Slashdot Mirror


Prosecutors Push For Anti-Phone-Theft Kill Switches

New submitter EdPbllips writes "Law enforcement officials nationwide are demanding the creation of a 'kill switch' that would render smartphones inoperable after they are stolen, New York's top prosecutor said Thursday in a clear warning to the world's smartphone manufacturers. Citing statistics showing that 1 in 3 robberies nationwide involve the theft of a mobile phone, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the formation of a coalition of law enforcement agencies devoted to stamping out what he called an 'epidemic' of smartphone robberies. 'All too often, these robberies turn violent,' said Schneiderman, who was joined at a news conference by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon. 'There are assaults. There are murders.'" Apple described a system like this in their presentation about iOS 7 at WWDC.

257 comments

  1. What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!

    1. Re:What a great idea! by biy55 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft has always supported the effort. They were the ones who called law enforcement to work about stolen phones. They really cared for customers, imo.

    2. Re:What a great idea! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      the govt is looking for kill switches - you mean like the kill switch that apple just introduced? another slam dunk.

    3. Re:What a great idea! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, of course not. Eric Holder and Barak Obama, the FISC, Congress, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, etc are all COMPLETELY TRUSTWORTHY. All they want is to make us all nice and safe. Promise! Nobody would EVER turn off the phones of people they didn't agree with, just as they were organizing a protest? Nah, that could never happen!

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    4. Re:What a great idea! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!"

      I agree with the sarcasm. Kill switches are a horrible idea. And completely unnecessary.

      For example, have a look at The Prey Project. This is a good example of a secure means by which an OWNER can track, and even get screenshots and camera shots from, a stolen device.

      Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back? Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.

    5. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      And do you know how I know it'll never be abused? Why, the director or the NSA said it would be illegal to do so! Clearly since it is illegal, no member of the government would ever do such a thing!

      Ugh. I don't want to live on this planet any more.

    6. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fisc order for apple to kill the phone of the dissident before they call their lawyer.

    7. Re:What a great idea! by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!

      1. You mean "what we were told", not "what we learned". Just like the MSR scare a few years ago, when millions of idiot mothers believed one doctor and couldn't be convinced by anything the government said, and it turned out that doctor had actually been paid to produce the results that he did produce. Why do you believe one man and his claims? (I think Apple's reply was "we have never ever heard of Prism, and nobody gets any data without court issued subpoena).

      2. So how could this be abused? The feature is that nobody can re-activate your phone without knowing your Apple Id and password. If your phone is stolen, this feature cannot be abused - worst case it can be prevented from working, so you are not off any worse. If your phone is not stolen, worst case someone could manage to remotely wipe your phone, in which case you have the Apple Id and password to re-activate it.

    8. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Even if we ignore the point I brought up with the sarcasm, depending on how it's implemented, it could be entirely useless anyway. I'm willing to wager that, unless it does something irreversible such as destroy hardware, it'll be trivially easy to fix. Why, within days of its introduction I would be disappointed if there were any fewer than 5 youtube videos teaching you how to un-brick, un-kill, or otherwise just stop this function from doing a damn thing.

      Heck, if I wasn't dirt poor I'd even put money on it.

    9. Re:What a great idea! by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Prey wont actually help you get your phone back. Eliminating the stolen phone market will prevent your phone from being stolen in the first place.

      Im also not getting the concern over govt abuse. How / why would gov't use a kill switch? If you want to track someone, isnt that the LAST thing they would do? Its not exactly subtle, you would immediately know if it was used.

    10. Re:What a great idea! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      In regards to Prey, the big difference is people CHOOSE to install it, knowing the risks and concerns. Making a kill switch mandatory is just stupid. Prey is even available for smartphones: http://preyproject.com/blog/tag/mobile .

    11. Re:What a great idea! by xeio87 · · Score: 1

      Killing it has a pretty nice feature of making stealing phones much less desirable reducing the chances your phone will be stolen at all.

      Attempting to track it can work, if the thief isn't smart enough to just wipe it and ditch the SIM (removing your ability to track the device anyway).

    12. Re:What a great idea! by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      And if you and everyone else in a certain radius say a block or two had their phones killed, what would you think? Possibly that the government wants to hide activity or prevent any collateral damage from being able to get word out who it was that came in the black helicopters? Nah, it would probably just be some hacker.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    13. Re:What a great idea! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Because we are not fools. We KNOW what can be done now. Its safe to assume that the NSA has "10 Facebooks" worth of storage and computing power without having to support hundreds of millions of end-users.

      --
      Good-bye
    14. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back? Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.

      Because you don't stand a good chance of getting it back (police won't help you), and as others have pointed out, a kill switch means it's less likely that someone will bother to steal the phone at all.
      I use prey, but that doesn't mean that I think it's the best possible solution. (Not sure that a kill switch is either!)

    15. Re:What a great idea! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back?

      No you haven't. Even if you know where it is, what are you going to do? Really...?

      Besides, you're in charge of whether or not it's killed. You have to report it stolen.

      Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential

      Yes it does. Read the summary - people are being mugged and murdered for their phones. A kill switch makes them worthless to thieves.

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:What a great idea! by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      I think Apple's reply was "we have never ever heard of Prism, and nobody gets any data without court issued subpoena

      Just wanted to point out...

      Apple wouldn't need to be aware of Prism, Prism goes after the network providers, Verison, AT&T, etc.

      Its a smaller vector of attack, if they had to go after every single phone manufacturer they'd have a much harder time getting everything.

      Google is aware of it because Google is not just involved in Android, they're also the largest internet search provider on the planet. Again, small vectors, they dont go after the ISPs, they go after the search providers.

    17. Re:What a great idea! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Cheer up, we'll be gone soon enough. I guess in all fairness nobody NEEDS phone bricking to turn off our service, but it has the nice side-effect of being permanent and expensive to undo.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    18. Re:What a great idea! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If the 'kill' needs a PIN, and that PIN is on a scratch card in the box then who can abuse it...?

      Apple's scheme doesn't go far enough. Software will be hacked, it needs to blow a fuse in the CPU and destroy it.

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:What a great idea! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 0
      I can answer both 1 and 2 and will attempt to do so.

      1. Why do you believe one man and his claims?

      Obama

      2. So how could this be abused?

      Obama

      Thank you for reading.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    20. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I keep hearing (and reading) people say this, I vehemently disagree. I don't want THEM to live on this planet anymore! Why should we give up the planet to power mongering assholes?

    21. Re:What a great idea! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Why would the government want a kill switch? Your phone company can already block your phone from the network at any time. The government could just tell them to do it.

      You should be worried about the government listening in, not killing your phone.

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:What a great idea! by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      While that's true, do you think Grandma or Grandpa would be able to unbrick the phone that some script kiddie decided would be fun to lock up? No, which means either going to a different phone (luckily they still have a land line) to call the phone company to ask that it be unbricked or buying a new phone, whichever is less hassle.

    23. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    24. Re:What a great idea! by crakbone · · Score: 1

      Actually the government has shown it will attack a particular political group. ( IRS scandal) So imagine right before an election and every Republican cell phone gets killed 48 hours before an election. Or the next whistleblower has his entire family's cell phones shut off.

    25. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Oh, on that I agree whole-heartedly! my point was that those who stole the phones would likely have ways around it, and it's exactly people like Grandma or Grandpa that could get hurt like this, just like the example you provided.

    26. Re:What a great idea! by Eowaennor · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You could be trading one kill for another

      Consider this: Mugger demands your phone, but knowing that you may just kill it when he runs away with your phone, kills you instead and takes your phone.

    27. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      I can provide an example off the top of my head, but I believe we're still a ways out from this happening- so, for the time being, our example will take place in the totally fictitious country of Tarkey.

      Let's say there's some protests- a large number of people railing against the government for whatever reason there may be. In order to lessen their ability to plan and gather together, you turn off their cell service. Now, that does hurt a bit, but what if they still have wifi access? By bricking the phone entirely, you remove a very useful tool and if used in conjunction with an internet kill switch, you essentially can end all digital access for the protesters.

      I pray it never gets to that point in the USA.

    28. Re: What a great idea! by alen · · Score: 4, Informative

      A lot of stolen phones are shipped outside the USA. A kill switch would render them useless

    29. Re:What a great idea! by mark-t · · Score: 1

      A system of which is only effective if more than a certain threshold of devices actually utilize it... since a would-be thief is not likely to know ahead of time whether or not your device has a kill switch in it.

      Sure, you might be able to render *YOUR* device unusable to a thief, but as a general discouragement against theft in the first place, it's only effective if it actually is generally practiced among more than perhaps at least half of all devices, so that a thief will have no particular reason to expect that a given phone, chosen at random, will not be usable if they steal it.

    30. Re:What a great idea! by gewalker · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought Windows 8 was a kill switch.

    31. Re:What a great idea! by ldconfig · · Score: 1

      I can see the gooberment getting all worked up (yet again) because they disagree with a group protesting something and to control the flow of info they can just use their fancy new kill switch.

      --
      The spelling and grammar police can kiss my ass
    32. Re:What a great idea! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      If the government knows who they are then I'm sure they'd rather listen in than kill the phone.

      --
      No sig today...
    33. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      It's one possible action, and considering in the censorship issues we've seen in past protests (where they DID take down the internet), I'd say either killing it or listening in is plausible. Case by case basis, really.

    34. Re:What a great idea! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier for the government to just "politely" ask the cell tower operator to turn off the tower?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    35. Re:What a great idea! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!

      Oh piss off with your libertarian paranoia. It's boring. Law enforcement are urging MANUFACTURERS to disable stolen phones. It's not the government demanding a kill switch that they operate.

      Libertarians are like luddites that would keep the benefits of technological improvement away from people because of their stupid fears.

      If my mobile phone is stolen, I want it disabled. And heck I don't want there to be an incentive to steal it anyway. You're a moron if you don't see this as a positive.

    36. Re:What a great idea! by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      This is kind of a silly thing to worry about. If the government wants to shut down your communication they can already do it. They just talk to your carrier and all of the sudden your calls and texts aren't going through. They could probably even disguise it as some kind of a temporary connectivity issue if they wanted, unlike bricking your phone with a kill-switch which would be really obvious.

      Having a kill-switch offers no benefit to the government, nor to the carriers. It only benefits the users, aka the potential mugging victims.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    37. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure you want to stop ALL cellphone use in the country?

      Cancel or Allow?

    38. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Funny, I always considered myself a Liberal... could it be that your prejudice against a particular group is forcing you to see a Libertarian where there is none?

      If my mobile phone is stolen, I'd like it bricked, yes. If someone at my provider is having a bad day, someone who ISN'T me reports my phone stolen when it is not, or some script kiddie just feels like being an asshole, I don't want my phone to turn into a brick.

      There is a positive side to this, and a negative side to this. For many reasons already stated in this particular thread, I think I'd rather not have a kill switch on mine, at least not one accessible to anyone but myself.

    39. Re:What a great idea! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Troll

      Remind me, which party was it that disenfranchised voters by skin colour in the 2000 election? Oh yet, I remember, it was the Republican party. The same party that had a brother of one of the candidates deliver the key state.

      You have no room to be playing the victim. Your party is evil.

    40. Re:What a great idea! by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft has always supported the effort. They were the ones who called law enforcement to work about stolen phones. They really cared for customers, imo.

      They may have always supported the effort, but they were far from the first in calling for fixes to stolen phones.

      The universal IMEI/MEID blocking, long in effect in most of the world has been fought tooth and nail by the carriers.

      Because they they earn additional revenue when you come in and buy a new phone after you get mugged, they had no
      interest in setting up and maintaining such a database. It was less than a year ago that they finally agreed to build such a blacklist. This plan could work for existing phones, even dumb phones.

      Rather than give that time to work, they now contrive to call it a failure, and they now want to launch a whole new requirement, and get everyone to buy a new phone in order to be included in the "protected group".

      There are those that insist that you can simply and easily flash a new IMEI on a phone, but it is not as simple as some would have you believe, that the guy in the hoodie who knocks you down and grabs your phone doesn't have the skill set to do so.

      With a blocked IMEI you can unblock it if it is recovered if you can prove to the carrier that you are the rightful owner. With a kill switch, you are screwed. There is little incentive to report a lost or stolen phone, since it ruins any chance of recovery. It will still require replacement once you report it, even if you find it at your friends house where you left it after the party.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    41. Re:What a great idea! by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2

      You're trying to spoil our OUTRAGE DUDE! ;)

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    42. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      "Damnit, I thought we turned off UAC..."

    43. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be very careful about turning on the camera and/or microphone if you have reason to believe your phone has been stolen. In that case only the police can do it legally, and then, only with a wiretap order or "super warrant". The same goes for location tracking.

      People have done this with both laptops and phones, resulting in their being sued by the crook. Some have been criminally prosecuted for violating various privacy and wiretap laws. (Wiretap laws prohibit the use of "listening devices" which is a rather broadly defined term.)

    44. Re:What a great idea! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back?

      Because you don't actually stand a good change of getting it back. You can already track iPhones to within a meter if it has line-of-sight to the open sky. Or you can track an indoor iPhone or a Macintosh to within half a block or so via wifi triangulation. But if your iPhone, iPad, Macbook, or whatever is stolen; just try calling the police and telling them "My iPhone was stolen and the thief is $here.". Unless your name is Apple and the phone is a prototype; the best you can hope for is that they'll let you come down to a station and file a report so you can claim it stolen if it was insured. They're certainly not going to bother to track down the thief and recover your property; even if you've done 95% of the work for them.

      > Killing it does nobody any good,

      It at least denies the thief his shiny or his money. Or it denies the scumbag who bought your stolen phone his shiny. Doing so may reduce the market for stolen hardware in the long run.

      > and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.

      No more so than the remote wipe functionality that's already baked into iOS and Mac OS, and can be added to windows via plenty of third-party providers; and which you should already have set up on any and every mobile device anyway.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    45. Re:What a great idea! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Of course it's better if all phones have a kill switch. But it's still useful if only iPhones do, as they are often specifically targeted by thieves. If thieves know iPhones can't be resold because they'll be bricked, they won't bother stealing them.

      A less well known and identified brand would be a different story.

    46. Re:What a great idea! by thepustule · · Score: 1

      Maybe it would be more worthwhile to be able to render the thief inoperable?

    47. Re:What a great idea! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Killing it does nobody any good

      Your libertarian paranoia is stopping you from seeing the reality of the situation again. Denying a criminal the benefits of his crime is a good in itself. And if the knock on effect is to reduce the numbers of crimes, which it will be, then there's a universal good too.

    48. Re:What a great idea! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Funny, I always considered myself a Liberal... could it be that your prejudice against a particular group is forcing you to see a Libertarian where there is none?

      What you posted was libertarian paranoia, regardless of what you consider the sum total of your belief set to be. If it's not your nature to come up with libertarian paranoia, then you might consider who's propaganda has been working on you.

    49. Re:What a great idea! by trcooper · · Score: 1

      It also won't work. If its software based it will be circumvented, just like bootloaders get unlocked. Theoretically, you could use efuses to cause hardware damage and permanently disable a device. But this would be a mess, there's potential for a major attack which could leave thousands or millions of devices unusable, and then there's the guy who bricks his ex-girlfriend's phone out of spite. Even still, a signal has to be received, and the phone will be able to be flashed with software which will ignore the signal. Steal phone, turn off radios, flash phone. Blacklist the IMEI and require all carriers to respect the blacklist. Right now I think when a major carrier blacklists a device, it can still be used on some of the MVNOs. You've still got the overseas market but unless you physically damage the device that will always be there.

    50. Re: What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think the idea is to remove the incentive for theft in the first place so you don't need to worry about tracking the thief after it is stolen.

    51. Re:What a great idea! by tibman · · Score: 1

      Too bad phone mimicry is legally discouraged : /

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    52. Re:What a great idea! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the government themselves want a kill switch, but they want ways for a user to flip a kill switch. so if you steal my iphone, i can flip a switch and brick it. there's not govt interference here, aside from PRISM which is operating in the background anyway.

    53. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Prey wont actually help you get your phone back.

      Exactly right - But Absolute Software will.

      Absolute Software has been in the business of tracking and recovering stolen computers for years. They've recovered nearly 29,000 stolen computers, and they've just expanded to phones - Samsung has just integrated their technology in the firmware level on the S4, with other devices coming soon. Their tracking agent will survive a phone reset and their forensic tools (deployed post-theft only) mean that they can actually catch the guy that knocked you over the head and stole your phone.

      http://www.zdnet.com/new-lojack-solution-for-galaxy-s4-makes-theft-meaningless-7000016433

      Unlike a software solution only, the Absolute Software LoJack system is both a hardware and software solution. Starting with the Samsung Galaxy S4, Absolute's persistence technology is built into the firmware of the S4 and cannot be removed, even if the device is restored to factory settings.

      The Galaxy S4 has the technology built in now, but the necessary Absolute software solution is not yet available. When it is available, you will be able to remotely lock your device, locate it, erase the data from the device and storage card, or have the Absolute Investigation and Recovery Services Team attempt to recover it.

      The Recovery Team is made up of experts from law enforcement, the FBI, the Marines, the US Army, and other government positions. To date, they have recovered 28,000+ devices (laptops and PCs) in over 95 countries.

    54. Re:What a great idea! by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Apple's scheme is sufficient. An iOS device is of pretty limited functionality if you cannot update it ever from Apple. And once it is locked that is what you have regardless of your carrier does with the IMEI.

      In theory thieves could root them, but the market value for that type of stolen phone will be much lower.

    55. Re:What a great idea! by cusco · · Score: 1

      My phone conversations really aren't that interesting . . .

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    56. Re: What a great idea! by cusco · · Score: 2

      You mean like all of the movies and programs with DRM make them utterly impossible to copy and resell in other countries for a few cents? It won't work. You're assuming that people in other countries aren't bright enough to figure out how to fix a broken phone, whether deliberately or accidentally broken. Unless the kill switch somehow fries the phone's entire electronics it will be bypassed in no time.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    57. Re:What a great idea! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Actually the government has shown it will attack a particular political group. ( IRS scandal)

      Yes, but that generally only works when theres plausible deniability and you arent sure you've been targetted.

      What would your general thought process be if the kill switch was hit on your phone? "Gee, I must have done that accidentally, surely nothing suspicious here"?

    58. Re:What a great idea! by cusco · · Score: 2

      It still surprises me that organizations that claim to be a political action party, who do no charitable work to speak of, and and who are quite open that the sole reason they want the status is to hide who their donors are, complain because they get denied a status exclusively reserved for charitable agencies that are prohibited from political activity. Yep, that sure sounds like the IRS is being a bad guy, what with them attempting to enforce the rules and laws that Congress entrusted them with. The absolute gall!

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    59. Re:What a great idea! by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately an IMEI block leaves the rest of the device (aside from the phone) perfectly usable to a thief. There's still enough value in a small device which can take video and photos, browse the web, play games, etc. to make it worth stealing.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    60. Re:What a great idea! by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      You can use VOIP apps instead where wifi is available. They'd rather kill the phones.

    61. Re:What a great idea! by sjames · · Score: 2

      No, it's just a clever way to make sure nobody will want to steal it in the first place.

    62. Re:What a great idea! by pepty · · Score: 2
      Hardware is the only way to go.

      For a kill switch to work:

      -A phone's serial number has to be embedded such that it can't be changed in any cost-effective way.

      -A network needs to be able to unambiguously identify a phone's serial number in a way that the phone's software/firmware can't block or alter.

      -A network needs to be able to send a kill message in a way that the phone's software/firmware can't block or alter.

      Basically the kill functionality will need access to the radio that is independent from the rest of the phone. Both the firmware and the OS can be hacked: if Samsung can update the firmware in its phones so can hackers.

    63. Re:What a great idea! by mlts · · Score: 1

      A kill switch is not going to affect the theft rate whatsoever, just like adding codes onto car radios didn't affect that, until factory audio heads starting getting on par with the aftermarket... then there was no point in grabbing car radios.

      Similar with phones. A dead iPhone looks just the same as a live one [1]. A phone's parts are always worth something, because screens are easily broken, even if the motherboard is chucked. Batteries can be desoldered, screens can be replaced, enclosures can be exchanged, etc. If a thief is too lazy to bother with taking it apart, it can be sold as a parts device.

      Kill switches will become more of a problem than they fix, and might just spur more violent crime, similar to how engine disabling systems changed car theft from a passive crime to a violent, active crime with carjacking.

      I don't see any advantage of kill switches, as it doesn't devalue the device in the eyes of the bad guys. It only hurts the authorized users of devices, or in Apple's case, perhaps it is just another anti-jailbreaking layer with a happy face painted on it.

      [1]: Until Apple comes with some system to have a passive eInk green dot show up if the phone is OK, or red if it isn't... then the bad guys will just crack the phone and paint the dot green.

    64. Re:What a great idea! by icebike · · Score: 1

      vantage of kill switches, as it doesn't devalue the device in the eyes of the bad guys.

      Well, jumping to the other side of the argument from my prior post, I have to say that the above is simply not true. (And I suspect you know its not true).

      Of course it devalues the device. Anything that diminishes what the thief can get for the resale of the device, or increases the number of hoops through which they must jump, by the very definition devalues the device.

      If a thief can get 500 bucks for a stolen phone in perfect working order, but only 50 bucks, or maybe 5 bucks for parts, sooner or later its going to dawn on the dimmest bulb in the string that the risk is not worth the reward. There simply isn't that big of a parts market.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    65. Re:What a great idea! by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I'm going to paint bright orange-red stripes on my phone, to make thieves think it's poisonous.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    66. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, really the cops should do something more useful than traffic tickets and could be directed to go after the stolen property. Perfect little trackers cell phones today are... registry of stolen ID#'s to lock out activations works without having to kill it in the device(if shipped out of country, just don't allow calls to be routed if foreign teleco doesn't agree to screen listed ID#'s out before activation).

      imo...

    67. Re:What a great idea! by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

      Martial Law Step One: Turn Off All Civilian Phones

    68. Re:What a great idea! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's be a lot more fun if someone tooled up an Android app that implemented an iPhone kill switch, though. I can flip a switch and brick it. Sounds fun!

    69. Re:What a great idea! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      Apple implemented a kill function on my 2nd Gen iPod and recently my 3rd Gen iPod. It takes awhile for the news to trickle down to the app developers, but your apps slowly cease to update and go unsupported. Then you're supposed to buy a new iPod, or do what I did: buy a Virgin Mobile ($35/mo 'unlimited' data plan) Android phone to replace it.

    70. Re:What a great idea! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      That's the law dude. The concept is that combating or promoting legislation is the charitable work. The law limits how much you can give an individual candidate but you can give as much as you want promoting a cause (for gay/against marriage; for/against late term abortions; for/against legalization of drugs; for/against off-shore drilling). As far as hiding donor lists - its done, not for tax purposes as the donors put it on their tax returns, but so that the donors can remain private, so that they, or the companies they work for or own will not be picketed by pro-life/pro-choice fanatics; or by anti-gay/pro-gay marriage people.

      This is not as dumb, or evil, as you make it out to be.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    71. Re:What a great idea! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Until very recently I was still getting spam from the Moveon.org organization, which is registered by the same IRS classification that the 'Tea Party' groups were seeking to obtain.

      That classification can not be obtained by organizations specifically organized to advocate a specific candidate. If Moveon can be registered that what, so can just about any other group. But people like you will still make your ignorant claims. Was it a moveon mailing that you got your talking points from??

    72. Re: What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small group of dedicated individuals who probably have long-term plans = high intel reward, low cost, so yeah, you listen in.
      Large group of temporarily angry gits who are just here for a street protest = low intel reward, high cost to listen, so you just nuke comms.

    73. Re:What a great idea! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that with everything we've learned recently regarding the Government and phones, there's no way this could -possibly- be abused!

      How about a real kill switch, a few missing hands and faces, the message will be sent and understood. If it ain't yours, leave it alone.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    74. Re:What a great idea! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      no you can't because the kill switch is a log in screen. if you had an android app that could capture people's itunes accounts and change the passwords, you could do a lot more than brick some phones.

    75. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is that we teach phone owners "don't get your phone stolen", when we should be teaching potential robbers "don't steal".

      This will never change as long as we live in this theft-culture.

    76. Re:What a great idea! by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      I'm going to paint bright orange-red stripes on my phone, to make thieves think it's poisonous.

      Better yet out a Windows logo on it.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    77. Re:What a great idea! by grantspassalan · · Score: 1

      If the power to tax were only used for collecting money and not social engineering, then all of this would not be an issue. It is our bought and paid for politicians that abuse the power to tax to favor or disfavor certain groups. Tax laws should all be rewritten so that they don't favor or discriminate against any particular person or action, but only raise the amount of money needed.

      --
      A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
    78. Re:What a great idea! by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Not really. People mostly steal stuff they can sell. Nobody buys phones that won't work as phones.

    79. Re:What a great idea! by crakbone · · Score: 1

      I never said I was Republican, I just indicated the most recent incident in the news. The abuse has happened to Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians as well as Trotsky's group and Thalmaan's. Allowing the government to just switch off a major communication function is wrong. This could be handled quite easily like they do in Australia and other countries where they have a list of phones esn's that have been stolen and refuse to provide service for them.

    80. Re:What a great idea! by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Technically in terms or realistic policing, blocking attempts to connect to the phone network is far better than bricking the phone. Each attempt at connecting to the network represents an opportunity to identify and apprehend the thief. In fact the connection could be allowed and monitored with the specific intent of investigating and prosecuting the receiver of stolen property in order to further track it back to the thief. Brick the phone and you purposefully, stupidly create a legal prosecution dead end. Ideally stolen smart phones represent an ideal way to target those who perpetrate violent crimes against others and should be used as such.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    81. Re:What a great idea! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      While we're at it... if we're planning a police search of some place; make sure to contact the phone companies in advance, and have all the residents' cell phones kill-switched, to make sure they don't get any pictures or video.

      Also.... why not work with cell companies to have a "location specific" kill switch?

      That way, officers can just carry on their person, a device that disables all camera phones and recording devices in the vicinity, to prevent unauthorized recordings of the event -- or unauthorized recordings of riot officers enforcing the law or tazing innocent people.

    82. Re:What a great idea! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      With a blocked IMEI you can unblock it if it is recovered if you can prove to the carrier that you are the rightful owner. With a kill switch, you are screwed. There is little incentive to report a lost or stolen phone, since it ruins any chance of recovery. It will still require replacement once you report it, even if you find it at your friends house where you left it after the party.

      The manufacturers would love this, because that means you still have to buy a new phone, even if the stolen one is recovered. AND the kill switch removes a potential phone from the secondary market.

      But what should really happen is, activation of the "kill switch" should be made reversible; so there is a way to recover the killed phone to factory defaults, by bringing it in for service, to have an internal reset switched pushed, and an "unlock" code entered..

      With the "unlock" code being established in advance, and specific to the phone.

    83. Re: What a great idea! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      A lot of stolen phones are shipped outside the USA. A kill switch would render them useless

      Another thing that could render them useless, would be to "pair" the phone with a subscriber ID.

      So a change of SIM card or Telephone number wipes a bit of NVRAM, causing the phone to be disabled, until the original owner types in a 16-digit code shown on a plastic card that was shipped to them when they got the new phone originally, or calls up their Cell provider's support, to have them read out the re-enable code.

    84. Re: What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty hard to fix a broken phone when the motherboard will not power on without phoning home first.

      Carrier locked iPhones have that. If you reset the firmware it cannot be powered on without phoning home first.

    85. Re:What a great idea! by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      This could be done in such a way that it would be cryptographically impossible for anyone other than the customer, or holder of the destruct code, to brick the device. Will it be done this way? Of course not. Too many actors in the chain want that power, and customers are at the bottom of the totem pole. Being able to instantly deactivate phones is a dream of dictators and tyrants. We've already seen the government use available means to achieve this in the USA! They turned off cell stations in the mass transit stations during riots.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    86. Re:What a great idea! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      the market value for that type of stolen phone will be much lower.

      It should be ZERO. Nada. Zilch.

      --
      No sig today...
    87. Re:What a great idea! by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back? Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.

      You are fucking stupid if you think the pigs are going to go chase down a petty-theft phone based off information gathered by the victim.

      They don't do that now, if the victim of credit card fraud has proof of tens of thousands of dollars of goods going to someone's house, and have their IP tracked and everything.

      So, you'll be left with knocking on the door and shooting, or knocking on the door and hoping they don't drag you in and rape you... and in both cases, not getting the phone back.

    88. Re:What a great idea! by cusco · · Score: 1

      So buying television commercials and doing get-out-the-vote work for Orrin Hatch is charitable work? Maybe charitable towards Hatch, but that's a bit of a stretch I'd think.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    89. Re:What a great idea! by cusco · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Moveon.org went through the same process as the Tea Party, they just didn't whine about it. Also, they waited until they had gotten their classification before they started breaking the law, rather than promoting specific politicians on their home page the week before even filing.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    90. Re:What a great idea! by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      I'd be for this if the ability to kill the phone was in the hands of the customer alone, but you're sadly quite right.

    91. Re:What a great idea! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      That, as I understand, is not part of the provision. One can promote or oppose a cause, not a particular candidate.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    92. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see iPhone 5 digitizer assemblies for $122-$150 on fleabay. The housing can be $50. So, for a device that is easily palmed, that is $200. A fence can give a crackhead $25-50 for it, part it out, chuck the motherboard, and just the screen and enclosure alone is worth the time, and there is pretty much no way to ever get caught, especially if all the components with individual serial numbers are long since discarded.

      Both of you are right. The -device- may be useless, but to a parts market that can be handed over to the dubious "iphone repair" kiosks that you see on the side of the road, it is a good way to make cash.

    93. Re:What a great idea! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Indeed, thus the additional queries to the Tea Party (which they lied on, but got their permit anyway). The same week they were applying for charitable organization status their home page was advertising their fundraising efforts for specific candidates and against others. It's not like the IRS was going out of its way to dig up dirt on them.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    94. Re:What a great idea! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Most of these groups were not promoting candidates - and the Tea Party certainly did not promote Orin Hatch. A quick Bing search shows that Orin Hatch is not a Tea Party favorite.

      http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/27/utah-tea-party-targets-orrin-hatch
      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/palin-tells-tea-party-lay-off-orrin-hatch-165829376.html

      Most Tea Party people are promoting a cause and not candidates; that is one of the reason they are not liked by the Republican Establishment.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    95. Re:What a great idea! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Because Prey wont actually help you get your phone back. Eliminating the stolen phone market will prevent your phone from being stolen in the first place."

      Why do you say Prey won't help you get your phone back? That is what it was designed to do. You can get location data, you can take screenshots of what the perp is doing, and even snapshots with the webcam. It's proven to work... there are lots of success stories. So I'd like to know (honest question) why you say it won't help.

      "Im also not getting the concern over govt abuse. How / why would gov't use a kill switch?"

      How / why would government ever intercept telephone and internet communications? History shows that if you give the government the power to do something, sooner or later it will. It will find some "reason" that it's good for you. It always has.

      " If you want to track someone, isnt that the LAST thing they would do? "

      That's my whole point about Prey, which you seem to have missed. Except it's you doing the tracking, not the government.

    96. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The manufacturers would love this, because that means you still have to buy a new phone, even if the stolen one is recovered.
      AND the kill switch removes a potential phone from the secondary market.

      But what should really happen is, activation of the "kill switch" should be made reversible;

      You mean like Apple's Activation Lock?

    97. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one possible action, and considering in the censorship issues we've seen in past protests (where they DID take down the internet), I'd say either killing it or listening in is plausible. Case by case basis, really.

      Why bother "killing" the phone of one or more protesters, when you can just "accidently" disable the cell tower(s) around?

    98. Re:What a great idea! by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back? Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.

      So does the camera and microphone on your phone and laptops.

      Personally, I think kill switches controlled by the user are a good idea. LordLimecat is correct.

    99. Re:What a great idea! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Then the family implements tracking the phone/activates the kill switch.

      The point would be that MOST cell phone thieves don't kill their victims, because, well, it's not worth it - you get OOMs more police attention that way, and it's a big enough thing that he has to get rid of the phone ASAP before they get a warrant for the phone and start tracking it hoping to catch him. At that point the phone is irrelevant except as a way to catch/convict the murderer.

      Meanwhile, the reason to steal the phone is money. It might sound odd, but if phones are, on average, worthless to steal, it can kill the secondary market in 'probably stolen' phones since they tend to die so quick. The problem today is that the most valuable thing on the average person today is their phone. People generally wear watches anymore, much less expensive ones, they don't carry cash, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    100. Re:What a great idea! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      What you posted was libertarian paranoia,

      Given how recently PRISM broke, I can see EVERYBODY but statists being upset about it.

      you might consider who's propaganda has been working on you.

      Wow... Libertarians don't have the money for heavy propaganda. Republicans and Democrats do, and while Democrats/liberals 'tend' to trust government more, outrage over massive violations is something that all reasonable people share.

      I'll maintain it's good to have a healthy distrust of government - it's trustworthy on average, sure, but every so often...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    101. Re:What a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...for Nokia. :)

    102. Re:What a great idea! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Given how recently PRISM broke, I can see EVERYBODY but statists being upset about it.

      American spies spy on foreigners. Including telephone taps and internet. Are you saying you didn't know that before we got to hear the codename PRISM? Heck I'm in the UK, and there's a USA spy base here. It's no secret. Back a couple of decades their program was called Echelon. And it was the instigating reason for my then company starting to use PGP.

      That's not paranoia, that's fact. However it has nothing to do with government conspiracies to equip mobile phones with kill switches in order to... what? If they want to stop mobile communications in an area they can have the towers switched off. We already know they can do that.

      Wow... Libertarians don't have the money for heavy propaganda.

      Maybe that's why they have so many amateurs puking their FUD all over slashdot.

      I'll maintain it's good to have a healthy distrust of government - it's trustworthy on average, sure, but every so often...

      Rationality is the quality that these libertarian paranoiacs don't have. For sure when a government is wanting to make war, distrust every word they say. But when there is something like a private sector anti-theft device, to have your first thought that it's a government trick is insane.

    103. Re:What a great idea! by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Kill switch is still good if you're worried about someone getting in to all the shit on your phone.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    104. Re:What a great idea! by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      American spies spy on foreigners. Including telephone taps and internet. Are you saying you didn't know that before we got to hear the codename PRISM? Heck I'm in the UK, and there's a USA spy base here. It's no secret. Back a couple of decades their program was called Echelon. And it was the instigating reason for my then company starting to use PGP.

      Ah, so you're a statist, got it. ;)

      Rationality is the quality that these libertarian paranoiacs don't have.

      And that's something that you don't really have enough information to assess from the contents of one one line post. You don't know if he's really irrational, just mad about the topic of the moment, etc...

      I should know, I practically specialize in government paranoia, both for and against. The trick is to realize that 'the government' isn't a person, or if it is, it's a multiple personality schizophrenic. The left hand literally doesn't know what the right is doing. Thus, you have to assess each program, each policy, somewhat on it's own.

      Programs are one thing, but when it comes to law - watch out. NEVER trust them if they say 'Oh, sure, it could theoretically be used to prosecute case X, but we'd never use it for that!'. Normally it takes about a year from hitting the books before they're using it to prosecute case X. See anti-terrorist laws for a recent example of that, what with 'domestic terrorist' labels being applied willy-nilly.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    105. Re:What a great idea! by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      That would stop you from talking on the phone during the incident, not stop you from recording with the phone, and people are wont to do since they have a convenient camera. Or as the other poster suggested VOIP over WIFI.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    106. Re: What a great idea! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Large group of temporarily angry gits who are just here for a street protest = low intel reward, high cost to listen, so you just nuke comms.

      So, er, how do you know the exact cellphone details of every member of a random mob of angry gits?

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Unintended uses by Loopy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The IRS/etc. would NEVER use this to disable someone's communications ability because they were doing something the government didn't like. No sirree. Not ever. Pure as the driven snow, this design is.

    It's like people can't think past the next episode of their favorite TV show.

    1. Re:Unintended uses by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the other hand, you could use it to nuke your own phone if the police had seized it and were using it to find evidence against you...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Unintended uses by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Funny

      On the other hand, you could use it to nuke your own phone if the police had seized it and were using it to find evidence against you...

      Yeah, right. You really believe the police won't have a kill-switch kill-switch?

    3. Re:Unintended uses by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you could use it to nuke your own phone if the police had seized it and were using it to find evidence against you...

      Or better yet when high school lockers are being broken into because they supply 0 security you can kill switch these phones. It will deter most of this bullshit that goes on and allow police to focus on real crime.

    4. Re:Unintended uses by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Too bad it cannot work.

      Worst case from the thieves point of view the phones are now only valuable as parts. More likely he will just have to accept a little less for it since now someone will be paid to get around this lockout.

      The police prefer to not focus on real crime, real criminals are dangerous.

    5. Re:Unintended uses by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. You really believe the police won't have a kill-switch kill-switch?

      If you use two-factor authentication, even Apple won't have a kill-switch kill-switch. Anyway, what the feature does is it first wipes the phone (which takes a tenth of a second because it only needs to wipe the encryption keys which are only ever kept on the phone), _then_ activates this locking feature. If the police has a kill-switch kill-switch, then worst case a happy policeman got a new iPhone without paying.

    6. Re:Unintended uses by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think you mean you got a new obstruction of justice charge. That can even be used to suggest that you are guilty, since you made an effort to cover up that guilt.

    7. Re:Unintended uses by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Of course you'd get obstruction charges if used during an active case, same as if you smashed your phone.

      Not getting how thats an argument against the feature.

    8. Re:Unintended uses by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Kill switches, all the way down...

    9. Re:Unintended uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Procedure for police / prosecutor abuse of this feature:

      1) Identify a "suspect"
      2) Confiscate "suspect's" phone
      3) Fail to find evidence of crime
      4) Use kill switch on phone
      5) Charge "suspect" with obstruction of justice

      Of course, step 3 is completely unnecessary, but it does give the police the opportunity to discover an actual crime, assuming they actually think one occurred. Combined with a policy where searching phones becomes standard practice, this becomes especially insidious.

    10. Re:Unintended uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really suspect that those 5 steps are something they would do, then surely you would agree that this is also something they would do?

      1) Identify a "suspect"
      2) Confiscate "suspect's" phone
      3) Fail to find evidence of crime
      4) Throw phone on the ground
      5) Claim the "suspect" threw the phone prior to police picking it up, charge "suspect" with obstruction of justice

    11. Re:Unintended uses by MajVariola · · Score: 1

      WTF, isn't there an app for this already?

    12. Re:Unintended uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be required to have a police warrant to nuke your own phone.

      The police however will not.

    13. Re:Unintended uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over what network? If they could tell you nuked your own phone they'd throw the book at you.

    14. Re:Unintended uses by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you could use it to nuke your own phone if the police had seized it and were using it to find evidence against you...

      Um, no. Nuking the phone means making it unusable, not actively zeroing out the flash card. Besides, anything that is "nuked" can be replace with new parts, re-flashing the ram, etc. So it would cut down on the casual thief stealing a phone to use, I guess, but not stop theft completely.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    15. Re:Unintended uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. Remember that these days the authorities and ruling classes are monists: self-referencing, authorities unto themselves, and anything that isn't in their interests in somehow plausibly hammered into a reasonable argument that what you've done is illegal, obstruction, destruction (the one that would apply here)... This system would probably take the form of a carrier or other being responsible to nuke it, who gets a notice disallowing call-ins except by the authorities, such that you don't have that ability. There are already third-party applications and technologies to nuke your phone though, not to mention encryption (keep the password in your head and they're not allowed to compel you, except maybe at the border since the Supreme Court long ago fabricated the doctrine that the Constitution only applies on American soil--making our government abroad a lawless gang rather than legitimate actor, IMHO).

    16. Re:Unintended uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On an iOS device, nuking the phone will delete the asymmetric key that is used to perform full disk encryption on the hard drive.

      Since it's using AES with a strong random key, that is essentially the same as zeroing the flash drive.

      Of course, any competent police officer will immediately remove the SIM card and power off the phone (so it can't connect via WiFi).

  3. I don't know... by martiniturbide · · Score: 1

    I don't know why, but I have the idea that I'm going to accidentally turn that switch on.

  4. Don't we already have this? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something similar has been available for YEARS- all you need do is ask the phone company to invalidate the IMEI number.and/or activate the memory wipe software built into Android, iOS, and Windows phones.

    Has Symbian and Blackberry been left out of this feature? I would have thought consumer demand for it would have produced it on those platforms as well long ago.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Don't we already have this? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 2

      So, I think this system has potential for abuse, both by governments and by some random hacker/disgruntled employee killing off phones.

      But, the IMEI thing is not really a fix.
      1) The phone can still be used as an ipod or tablet.
      2) IMEI can be changed.
      In addition, IMEI record keeping is rather poor.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    2. Re:Don't we already have this? by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Informative

      Something similar has been available for YEARS- all you need do is ask the phone company to invalidate the IMEI number.and/or activate the memory wipe software built into Android, iOS, and Windows phones.

      There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers. Even if you tell your carrier that your phone was stolen and they bother to invalidate the number, AFAIK there's nothing stopping the theif from using the phone on a different carrier (assuming the phone is compatible, obviously.)

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, I think this system has potential for abuse, both by governments and by some random hacker/disgruntled employee killing off phones.

      But, the IMEI thing is not really a fix.
      1) The phone can still be used as an ipod or tablet.
      2) IMEI can be changed.
      In addition, IMEI record keeping is rather poor.

      The solution is not a kill switch. The solution is to embed a serial number in hardware on the device which cannot be changed.
      Yes, this would still allow thieves to part the device out or use it as a non-phone device. But the major draw for smartphones is that you can wipe them and sell them to somebody as a working phone. Which the Carriers will happily activate even when the IMEI has not been changed and has been reported stolen.

      As for government abuse, again they actually don't need a kill switch. All they need is to have the Carrier de-activate the device on their network. This is already possible, it'll happen to you if you don't pay your bill, or if you cancel your service.

    4. Re:Don't we already have this? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      By what dark magic do you propose to do that?

      There is no reason the phone OS ever has to report that number burned into hardware vs one it made with a random number generator if that is what the owner decides to do. Just like spoofing MAC addresses this would quickly become trivial.

    5. Re:Don't we already have this? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      If they make phone calls or texts before the service is disconnected the records are for your phone you can give the relevant numbers to the police so they can track down the jerk.

      I had a phone that I forgot in the car and it was stolen by the time I got it disconnected they had already made a lot of calls. They caught them.

    6. Re:Don't we already have this? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Where was this?

      The police where I live do not care. They will not retrive phones if you give them the location and photos of the crooks.

    7. Re:Don't we already have this? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      Indeed. To this I'd like to add that gov't asking a carrier to disconnect an IMEI is a LOT different from gov't turning phone into a brick.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    8. Re:Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phone carriers don't really do this outside of Verizon/Sprint/non-SIM card providers, and at that they do it haphazardly. Plus, there is a nice grey market for the SIM based phones to sell the phone overseas since carriers couldn't hope to come up with a trusted central database to pull from for blacklisted IMEI DB. First thing I'd do with those is go about is finding an unscrupulous South African or European carrier, and pay someone $20-$100 to blacklist the IMEI of someone I don't like on their network which would propagate back to the western carriers. Now if Google/MS had forced activation like Apple is promising with iOS 7, that'll change things quite a bit. Only issue from there will be hacked ROMs for Google & Microsoft or older phone OS versions that don't support the lockout people could roll back to (can't really do that since iPhone 3G or 4, can't remember which). Plus let's be real here. You can change the IMEI on a phone in under 10 minutes.

    9. Re:Don't we already have this? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised devices don't have hardwired unique network IDs at the hardware network level, like a MAC address or something. Then it couldn't be spoofed. Replacing that module, to say nothing of acquiring replacments in a laundered way, is a lot more work.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:Don't we already have this? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I live in a small Kansas town under 30k population so they tend to be more responsive. I have lived in larger places were if your not bleeding in a life threatening manner, good luck getting any help beyond a report that no one will ever read.

    11. Re:Don't we already have this? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      The article I saw yesterday on this pointed out that the demand was for smartphones AND tablets to have this kill feature, and that it must kill the device even if it is not online.

      Now, I don't know how that's going to work, but I can easily forsee a case of Google (for example) seeing a non-Google-approved android device showing up at the Play Store and the kill code being sent out... not saying Google would do that, but can you imagine the fun of a malicious app that lets you do something wonderful, for a week and then it shuts your device off permanently? No factory reset, no recovery. Dead.

      I can actually believe that some large unnamed software company would include this code in their phones/tablets to prevent piracy of their software. Keep in mind the difficulty of upgrading the computer hardware using some unmentioned OSs because they base their license on things like the serial number of the hard drive. New hard drive, different system, no license. Brick. Buy smartphone with certain OS, buy software for it, screw up in license server. Brick.

      Imagine the phun when someone discovers how to send this code to a phone via SMS? Hilarity ensues...

    12. Re:Don't we already have this? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Mac Adresses are spoofed all the time. It is trivial to do.

      They do have IMEI numbers that are unique, but again can be changed or spoofed.

      There is no need to change hardware to spoof an id, just have the software lie about what the hardware id is.

    13. Re:Don't we already have this? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised you compared it to a MAC, since altering MAC is trivial under any OS.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    14. Re:Don't we already have this? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Since you feel a MAC address is unique and unspoofable do quick google on MAC spoofing.

      I hereby, formally request you turn in your /. UID.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    15. Re:Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the U.S., no. Europe has a true system that causes the device to be banned everywhere, but if I take an phone banned on one network to another network it works just fine in the U.S.

      The U.S.A. is way behind in cell phone technology compared to other countries.

    16. Re:Don't we already have this? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised devices don't have hardwired unique network IDs at the hardware network level, like a MAC address or something. Then it couldn't be spoofed. Replacing that module, to say nothing of acquiring replacments in a laundered way, is a lot more work.

      It exists, it's called the IMEI and it's internationally unique (international mobile equipment identity). In that one number exposes a serial number and the model and submodel of the phone (it's how the carriers know what kind of phone you're using).

      The problem is that with tools, you can change the IMEI because that thing is programmed during production at the factory. And factory reprogramming tools have a tendency to get out in the wild (because it does more than just IMEI, like potentially controlling SIM lock and other things).

      Then again, it's like the MAC addresses - they're also programmed at the factory and trivially changed (it exists inside an EEPROM). Some NICs even give you the ability to reprogram the EEPROM in software.

    17. Re:Don't we already have this? by tgd · · Score: 1

      Something similar has been available for YEARS- all you need do is ask the phone company to invalidate the IMEI number.and/or activate the memory wipe software built into Android, iOS, and Windows phones.

      There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers. Even if you tell your carrier that your phone was stolen and they bother to invalidate the number, AFAIK there's nothing stopping the theif from using the phone on a different carrier (assuming the phone is compatible, obviously.)

      Well *clearly* this is why networked locked phones are in the public's best interest!

    18. Re:Don't we already have this? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      Hate to repeat this, AC, but IMEI changing is easy.
      Even if it wasn't, the phone still has value off-network.

      Since you bring up Europe...
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1749215.stm

      ==
      A spokeswoman said: "IMEI barring does not solve the problem and is a red herring."

      The method only stops calls being made on the network that barred it, the spokeswoman went on, and the handset itself is completely usable if a Sim card is put in from another network.

      New IMEIs can be programmed into stolen handsets and 10% of IMEIs are not unique. ...

      The firm has not adopted IMEI technology because it is "unreliable", a spokeswoman said, and could lead to innocent phone users being disconnected.

      "Duplicate numbers are coming out of the factories now and you can have two or three handsets with the same number," she said.

      "You might be blocking several other people who have done nothing wrong. ...

      "In any case, there is software you can download from the internet to change IMEI numbers when a handset is stolen."
      ==

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    19. Re:Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has Symbian and Blackberry been left out of this feature?

      Blackberries have had remote locking/wiping for more than a decade. There are different kinds of wipe though.

      The regular device wipe erases the data, but doesn't remove a device policy set by a blackberry server.

      Device policy lets an admin do things like requiring a mandatory password, mandatory encryption, deploy wifi & vpn settings, and lots of other handy stuff: http://docs.blackberry.com/en/admin/deliverables/7228/Policy_Reference_Guide.pdf

      A "factory reset" will wipe all the data and remove a device policy.

      The blackberry has no way to permanently disable itself.

    20. Re:Don't we already have this? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers

      Actually there is. The two major GSM carriers, T-Mobile and AT&T, share a database. Sprint and Verizon will be joining that database by the end of the year; though not that stealing a CDMA phone does you much good on a GSM network and vice versa at the moment. In any case the problem is that the IMEI database is not enough;

      1. IMEIs are not unique. We've hit the equivalent of IPv4 space exhaustion. So they're simply reusing IMEIs now.
      2. IMEIs can be changed on a number of phones, so it's not a reliable way to keep a phone blocked.
      3. These IMEI databases are not shared on a global level, and there's really no way to force everyone to work together. China Telecom for example has little incentive to block iPhones stolen in other countries

      The solution then is that rather than merely unreliably blocking a phone, the phone needs to be disabled entirely so that a stolen phone cannot be of any value. It essentially needs to be (reversibly) destroyed if stolen, to eliminate all financial incentive for stealing a phone. This is why the Attorneys General and other law enforcement officials want kill switches, so that shipping a purloined phone overseas is no longer a viable business, ultimately leading to criminals to stop stealing the damn things.

    21. Re:Don't we already have this? by amorsen · · Score: 1

      IMEI is almost entirely useless. Few carriers care about IMEI block lists, and it's easy enough to export the phones to a place which doesn't care anyway. In addition you can sometimes change IMEI numbers, but that is unnecessary.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    22. Re:Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something similar has been available for YEARS- all you need do is ask the phone company to invalidate the IMEI number.

      And therein lies the problem. TFA implies that it is the phone manufacturers that are resisting the idea when it is clearly the carriers that don't want an end to stolen phones. They figure that if your phone gets stolen it will need to be reactivated and then they will get another revenue stream.
       

    23. Re:Don't we already have this? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      There's still no nationwide database in the US of all stolen IMEI numbers

      Actually there is. The two major GSM carriers, T-Mobile and AT&T, share a database. Sprint and Verizon will be joining that database by the end of the year; though not that stealing a CDMA phone does you much good on a GSM network and vice versa at the moment. In any case the problem is that the IMEI database is not enough;

      1. IMEIs are not unique. We've hit the equivalent of IPv4 space exhaustion. So they're simply reusing IMEIs now.
      2. IMEIs can be changed on a number of phones, so it's not a reliable way to keep a phone blocked.
      3. These IMEI databases are not shared on a global level, and there's really no way to force everyone to work together. China Telecom for example has little incentive to block iPhones stolen in other countries

      The solution then is that rather than merely unreliably blocking a phone, the phone needs to be disabled entirely so that a stolen phone cannot be of any value. It essentially needs to be (reversibly) destroyed if stolen, to eliminate all financial incentive for stealing a phone. This is why the Attorneys General and other law enforcement officials want kill switches, so that shipping a purloined phone overseas is no longer a viable business, ultimately leading to criminals to stop stealing the damn things.

      It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to make re-use of the phone more expensive.

      "reversible" and "hard to defeat" seems like two requirements that would be fulfilled by some sort of encryption. Maybe activating the phone writes the firmware with an encryption code generated by the serial number and something the user sets up and stores with the carrier. Or a hash of some kind like a password (make the phone do some CPU work to connect).

      People stealing phones that are causing a problem are the 15 year old ghetto goblins riding the public bus. 99% of the time, the phone is wiped and re used by the same person that stole it in the first place. They need to cut out that loop. Not the "has a lab full of stuff to take apart an iPhone" criminal.

    24. Re:Don't we already have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It essentially needs to be (reversibly) destroyed if stolen,

      Actually, it would need to be irreversibly destroyed, or the thief would simply reverse the "destruction", making it little more than a speed bump

  5. At what level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At what level does this kill the phone? Some value in the NAND that prevents it from booting? Blocking at the provider level? I'm not sure there's any way to "disable the phone so its worthless". You can disable it so it has to be taken apart for scrap, but it will still be worth something. Even if the NAND has to be replaced. Even if the main CPU has to be replaced. I think they're attacking the wrong problem.

    1. Re: At what level by alen · · Score: 1

      Doesn't have to be 100% effective
      Just enough to make it unprofitable to resell stolen phones. Thieves have bills and expenses so if you make it hard enough that they can't sell enough phones to live on, they will stop selling phones

      Not all thieves are worthless scum either. The nypd busted some college kids last month who were running a stolen iPhone ring for extra cash

    2. Re: At what level by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Not all thieves are worthless scum either. The nypd busted some college kids last month who were running a stolen iPhone ring for extra cash

      Funny, to me that's practically the definition of worthless scum.

  6. If you're robbing someone... by intermodal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you will take their phone regardless of whether it is any good to you. Why? because it can be used to call the police as soon as you leave.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:If you're robbing someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you will take their phone regardless of whether it is any good to you. Why? because it can be used to call the police as soon as you leave.

      Yes but how often is that robbery simply because the thief wants the phone itself?? if thats what they wanted and its not good to them after they steal it why would they attempt the robbery in the first place?

    2. Re:If you're robbing someone... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I don't know enough thieves to answer that, but I'm willing to bet that if phones are no good to thieves, they'll just steal something else. That's the thing about thievery. They steal whatever they can easily fence or profit from otherwise. If it's not phones, they'll find something else.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:If you're robbing someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you will take their phone regardless of whether it is any good to you. Why? because it can be used to call the
      police as soon as you leave.

      This. According to wikipedia: "Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear." One in 3 robberies? Was the cellphone the only item taken? If this is going to be implemented, the cellphone will be taken anyway and thrown into the garbage away, but now it will have a "kill" switch.
      Oh, and AG can claim he did "something" in his political campaign.

      ____________
      I've never understood why the site that claims to care about privacy instituted sign-in accounts. AC

    4. Re:If you're robbing someone... by psithurism · · Score: 2

      True, thieves want whatever they can get, but right now, phones are the most valuable piece of property your typical pedestrian is carrying. Robbing someone is a pretty risky business and if you cut down the expected profit from $200 phone sale (I've never tried, but I assume that's what you get from a hot iPhone), to the $30 your average pedestrian carries, you'd get a lot more people turning to pan handling, drug dealing, or whatever they do when your out of other options.

      I don't know any (admitted) thieves, but I do know a number of people who have been mugged. They don't tend to share the stories of the time they handed over their stuff, but everyone other person seems to have a story where they beat down a thug or the cops showed up just in time and got 'em, so I have to assume: thievery is a risky business, that wouldn't be attempted without reasonable expectation of payoff.

  7. Unintended consequences by idontgno · · Score: 2

    The problem is that the lack of a kill-switch gives incentive to steal a nice phone, no matter what it takes.

    The response is to make the stolen phone remote-brickable, even after a factory-clean wipe.

    The counter-response is to make sure the theft of the phone is never reported. And dead men tell no tales.

    Of course, this means that the trackable live phone is in the hands of a murderer or an accessory-after-the-fact, so law enforcement has both incentive and means to pursue justice... so it's self-correcting, except for the whole "original victim is dead" part.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most phone thefts are snatch and grab, rather then held up with a gun. Run down a street, snatch the phone out of someone's hand, keep running.

    2. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The response is to make the stolen phone remote-brickable, even after a factory-clean wipe.

      No, the response is to list the device's serial number as "stolen", and require the Carriers to simply not activate stolen serials. The phones are a target because you can just pull the SIM chip out, and sell the phone for a nice chunk of cash. The purchaser can then take it to any major Carrier who will happily install a new SIM and activate it on their phone plan.

      The only thing extra thing a kill switch provides is an an easy way for a malicious hacker, a pissed off employee, or an incompetent IT person to brick a shitload of phones.

    3. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, this means that the trackable live phone is in the hands of a murderer or an accessory-after-the-fact, so law enforcement has both incentive and means to pursue justice...

      If only we had a system where government organizations and law enforcement agencies could track our every phone action without needing our permission.

      Oh wait...

    4. Re:Unintended consequences by amorsen · · Score: 1

      The pool of people who are willing to steal is dramatically smaller than the pool of people who are willing to (intentionally) commit murder. Usually the robber does not start the robbery with the intention of killing the victim. If we cut robberies down to only intentional murders, the police will have lots of resources to deal with much fewer cases, and that should take those murderers out of circulation fairly rapidly.

      As an extra bonus, if a fenced phone is likely to come from a murder victim, a lot more people will think twice about buying it. Maybe we can finally make fencing socially unacceptable.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  8. Seekdroid maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather use an app that I control myself than put a universal "kill switch" on phones... People should be actively seeking out ways to prevent theft of their cell phones, such as the plethora of apps available on several platforms. I mean, if you had 600 dollars in your pocket, you'd take precautions to avoid it getting stolen, wouldn't you? It's not the police responsibility to track down your personal property using federal tax dollars to do so when there are cheap or free solutions for protecting your data and helping track the thief.

    1. Re:Seekdroid maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the police responsibility to track down your personal property using federal tax dollars to do so when there are cheap or free solutions for protecting your data and helping track the thief.

      First, you are wrong- it's their job to investigate any theft which is reported regardless of how easy it may or may not be for me to investigate it myself.
      Second, you are wrong- there is no such thing as a Federal Police Officer.

      Third, if someone steals your car, you report the VIN as stolen, and they try to register that VIN the cops are going to show up and arrest them.
      But if they steal your phone, you report the IMEI as stolen, and they show up at Verizon or AT&T.... they get a working phone and nobody blinks an eye.

      We don't need a kill switch. What we need is the Carriers to be held liable for facilitating theft if they allow a reported device to be used on their networks.

  9. Fortune! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them mandate it... then you can do the following:

    1) Steal Phone
    2) Remove SIM card / power down phone / Airplane mode the bitch.
    3) Root
    4) Change IMEI number that the device reports to a valid one.
    5) Profit.

  10. Okay then by djdanlib · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who's going to inform all of the would-be muggers that the world of cell phones suddenly changed? Bad muggers! Stop mugging! That'll show em! They know they can still sell the phones for parts and make more money than they would just selling a phone. It's not going to deter them from stealing the phone. Besides, JTAG and such will continue to render inoperable phones operable, not to mention that it may be possible to bypass the kill function if you get into the phone fast enough.

    Look at Egypt and Turkey and wherever else. This is an excellent way for a government to say "No more smartphone for you, protestor!" Even if they don't use it in the USA, who WILL use it? The hardware will be built to allow it, so the next nation to have unrest will simply broadcast the kill bits en masse, and the protestors will be censored. Sounds quite delicious from a dictatorship's standpoint.

    1. Re:Okay then by JeffAtl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who's going to inform all of the would-be muggers that the world of cell phones suddenly changed?

      The fence they use to offload their stolen phones.

    2. Re:Okay then by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Huh. Today I learned that a fence isn't just a wall without a ceiling.

    3. Re:Okay then by tjb · · Score: 1

      Besides, JTAG and such will continue to render inoperable phones operable

      If you put a fuse on the die in the some important place (voltage regulator, memory controller, CPU) or even on package in the bonding with a way to allow the CPU to blow the fuse, you can render the device completely inoperable short of the thief replacing the SoC (which is unlikely to be worthwhile)

    4. Re:Okay then by amorsen · · Score: 1

      They know they can still sell the phones for parts and make more money than they would just selling a phone.

      I doubt that. Phone parts are relatively cheap because few people buy original parts. The only ones who do buy official parts are the official repair shops, and they are unlikely to buy parts from thieves.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  11. Its about time. by bhlowe · · Score: 1

    The cool part will be the GPS location of the stolen phone... even if the user tries to wipe it... Even if jailbroken, if a call is made with a stolen phone, it should be easy to tell its stolen. This should lead to craigslist postings where it says, iPod Touch for sale, do not attach to iTunes, do not update the firmware, and do not attempt to use the phone.

    1. Re:Its about time. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Short of magic how would that work?

      If I control the OS how exactly do you prevent me from uninstalling/deleting this software? How do you prevent me from patching around this?

      This is just another ruse to get you to beg for trusted computing.

    2. Re:Its about time. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If I control the OS how exactly do you prevent me from uninstalling/deleting this software? How do you prevent me from patching around this?

      Apple controls the firmware. That will make it very, very hard to install a different OS, and impossible to boot into it.

    3. Re:Its about time. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Jailbreaking will occur, just as it has in the past.

      Also this is not being proposed just for Apple. I will not buy a device I am not allowed to own.

    4. Re:Its about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when it's stolen you won't own it any more.

    5. Re:Its about time. by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      If a crook has to say, "Oh, by the way, don't unjailbreak it", that's as good as saying its stolen. Most people don't want to knowingly buy and walk around with stolen gear that includes a GPS transceiver. It would also be possible for a cell phone company to write a unique serial number into the (non-flashable) ROM.. Which could be passed to the carrier with each phone call. Doesn't seem like magic.

  12. solution is Hired goons/private security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. install app that secretly activates radio pulses when phone receives an innocuous text message
    2. install companion app on tablet that will exactly track the location of the phone by these pulses
    3. hire a couple of goons or get some big friends to break the fingers of the guy who has your phone and take it back

  13. Paranoia about the kill switch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I AM wary of the whole kill switch idea being used by someone else, but maybe thats a little paranoia. Its not like they couldn't deactivate your service if they didn't want you to use the phone, they wouldn't have to kill it.

  14. Did they ever stop to think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If theft of phones become unprofitable, criminals will switch to other crimes!

  15. So what's the real motivation? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    If this page can swell up with well thought out objections within the matter of minutes, something tells me preventing thefts is not the real motivation for something like this...

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:So what's the real motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it could prevent phone theft, you'd believe civilizing your people so that there isn't a significant portion of them mugging and hurting everyone else should be a priority.
        There are more Americans in jail, prison, parole, etc. than there are people in most countries. And it's the same when you look at the numbers per capita.
        Where I live now, if you leave a smartphone in the subway, you go to lost-and-found, not to the Apple Store.

  16. Two unrelated problems. by aoeu · · Score: 1

    In the course of a strong arm robbery it is important to get away. That means taking the victim's phone whether or not it is smart.

    --
    All your database are belong to U.S.
    1. Re:Two unrelated problems. by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Today people get robbed for 3 things: money, passports, and phones. Cash is going away, so you have to bring the victim to an ATM to get the money out, and most people do not carry passports so you have to be really careful selecting your victim. Phones are easy to spot, so you know that there is something to rob, and they are extremely easy to fence.

      If we take phones out of the equation, the criminals are likely to switch to other types of crime. Hopefully types which are less devastating to the victims.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  17. ridiculous by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Without a clear ESN, nobody can activate a phone anyway. So the owner would just mark the phone as not having a clear ESN manually or simply don't pay their bills and tada, it's useless. At least CDMA works that way. The vastly inferior GSM system is a theft waiting to happen.

    By the way, what's going to stop people from stealing the screen glass, screen, and battery from a smartphone and ebaying it? Do they have a killswitch for that?

    1. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change the ESN to something random.

  18. Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If 1 in 3 robberies involve stealing a tracking device that can lead police back to the culprit, shouldn't that be making the job of police much easier?

    Instead of a "kill-switch", shouldn't law enforcement be asking for a tracking beacon that can be turned on to help track down all of these stolen phones? (I know Apple's kill-switch does enable GPS tracking, but that doesn't seem to be what the Attorney General is asking for). It's not like criminals are going to say "Oh geeze, I can't sell a stolen cell phone anymore, guess I should finish up my degree and get a real job" -- They are still going to be committing crimes, but will steal cash and expensive purses instead of cell phones.

    1. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey that sounds like a great idea. Too bad they already can do that no doubt. Why do they not do it? Your phone is "only" worth a few hundred dollars. They have more important things to do like eating donuts. There's the REAL problem.

    2. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that the police have the time and interest to recover the cell phone. I'd bet in most cases, they're focused on "bigger" crimes.

    3. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if we were to employ explosive battery technology, then the "kill-switch" technique would hold the promise to radically curb both law enforcement and incarcination expenditures.

      captcha: muslin

    4. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if we were to employ explosive battery technology, then the "kill-switch" technique would hold the promise to radically curb both law enforcement and incarcination expenditures.

      captcha: muslin

      muslin: (noun) lightweight cotton cloth in a plain weave

      Can we please stop posting out inane captchas now?

    5. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Only if the police take a cell phone theft seriously. If the perp was armed it might take SWAT to safely arrest said perp and recover the phone.

      Recovery is the issue. Apprehending a known criminal (the person with the phone he/she stole) is dangerous.

      How much human time is worth even an $800 phone and a potential violent encounter? If you consider a minimum of 3-4 cops to handle "recovery", then almost none is the answer. Even if the phone was worth $2,000 the time allotted value barely changes (and should the cops discriminate based on phone value?).

      So you brick the phones (dramatically reducing the value of the phone). It may result in activists being silenced though.

      Solution: Only implement the bricking option on specific models, or sell mirror-models that either brickable or not, permanently.

      Those with expensive phones (geeks and yuppies, yes, I said the word yuppies, sorry for the younger crowd...) can guarantee they brick. Everyone else, not so much.

      I carry a phone purchased recently, but released in 2011. It could get stolen, but the value from a fence wouldn't cover a decent dinner. Things like concealed-carry help to deter this sort of thing as well...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    6. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself to expand a bit.

      The $20 temporary cell phone will never be brickable. Unless mandated by a Federal governmental agency. At that point, discontinue any sales to said country.

      Especially if it is in the Middle East or North Africa and in a state of unrest. Europe, Asia, and the Americas are the biggest markets anyway ($$$).

      Maybe all carriers stop selling to the public (or almost everything is bricked), and the government/military is the only entity with cellular communications abilities. The public would destroy the cellular towers. Or the US or UN, but probably the US with UN approval, drones are perfect for such tasks. As much as I hate drones, they can provide very accurate asset destruction. I have to think this through some more.

      If the government is bricking everyone's phones, I have to assume that internet and physical phone connections will also be targeted. Nature of the beast. The UN will certainly be involved at or before that point, thus there is a control factor. Europe has mostly handled the Arab Spring in terms of troops on the ground, hugely to theirs and the UN's credit. The US has had primarily aid missions to allies. Syria is probably going to be another story altogether.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    7. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod +infinity

      If phones aren't any good for stealing then they will just switch to someone else. Sheesh, fucking dumbasses. Solve the root of the problem not the symptoms.

    8. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's not like criminals are going to say "Oh geeze, I can't sell a stolen cell phone anymore, guess I should finish up my degree and get a real job" -- They are still going to be committing crimes...

      Yeah, as bankers and politicians. Then it's legal..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume that by the time the victim gets around to contacting the police (they don't have a phone on them anymore, remember), the thief has had a chance to turn the phone off. Sure, it will get turned back on at some point by whoever the thief tries to sell it to to verify that it works, but that's much later and it probably won't be on for very long. Once it gets sold, it's trackable, but the thief is likely long out of the picture.

    10. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      How much human time is worth even an $800 phone and a potential violent encounter? If you consider a minimum of 3-4 cops to handle "recovery", then almost none is the answer. Even if the phone was worth $2,000 the time allotted value barely changes (and should the cops discriminate based on phone value?).

      If we only prosecuted crimes when the damage done by the criminal exceeded the cost to punish him, then you'd have to set armed watches at night to get any sleep at all. That is, when you aren't busy doing raids on your neighbor's house.

      Enforcing the law is almost never cost-effective if you only measure it in terms of the criminals you catch. It becomes cost-effective because for every criminal you put behind bars there are 5 more potential criminals who think better of committing a crime.

      People steal cell-phones because they know they can get away with it. If you knew there was a 95% chance that you'd end up in prison if you stole a cell phone then you wouldn't steal them. Arresting cell phone thieves isn't playing whack-a-mole - it is about whacking a dozen moles really hard and watching the rest flee in terror.

      What crime could possibly carry a greater risk of being caught than one in which you steal a device that by law has to be locatable at all times by authorities (911 requirement)? Sure, there are countermeasures, but the market for stolen phones would dry up quickly if they were almost impossible to sell (nobody will buy used phones from non-reputable sources when there is a good chance you'll lose it and your money and get a fine besides).

    11. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by astrodoom · · Score: 1

      That exists already for most phones. Police do not attempt to recover stolen phones. They just don't care (they say they don't have the time resources to do that, remember that next time you're getting a speeding ticket for going 8 over the limit).

    12. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by astrodoom · · Score: 1

      False. They're primarily focused on traffic violations.

    13. Re:Shouldn't cell phone thefts help police? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you live but in NYC they are focused on Parking violations and they almost completely ignore Traffic violations.

      Come to NYC, drive like a maniac, sail through red lights (unless there happens to be a camera on it, then you'll get a ticket in the mail), chase pedestrians out of crosswalks, and kill cyclists as you wish, but don't park illegally or you will pay for it dearly.

  19. Why do we need this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's my understanding that phones have a limited life outside your hands -- thief doesn't get the charger, you report the phone stolen and the SIM card is deactivated, boom. Done. And if you're smart you already had a lock on your phone and/or encryption, so it's not like they're going to get your personal info either. Why do we need a way to remotely deactivate cell phones?

    1. Re:Why do we need this? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that phones have a limited life outside your hands -- thief doesn't get the charger, you report the phone stolen and the SIM card is deactivated, boom. Done. And if you're smart you already had a lock on your phone and/or encryption, so it's not like they're going to get your personal info either. Why do we need a way to remotely deactivate cell phones?

      The thief sells your phone to someone who will ship it to another country, wipe it to factory defaults, and sell it on the black market - possibly repackaged as new, if it's in good enough condition.

      You said the thief doesn't get the charger, but I can buy an iPhone 4 USB cable for about $6 retail, which means the wholesale price is closer to $2, and I'm sure they can be obtained for less. The new iPhone 5 ones are probably a little more just because they're new. I expect many other phones use Micro USB, since that's the official standard in Europe, and obviously those are dirt cheap.

      An international stolen device registry would prevent these stolen phones from operating, which means people will stop buying them, which means the market will dry up, which means people will stop stealing them because they no longer have value. It won't happen overnight, but if everyone's on board, it will help a lot.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  20. They don't want to catch criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuke the phone after it's been stolen? really? really really?

    They are the best tracking devices out there and you want to disable it. The guy with the phone is a known thief, you can now track him/her/hir without problem.

    The police are lazy, they really don't want to arrest anyone. They'd rather sit round at dunkin donuts eating egg and bacon donuts.
    .

  21. Anti-Phone-Theft Kill Switch by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Is that how now is called an enforced remote backdoor? What ensures you that it won't be used to i.e. track everyone, where they are, what they use, what they write or how licensed is the media they are playing? Will be outlawed (or at least, not offered by the companies) the "non-approved" phones because of this?

    Probably "think on the children" and "or the terrorist will win" were too used this week, and they had to invent something else. But i would had waited a few weeks so the massive awareness on how they are tracking us deflates a bit before proposing such kind of things.

  22. if it happens it will be a token gesture. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    carriers and handset manufacturers have absolutely no incentive to make this happen. a market for phone theft insurance exists already, and the ability to disable a stolen phone would arguably reduce the number of phones providers could vend to a specific customer. District attorneys enjoy taking up cause celebre things like 'phone kill switches' because its an election year for most of these guys. rampant theft of the most coveted cellphones is a side effect of the philosophy of futility. That the very idea one might lose their bugati, prada, or iPhone is not only understood, but actively encouraged by advertisers subconsciously as a selling point of the product. exclusivity, social inequality, and elitism are all parts of the culture of conspicuous consumption we've all agreed are acceptable, nay, even ancicipated.

    the effective solution is to keep expensive personal electronics secured on your person or away from view in questionable or dangerous areas and situations, or simply stop keeping up with the joneses and start buying something practical and affordable.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  23. Corporate - Government Synergy by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Why "kill" a device when you stand a good chance of getting it back? Killing it does nobody any good, and has lots of quite horrible abuse potential.

    The companies get new sales and the government gets a stealthed system to quickly kill organized protests and evidence of police brutality with the push of a button. Win-Win!

    1. Re:Corporate - Government Synergy by amorsen · · Score: 1

      The companies get new sales and the government gets a stealthed system to quickly kill organized protests and evidence of police brutality with the push of a button. Win-Win!

      If you think that shutting down cell phone communications to a specific area is difficult and requires new software, you are deluded. Sorry.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  24. better solution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in addition to the 'kill switch' every phone should come with a hand gun to protect the user from robbers!

  25. Instead of creating a vulnerable rootkit... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    ...why not just issue a CCW with every smartphone purchased, under the condition that the purchaser passes the required training and background checks?

    If thieves knew that smartphone owners might be armed and dangerous, they just might stop thieving.

  26. Kill switch? Why? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    Why would the phone need special support? Every phone has a burned-in IMEI. So the subscriber registers the IMEI to their subscriber ID (IMSI) when they activate their phone. It can even be automated: when a SIM's issued to a subscriber, the first time it's put in a phone the carrier associates that phone's IMEI with the IMSI. Then, when the subscriber reports his phone stolen, the carrier publishes the IMEI to a database. All carriers check that database, and when an IMEI that appears in the database tries to connect to their network they reject it. The phone can still be used stand-alone, but how useful is a cel phone that can't connect to a network? And of course since the carrier now knows at least the cel tower the phone's connecting to if not the actual GPS coordinates, it's easy for them to forward the location to the local police and if there's a unit in the vicinity not doing anything more important they just got an easy bust. And maybe a big one, if the cel phone was being used by criminals because it was stolen and not directly traceable back to them. If the phone sent GPS coordinates you've got air-tight probabl cause: you know the phone's been reported stolen, you know it's at this location, that means that whoever's got it has to be at least receiving stolen property and that should more than satisfy any judge as probable cause to search the place. No phone support for any of this needed, it's all carrier-side and can't be bypassed short of disabling the radio in the phone so it can't connect to a carrier's network (which kind of defeats the purpose of stealing a cel phone in the first place).

  27. Remember "Civil Unrest" by sehlat · · Score: 1

    Riot starts, demonstration starts, somebody says "Kill the phones." The providers will love it. They'll just slap a "reactivation fee" on everybody, even innocent bystanders, whose phones got zapped.

    1. Re:Remember "Civil Unrest" by amorsen · · Score: 1

      All of which is extremely easy to accomplish today. Yet even in Turkey or Egypt it does not happen. Well they do shut off cell phone towers completely of course.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:Remember "Civil Unrest" by sehlat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but shutting down the towers doesn't deactivate the phones. Shutting people up is the whole POINT of doing something like this.

    3. Re:Remember "Civil Unrest" by amorsen · · Score: 1

      You still haven't explained what the difference is between what can be done today by the authorities and what will be possible with a kill switch. There is no significant difference.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    4. Re:Remember "Civil Unrest" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The significant difference is that the carriers can then charge to reactivate the phones, thus putting their cooperation on an incentive plan.

    5. Re:Remember "Civil Unrest" by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Why cannot they charge today? If the phone does not work on any network in the country, surely that is equivalent.

      Anyway, they cannot charge if they activate the kill switch. If the kill switch can be circumvented by carriers, it is completely useless. The whole point of it is that it is irreversible (except possibly by the manufacturer).

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  28. This will CAUSE more murders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a violent criminal knows that you can totally disable the phone, what's stopping him from killing you to prevent that from happening?

  29. An anti-theft kill switch is the last thing I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some years ago I attempted to pay for some goods in a store in Helsinki with my credit card.
    The stores cash register refused and the next thing I knew I was in the back of a police van on the way to the police station.
    Turns out the cash register alerted that my card was stolen.
    It took me some time to convince them who I was (Even though I had my passport in my pocket) and that the card was mine and that their was sufficient funds available to cover the purchase.

    How much more easy to kill my phone by accident?

    No thanks.

       

  30. In other news... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    There has been a recent uptick in sales of Faraday Bags...all cash sales, of course.

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  31. What could possibly go wrong? by I'm+not+god+any+more · · Score: 0

    I just can't imagine how this could possibly go wrong for all those apple lovers.
    This might be the killer feature that will transition OSX to iOS, so those computer users can also benefit from this marvelous technology.
    It's just a matter of time before the government will be replacing Social Security numbers with Apple IDs and retirement benefits will move over to iTunes gift cards.
    The realization of Corporate America is almost here.

  32. Just like we have a kill switch in our cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Law enforcement officials nationwide are demanding the creation of a 'kill switch' that would render automobiles inoperable after they are stolen, New York's top prosecutor said Thursday in a clear warning to the world's automotive manufacturers. Citing statistics showing that 1 in 3 robberies nationwide involve the theft of an automobile, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced the formation of a coalition of law enforcement agencies devoted to stamping out what he called an 'epidemic' of car robberies. 'All too often, these robberies turn violent,' said Schneiderman, who was joined at a news conference by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon. 'There are assaults. There are murders.'"

    1. Re:Just like we have a kill switch in our cars? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      You've obviously missed the stories about the police wanting kill switches in cars so they don't have to chase them any more.

      The problem with argument by absurdity is that the government has probably already come up with the idea.

  33. Why? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    When there is so much work that needs to be done. Short term solutions abound that can be selected by those who do not care but are in a place guiding others to act. Why would someone have so much free time that waiting for another to victumize is considered a best choice? Why is stealing a phone punishable, but robo-filing to forclose a home not?

  34. My phone already does this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, your Android and iOS based phones don't do this? Mine does. Thank god for Blackberry. The Z10 is awesome!

  35. Why kill the phone? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Why not kill the robber?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Why kill the phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you could disable the safety features of the lithium ion battery and likely do just that (you'd destroy the phone at the very least). Plus, it might even still be legal to kill someone in the act of property theft in my state (i.e. you can shoot them in the back as they're running off with your TV). You'd absolutely be arrested for it and there'd be a lengthy and complex trial, but in so far as I know the old laws which allowed for that are still on the books. (In the frontier days having your livestock or food stolen could be a death sentence, so it was considered self-defence.)

    2. Re:Why kill the phone? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yes, in my state those laws are also on the books, however it has been proven time and time again that an otherwise law abiding citizens who kills a criminal in the middle of an act receives a longer sentence than the criminal would have if allowed to continue their crime, even if that crime was murder. And that is not even calculating in that the otherwise law abiding citizen has a 100% chance of being apprehended and tried, having not actually committed a crime (morally anyway), whereas the criminal has a much lower chance of being apprehended because they would actually attempt to get away, having knowingly committed a crime.
      In my state recently, a convenience store worker received life in prison for killing an armed robber who held a gun on him. Also in my state recently, a criminal received 15 years for killing an unarmed man who complied with his order to hand over his wallet.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  36. It's prefectly fine and self-regulative... by BanHammor · · Score: 1

    As long as Apple names the killswitch mechanism "Laputan Machine."

  37. How about refusing cell access to stolen phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about a national registry of stolen phones which would be refused access to the cell network. Don't destroy the phone remotely, just refuse to establish a connection.

  38. Onstar for phones by MajVariola · · Score: 1

    When someone hacks Onstar (tm) and bricks a few thousand cars on a long weekend, perhaps some folks will get a clue. OTOH, some folks would approve of a govt kill switch in their computer. Evolution never sleeps.

  39. Already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumbasses need to realize there is solutions out there already. One of them I use, it's called Lookout!

  40. most phones swiped on the run by Chirs · · Score: 2

    A phone that is being used one-handed is a really easy target for someone to grab on the run...much easier than trying to get someone's wallet or purse.

  41. in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    two-thirds of robberies involve cash.

    we should outlaw physical currency.

  42. requires cooperation between *all* carriers by Chirs · · Score: 1

    While it's an interesting idea, many phones can be used in multiple countries so you're talking a global database of valid IMEI numbers. Good luck getting that organized.

    Also, a workable kill-switch would make it totally useless. If all we do is block cell connectivity it's still essentially an ipod or equivalent, so not entirely without value.

  43. Small crime by phorm · · Score: 1

    A lot of small crime often leads to big crime.
    Get a warrant to search the grounds of somebody who's stolen an iPhone... and often find a bunch of other stolen stuff, or drugs, or whatever.

  44. Two thoughts by Beorytis · · Score: 1
    One: Can we expect petty criminals to be up on this latest news and be aware of this feature BEFORE they have already mugged you and tried to fence the phone?

    Two: If the phone is deactivated accidentally (or intentionally as a prank or malice against the owner), how much would you trust your mobile carrier to be reasonable in their process to reactivate the phone?

    1. Re:Two thoughts by amorsen · · Score: 2

      One: Can we expect petty criminals to be up on this latest news and be aware of this feature BEFORE they have already mugged you and tried to fence the phone?

      Yes. Criminal communications are good. I would be surprised if it took as much as a month for robberies targeting a protected model to stop.

      Two: If the phone is deactivated accidentally (or intentionally as a prank or malice against the owner), how much would you trust your mobile carrier to be reasonable in their process to reactivate the phone?

      This is a kill switch. The carrier should not be able to fix the phone afterwards. The phone manufacturer might be able to fix it, but not if the kill switch is properly implemented.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  45. Hey we don't want to of out job by iphoneman · · Score: 1

    THIS is what law efferent concentrates on? How about go find and arrest the crooks - you know YOUR JOB!

  46. Ask the Peopel what They Think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just ask the protesters in Turkey and Brazil about what they would think of their government being able to render their phones useless. I mean, the media's not reporting on the issues right now, so the governments already have black-out power of the presses, you want people to give up the power to have a working camera phone too? Even after earthquakes and tsunamis have shown how valuable they are?

    Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is a fucking moron.

  47. just for thieves by superwiz · · Score: 1

    or for political dissenters, too?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  48. Stupid people, away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ok, I have been reading this thread with mod points, and the sheer wall of stupid I am seeing is massive.

    This isn't the sort of tool a government would used to stifle freedom of speech, or shut down a protest with. For that, you need to kill communication in a zone or shut down a users account. If you brick a single phone, their account is still active and they can just switch to a secondary phone to keep doing whatever you are trying to stop. Also, because this would use some sort of hardware id in a specific phone, you can't shut down all the phones in an area. You would need to know the phone id in advance to deactivate it. Also, it would be killing the phone itself, and not the SIM card, obviously killing a SIM card would then just cause a thief to put a new SIM in the $600 phone.

    Fuckin think before you post, people. Now, I need to go back to modding the stupid down to keep it minimally at bay...

  49. I think this is a GREAT idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as you take the government out of it. The OWNER should be the only one authorized to have their stolen phone killed, NOT the government.

  50. Mass Tel Extinction Events? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Mass cellfone-death wars! Awesome! Unfortunately, it's not like just anyone can hack into vendor or provider DBs, or social engineer themselves into anything like that. They're just too punctilious and secure. Specially in these upstanding times, what with the full employment, rising economy, and all. Sigh! Nor do they tag important people's lines for special care. Totally unspoofable. Yep, that's fer sure.

  51. more likely: by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    :1, $ s/Theft/NSA/g

    ; )

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  52. News from UK by gnasher719 · · Score: 1
    Here's what an article on theregister says about phone theft:

    Most UK muggings, for example, include the theft of a mobile phone, but it's rarely the phone the thieves want. They've read about tracking and hidden camera apps, and few of them have the technical nous to spot such a thing.

    The purpose of stealing the handset and then discarding it is to delay pursuers, thus providing more time during which stolen credit cards and other spoils can be turned into cash.

  53. MOST of the robbers are non-white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THAT is the problem. Not the presence of phones.

  54. My Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to have a phone which had, around 8 SIM slots. The first of these would hold the encryption keys for all of the Flash memory except a tiny little bootloader area. This special chip would need to talk to a computer I own and control at least once a week in order not to stop giving the OS the keys. If this special SIM was absent, replaced with another SIM or hit the timeout, the phone would send packets to my computer giving me its GPS coordinates. The extra SIM slots would allow things like contact-required credit cards, since that way I can know how much is being authorized instead of having to believe a possibly tampered terminal, as well as one of them containing a normal subscriber identity module to connect to a cellphone network. This was I control everything.

  55. I carry a kill switch for the thieves ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called a Smith & Wesson.

  56. Telco Blacklisting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia if you report the phone as stolen, the IMEI is blacklisted across all carriers. No one directly targets phones for theft any more, it's pointless when a week later you're unable to make calls anywhere in the country.

    http://www.amta.org.au/pages/Lost.and.stolen.phones

  57. They already make a kill switch app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already make a kill switch app that deters people from stealing your phone. It's called a Glock. Get yours today.

  58. Phone Shaped Guns by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    We just need to remove the rules about "disguised guns" and have someone come up with a .22 Magnum double barrel derringer that fits in a smart phone-looking case. The problem will solve itself in a few weeks.

    "No problem, I don't want any trouble, here's my phone bro BANG! BANG!.... thud."

  59. Better safe than sorry. by godxile · · Score: 1

    All the violent phone theft going on is the reason I use a 3310!! Not only does it work awesome after all these years it also works as a weapon to beat any would-be assailants to death almost effortlessly.

  60. NRA Says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NRA Says: Just build guns into smart phones.

  61. the cops are all for it because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it will push up prices on ebay. what do you think they do with all those confiscated phones?

  62. A Carrier's Wet Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only imagine the wonderful advancements in service that cell carriers and hardware manufacturers could provide with this!
    Looks like your 2-year contract is up. (Click) Time for a new phone!

  63. Really? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    "libertarian paranoia", Really? Do you use 'libertarian' as a reflexive insult like many people use 'gay'?

    I'm a libertarian; I'm ALL for having a kill switch for the very reasons you suggest. For one, unlike what Jane Q. Public thinks, there are portions of the USA/World where I would not venture for my phone. There are areas where I would not venture without police protection, and in much of the USA you're not going to get a cop over a phone; which I believe is a shame because there's very good odds that they'll bust other sorts of criminal activities. Many 'petty' thieves are quite proliferate. I remember one bust of like 3 of them where they were burglarizing, on average, ten homes a week.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right