Slashdot Mirror
Smartphone Kill-Switch Could Save Consumers $2.6 Billion
itwbennett (1594911) writes "Creighton University professor William Duckworth has released a report finding that kill-switch technology that remotely makes a stolen smartphone useless could save American consumers up to $2.6 billion per year — mostly from reduced insurance premiums. Duckworth estimated that Americans currently spend around $580 million replacing stolen phones each year and $4.8 billion paying for handset insurance. If a kill-switch led to a sharp reduction in theft of phones, most of the $580 million spent on replacing stolen phones would be saved. And a further $2 billion in savings could be realized by switching to cheaper insurance plans that don't cover theft."
Remote wiping is already possible. What they want is centralized control over the functionality for governing purposes. We're not idiots. Well... not all of us.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
A stolen phone is an opportunity to sell a replacement - and maybe persuade someone to upgrade and go onto a new contract. The stolen phones are usually sold abroad or to people who would not buy an expensive phone otherwise, so its not much of a loss - they might even use more data!
since when do our corporate overlords ever do anything that really saves the consumer money?
a study needs to come out how such a technology will save the corporations billions...then perhaps a change will be made.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
There are two ways such a kill-switch could go:
1.) It can be circumvented with sufficient effort and hardware access. Then it is useless as a theft deterrent.
2.) It cannot be circumvented. Then it renders the handset vulnerable to the malice or incompetence of whoever controls the killswitch, and thus useless.
Instead of sending everyone in a defined area a "registration" Message, you can simply kill all phones of the protesters. That way there will be almost no footage of police violence and such! Let's not forget that the batteries of police cameras are always empty when it comes to such point.
>> $580 million replacing stolen phones each year and $4.8 billion paying for handset insurance.
Whoa whoa whoa... If every person got insurance, that's over an 8x markup for insurance. Since many don't, it's even a higher markup.
Here's an easy way to save $4.3B - Stop buying the insurance.
Yeah, I think we should bake this in to all phones so that big brother can kill your phone whenever he wants to. It'll be really useful for making any anti-government protests hard to coordinate.
This doesn't add up...
If the carriers currently take in $2bn in theft premiums but only pay out $0.5bn in payouts, then they're pocketing a huge $1.5bn/year difference. Therefore
(1) We can expect them to lobby strongly against anything that will reduce this free money, and attempt to water down any proposed legislation
(2) If the legislation goes through we can expect them to try to gain that money in different ways, maybe with a "remote wipe services fee"...
Americans currently spend around $580 million replacing stolen phones each year and $4.8 billion paying for handset insurance.
At that factor of 8, folks, is why insurance is a bad investment. Americans could save $4.3B per year by not buying insurance with a poor ROI.
The annoying facet of this topic is the repetitious use of belief rather than actual data on whether this even works. Surely this regulation exists somewhere. I neither have, nor want, a phone.so I have no horse in this race. Ask yourself how many phones are going to be remote wiped and/or killed by silly users who "think" they have "lost" or had their phone stolen. Be interesting to see which groups are pushing, and who financing, this service. Cynical much? Why yes.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
They think a centralized kill switch would be a FANTASTIC idea! Just brick the phones for anyone who dares challenge the state.
I can really see how this might be useful in the US. Instead of the IRS investigating tea partiers, we could just selectively brick their phones. Or if you swing the other way, disable those iPhones from all those annoying hispter Occupy protesters. Seriously, you have an iPhone and you complain about the 99%? You are the 1% globally.
The last time I had phone replacement insurance, I was paying almost $8 a month for it (I think that was with Verizon). I think I've used phone insurance one time in the 12+ years I've spent owning a cell phone. It seems absolutely useless for someone like me who puts the phone in a front pocket and actually takes care not to drop it or put it where it will end up in a toilet or sink or coffee cup or pool.
Combine dropping the handset insurance with the 50%+ savings that are had by dumping the contract carrier and moving to a "prepaid" carrier and you've got enough saved cash after four months (at ~$48/mo saved) to PURCHASE A TOTALLY NEW PHONE. Not a cheap crappy one either: I remember Virgin Mobile had Samsung Galaxy S2 phones for $200 and Galaxy S3 phones for $300 at one point, both of which are really nice phones.
As for kill switches...meh, just use the Android 4.x full device encryption.
Databases already exist with stolen IMEIs. This will prevent those devices from registering on a carrier's network, rendering them wifi-only.
Both systems require the owner to report the theft, which you wouldn't do if your phone is >2-3 years old - value is > insurance deductible.
Since the existing systems are already not used, there won't be any change by any new system.
http://www.t-mobile.com/verify...
https://prod.eie.net.au/portal...
http://www.imei.info/blacklist...
The response is that thieves change the IMEI number (which can be hard). What is says is that any new system would have the same result - the thieves would change the identification number used to lock out the device.
While the cellphone kill switch is a fascinating and debatable idea, with trepidation I am waiting for the first study for human kill switch devices. We saw those prototypes in the movie The Running Man. They no longer need to be intrusive and look like dog collars. They can be discreet and miniature like cardiac pacemakers. The kill switch needs not be messy and explosive: all you do is switch off the current. Human Kill switches have enormous potential. If widely adopted, billions of dollars could be saved. For all kind of fugitives from justice. For example, Mr Snowden would not be an issue, nor any stolen information in his laptop or his head. You no longer go the hard way through extradition, all you do is let the authorization not to explode unlast. Application opportunities are just... boundless: kill switches can be customized to have automatic Taser installed, for example. Or, another thought: there would be no need to have vehicle kill switches, because it would be possible to control the driver who is controlling vehicles. Police would have no need to carry handguns anymore, because you could carry remote controllers. We are talking not billions but trillions of dollars in savings here.
You know, if humanity in general was as negative and paranoid towards every bit of technological change as the commenters on here trying to find every reason this won't work... We'd have never come out of the damned trees.
My iPhone 5 has a killswitch through the form of iOS 7 and my iCloud account. I like this. If you're so damned determined to believe that this feature will only be used by the government to oppress you, why do you own a smartphone to begin with?
You made me immediately think on the poor Lemmings looking at the decreasing counter on the top of their heads, only to grab their heads in distress upon reaching zero... Exploding in a gory feast of blood, leaving their poor mammal corpse for their brethen to remind them of their probable fate.
One of the cruelest games in game history. But, yes, one of the best ones as well.
Doesn't the existing Apple passcode with fingerprint solution solve this problem (I think Samsung is doing something like this, too)? It appears to me that the device is useless to anyone except the original owner, since it can't be unlocked, even after a wipe and a re-flash. The fingerprint makes the passcode not a burden to the owner.
Isn't that sufficient?
Your response to the GP is a total non sequitur. AC is correct in asserting that bricked phones are still quite valuable as parts. And 42% is "a tiny percentage"?
Note that Chicago has its own gun laws in addition to those of IL. Some have been struck down by SCOTUS but they are still considerably more restrictive than the state laws.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.