US officials call on Apple, Google, others to help stop smartphone theft

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 68
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    You're talking about getting the telecoms to agree to something that isn't price collusion.


     


    Difficult doesn't even begin to describe it. image



    well....since the legislators are involved...they could make them do this.....

  • Reply 42 of 68
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    Exactly. Let people demand it of product makers or competitiors if there are changes that can be made that may help. We are talking about theft, after all. People need to protect themselves before a theft is committed.



    But how does a product (phone) maker make a product that protects the owner before a theft is committed?

  • Reply 43 of 68
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    But how does a product (phone) maker make a product that protects the owner before a theft is committed?



     


    "...if there are changes that can be made..."


     


    Perhaps there aren't any.


  • Reply 44 of 68
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


     


    "...if there are changes that can be made..."


     


    Perhaps there aren't any.



    you have a good point...if we demand a better product then it is up to the manufacturers to make it.....

  • Reply 45 of 68
    customtbcustomtb Posts: 346member
    The likelyhood of a global stolen phone db is practically nil. The solution would have to be on the phone or they would still be stolen and exported. Even then there would probably be a market for some parts
  • Reply 46 of 68
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    well....since the legislators are involved...they could make them do this.....



     


    Exactly.  It seems to me that the "kill switch" the legislators are asking for already exists.  They should instead look at who's in charge of the "start switch", ie. the phone service providers.


     


    That, or increase the punishment for phone theft.

  • Reply 47 of 68
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    wisdomseed wrote: »
    So you may as well say, if you give people enough money, they will not commit crime. While that is true, it isn't feasable.

    It isn't true either.
  • Reply 48 of 68
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    geekdad wrote: »
    But how does a product (phone) maker make a product that protects the owner before a theft is committed?

    Load it with bullets.
  • Reply 49 of 68
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    This problem is unique to GSM phones. CDMA phones have a built in ESN that gets blacklisted by the corresponding carrier and not allowed to be activated except by the true owner. Flashing it to another network while possible is extremely hard to do and there's very few people that do it, but even then those phones are stolen. I don't think there'll ever be a quick fix. For as long as people lose their phones, drop it in water, break the screen, etc... there will always be a market for stolen phones.
  • Reply 50 of 68


    This is just beyond silly.


    The government asking Apple and Google to help it preventing criminals to steal their products ?? Because they are nowadays so retarded that they can't do their job properly and want multinationals to do something?


    It's up the government, politicians and the justice system to prevent crimes and put criminals in jail!


    It's not up to Apple nor Google or any other manufacturer, reseller or business.


    These politicians are clearly on some heavy drugs and they need to be removed quickly.

  • Reply 51 of 68
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,488member
    I think the suggestions about not allowing the phone to be turned off and having a pass code for cold restart/settings are the most useful ideas. Don't let the thief prevent tracking and don't give them the opportunity to connect the phone and erase/restore it. That would kill most thefts and be easy to implement without stepping on anyone's rights.

    Still surprised Apple has Find My Phone while Android doesn't (you need an App). Something that serious (tracking and/or locking a phone) are things that should be entrusted to Apple, Google, MS or BB, not some third party App developer.
  • Reply 52 of 68
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post


    Doesn't the kill switch technology already exist?  If someone steals my android phone I have an app that can remotely turn on GPS to locate the phone, can take pictures with the cameras, and can wipe my phone to protect my data.  I'd assume iOS and Windows Phone also has these same basic features.


     


    What more do they want from Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung?



    Apparently they want something that will brick the phone into permanent unoperability, removing any value for a potential thief: and won't THAT be a fun target for the hacker community?


     


    Remotely hacking and bricking every phone on a network. Talk about destroying the village to "save" it....

  • Reply 53 of 68
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post



    Still surprised Apple has Find My Phone while Android doesn't (you need an App). Something that serious (tracking and/or locking a phone) are things that should be entrusted to Apple, Google, MS or BB, not some third party App developer.


     


    Being a third party developer has no relation to being trustworthy.  A company like Avast (just one example) is very reliable and trustworthy.  One could argue that giving complete control of your phone to one entity is a worse option then diversification.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post


    Apparently they want something that will brick the phone into permanent unoperability, removing any value for a potential thief: and won't THAT be a fun target for the hacker community?


     


    Remotely hacking and bricking every phone on a network. Talk about destroying the village to "save" it....



     


    I'm hoping the government isn't asking for remote bricking, but that thought did cross my mind as well.  I don't think any of the tech companies would go for that though.

  • Reply 54 of 68
    Since when did phone theft become a "Major Crime"? You can't snort it, shoot it or drink it. And I haven't heard of anyone losing their life having one stolen, but I could be wrong.
  • Reply 55 of 68
    bleh1234bleh1234 Posts: 146member
    Major crime because its sold to get drugs and then some.
  • Reply 56 of 68
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Since when did phone theft become a "Major Crime"? You can't snort it, shoot it or drink it. And I haven't heard of anyone losing their life having one stolen, but I could be wrong.

    No but many have gotten beat up pretty badly.
  • Reply 57 of 68
    msimpsonmsimpson Posts: 452member
    I confess, drinking Super-sized soft drinks gets me hopped up and makes me want to steal smartphones.

  • Reply 58 of 68
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,488member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post


    Being a third party developer has no relation to being trustworthy.  A company like Avast (just one example) is very reliable and trustworthy.  One could argue that giving complete control of your phone to one entity is a worse option then diversification.



     


    Sure it does. In order for a 3rd party to offer advanced features (like locking or bricking a phone) they need access to API's. If they can access them what's to stop someone from using this API in a regular App to screw a bunch of people over?


     


    This type of functionality should not even be made available to developers.

  • Reply 59 of 68
    wisdomseedwisdomseed Posts: 141member


    I like the password to turn the phone off idea, after all, the idea is not to eliminate phone theft, just to lower and possibly mitigate it. It's like sest belts in automobiles, they didn't eliminate car crash deaths, but they do lower the number of deaths substantially. And while I agree with one poster who knew that getting the police to cooperate, a very important part of the equation is 'iffy' to say the least. But that is easily mitigated as well. If the police in these major urban areas refuse to retrieve the stolen phone. In many instances it would be considered a felony based on the retail value and so the police in those areas would be faced with either apprehending a found phone or replacing it. 

  • Reply 60 of 68
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


     


    Sure it does. In order for a 3rd party to offer advanced features (like locking or bricking a phone) they need access to API's. If they can access them what's to stop someone from using this API in a regular App to screw a bunch of people over?


     


    This type of functionality should not even be made available to developers.



     


    I still believe that, third party =/= not trustworthy.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think it's pretty safe to say that installing a "regular app" made by Sony, Autodesk, Adobe, BBC, Associated Press, etc. is not going to include a virus and they're not going to screw a bunch of people over by locking their phones.  That's separate from the fact that most (if not all) of the apps made by those developers aren't even capable of wiping a phone as they don't utilize that API.


     


    Now, if an Android user goes to the Play Store and installs a calculator app that:


     


    1) was uploaded recently (the rare malicious apps don't tend to last long in any mobile app store)


    2) is made by "JohnSmithCoding" or some other no name developer


    3) requests permissions that include locking your phone (RED FLAG! A calculator app doesn't need that level of access!)


    4) the user ignores that huge red flag and installs it anyways


    4) the app developer really did have malicious intent and remotely locks the persons phone


     


    If something like that were to happen, I'll laugh at that person right along with you.

Sign In or Register to comment.