). Went home, found the box it came in and noted the IMEI. Called my carrier, said my phone was stolen and quoted the IMEI. It agreed with an IMEI they had seen associated with my account (which they will obviously check so you don't just quote a random IMEI with no proof it has anything to do with you). So they blocked it.

      The 'block' is just a blacklist that all Australian carriers have access to. If an IMEI appears on the blacklist, it will not be permitted to connect to any carrier's network. It's just within Australia though ... if they phone is taken overseas it will work just fine.

      Anyone can check the status (blocked or not) of any IMEI using this site: http://www.lost.amta.org.au/

  65. What. The. Fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe you. Look at how you warped this conversation into personal responsibility and guns when it was just about an easy way to deter crime. No one's responsibility? So no need for laws or police? Just need me some guns and bootstraps?

    If this is your reaction to a simple story on an easy and financially insignificant step carriers could take to prevent crime (by not profiting off of it themselves), then no, you don't have all your cognitive faculties. The saddest part is that you don't seem to even realize the story in your linked article is a horrific example of how fucked up people like yourself have made this country. What was that woman supposed to do? Go hunting her ex with a AR-15 with her kids in the crossfire?

    Who mods this shit up?

    1. Re:What. The. Fuck? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point... If you have a gun, then you need to brag about having a gun and being able to kill anybody who gives you the very minimum reason to do so (or not even the minimum).

      I remember a post from someone here. A drunk/hunk guy was trying to open his garage door. Most probably the intruder would not had succeed, and even then it was unlikely that he ventured in the inhabited part of the house. The gun-loving-boy answer? Get out with a shotgun and kill him. And, of course, later come to /, and tell everybody (without being asked for) the gory details about what a shotgun can do to a human body.

      The sad part is that even explaining it to him, he would not ever get to see what was wrong with him...

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  66. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by bryanp · · Score: 1

    Except that quite a few can be flashed to work with other services like Cricket.

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  67. If they're providing service they know where it is by Rix · · Score: 1

    So the police can get a warrant for that, then go retrieve the phone.

  68. Re:Verizon will not activate a phone stollen phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cant speak for the other carriers, but Verizon will not activate a phone that has been reported as stollen. Sure, its not "bricked", but its near useless.

    Well....if the phone is indeed 'Stollen' then it would not be a phone anymore, but a delicious German Christmas pastry. Hard to place a booty call with a delicious German Christmas pastry.

  69. this is utterly disgusting by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I am amazed they can go away with this

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  70. Ironic by brad_f · · Score: 1

    It's ironic since they'll happily brick your cell phone if you don't pay your bill (to prevent you from selling the phone for a profit). Just try searching for "bad esn"...

  71. Technology can be a leash by chr1st1anSoldier · · Score: 1

    I swear I'm one of the only Americans that does not have a smart phone. I am seriously considering returning to a pager. Everyday, as I read more and more articles like this one, I am super happy that I never bought a smart phone and I don't think I ever will. Sure, you can do many wonderful things with an iOS or Android phone, but there are many bad things that can come from them as well.

  72. Weird americans by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I thought they did this the world over. They also share their black lists too, so you can't ship the stolen phones to another country. Must be every country except USA.

  73. Reasons to steal cell phones. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I disagree, for a couple points:
    1. A $50 reward will only encourage people to steal the phones for the reward.
    2. Phones aren't just stolen for putting in the criminal's account, they're also stolen to be used as a 'drop phone' for drug dealing and such. So it wouldn't remove all incentive.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Reasons to steal cell phones. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If it were just for drop phones then they wouldn't give a shit WHAT kind of phone it was, any phone would do, but that is not the case. the simple fact that they are targeting ONLY the high end phones shows that they are being stolen for resale which means the carriers are partially responsible since if they couldn't reactivate the phone there would be no incentive. This would be like any DMV letting you tag any car with ZERO proof its yours, anyone with a brain would see that car thefts would skyrocket in such a situation, same thing here. A phone is only useful if it can actually hook to the network, they all have the network equivalent of serial numbers, kill the market you kill the incentive.

      Lets cut the BS folks, these aren't just some purse snatchings here, these people are being put in the hospital and at least one in the morgue, all for something the carriers have the power to stop. I smell class action.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Reasons to steal cell phones. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The AC I responded to simply said 'Verizon Phones', and also asked 'why does anyone steal them'?

      I won't disagree that if they promptly disabled phones reported stolen in a fairly permanent way that thefts would go down.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  74. Do it yourself with Prey... by gQuigs · · Score: 1

    http://preyproject.com/
    "Prey lets you keep track of your laptop, phone and tablet whenever stolen or missing -- easily and all in one place. It's lightweight, open source software that gives you full and remote control, 24/7. "

    Oh and the code is open, so if you want to add a more complicated "bricking" capability you could.
    https://github.com/prey

  75. Crooks by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    I purchased a phone off ebay a few years back. I took it to a verizon store to be activated, and when I went to do it, they told me the ESN (basically phone serial number) was coming back as stolen. I then asked if I could:
    Get the original owners information so I could give them their phone back. (nope, we can't disclose customer information).
    Give the phone to them, so they could return it. (nope, we don't get involved in 'disputes').
    Give the phone to the police so they could get the phone back to the original owner and prosecute the seller. (nope, they would also refuse to assist law enforcement without a warrant).

    It became obvious pretty quickly they were more interested in selling customers who were robbed and potentially assaulted a new phone than helping them find justice. Any company that takes this stance should be subject to severe fines IMO. I realize there's room for abuse if they "get involved" but at some point you need to look out for your customer's best interests, even if it does cost you the occasional mistake/lawsuit.

  76. Re:So... what about security apps? by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 0

    Alright. Got it. Thank you for helping me to understand.

  77. With My Smart Phone, It Doesn't Matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone steals it, the joke is on them. It will brick itself within six months, depending on the last time I had it replaced.
    It's a Moto Defy feature that hadn't occurred to me until this article.

  78. More over by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    More over, the carries can pin down any device into a certain area. Combine this with data of stolen phones and tracking down is the next step. It can be rather tedious to actually find the phone and that I assume that is why this isn't usual practice.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  79. It doesn't work that way in practice by fireylord · · Score: 1

    Here in the UK, we have this. It works really well when combined with a publicity campaign. Anyone buying a phone that then turns out to be stolen goes to the police, and if they bought it from some person in the pub, with no way of tracing that person, then more fool them, they just learned a valuable lesson.

  80. Re:Why brick a perfectly good phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a phone will become a useless hunk of metal and plastic the moment it's reported stolen

    Other than the fact that it will happily connect to Wifi networks and carry on as before?

    Given that > 90% of a phone's life is within range of Wifi rather than cell, that doesn't sound so useless.

  81. Bricking, no. Reactivation, no by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If they wont brick them ( which i can see as being a problem so i agree with them on that ), they can turn off the service for that ID and not allow it to be turned back on ever again unless you prove you are the original account holder. ( if its found )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  82. Gazelle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone read Gazelle's ebay store's negative feedback? The majority of it is from sellers getting stolen phones. Maybe the carriers figure that by not bricking these phones they're helping the US economy. Oh wait, except you can't tie these reported phones to a new account...

  83. hotel WiFi charges? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Are you in the US? What hotels are you staying at that charge you for WiFi?

    All of the affordable hotels in the US offer free internet access. And if they didn't, I'm sure you could find a Panera or whatever nearby.

    As to your point about the "scam", yep, it's that bad. But to be honest in the US there isn't a lot of alternative. The large carriers don't give you a better deal for not taking a "free phone". So that means in order to save money you have to go to an "off-brand" carrier (or T-Mobile, who unfortunately cannot provide 3G to many phones not on their network), and these offer a reduced level of service. So you pay less but you get less too.

    I wish phone subsidies were ended. I'd love to stick with an on-brand carrier, but either pay up front for the phone or just have my bill drop when I've paid off my phone after a year or two.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:hotel WiFi charges? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      In the US the more expensive business hotels all charge for wifi. Cheap hotels don't. I guess they figure you'll put it on the expense account.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:hotel WiFi charges? by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Yup, which is why our department has a VZN mifi. It's on our corporate plan so we have unlimited data for $40/mo per device. Two hotels stays a month pays for it (must hotels charge a rip-off $20/night for wifi). That and we use it when we need to troubleshoot in the field with our private fiber/backbone. More than pays for itself. We check it out just like our company pool cars, return it when we're done.

      Only downside one guy found is that if you take it to Mexico, data is very expensive there if you don't have the right plan (which we didn't, since it wasn't intended to go out of country).

  84. Re:Avoid bad areas and don't display valuable obje by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

    I think what's worse is that most people just look at the runner and do nothing while the victim yells.

    aurait hurlé en français
    (Should have yelled in french (google translate))

    --
    120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  85. Not the case in Hawaii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine bought a phone off of Craigslist here in Hawaii despite my telling her that it's a bad idea. She ended up calling her phone company to set it up on her account and discovered that it was stolen. They refused to set it up. They did however provide her with the name of the cell phone company that reported it stolen. I'm confused then about the original post because this wasn't the case in Hawaii.

  86. Re:Why brick a perfectly good phone? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Other than the fact that it will happily connect to Wifi networks and carry on as before?

    If it's bricked it won't.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese