iPhone Users Sue AT&T For Letting Thieves Re-Activate Their Stolen Devices

An anonymous reader writes "Following on the heels of the FCC and U.S. mobile carriers finally announcing plans to create a national database for stolen phones, a group of iPhone users filed a class action lawsuit against AT&T on Tuesday claiming that it has aided and abetted cell phone thieves by refusing to brick stolen cell phones. AT&T has '[made] millions of dollars in improper profits, by forcing legitimate customers, such as these Plaintiffs, to buy new cell phones, and buy new cell phone plans, while the criminals who stole the phone are able to simply walk into AT&T stories and 're-activate' the devices, using different, cheap, readily-available 'SIM' cards,' states their complaint. AT&T, of course, says the suit is 'meritless.'"

Comments

Only if they reported it.

[DurendalMac]

If customers reported their iPhones as stolen and had all of the necessary details (serial number, IMEI number, etc) that could uniquely identify their phones, then this suit may well have merit. This info is likely in either their system or Apple's system, especially if they both track serial numbers through sales and registration. If thieves are bringing stolen phones in and that data is in their system then they damned well should be doing something about it.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Which is more likely?

That a company that puts someone in a 3-year contract worth thousands of dollars per customer has no record of what they are selling or they figured that they could get away with selling the same service twice to two different people?

"Your phone was stolen? It's only $550 to get another one, or we can just charge you for the services. Hang on, I've got a Mr. Crowbar McGee on the other line, how odd, same phone as you but no receipt."

Re:Only if they reported it.

[aztracker1]

Yea, but the DMV doesn't issue a new registration tag to the theif.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[AngryDeuce]

I fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them.

It's called a police report. It's good enough for the company insuring the phone against theft, so why would it not be enough for AT&T to cut the service?

If the police report is fraudulent, well, there are already legal mechanisms in place to deal with that. The point is, obviously they could do something, they just choose not to because it benefits them financially.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[gstrickler]

The carrier probably has it in their phone records for that account. The IMEI is part of how a device identifies itself to the network. It's used to prevent using stolen phones in many other countries.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[gstrickler]

Guess I messed up posting the link. IMEI

Re:Only if they reported it.

[AngryDeuce]

No, but if the thief tried to register that car, it would show up as stolen and the DMV would not allow him to register it under his name. They call the police.

Why is it so unreasonable that AT&T do the same? They can tell the damn phone is registered to someone else, they can't take a minute to see if it was stolen or not? How many people sell cell phones to strangers with all their personal information on them? I mean, really?

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Dahamma]

then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked.

That makes absolutely no sense. Besides the fact that they already have methods in place to verify the account owner and prevent for much more important concerns (changing service plan, cancelling the account, etc) how would it be any different from what would happen today if someone were able to convince AT&T that your phone was stolen? They already deactivate the phone from your account when reported stolen, which would cause the same level of inconvenience to the owner.

Adding it to a central database just means if the phone was truly stolen, the thief can't reactivate it on *another* account. If your phone wasn't really stolen (or you thought it was and then found it) you just have to prove that to AT&T (using the same account authentication methods they use to let you deactivate it) and they can take it out of the database.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[jaca44]

Read "and had all of the necessary details (serial number, IMEI number, etc) that could uniquely identify their phones" Seems clear cut to me!

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Githaron]

Which is more likely?

That a company that puts someone in a 3-year contract worth thousands of dollars per customer has no record of what they are selling or they figured that they could get away with selling the same service twice to two different people?

"Your phone was stolen? It's only $550 to get another one, or we can just charge you for the services. Hang on, I've got a Mr. Crowbar McGee on the other line, how odd, same phone as you but no receipt."

You are forgetting there is a second-hand market. They have no way of even knowing if the person who reported the phone stolen is even the one who currently owns the phone. The original owner could have sold the phone without notifying the carrier. i could see the carrier possibly disabling the phone if someone attempts to use the phone on a different customer without the phone first being de-registered with the carrier by the previous customer. Unfortunately, that would probably cause another group of people to attempt to sue the carrier for disabling phones they legally purchased (that the previous owner forgot to de-register.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[puto]

As much as I might not like the polices of the T, as I work for them, let me correct a few things. I have never seen a three year contract, a 1 or a 2 but not a three year. We do track imeis but customers tend to pull their sim cards and hop from phone to phone, sometimes on a daily basis, that we have do system sweeps to update the imeis, because customers do not actually call us and tell us when they do. Also, I can imagine the indignant customers who want to activate an old iphone or one they got as a gifts righteous indignation if we asked to see original proof of purchase. I think the majority of the stolen phones are left in taxis, bar stools, bathrooms, and park benches. so they are not stolen. The new database will take care of this. But if you lose your phone, you don't have to buy another iphone...

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

"...which would cause the same level of inconvenience to the owner."

Deactivating somebodies service to prevent a phone from making calls is NOT "the same level of inconvenience" as bricking somebodies phone to prevent it from ever being used on any network ever again.

Imagine in a world where: the cable company polices stolen TVs, the internet service provider polices stolen computers, Ford has to police stolen cars, radio stations have to police stolen radios, landline companies police stolen cordless phones, and cell phone companies police stolen cell phones. America already has enough corporations runnings the country by the balls. We don't need another one. Please think long and hard before you ask for this "Protection" from AT&T.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Reverand Dave]

That is why a police report is filed. If the information about a stolen phone is good enough for a police report then it should be good enough for AT&T. Their truculence is merely a matter of profiteering on stolen merchandise.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Reverand Dave]

No one is asking AT&T to track down the phones, just to stop re-licensing them to the theives. Also, you can't purchase a car from the DMV, but most people usually buy their phones from an AT&T retailer. You're really making a false equivocation.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[girlintraining]

The point is, obviously they could do something, they just choose not to because it benefits them financially.

And that in turn benefits America, because when a corporation makes a profit, that creates jobs, which improves the economy. So why the hell are you doing your patriotic duty and stealing from your fellow citizens so you can give to the corporation?

On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Githaron]

If they are given a copy of a police report as evidence of theft, I can see some merit.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Shoten]

I fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them. This is important; because if you can't validate the owner with 100% certainty, then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. This would be a denial of service prank/attach and I'm sure it would be a much larger liability for AT&T than simply letting theives reactivate a device that was obtained nefariously. Are they going to make everyone that claims to have a phone stolen produce a receipt to validate ownersihp? To requre AT&T to get involved would be a disaster. When you require/allow corporations to get involved in things that should ONLY be law enforcement investigations, then you open a whole new can of worms.

It's been done in just about every other country in the world for some time now. The process works, and it also cuts WAY down on smartphone theft. In Washington, DC (where I live) there has been a rash of armed holdups for smartphones for some time now, and the chief of police has been begging AT&T (because iPhones are the prime target...sorry Android users) to do this. Police departments in cities all over the country have been calling for this to be done.

Yes, it's possible to cause trouble for someone else by filing a false police report. It's also a felony, and quite certain to get you caught. I could cause trouble for you by claiming you stole my phone. But then, AT&T would happen to have that phone associated with your name, SSN, credit card, address, and blood type...and would have had that association for quite some time. So, I would go to jail instead. Following your logic, we shouldn't allow people to say that their cars were stolen, either, because I could just walk up to you in your car and say "THIEF!" and send you to prison while I drive away in your vehicle.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[AngryDeuce]

All of those things you mention are pretty much completely untraceable. Obviously, this is not the case with the iPhone, since the service requires the handsets to be uniquely identifiable at all times on their network.

Besides, go ahead and try and register a car reported as stolen with your local DMV. Watch what happens.

No one expects AT&T to do anything that is not already completely within their power to do, nor is it something that any reasonable person would consider out of line at all.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[demonlapin]

Why would you need to see original proof of purchase? When a phone is reported stolen, stick its IMEI in a "banned" list. When someone brings the phone in to have it activated, take it from them and store it. Tell them they are in possession of property reported stolen and that the phone can be returned to the prior owner or they can leave their contact information and hash it out with the cops over who it belongs to.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[dgatwood]

The original owner could have sold the phone without notifying the carrier.

There are only two situations where the original owner could have sold the phone:

1. The original purchaser bought a new phone. 99% of the time, this comes from the carrier, but either way, there's a new phone talking to their towers with the old SIM card. No mugger steals the phone but leaves you your SIM card, so this is an easy one to catch.

2. The original purchaser stopped using that company's service. This also can't happen usefully without notifying the carrier.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, the scam you're describing is infeasible. If the customer reports the phone stolen to the carrier, it's pretty safe to say that the phone was stolen... unless, of course, they merely reported it stolen so that they could claim that they were not at the scene of a crime, but that's another matter entirely....

Re:Only if they reported it.

[laughing rabbit]

Our company uses Sprint for wireless service. When I call and report a phone stolen, I have to use the account PIN to complete the transaction. The phone is logged to a lost and stolen database and if the phone shows up again, I have to get the phone removed from this database before reactivating it.

My users bring me grey market phones to activate for them on a regular basis. I call Sprint and often they tell me that the phone is in the lost and stolen database and cannot be reactivated unless the original owner contacts them and releases the phone. I hand the phone back to the user and tell him to get his money back, that the phone is hot.

Most insurers of cell phones have a policy that states if the reported phone is reactivated at any time after the claim is processed and a replacement issued, the insured will be billed the retail cost of the phone minus any deductible paid.

There are a lot of identifying codes that phones use to authenticate on the network, and they are strongly linked to the account holder. AT&T is lying like a dog, plus just being cheap.

They are the Evil Empire® after all.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[eepok]

It looks like my mod points expired today else I would have kicked this post up a notch.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[nedlohs]

Because AT&T most likely sold them the phone in the first place. And the id was associated with their account. And then reported lost/stolen by that account holder who had AT&T remove access to their line from that phone.

Then someone else wanders in a week later and activates the exact phone on a different account and AT&T couldn't care less.

Now obviously there's the case in which someone gives/sells a phone to someone else and then tells AT&T that the phone was lost/stolen. That seems a rare enough situation, and one that is easily avoided - have the phone disconnected from the account before you accept it/buy it from someone and that way they can't report it stolen/lost in the first place.

All the other DOS pranks work just like reporting the phone lost/stolen now and having the line turned off, so nothing is added. OK "all" might be too strong, but I can't think of any.

There are already remedies againt this - mainly sending people to prison for fraud.

Of course I don't know if that does as far as making AT*T complicit in the theft - that seems quite a stretch.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[nedlohs]

Because after they add it to the "do not use" list because Account Holder X reported it stolen, they'd never be able to remove it from the "do not use" list when Account Holder X reported it recovered. That would be impossible.

Now sure if Account Holder Y wants to use it then no go, until they can convince Account Holder X to report it recovered.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[FunkDup]

I fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them.

Since most phones are sold on plans, they know the IMEI before you do. They already have all the information they need.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[AngryDeuce]

On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.

Oh, I know, and I'm sure that very few people that report a cell phone stolen ever really expect to see it again. Honestly, the few times we've gotten ripped off (stuff stolen out of our garage, stuff stolen out of our car) the police themselves told us that recovering stolen property was an extremely low priority in the grand scheme of things but if the stuff turned up they'd let us know (it never did). We were bummed obviously that our stuff was stolen, but our insurance covered the theft, and that was what we were most concerned about, and what we needed the police report for in the first place. I had two bikes stolen from me growing up and we didn't even bother filing a report with the police because there was no point, the bikes were likely repainted within hours and the cops of Philadelphia don't give a fuck about stolen bicycles. If they'd been insured I obviously would have...well, my mother would have anyway.

Still, AT&T should at least accept a police report as good faith evidence that a particular handset was indeed stolen or lost and brick it. There's really no valid reason I can see why they would refuse to do so (outside of the obvious financial benefits). I'm hoping that the courts will see it the same way, but I won't hold my breath.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[SCPRedMage]

Deactivating somebodies service to prevent a phone from making calls is NOT "the same level of inconvenience" as bricking somebodies phone to prevent it from ever being used on any network ever again.

Actually, in the example that you quoted from, it kind of is. First, you have to realize that what we're talking about doesn't "brick" the phone; it actually doesn't do ANYTHING to the phone itself, it just makes it so that the carrier's systems won't allow them to reactivate a phone marked on their end as stolen.

Second, the discussion here was about the inconvenience the user goes through when someone else falsely reports the user's phone stolen. In this case, the user already has to call AT&T and convince them that someone else made a false report; in the version where they don't let you reactivate a stolen phone, it adds a single step (remove that phone from the "stolen" database) to the carrier's job, but the user goes through the exact same process: call AT&T and convince them that someone lied to them.

Imagine in a world where:

Except in all of those cases, those companies would have to develop some new technology to track and disable all of those items.

Cell phones already identify themselves to the network with a unique ID called an IMEI. When you deactivate a cell phone, for any reason, the carrier removes the authorization for that IMEI to use their network. All AT&T and other carriers have to do is add this to a "do not activate" database when users report them stolen.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[NardoPolo88]

Really? Ever heard of a service called "On-Star?" When you climb out from under your rock head down to the nearest GM dealership and ask them about the benefits of On-Star should your new GM ever get stolen. Granted they charge a premium for this after the first year. But during that first year the manufacturer (GM) will track down your stolen car, disable it from running, and alert the police of its location. I should also point out that AT&T did not manufacture the phone, Apple did. AT&T is more akin to the DMV and everyone else has already set you straight on the fact that the DMV will *NOT* allow a stolen vehicle to be registered. You may now open your mouth and insert your foot.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

The manufacturers? Now Samsung, Apple, Nokia, Motorola, Sony Erricson, Siemens, Qualcom, HTC, Dell, HP, LG, Palm, and RIM have to be involved too???!!! How many multi-million dollar companies does it take to get one idiot to hang on to his phone?

Re:Only if they reported it.

[geekoid]

Sigh, another Slashdot user who doesn't understand '1984'.

Corporation can already turn your phone off, so you better get rid of it.

AT&T netwrok is what the phnoe ueses. It is not unreasably to ahve them turn off a phone when they have a police affidavite stating it was stolen.

You go you At&T.
You make the request
You show the affidavit You made.
They turn it off for You, the person paying the bill.

In no way is that unreasonable or Orwellian.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[geekoid]

I'll wager the are using the term brick in modern usages, and not archaic usage(5 years ago)

Making rendering it unable to make calls or connect.

Disable would have been a better term for them to use.

I know I know, we have are precise language, and then non nerds get a hold of it and butcher it to the point where hacking is using a facebook account that someone didn't log off from.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[suutar]

At this point, 'brick' doesn't have a clear enough definition to assert that flatly. It ranges anywhere from "internal components melted to slag" to "I can't figure out how to turn it on because I forgot to charge it" depending on the understanding of the speaker. On the other hand, a reversible disabling process doesn't seem like it would slow down thieves much, and an irreversible one makes life hard on the owner if it gets recovered... unless insurance pays out anyway, which doesn't seem unreasonable as long as if you get it back it becomes the insurance company's property to recycle as they wish. But for that the insurance company would have to want to.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[AngryDeuce]

Cars are located and disabled with OnStar, but all vehicles do not have OnStar. If a car with OnStar is reported as stolen, OnStar will work hand in hand with police to get the car recovered. This is a core feature that sells the OnStar service. Ditto with services like LoJack (which they provide for computers now, I used to sell it myself). However, you cannot register a stolen car with any DMV in this country. They check their databases specifically for this reason. The DMV is not a police officer, but I'm betting most reasonable people are cool with them electing not to register cars reported stolen.

For one thing, 99 times out of 100, the police do not recover the phone at all. If it's not resold and reactivated, it either ends up a toy for some thief's kid to play with or broken into a million pieces or rotting at the bottom of a lake or river. How many reasonable people have ever lost or had stolen something like a cell phone and actually expected to see it again? Stolen property, especially stolen property that's relatively cheap like a cell-phone, is not a priority for any police department in this country. If they come across it while investigating other crimes, they'll be good enough to give you a ring and have you come pick it up (unless they need to keep it as evidence), but they don't actively check personal electronics to see if they're stolen unless they have a compelling reason to do so. They don't have the time. No police force in this country has that kind of time, obviously.

Your only recourse now if your phone gets stolen is to call the police and buy a new one. Nobody is expecting anything any different there. All they're asking is that the thief not be able to take that stolen cell phone into another store and reactivate it when AT&T can tell perfectly well that it is a stolen phone. AT&T is not being singled out here. Any time a person has a reasonable suspicion that a good may be stolen they're required to act accordingly regardless of their relationship with that person. If someone offered to sell you a brand new PS3, still in the box, for $50 out of the back of a van, for instance, and it turns out it's stolen, you can't feign ignorance because a reasonable person would have known better and you are guilty of a crime. If a used car salesmen agrees to buy a car with scratched off or non-matching VINs, they are guilty of a crime.

Your "Orwellian society" and "Corporatocracy" claims are pretty ridiculous when people are trying to make a corporation be accountable for once, and requiring them to brick phones they know to be stolen is part of that. As I said above, there is plenty of precedent already covering this, the concept is not new.

What exactly is it that you're worried about here? That AT&T is going to vindictively brick cell phones? That they're going to just let any old person call up and brick any phone he wishes? You can't even talk about your fucking bill without giving them a whole bunch of personal information first, so what exactly are you worried about here? What power is this going to give the corporation to abuse? They've already got this power, so if they were going to abuse it, they would have long before now...

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

AT&T is more akin to the DMV

AT&T is NOT akin to the DMV. AT&T is a corporation and the DMV is a State Department. The two should never be compared. When you ask corporations to police the world and protect you from yourself, you're asking for a very bad place to live my friend. Now please take your foot out of your mouth and use it to walk to another country. We don't need a Corporatocracy in The United States; we have enough problems already.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Skapare]

They bought the phone from AT&T or from Apple. They have a record of this. That and we can presume that whoever first signed up the phone for an account is the original owner. Of course, a few phones might be stolen before the buyer gets them activated for the very first time. But, other than this, it's easy check the IMEI number.

The receipt is only needed if AT&T is too stupid to keep records. Are they? Are they that stupid? Even if they are, that doesn't justify the stupidity.

This is simple. If the phone is reported stolen while plan is active, lock out the IMEI. Then if another party trying to activate it claims they legally purchased it, THEY have to produce the receipt.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[TheABomb]

This is important; because if you can't validate the owner with 100% certainty, then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. ... or sells it on Craigslist -- cash -- and then gets it back two days later.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[NardoPolo88]

The DMV does not actually police. Yes they are a state agency but if your vehicle is stolen do you *want* the DMV to issue plates to the person that stole the car? If you file a police report because your phone is stolen do you want the thief to get service on your device? I under stand the difference between the two and would not have used a car as an analogy. I am however smart enough to not debate politics accept to say yes we do have enough problems already.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

It's unreasonable for an idiot to lose his/her phone and then sue the fuck out of AT&T because it failed to protect the idiot from themselves.

It's unreasonable for the idiot to then clog up our court systems with frivelous lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions of dollars

It's unreasonable for AT&T to be required to spend millions on a system designed to protect idiots from themselves and then pass those expenses on to responsible consumers.

It's unreasonable for forgetful idiots that leave their phones in bars, classrooms, and taxi's to report them "stolen" when they were really "lost" and then expect consumers and taxpayers to foot the bill for their cry-baby antics.

In no way is it unreasonable to teach idiots to hang on to their smartphone real tight, and then have AT&T deactivate the SIM card if it's lost. This is the process that's already in place.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[AngryDeuce]

The money that corporations have to put into systems like this to protect idiots from themselves are passed on to responsible consumers like myself.

You do understand that they can already do this, right? I mean, you worked there. What money do they have to spend? They've already spent that money, being able to uniquely identify every handset on the network is a necessity for the things to work in the first place, obviously. All anyone is asking is that they brick a phone that is reported stolen by the owner with a police report on file. It is completely trivial for AT&T to do this, and you know this. What compelling reason is there for them not to?

What the fuck does it matter to AT&T what the circumstances are? So what if I lost the phone, does that mean that someone else should be able to pick it up, say "Alright! Free iPhone!!" and than bop on down to AT&T and get it wiped and registered in their name, especially when the company in question knows that the phone is lost or stolen? What if someone brought the phone in to AT&T and said, "Hey, I found this, but I don't know who it belongs to..." Wouldn't you expect AT&T to at least put in a little effort to find out who's phone that was? Or would you consider it reasonable if they just said "Ha ha, sucks to be that loser!" and put it on the shelf to sell later?

The fact that you worked at AT&T for seven years explains your attitude perfectly, because you're totally coming off as a bitter ex-Customer Service Rep harboring long-term resentment with your eagerness to "stick it to" a bunch of people you've never even met...payback for the years you were forced to hold your tongue. Let it go, man.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Karlt1]

fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them. This is important; because if you can't validate the owner with 100% certainty, then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. This would be a denial of service prank/attach and I'm sure it would be a much larger liability for AT&T than simply letting theives reactivate a device that was obtained nefariously. Are they going to make everyone that claims to have a phone stolen produce a receipt to validate ownersihp? To requre AT&T to get involved would be a disaster. When you require/allow corporations to get involved in things that should ONLY be law enforcement investigations, then you open a whole new can of worms.

Isn't this the same company that had enough certainty to ship you a $700 device for $200 and took your word that you would pay them back by signing a 2 year contract?

Re:Only if they reported it.

[djrobxx]

When I call AT&T, the first thing they ask me is my PIN # or last 4 of my social to identify me. They should not accept a stolen phone report from
anyone other than the account owner, and only block phones are registered under the account owner's control. If someone has stolen my identity to the extent that they can impersonate me to AT&T, they can do a lot of other damage as well.

They don't need to BRICK the phone - they can simply refuse to activate them while they're on the stolen list. Then if there's any falsified theft claims, it can be undone, but I suspect that would be pretty rare for the reason I noted above.

The purpose of such a blacklist is not to get the phone back, but rather, to make them less valuable to thieves who will try and sell them. I think it will help get some phones back to owners too. I knew a kid who boasted about how they "scored" a phone that someone else left behind. At the time I was surprised to learn that Verizon activated it, and despite how easily trackable all of this was, no effort would be made to return the phone to the owner. Had Verizon refused to activate it, this person would have turned it in. If it was well established that lost phones are useless, he probably would have either left it alone or turned it in where he found it.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[jafiwam]

Taxpayer dollars. What the fuck are you talking about?

Oh, wait, you worked for AT&T. You be stupid. The smart ones went to Lucent.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[DurendalMac]

Well, if that customer purchased it through Apple or AT&T and registered the device with Apple, then I'd say there would be enough records to say that it's theirs.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[__aaltlg1547]

AT&T has your serial number, IMEI and SIM number on record for every phone they sell.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

Taxpayer dollars. What the fuck are you talking about?

Idiot losing cell phones + lawsuit = judge & other supporting staff

judge & other supporting staff = taxpayer dollars

You've got to be the biggest idiot on slashdot if you can't figure that one out: I don't care where the fuck you went to work.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Dahamma]

No one who knows anything about this system has ever claimed they would be permanently "bricked"; anyone who says so is just plain incorrect. The system will prevent them from being reactivated on a new account by keeping track of stolen phone IMEIs, etc, in a centralized database that is shared among providers. It's not making the phone self-destruct or anything, jeez. If you can convince them your phone wasn't stolen they can remove the block and allow it to be reactivated.

Besides, this is something a lot of providers in other countries (and Verizon in the US) ALREADY DO ANYWAY and it's pretty universally considered a good idea.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Dahamma]

That's the problem with AT&T in this case - they aren't even bothering to disable stolen phones on their own network. Verizon, for example, does disable phones reported stolen so at least they won't work on their system.

The big deal with the proposed system (likely via heavy FCC "encouragement") is that not only will the carriers be required to disable phones on their network, they will post the info to a central database so all carriers can do it.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[nedlohs]

Seriously you are applying your restricted definition of "bricked" to an anonymously written slashdot summary? Even though the word "bricked" is not in the linked articles themselves, instead there's actual descriptions of "blocking" the phones?

OK, so your either an idiot or incredibly trusting an naive. Either way, there's no point arguing is there...

And by the way people who break into computer systems using software they found on the internet and have no understanding of. They are called "hackers". Like "bricked" you lost that definitio fight with the general public long ago.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Lumpy]

"Imagine in a world where: the cable company polices stolen TV shows and movies.."

They already do that. they don't give a crap about your $2000.00 TV, but that crap Sitcom episode from 10 years ago? They want you anal raped in prison over that.

They already track things that are easily replicated for free, they just choose to tell the consumer to go fuck themselves over everything that does not benefit them directly.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[puto]

Actually, here is how we unlock Iphones. We check the imei to make sure it is unlockable. Criteria 1. It has fulfilled its contractual agreement. If was bought at full price we will also unlock. 2. We make sure it was not reported lost or stolen. 3. We verify that Iphone that is requested to be unlocked, was originally engaged on the account they are calling about. We see where it was officially used last on our network and look into it before the unlock code is released. So if the above is not met, the phone is not unlocked. The majority of people who call up and report their iphone stolen, really have lost it. We do suspend them and report them as lost or stolen. Though most are lost. When we tell customers to file a police report saying the phone was stolen, most balk because they know they really left it somewhere. So without a police report, it ain't officially lost. So I would say it is covered.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[puto]

I will paste my post. We do take all of those precautions when an Iphone unlock request is made. Actually, here is how we unlock Iphones. We check the imei to make sure it is unlockable. Criteria 1. It has fulfilled its contractual agreement. If was bought at full price we will also unlock. 2. We make sure it was not reported lost or stolen. 3. We verify that Iphone that is requested to be unlocked, was originally engaged on the account they are calling about. We see where it was officially used last on our network and look into it before the unlock code is released. So if the above is not met, the phone is not unlocked. The majority of people who call up and report their iphone stolen, really have lost it. We do suspend them and report them as lost or stolen. Though most are lost. When we tell customers to file a police report saying the phone was stolen, most balk because they know they really left it somewhere. So without a police report, it ain't officially lost. So I would say it is covered.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[TheGratefulNet]

Theft of private property is just... not important.

it sure is when its the police taking your shit!

its called 'asset seizure' and they LOVE taking your shit if they can link you to some 'bad stuff'. its trivial to link any citizen to bad stuff; any cop can (and sadly, many do) pull it off. its the new way to enrich their funding. and yes, they DO get to keep most of what is seized.

like business, if there is no profit incentive, the cops don't care.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[tgeek]

What should the judges, bailiffs and clerks be doing if they're not hearing cases (or doing the associated tasks involved with)? Or should they only entertain cases YOU approve of?

Re:Only if they reported it.

[soundguy]

I know I know, we have are precise language,

Well, some of us do...

/snert

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Phroggy]

On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.

They're right, it's not important, compared to catching murderers and rapists and the like. The problem isn't that the police don't care about less important cases like the theft of an iPhone. The problem is that we as a society have decided that WE don't care enough to properly fund our police departments, so that they can handle these less important cases in addition to the more important ones.

Every time you vote to reduce taxes, and vote for politicians who say the government is too big, this is what you're voting for.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[BronsCon]

Simple. Require the same credentials that are required to make any other account changes. As an additional failsafe, keep record of the account the phone was associated with when it was marked as stolen and allow it to be reactivated on that account. That way, if someone loses, then finds, their phone, or it is stolen, then recovered, or, say, as you said, someone does gain access to an account and reports a phone stolen "as a prank", the owner can simply have it reactivated on that same account. Simple.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

Absolutely not. They should entertain all cases that are brought before them: even the frivelous ones. Do you have any other brilliant questions for me?

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Renraku]

iPhones, expensive as they are, constitute felony theft in many areas. The police LOVE to go after felonies if they don't have much else to do. By contrast, felony theft WILL get you arrested and not just a summons. Regular theft is pretty much a slap on the wrist and a fine, maybe probation. Felony theft starts with a large fine and probation if you have a clean record..if not you're going to do at least thirty days IF you can pay the owner back..if not you might do six months.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[bill_mcgonigle]

its called 'asset seizure' and they LOVE taking your shit if they can link you to some 'bad stuff'. its trivial to link any citizen to bad stuff; any cop can (and sadly, many do) pull it off. its the new way to enrich their funding. and yes, they DO get to keep most of what is seized.

if it's cash, they'll just claim it's drug money. Once in a while a judge tells them to produce proof or give the money back, but not always (usually?)

Re:Only if they reported it.

[irving47]

Are you aware that "bricking" is a misnomer being used by many entities right now and it's the cell phone equivalent of a MAC address being blocked? (The IMEI) And there's nothing "permanent" about it... A remove the IMEI from the blacklist, update/refresh the database, and it's live again.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[mea_culpa]

Every time you vote to reduce taxes, and vote for politicians who say the government is too big, this is what you're voting for.

Yeah, that must be it.
Let's see what happens when we throw billions at 'securing' our airports. It will be better for sure.
Let's spend billions more in education. Test scores will skyrocket and dropouts will become rare.

No, when I am voting to reduce the size of government and taxes I am voting my lack of confidence in government to solve problems and to do anything meaningful with my hard earned money. When I vote for someone to a particular office I vote on their integrity, leadership, and qualifications. People like this can get much more done on much less of a budget, I promise. Sadly the media likes to ignore these fine folks due to a lack of scandal. Scandal is what keeps them in business. Perhaps those that write their paychecks (advertisers and stakeholders) are also enjoying things the way they are too. Perhaps it is the appetite of the viewer for this trash.
While my example is more on the federal level, the same applies locally.
As long as incompetent people are in power, problems will not get solved no matter how much money is thrown at it. Just look at the Charlie Foxtrot we are in now. Can you honestly say that the trillions that have been pissed away have really solved anything? Do you really believe that more money given to incompetent people to expand more incompetence will work? Has it ever worked?

No, the real problem is millions of uninformed people like you thinking that you are doing your civic duty by not researching for yourself who is actually qualified before voting for them. Letting the tv, newspaper, or whatever media tell you what rich guy to vote for. By ignoring the many more qualified candidates on the ballot that scarce get mentioned in any form of media and choosing only amung the options given to you by them. Allowing them to persuade you to vote for the 'lesser of the evils' while marginalizing integrity.

Please don't take this as an attack on you personally, I don't know who you are and am posting in response to those that would agree with your quoted statement. Also karma tends to take a hit when disagreeing with low uid's like yourself.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Dodgy G33za]

Actually, at least in Australia every time there is an election both side scramble to say how tough on law and order they are going to be. But it is still almost impossible to get police to be interested in minor crime.

Not that this is surprising. The police are largely there to keep order so that the rich can stay rich. There are plenty of examples of the police being used to keep down the common man, the most recent of which was the way they broke up the 'occupy' movement.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[zaphirplane]

I would like phone companies to brick and block stolen phones, however.
the dmv is a gov org, the analagy here would be making petrol stations, not allow stolen cars to be refuled and calling the police.
yet somehow that is not expected of perol stations.
why is that ?

Re:Only if they reported it.

[base3]

. I think the majority of the stolen phones are left in taxis, bar stools, bathrooms, and park benches. so they are not stolen.

Yes, the are. The "finders keepers" rule of childhood playgrounds does not apply in adult life. Someone who finds property someone left behind has a legal duty to either find the owner and return it or turn it in to the police. If the police can't find the owner, then the finder may get to keep the property.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[base3]

When someone finds a phone and does not turn it in and keeps it for himself, that phone is stolen.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Solandri]

How does AT&T make money off this? Your phone gets stolen so you spend $200 to buy a new one. Thief gets a SIM card for service, but doesn't spend $200 on a new phone. If you assume the thief would've gotten or already had cell phone service regardless (a cheap free one if he hadn't stolen yours), it seems like it's a net wash for AT&T.

I agree they have a moral obligation to refuse to activate stolen phones, as an added discouragement for theft. But I don't see any profit motive in not doing so, just sheer laziness. In fact, strictly from an economic utilization standpoint, bricking stolen phones wastes more resources for society overall.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

The distinction between moot and mute is very appreciated. Thank you.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[nedlohs]

That's fine you don't have to take advice from an idiot. I also never claimed my language skills were wonderful and I certainly don't put any effort into slashdot comments.

Still I'm sure you can see that "an naive" should be "and naive" - it's called a typo greatly enhanced by my keyboard which randomly drops some keypresses*.

Of course I'm also sure you can see past my spelling and grammar ineptitude. You know that "bricked" doesn't actually mean "bricked". Just like "hacker" doesn't actually mean "hacker". That you choose to pretend it does and pick on language that apparently you did manage to comprehend even though it was so atrocious says enough all by itself.

* Though apparently a dell laptop can keep working after having a can of Sprite tipped over the keyboard and a year later a mug of coffee tipped over the keyboard - the keys seem to deteroriate faster than the rest of the machine.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[thechemic]

I agree that the use of "bricked" in the article summary was off-base, and I did not need to focus on it's meaning as much as I did. The original articles do not even use the word bricked. Enjoy your weekend.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[tjhart85]

Every instance of bricking I've ever heard of means that you 'make it equivalent to a brick' ie completely useless. Boot loop that can't be fixed, can't charge, won't turn on, bad flash, etc...

A phone that can't be put on a cell network again is still very useful as an MP3 player, game machine, SIP phone, etc..., all of which is NOT capable on something that is bricked.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[hairyfish]

Actually, at least in Australia every time there is an election both side scramble to say how tough on law and order they are going to be. But it is still almost impossible to get police to be interested in minor crime.

That's because talking about being tough on crime is all they do. I've been around long enough to see both side regurgitate the old 'tough on crime' lies, I've never seen or heard anyone say we ever have too many police. Also in my experience cops here tend to be pretty hopeless. The few experiences I've had with them from both sides makes me wonder how any crime ever gets solved. We don't only need more quantity, we need a lot more quality too.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[RockDoctor]

you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. This would be a denial of service prank/attach

This is why several peices of data are required to validate a lost/ stolen report (here in Europe, where we've had a working phone-blocking system for years) :

• Step 1 - go to, or telephone, a branch of your network/ phone provider.
• 2 - Give them the number of the phone that is missing.
• 3 - Confirm the phone's make and model and (typically) the post code of the user's address. Some companies also use passwords/ passphrases for more security.
• 4 - The network company looks through it's data base, gets the hardware's serial number and IMEI codes, and puts them on the blocked list. Within a couple of days, that list propagates to all other network providers and that phone is blocked from all networks. (It's a requirement of the network license to have a working system for this blocking, operating for every phone connection).
• 5 - A new phone and SIM card (same number) is issued to the user, appropriate to their plan, their insurance cover, etc.

That should make it difficult to shut down someone else's phone. Not impossible - flatmates or spouses should have enough information to social engineer the system too - but much harder.

I'm almost wondering how "unblocking" works. I guess that it involves re-flashing the phone with different manufacturer and IMEI codes. Which begs the question of how the new codes are generated, and what happens if there's a code clash in a cell.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Phroggy]

You want to put MORE power and money into the hands of armed government agents?

Yes, because I want those armed government agents to help me when I have a problem, and I know that today they don't have the resources to do so.

Now, will they actually use the additional resources to help folks like me when we need their help? Maybe, but maybe not, and that's definitely something we need to look at and address. Of course this varies greatly by location, and perhaps if I lived where you do, I would be less optimistic.

Re:Only if they reported it.

[Phroggy]

No, when I am voting to reduce the size of government and taxes I am voting my lack of confidence in government to solve problems and to do anything meaningful with my hard earned money.

I appreciate that you don't have confidence in your government, but unfortunately there are two different problems that often get blended together in people's minds: the first is corruption and waste, and the second is a lack of resources. You don't think the government can solve problems, but is that because they're not interested in solving problems, or is it because they don't have the necessary resources to solve problems? Or is your position really that these problems can't be solved by any government due to the nature of the problems themselves?

Can you honestly say that the trillions that have been pissed away have really solved anything? Do you really believe that more money given to incompetent people to expand more incompetence will work? Has it ever worked?

I can honestly say that some of the things the government has done and is continuing to do have been very positive. Government agencies from NOAA and USGS to NHTSA and OSHA to USDA and CDC are literally saving lives with their work. Plenty of other agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Park Service and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting do cool stuff.

That doesn't mean the Department of Homeland Security isn't spending billions of dollars to line the pockets of their friends while desperately trying to justify their own existence with virtually no benefit to the public. It doesn't excuse the GSA's recent scandal. It doesn't mean the Iraq war wasn't a catastrophic mistake, or that handing a big pile of cash to a bunch of banks with no strings attached was a good idea.

Unfortunately when you try to cut taxes and "reduce the size of government", it's that first group that usually gets cut. Why? Because the people who make those decisions are corrupt and/or incompetent!

Say what you will about Telstra...

[Anonymous Coward]

in Australia, Telstra have a bad rap for fucking over customers, but this isn't an issue with them. A year back I lost my iPhone, reported it stolen, and within a week another Telstra customer began using it. Telstra stopped their service, had them come into a store, and simply took the phone from them and let me know I could collect it. As gravy, the idiot who'd been using it caused a scene in the Telstra store and had the police called on them - they were known to the cops and arrested for other reasons.

On the bad side, I'd already bought another iPhone in the meantime. Win some lose some.

This should be criminal, not civil

[Anonymous Coward]

If I call AT&T or its agent and tell them that my phone has been stolen, then they are engaging in a criminal act when they reactivate that phone. There are no legitimate excuses for this behavior.

If somebody steals a car that is equipped with a kill-switch in the engine and I, knowing that it is stolen, disables the kill switch so that the thief can drive the car, then I'm going to go to prison. The only difference between my behavior and AT&T's is that I am not a massive corporation, so I am subject to the laws of the United States.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[icebike]

If I call AT&T or its agent and tell them that my phone has been stolen, then they are engaging in a criminal act when they reactivate that phone.

NO, they are not engaged in a criminal act. You made that up.
If these plaintiffs win their case, then it might be considered a criminal act, but until then there is no specific law that covers this.

Its not just AT&T, its ALL carriers that do not block IMEIs. (MEIDs for CDMA phones).

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[AngryDeuce]

Not necessarily, it has to be proven that the person receiving the stolen goods knew they were stolen, or at the very least that a reasonable person would have known or suspected. For instance, if someone sells an intact, but stolen, TV at a pawn shop the clerk isn't on the hook. However, if the person is trying to sell a TV with the serial numbers scraped off or wants next to nothing for what otherwise would go for a lot more, then the clerk should have reasonably suspected it was stolen and, at the very least, refused the sale, if not reported it to police there and then. Either way, most pawn shops are very strict about things like this because stolen property just ends up confiscated by police and the pawn shop ends up with absolutely nothing 99% of the time. Reputable ones, anyway.

It's kinda like if someone offered to sell you a brand new Escalade for $100 at the parking lot of your local Walmart. If you took the person up on that offer, you would likely be charged with a crime because a reasonable person would have been suspicious.

If it were to come out that specific people at AT&T knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were enabling the sale of stolen phones (say, an email saying "Hey, let's not brick any phones reported stolen because that way they'll have to buy a new phone, HA HA") then those specific people would be guilty of a criminal act. That's just never going to be proven, obviously, so civil is the best we can hope for.

Still, it would be hysterical to see some C-levels at AT&T being led out in handcuffs, I admit. That company has been thieving from people for 100 years...

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[truedfx]

Huh? Whether the act is criminal will not be affected by a civil suit.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[icebike]

I was merely responding to the GP who alleged it was a criminal act.

If there was a finding that they did violate specific laws, even if by a civil jury, you can expect it will go to precedence if the inevitable appeal is upheld.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[Spykk]

Yeah, but who has ever heard of a class action criminal suit? Won't somebody think of the lawyers?

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[Skapare]

Harboring known (or should have known) criminals is itself a crime. A carrier re-activating a phone that is known to be stolen, because it is reported by the verified owner that it is, or the original owner's term contract is still active, and not reporting that person to the police, is a crime. And as Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, too", that corporation needs to spend its 30 days in jail, if convicted.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[rahvin112]

It's most certainly a conspiracy, and given their size, interstate status and other factors it probably qualifies for RICO as well. They knew the devices were stolen, they involved themselves in a conspiracy of theft and I'm willing to bet that at a minimum 1 time a stolen phone was taken across state lines which brings in RICO.

I wish there were more prosecutors like those in NY that went after companies like ATT for stuff like this. A couple RICO charges against the company and making an example out of them would do wonders for consumer rights. Suddenly all the major corporations would be stepping all over themselves to stop stuff like this for fear of a RICO charge themselves. If we don't enforce the law large corporations will continue to flaunt it.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[IVI V K]

Possesion of stolen property is a crime regardless of whether you have prior knowledge or not.

No matter the means of how you took possesion of stolen property, you have no rights to the property and it can be confiscated without reimbursement.

Normally the loss of the property is the punishment for those who didn't know it was stolen.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[puto]

No if you call ATT where I work and say your phone has been stolen, we will suspend it. We will also tell you if you are serious about it, then go to the police and file a report and send us a copy, then it will be reported stolen in the system. Most people are too lazy to do that... are they just lost the phone but do not have the balls to admit it.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[icebike]

Have you seen any perp walks?
Any AT&T execs being lead out of their offices in hand cuffs?
Any other carriers execs arrested?

No?

Thought not.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[msobkow]

Actually, they are engaged in a criminal act: receipt of stolen property.

Not that AT&T is taking possession of the stolen property, but they are receiving service payments because of the stolen property.

To follow along with the car analogies, it's like someone using a stolen car to provide taxi services. While the driver is in possession of the stolen vehicle, the taxi company itself is also culpable because their business is profiting from the theft.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[icebike]

Not that AT&T is taking possession of the stolen property, but they are receiving service payments because of the stolen property.

So I pull into a gas station with my stolen car. Is the gas station aiding and abetting or receiving stolen property? Even if I tell them, hey, look at this cool car I just stole?

Look, be careful what you advocate for here. Are you really suggesting that anybody some crook passes in the street automatically becomes guilty by association? Are you really saying that the fast food joint KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the guy at the drive up window wearing the funny orange jumpsuit was an escapee? Are you suggesting or the grocery store clerk should have known the creepy looking guy who starts buying stuffed toys had just kidnapped some child?

Do you REALLY want to carry your papers every where you go, proving you own your car, your phone? Do you really want every store you walk into to run a complete background check on you and your lawn mower just because you want to buy a replacement part or a new spark plug?

Without a database of stolen phones (it would have to be world wide, not just carrier wide) the carrier's can't know a phone was stolen.
Even if reported to AT&T there is no reason to believe they have a company wide database of stolen phones.
That is precisely what this suit is about. At&t claimed they COULD NOT record the fact that the phone was stolen and block it.

They COULD NOT is probably true, because they never set up such a database. And even if they did, they did not tie it to their registration system.
BUT there is no law saying they must. The FCC has finally forced them to do this, but not for many months.

At most you can prove negligence, not a criminal violation of the law. If there was such a law, why aren't the CEOs of all major carriers in jail today?
Why is this being handled in civil court?

Why? I'll tell you why. There is no law that requires them to do this, and your concept of guilt by association is scary dangerous.

Re:This should be criminal, not civil

[coolsnowmen]

Not that AT&T is taking possession of the stolen property, but they are receiving service payments because of the stolen property.

So I pull into a gas station with my stolen car. Is the gas station aiding and abetting or receiving stolen property? Even if I tell them, hey, look at this cool car I just stole?

This is the key part. If you tell someone that you obtained something illegally, they are under obligation not to profit from that. The guilt isn't just by walking by. It is by the combination of profiting from illegaly activity, and KNOWINGLY doing so.

AT&T claim they didn't know is their defense. It is also bull shit. They have databases of all their phones, and customers. That is how they know the phone is authorized on their network, and that the user owes them money for the text messages, voice and 3/4g data that goes along their network. Each phone has an account status activated/deactivated etc. You are telling me that "stolen" couldn't be added to this list? JOKE

Disabled IMSI search

[doston]

When I worked at AT&T as a systems engineer in SMS a few years back, we and anybody in customer care were able to perform a search by IMSI (sort of like a MAC address for cell phones). One day the IMSI search feature was suddenly yanked. Thought it was a bit strange, because one time I was able to use the IMSI search to find the new MSISDN (phone #) for a friend who'd lost his phone and it helped him recover it. Makes me wonder if AT&T just didn't want to be involved in stolen iPhonery, or if they yanked the search feature because the profits from the process (noted in the story headline) were just too tantalizing.

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[icebike]

I seriously doubt you worked as a system engineer if you don't know the difference between an IMSI and and IMEI.

IMSI = International Mobile Subscriber Identity, allows you to find out information about the account hold. Its on the sim. It allows you to violate people's privacy, which is why Joe Tech should not be able to look this up, not without a warrant.

IMEI = International Mobile Equipment Identity, a unique number built into the hardware. It can be used to block service to the device. That will bring the user in to complain. No warrant needed.

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[doston]

I seriously doubt you worked as a system engineer if you don't know the difference between an IMSI and and IMEI.

IMSI = International Mobile Subscriber Identity, allows you to find out information about the account hold. Its on the sim. It allows you to violate people's privacy, which is why Joe Tech should not be able to look this up, not without a warrant.

IMEI = International Mobile Equipment Identity, a unique number built into the hardware. It can be used to block service to the device. That will bring the user in to complain. No warrant needed.

It was IMEI, you're right. I'm not as much into cell phones..unix, linux, and the actual messaging systems in the background (SMTP email schleping). Was just a tool I had access to. My actual title was Engineer IV. I reported to Kevin Tromp, still the director of Messaging. Yes, I did work there. ;-)

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[icebike]

He subsequently stated he misspoke, and it was an IMEI.

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[doston]

You're talking about Snooper?

That the name of the IMEI query application? I'm not sure. The tool was supported by IT and I was in Nat'l Eng Ops.

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[doston]

Can you ask him why it sometimes takes 20 hours for an SMS, made from an at*t phone on an at*t tower, to a likewise phone/tower, to deliver?

If it's a national problem (everyone affected nationally), it could be a problem with the SMSC, particularly the SMSC database. Seemed to always be its weak spot. If you can't text or make calls and it's a national problem, it could be the HLR. If the problem only happens in one area, or it's all the time, but only with your phone, it's more likely to be a problem with a tower or maybe your own device. Your best bet is to try narrowing it down. Does it happen everywhere? Is it happening every day at 4pm? Could be congestion or it could be SMSC congestion. The things have to move like some odd billion messages a year now. The database can get slammed. Or maintenance. The things are never engineered out (capacity wise) far enough, so the real problem was always capacity (you and your fancy iPhones). So there's a lot of night maintenance, database purges, emergency stuff to keep them running while more are being built. That's why it took so long for the iPhone to have MMS...those things are tough to launch into the network and it just couldn't be done overnight, no matter how much money you pay or how hard you work your engineers (I basically, finally had a nervous breakdown). Anyway, it's complicated. You should call tech support. lol

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[puto]

Really? I used the feature today.... And I used it in 2004.... and all the years in between.

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[doston]

Really? I used the feature today.... And I used it in 2004.... and all the years in between.

Then you're in some real specific area where they allowed it to stay. As far as I knew, the tool was yanked.

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[GodfatherofSoul]

Yup, you've got to be a total idiot to get one letter in a Slashdot post wrong.

...an IMSI and and IMEI.

Re:Disabled IMSI search

[KZigurs]

Fair few possible causes, but ultimately because SMS is a classical store & forward system. There are zero guarantees about latency and simple things like your phone retransmit behaviour plays fairly big role too.

I've written few too many SMPP implementations & services in my days. Alas some of the more interesting uses for SMS's are going fast downhill now that standard non-compliant smartphones are running the asylum.

Re:This suit is bad for the market

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

RIght, because of course when someone sells a phone they're going to immediately report it as stolen.

It's not like any records might exist that they had put it up for sale or something...

Re:What if..

[Anonymous Coward]

Since corporations are people, AT&T would be sentenced into a 250 year prison sentence for a > 1000 crime spree accross the country.

There is no money in stolen phones

[Tastecicles]

...The money is in the use of them - if someone wants something that's not traceable to them in the commission of some other criminal activity, they're gonna do one of two things: buy a disposable prepay or steal a phone. Either way, said handsets are going to be used once or twice, then disposed of ASAP. Whether that be from simply binning them or selling them on to some unsuspecting sucker.

ALL carriers should have a mandate to brick handsets reported as stolen. Yes, there is a way of reactivating most handsets (by flashing them), but I don't think $crook would bother with the expense. He'd rather go buy a disposable prepay, and everyone's a winner. You get to keep your iphone, carrier gets to sell more handsets, and GCHQ gets to track more and more unregistered gear ;)

Re:There is no money in stolen phones

[Tastecicles]

I don't know if the Nike analogy fits here - a pair of sneakers isn't something uniquely identifiable like an IMEI, nor is it something that can be bricked. Back to the phone thing: a brick signal sits on the server until the phone is activated. When it signals the nearest cell to register on the network, it receives, instead of an ACK, a BRICK. End of phone. The important point here is that when you brick a handset you're not bricking the SIM (which carries the number), you're bricking the handset (which carries the IMEI which is what the apparatus uses to signal the cell to register). So it doesn't matter if you simply change the SIM, the phone will still be bricked. You have to change the IMEI, which is seriously low level firmware stuff.

What a lot of people don't realise is that by turning the phone off you're not actually turning it off. It is still trackable as long as the battery is still in place and holds a charge (test this yourself by holding a phone near an amp and listen for the buzz). Hence, it is also still brickable. If carriers were more receptive to implementing bricking then jacking phones would become a lot more expensive as yes, Johnny Jacker would have to whip out the battery before he gets around the corner and leave it out until he can get it to someone with the gear to spoof the IMEI.

Re:What if..

[cribera]

If court was to find AT&T guilty of this "aiding and abetting", would they also be liable for any non-phone related damages that happened due to the phone being stolen or how it was stolen(ie. medical expenses due to getting a bottle smashed into your head from behind)?

I don't see how your post could be related to the direct crime of enabling a stolen phone, when it has been properly reported as stolen.

The car analogy is valid. Anyone helping to re-enable a stolen car is committing a crime, why in this case would be different? aren't a phone and a car stolen objects?

Re:Hoist by own petard

[zentec]

The ability to keep track of stolen IEMI numbers and not activate a phone on that list is elementary, and in an age where you can track an iPhone across the planet via GPS, such a simple detail screams that they simply did not want to do it. Worse for AT&T, is the fact that they look up the IEMI to enforce customer use; just try to use an iPhone on a non-Iphone data plan. This check is done autonomously.

There are plenty of instances where registrations are checked to assure that they're not stolen. At one time, cell phones that were stolen were indeed blacklisted. And while I agree that AT&T may not have had a legal obligation to do so, with their customers being robbed, it certainly seems easy to say they have a moral obligation to blacklist the phones.

Of course, the consumer outrage is now full scale, and I'm sure legal requirements may indeed be forthcoming.

Re:"buy new cell phone plans", WTF?!

[Gonoff]

My understanding is that not everyone in the USA has a SIM in their phone. Am I correct?

Re:"buy new cell phone plans", WTF?!

[CompMD]

Because Sprint and a large chunk of Verizon handsets don't use SIM cards, and most people would have brain meltdowns if they saw what the actual retail price of a replacement phone would be. So, they buy a new contract to try and get the purchase price down.

Re:"buy new cell phone plans", WTF?!

[v1]

There are two different technologies at work here, gsm and cdma. one requires a sim, and has the convenience of moving your sim to another phone and your service follows it. (and you can have a phone with 2 or 3 sims installed in it, each with a different phone number, so like a business and personal phone all in one) The other just goes by hardcoded sn in the phone to identify itself, and you can't transfer it.

One ties the service plan directly to the handset, the other ties it to the sim card. But both types will have a handset serial number the tower sees in either case, so you can brick a cdma or gsm phone by blacklisting it's serial number. you can't unban the one by changing the sim card.

reseller market

[VernorVinge]

Many of those resellers on Craigslist today are hawking stolen wares. The new bricking process will go a long way to stop these crooks. At&T and other carriers should have been brought to account years ago. Those looking for a used phone may want to ask for proof of IMEI registration with the carrier in the future.

Me too

[Curunir_wolf]

Where do I sign up. I've had 2 stolen.

Re:Hoist by own petard

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote TFA:

“Plaintiffs have been told by AT&T representatives that they will not, and ‘cannot,’ block and effectively kill usage of such stolen cell phones by thieves and criminal organization, however, such representations are false and fraudulent,” states the complaint.

Law Suits is what happen when you finally admit it is possible to disable a phone by knowing its IMEI (as is common in many other countries),
after years of denying they had that ability.
AT&T now joins other carriers to put it in place. (As simple as tying their stolen phone database to the GSM infrastructure, since this capability has long been part of the GSM spec.

Without proof in writing that AT&T said they could not do this, I suspect it will be hard to prove they lied.
That leaves the aiding and abetting claims. The legal team is composed of personal injury lawyers, so unless they get some better hired guns, I don't think this goes too far. Can Shell or Exxon be sued for selling you gas for your stolen car, or Ford be sued for selling you spare parts, simply because they don't want to look up every license plate or VIN?

I suspect this is going to be a very difficult case to win.

I think your analogy is wrong.
Would the DMV be liable if they licensed a car that was reported stolen....I think so.

Re:This suit is bad for the market

[Githaron]

RIght, because of course when someone sells a phone they're going to immediately report it as stolen.

It's not like any records might exist that they had put it up for sale or something...

That would depend on how they sell it. If they meet up at the corner and everything is done with cash, what record exists? Perhaps, the seller is pissed at the buyer and the seller calls in the phone as stolen out of spite. That would be especially possible if the seller was trading the phone to relieve a debt owed.

Re:Hoist by own petard

[icebike]

Would the DMV be liable if they licensed a car that was reported stolen....I think so

The DMV is required to do this by law, because they are creating a title to real property of significant value.
AT&T isn't required to do that.

They are not granting you a title simply because they are selling you a service.

Re:Hoist by own petard

[icebike]

2) Your analogy fails because the car operates no matter who has a "key". Same with a phone, right? Sort of. The difference is, is the device has to AUTHENTICATE with the carriers servers *before* the device is even put 'on the network.' So, no, the two are not the same. The authentication isn't some sort of magical ether. It happens every time you make a call, every time you turn on your phone and every time your cell goes in or out of range of a tower. Just because that authentication cant "be seen" doesn't mean it's automatic or granted.

Wrong-o me bucko.

You can (and I have) removed my sim from one phone and put it in another phone, (totally different make and model that never once crossed AT&Ts doorstep), fired up the phone and it works out of the gate. The beauty of GSM.

As long as the SIM is good, the carrier does not care about the phone's serial number. You are confusing the authentication between the carrier and the Sim card, with the unique serial number burned into the phone. I ran that new phone for a year, when AT&T only had the IMEI from the old phone in their records.

Sprint phones don't have IMEIs. They have IMEDs. I should have stopped reading your reply as soon as you started talking IMEIs with Sprint. Its clear you have no clue.

Re:This suit is bad for the market

[demonlapin]

Demand that the seller write and sign a bill of sale. When AT&T says no dice, bring your bill of sale and watch the cops arrest your original seller for filing a false police report.

When buying phones off Craigslist I have just insisted that the transaction take place at the carrier's store so that there can be no question about what is going on - no "bad ESNs", problems with activation, etc.

Yes they can

[garyoa1]

Just about anything electronic can be tracked. Phone, laptop, GPS... Not really rocket science for the manufacturer in this day and age. But why would the manufacturer want to track it? If they find it they can't sell you another one.

Apple Knows Too...

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at an Apple Store for years. iPhones, or any Apple product, can be flagged as lost or stolen by a phone call to Applecare. If someone brings such a device into a store for a service or swap, the in-store repair application (iRepair) will notify the Genius or FRS by turning red. iRepair also displays the original owner's information.

Apple's practice, while I worked there at least, was to avoid any sort of controversy or legal entaglement and give whoever brought the device in the benefit of the doubt. Since in-store repairs require you to present ID, it was quite obvious which devices had been obtained through dubious circumstances. E.g. phones from other states, other indicators which could be construed as "profiling," etc.

Why single out AT&T?

[nurb432]

They all were doing it.

Re:Why single out AT&T?

[NardoPolo88]

And on that note why did we also limit this to the iPhone?

My guess if AT&T has probably sold the most iPhones and they are the phone that sells for the highest premium making high on the list of phones for thieves who can then try to sell them through grey markets like Craig's List or eBay. Thus it makes it the most ripe for a lawyer to take a class action suit since they too are in it only for the profit as well.

Playing Devil's Advocate

[pkinetics]

Just because this example is simplified...

1. Sell iPhone to unsuspecting customer

2. Report it stolen.

3. Receive returned phone.

4. Repeat steps 1-3, until finally arrested.

Just being a wise a$$. But what authority does a pimply faced sales clerk have to seize and hold a potentially stolen device? Much less detain an individual while waiting for the Police.

Some people would threaten to sue for defamation and etc for being accused of having stolen a product.

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate

[demonlapin]

You're missing the step where the police arrest you for filing false reports and defrauding people. As far as holding the device goes, if they gave it to you willingly, and you find it in a database of stolen property, why would there be any question about whether you get to keep it? It's stolen. You're keeping it for the police, who will be the ones who determine who is the rightful owner. You don't have to detain the individual at all: they are in possession of property that has been reported stolen. They can either leave their contact information, giving them an opportunity to explain why it's actually not stolen, or they can leave without the device, in which case it's returned to the rightful owner.

This solution works for stolen phones, but it actually does better for phones lost and then found by someone without a lot of scruples who is nonetheless not really a thief - someone who might otherwise have just activated it on the grounds of finders-keepers.

Re:This suit is bad for the market

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lived in a Country which has a Nation wide, Stolen IMEI database where all carriers participate I can tell you.

1)People selling phones then reporting them phones just doesn't happen!

2)Phone property theft is not a problem, stolen phones have no value since they don't work.

Oh its not really bricking the phone, it just prevents stolen phones from registering onto the network(all)

Re:What if..

[cribera]

Because the phone wouldnt be WORTH STEALING in the first place, if it wasnt for AT&T.

Car machine shops are at a much different relation because your car doesnt need to be authenticated by the providers network to be able to unlock the car doors.

I thought you had read the original analogy a few posts above. Just in case you don't find it: ""If somebody steals a car that is equipped with a kill-switch in the engine and I, knowing that it is stolen, disables the kill switch so that the thief can drive the car, then I'm going to go to prison. The only difference between my behavior and AT&T's is that I am not a massive corporation, so I am subject to the laws of the United States."

Re:why is a phone different...

[NardoPolo88]

A cell phone is different because it requires service and the service provider has knowledge of both the theft (you wouldn't want them calling all round the world on your dime) and the unique identifier of the phone. If some one steals my VCR...well lets face it....good for them. I'm not even sure it still works ;-) But really....if they stole some piece of electronics gear I do actually care about I would hope they took something I had actually written down the serial number of. I would then, upon reporting the break in to the police, give them a list of the serial numbers I had for the stolen property. The police would then supply that information to pawn shops in an attempt to eliminate a possible avenue for the thieves to relieve them selves of their stolen goods.

Granted the thieves will most likely turn to the grey market of Craig's List and/or eBay to rid them selves of the stolen property they do not intend to use or keep. If they do keep it it's not like they need to call some provider to make it work.

No lets look at the 2nd point. AT&T, or any provider, should require a police report. If you had sold the phone and the next person attempts to get service and is blocked by AT&T they will then have to prove they purchased the phone or risk jail time. So, for the sake of argument let us say it was easy for them to prove they bought it from the original owner. This puts the seller/owner in a bit of a pickle. See the police are now going to knock on his door and take them to the police station where they will have to answer for filing a false police report.

More likely the seller will be the thief. Since the grey markets will have a record (IP of the poster, email addresses, phone numbers, paypal info, etc) they will need to find alternate ways to sell it. This makes it harder for the thieves to sell the phones and makes them less likely to want to steal the phones.

Re:This suit is bad for the market

[Skapare]

If you buy a stolen phone, don't expect it to operate. If you didn't know it was stolen, someone duped you. Go after them and report them to police. It's no different than if they had shipped you a brick.

Possession of Stolen Property

[bhlowe]

Seems like an easy way to get (dumb) criminals off the streets.. Have Apple or AT&T alert the police when someone attempts to "reactivate a phone known to be stolen." Get their details, credit card info, maybe snap a picture.. then stall a bit until the police show up.

However, most cell phones stolen in bigger cities go straight to a black market and are quickly exchanged for $50-$100, and bundled up and shipped overseas. The police know about these stolen phone dealers but do nothing (per San Francisco Examiner) But with a database, the police could focus on dealers with 3 or 4 phones that puts it into the grand theft category, a felony... which makes it one more strike added to a scum-balls record.

I liked the old legal system

[russotto]

You know, the one where you actually had to establish some sort of legal duty that was breached before you could support a claim of negligence, not just come up with something you wish they would have done and then sue them for not doing it.

AT&T not a give a shit about their customers?

[gelfling]

Where do you get this crazy talk? Now if you'll excuse me I need to enslave another sedan chair carrier.

Re:why is a phone different...

[Anonymous Psychopath]

from a TV set, a VCR, a car radio or any other usually stolen good. If you get your device stolen, it's completely and totally your own damn fault. Don't get me wrong, yes, it sucks, but how is it in any way shape or form AT&T's problem?

If your stolen TV or VCR is recovered, you get it back. AT&T has the ability to tie stolen phones to the people using them, who may or may not be the thief. Either way, the legitimate owner would get their property back.

WIth that said, sure, AT&T could probably come up with a solution and market it, but don't pretend criminals won't just unlock them and bring 'em to verizon, or sprint, etc... heck, iPhone are great iPod touches too.

Network compatibility issues aside, IMEI numbers can uniquely identify a phone regardless of carrier. Which is why they're launching a national database that includes all the major providers.

What I have a beef with is that no one is forcing anyone to buy something new. And then what's stopping someone from selling their iPhone for cash, then claiming it was stolen? No, this is going too far.

I imagine people would learn very quickly to get a receipt when they buy something. I ask for one when I buy something off Craigslist. It's not difficult, just write down what was sold, for how much, and when, then sign it.

Re:Don't buy Apple products!

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Overpriced, fragile, insecure BS!

That describes my HTC Android phone pretty well, too.

Used car dealers go to jail for that

[Animats]

Used car dealers who assist in the reselling of stolen cars are routinely sent to jail. Pawn shop operators, ditto. Why not cell phone companies?

3rd party insurance

[metalmaster]

Im not sure if AT&T has the same sort of agreement with the insurance company they use(probably Asurion) but when I worked for a metroPCS retailer a few years back I'd get people who come to reactivate a phone and it would get rejected by our carrier activation system if the phone had been reported stolen to the insurance company. At the time insurance was about $6, and the deductible on the pricier handsets was $50. I''d explain how things worked if the phone was lost or stolen and customers would gladly sign up.

Re:It is meritless...

[Red_Chaos1]

No, no it isn't. In fact, I think you need to read the reply above yours. If a cell carrier is informed that a given cell phone is stolen, then it needs to be bricked and not allowed back onto the system. Yes, it sucks for people who buy a phone second hand without doing their homework, but it also makes phone theft much much less worthwhile for thieves, which will make the whole thing moot. No phones stolen == no stolen phones bought by foolish people.

Frankly when my first cell phone got stolen I was pissed to find out they would only put a 90 day block on the ESN and then it was free to be reactivated. Imagine if they treated stolen car VINs or other things like that? Would you be protective of allowing such a practice to continue? No, I doubt you would.

Re:Hoist by own petard

[fermion]

So create a law. I have seen cars sold for less than the prices on ebay for an iPhone.

I think the real reason that cars have such a system and phones haven't is cultural, with some economic self interest involved. The cultural is that personal transportation, at least in the US, is a big issue. There was a time when horse thieves were simply hanged. If someone comes into you home and steals all you stuff, there is not as much as a furor as a car theft.

Then there is economics. Cars are insured by third parties with no connection to the agent that sold or the agent that provides servie for you car. The insurance company then wants to do stuff to minimize car theft, as they will be out real money for the retail value of a replacement. OTOH, insurance for phones is sold by the carriers, at very high rates, and these firms only need to replace the handset, not pay cash for a retail replacement. Therefore it is in the interest of the carriers to create an environment where customers are highly motivated to acquire this insurance, which they do through contracts and encouraging theft.

Of COURSE ATT won't refuse service to a stolen dev

[DrStoooopid]

...that's more money they get. It's in ATT's best interest to activate a stolen phone. They sell another device to the previous owner, and they sell a new account to the thief. Of course they're being dismissive of the case. ATT is only interested in the bottom line.