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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You're talking about getting the telecoms to agree to something that isn't price collusion.
Difficult doesn't even begin to describe it.
well....since the legislators are involved...they could make them do this.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
"...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.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
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.
It isn't true either.
Load it with bullets.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
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
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.
No but many have gotten beat up pretty badly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
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.