^ You still don't get it. This type of information should not be available to developers at all, regardless of whether they are Sony or other company (poor choice, BTW, considering Sony's history - remember the "malware" they installed on PC's).
Having this available to developers means that unscrupulous people can write their own test Apps and start trying to reverse engineer what's going on inside the device when various "find my phone" functions are executed. This is just one example.
Are you really trying to argue these features should be "open"? Or just upset at Androids lack of an important feature so you're trying to justify its absence?
^ You still don't get it. This type of information should not be available to developers at all, regardless of whether they are Sony or other company (poor choice, BTW, considering Sony's history - remember the "malware" they installed on PC's).
Having this available to developers means that unscrupulous people can write their own test Apps and start trying to reverse engineer what's going on inside the device when various "find my phone" functions are executed. This is just one example.
Are you really trying to argue these features should be "open"? Or just upset at Androids lack of an important feature so you're trying to justify its absence?
I do understand your opinion, I was just answering the question you asked as it sounded like you weren't sure how Android can "stop someone from using this API in a regular App to screw a bunch of people over". There are safeguards in place and apparently they're effective. It's not like apps maliciously locking phones is a common (or even rare) occurence.
Now to argue which implementation is better, that would be rather off-topic and not worthwhile as I can see pros and cons to both. If you feel one is strictly superior to the other then you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
My initial point was only that just because a developer is third party doesn't mean they automatically can't be trusted. It appears that we may disagree in that regards too, but I can live with that.
The primary disincentive for this is economic, not technical. There are technical solutions (though admittedly not always 100% complete) that would help to ameliorate the situation greatly. The issue is that there is no incentive for the carriers and the manufacturers to do anything, and there are a number of powerful disincentives:
It will cost them money to implement and maintain such a system, with no upside gain for them.
Because every stolen iPhone winds up activated as a new line of service on some carrier's network (often the very same network), carriers don't have an incentive to help prevent theft, because ultimately each theft equals profit for them.
Because stolen phones represent replacement purchases for manufacturers (again, often the same manufacturer), the manufacturers have no upside in strongly acting to deter the thefts.
This issue revolves primarily around money, not technology.
and activate it how? The carrier has a list of IMEI numbers and what device it belongs to....
1. Phone reported stolen...by phone or online in carriers website account settings
2. The IMEI number is then listed as stolen and not allowed to be authenticated on to the carriers network.
3. All carries have to be onboard with not activating stolen IMEI numbers. Can't just flash it to another carrier.
In Australia our IMEI blocked phones appear to work normally, until you go to make a call then the phone diverts to a message telling you to contact your carrier, there is also a Government website where IMEI numbers can be checked.
The rightful owner retains the right to reactivate the phone via the carrier if it is recovered.
A "killswitch" would have to be able to be overridden in this circumstance but that leaves a back door for hackers.
Today's revelations add new color to these "requests" to solve smartphone thefts... It makes it harder for the NSA to track and extract valuable data from all those stolen devices! They don't know who is who anymore!
Here's a new business idea, similar to the new bike sharing program in New York... Phone sharing!
The people promoting this know damn well it will have zero impact on crime.
I don't agree. I think making stolen phones useless will have an affect on crime. The reason I think so is the success immobilizers have had reducing car theft. In our jurisdiction the number of vehicle thefts has dropped in each of the last few years, as each year a larger percentage of vehicles have theft deterrent technology built in.
Besides, what happens if a person steals a phone and gives it to a friend or relative? Do the friends and relatives get in trouble?
If not, what happens if I myself steal a phone and say it was given to me by someone else?
How would those situations be any different at all with a technological theft-deterrent system than it is now without one? Either way it's possession of stolen property, period. That's the way it is now, and nothing would change as a result of implementing a bricking system, so what's your point here?
The difference is that you wouldn't bother stealing it in the first place if you knew neither you nor anyone else could use it.
Comments
Having this available to developers means that unscrupulous people can write their own test Apps and start trying to reverse engineer what's going on inside the device when various "find my phone" functions are executed. This is just one example.
Are you really trying to argue these features should be "open"? Or just upset at Androids lack of an important feature so you're trying to justify its absence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Load it with bullets.
i agree 100%...hollow points.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
^ You still don't get it. This type of information should not be available to developers at all, regardless of whether they are Sony or other company (poor choice, BTW, considering Sony's history - remember the "malware" they installed on PC's).
Having this available to developers means that unscrupulous people can write their own test Apps and start trying to reverse engineer what's going on inside the device when various "find my phone" functions are executed. This is just one example.
Are you really trying to argue these features should be "open"? Or just upset at Androids lack of an important feature so you're trying to justify its absence?
I do understand your opinion, I was just answering the question you asked as it sounded like you weren't sure how Android can "stop someone from using this API in a regular App to screw a bunch of people over". There are safeguards in place and apparently they're effective. It's not like apps maliciously locking phones is a common (or even rare) occurence.
Now to argue which implementation is better, that would be rather off-topic and not worthwhile as I can see pros and cons to both. If you feel one is strictly superior to the other then you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
My initial point was only that just because a developer is third party doesn't mean they automatically can't be trusted. It appears that we may disagree in that regards too, but I can live with that.
The primary disincentive for this is economic, not technical. There are technical solutions (though admittedly not always 100% complete) that would help to ameliorate the situation greatly. The issue is that there is no incentive for the carriers and the manufacturers to do anything, and there are a number of powerful disincentives:
It will cost them money to implement and maintain such a system, with no upside gain for them.
Because every stolen iPhone winds up activated as a new line of service on some carrier's network (often the very same network), carriers don't have an incentive to help prevent theft, because ultimately each theft equals profit for them.
Because stolen phones represent replacement purchases for manufacturers (again, often the same manufacturer), the manufacturers have no upside in strongly acting to deter the thefts.
This issue revolves primarily around money, not technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
and activate it how? The carrier has a list of IMEI numbers and what device it belongs to....
1. Phone reported stolen...by phone or online in carriers website account settings
2. The IMEI number is then listed as stolen and not allowed to be authenticated on to the carriers network.
3. All carries have to be onboard with not activating stolen IMEI numbers. Can't just flash it to another carrier.
In Australia our IMEI blocked phones appear to work normally, until you go to make a call then the phone diverts to a message telling you to contact your carrier, there is also a Government website where IMEI numbers can be checked.
The rightful owner retains the right to reactivate the phone via the carrier if it is recovered.
A "killswitch" would have to be able to be overridden in this circumstance but that leaves a back door for hackers.
.
Here's a new business idea, similar to the new bike sharing program in New York... Phone sharing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The people promoting this know damn well it will have zero impact on crime.
I don't agree. I think making stolen phones useless will have an affect on crime. The reason I think so is the success immobilizers have had reducing car theft. In our jurisdiction the number of vehicle thefts has dropped in each of the last few years, as each year a larger percentage of vehicles have theft deterrent technology built in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziadjk
Besides, what happens if a person steals a phone and gives it to a friend or relative? Do the friends and relatives get in trouble?
If not, what happens if I myself steal a phone and say it was given to me by someone else?
How would those situations be any different at all with a technological theft-deterrent system than it is now without one? Either way it's possession of stolen property, period. That's the way it is now, and nothing would change as a result of implementing a bricking system, so what's your point here?
The difference is that you wouldn't bother stealing it in the first place if you knew neither you nor anyone else could use it.