Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#31

Post by clinton_sf »

From what I understand, the mechanisms for this law are already in place and aren't much of a problem; any Apple customer already has this with the "Activation Lock" feature, and any carrier can already deny service based on a blacklisted ESN. The proposed law, at least in spirit, would require carriers and phone makers to honor your request to make your device unusable when you report it as stolen. It isn't so much that the government is going to be making technology and forcing everyone else to use it -- it'll let the private tech industry do whatever it needs to do to comply with the proposed "please brick my stolen phone" law.

I can understand how handset vendors other than Apple would have a problem with this. For example, where is the "activation lock" setting stored and who controls it? The handset vendor (Samsung, LG, etc)? Google (since it's an Android phone)? The carrier? Who deals with the customer when the device is stolen? That level of coordination would be a mess to deal with if you don't already control most of the stack and user experience like Apple does.

As a side note, Apple already does this with Mac hardware too: https://discussions.apple.com/message/19010713 .

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#32

Post by billyjobob »

gonehome wrote: post #17

There's already an easy way to do this (that I remember reading somewhere is already being done in Australia). When a phone is reported stolen the carriers just need to blacklist the IMEI so it doesn't work - removes the incentive to steal devices. I don't remember where I originally read this (probably here), but the US carriers were not interested in doing this because they don't see stolen phones as a problem that…

IMEI blocking hasn't stopped phone thefts in Europe.

Possible reasons:

1. IMEI numbers can be changed.

2. Thief can still use phone for many hours until block.

3. Stolen phones can be shipped to countries that don't implement block.

4. A blocked phone can still be used to run apps, play games, make VOIP calls on wifi etc.

The Apple system seems much more sensible. You can't use an iPhone without the pincode, and even if you get that the owner can remotely lock the phone as soon as you connect it to any network. The way to avoid that used to be to wipe the phone and reinstall the OS, but now you can't do that without the Apple ID and password of the owner. I don't know if this has reduced iPhone thefts, but unless the thief has an exploit in Apple's security I don't see why anyone would steal an iPhone nowadays. I wish Android would implement something similar.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#33

Post by joosters »

gonehome wrote: post #26
jimktrains2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can do that in the US too. I don't believe there is coöperation between international carriers, though.

You're probably right - I think that's more valuable to coordinate rather than a mandatory kill switch.

But how? I can't see any realistic chance of a broad international agreement. Remember that it works both ways, too. What would you do if your phone stopped working because a telecoms company in (say) Nigeria accidentally asserted that your IMEI was stolen?

Saying "wouldn't it be great if the world could co-ordinate" is not the answer as it isn't realistic. It's avoiding the problem and the need to come up with practical solutions. Or even an honest "it can't be done" answer.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#34

Post by agumonkey »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #25
gonehome wrote: post #17

There's already an easy way to do this (that I remember reading somewhere is already being done in Australia). When a phone is reported stolen the carriers just need to blacklist the IMEI so it doesn't work - removes the incentive to steal devices. I don't remember where I originally read this (probably here), but the US carriers were not interested in doing this because they don't see stolen phones as a problem that…

We can do that in the US too. I don't believe there is coöperation between international carriers, though.

This and the fact that they can sell phones for a fortune (~retail price) in emergent markets, instead of local black market prices (30%) means robbers will organize shipping lots of phones overseas. That's what happens in France already.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#35

Post by lazyant »

gonehome wrote: post #17

There's already an easy way to do this (that I remember reading somewhere is already being done in Australia). When a phone is reported stolen the carriers just need to blacklist the IMEI so it doesn't work - removes the incentive to steal devices. I don't remember where I originally read this (probably here), but the US carriers were not interested in doing this because they don't see stolen phones as a problem that…

aren't we doing this in Canada?

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#37

Post by undoware »

vdaniuk wrote: post #21
revscat wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a dumb idea to take your device to a revolution in the first place.

As a Ukrainian, who has seen that smartphones, especially used by citizen streamers, are extremely important for a revolution, I can assure that you are wrong.

Bump this n times.

I love it when activists get blamed for doing it wrong, where 'it' basically boils out to 'trying'.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#38

Post by mandeepj »

gonehome wrote: post #17

There's already an easy way to do this (that I remember reading somewhere is already being done in Australia). When a phone is reported stolen the carriers just need to blacklist the IMEI so it doesn't work - removes the incentive to steal devices. I don't remember where I originally read this (probably here), but the US carriers were not interested in doing this because they don't see stolen phones as a problem that…

I lost my iphone some time back so when I called AT&T to report it, they kept on insisting me - please wait for few days as you may find it. They also told me once we report the phone as lost and block it using IMEI then this change can't be undone incase you find your phone then it can't be activated again. And, the block using IMEI does not work across carriers which means if its blocked in AT&T then the person carrying that lost phone can activate the phone on any other network like verizon, spring, t-mobile etc.

Carriers can maintain a centralised database to keep list of stolen phones and can also undo the change incase the owner finds it. They can also track the people who are calling using stolen phones but they dont do it. The best reason I can guess for not doing that is as you said - why they will do something which will hurt their own business

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#39

Post by gonehome »

joosters wrote: post #33
gonehome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably right - I think that's more valuable to coordinate rather than a mandatory kill switch.

But how? I can't see any realistic chance of a broad international agreement. Remember that it works both ways, too. What would you do if your phone stopped working because a telecoms company in (say) Nigeria accidentally asserted that your IMEI was stolen? Saying "wouldn't it be great if the world could co-ordinate" is not the answer as it isn't realistic. It's avoiding the problem and the need to come up with pract…

That makes sense - an earlier response to my comment about how apple handles things with user PINs is probably a better approach.

Re: California Law to Require Antitheft Technology in Cellphones

#40

Post by aric »

revscat wrote: post #12
kirab wrote: post #3

Nice, a kill switch in every phone. When there’s a big demonstration/revolution we’re just gonna kill all the phones out there with a simple data packet.

It would be a dumb idea to take your device to a revolution in the first place.

Information, organization, and gathering evidence are fundamental to human rights, let alone to a revolution. Authoritarians naturally wish to ensure it becomes a "dumb idea."
Post reply on HN