Cell networks reject plans to install anti-theft "kill switch" in handsets

[Mark R]

What good reasons might a cell carrier have for blocking the installation of a "kill switch" in their phones?

Why do they not want a feature that has worked very effectively to reduce cell phone theft in other countries?

Apparently, the sale of handset insurance is so profitable, as is the the sale of replacement handsets, that anything that reduces the perceived risk of phone theft, is a serious risk to profits.

US mobile network operators have rejected plans to install a mandatory ‘kill switch’ on Samsung’s smartphones in an attempt to deter thieves.

The scheme was drafted by San Francisco’s district attorney, George Gascón, who told the New York Times that network operators were concerned that the kill switch would destroy the profitability of their insurance policies for lost and stolen handsets.

Link

Glad to see the large companies are putting profits before crime and good customer service. Are there any legal implications for a company acting in this way? Could this be seen as promoting crime, or could it form a target for some sort of class-action suit?

It's also interesting that the US cell networks have been very slow in adding IMEI blocking to their networks, and very little datasharing between those networks which do blacklist IMEIs. I guess that's why the US is now the world hub for smartphone laundering. Link

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Any kill switch access will not be limited to carriers. People in DC will find some "for the greater good" way to subvert the original intent.

 

[Braznor]

Hey how about a kill switch for cars? D:

 

[Newbian]

Meh don't lose your phone and it won't be a issue.

Short of it being stolen from a break in or such a kill switch won't do much as people will still want insurance because people are stupid and will break / lose it somehow.

Even if the kill switch was around people would steal them for parts because of how small they are.

 

[EagleKeeper]

One side of the story from a lawyer. Let us hear the other side

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Any kill switch access will not be limited to carriers. People in DC will find some "for the greater good" way to subvert the original intent.

Whistle blower has the goods on a government entity, phone is conveniently killed/wiped before the evidence could be transferred/documented.

 

[chowderhead]

Many foreign countries have databases on the IMEI numbers on a phone. If the phone is stolen or lost, the person can call the carrier and have the phone disabled forever. This would destroy the incentive for stealing smartphones. Carriers won't want that as they make a lot of money on insurance and replacement phones.

 

[poofyhairguy]

In most cases you can install software to do a lot of this yourself.

Outrage not found.

 

[drebo]

How about stronger penalties for theft?

Steal a phone and get caught? Lose your right hand.

 

[Exterous]

How about stronger penalties for theft?

Works well for gun control right?

 

[Nintendesert]

Many foreign countries have databases on the IMEI numbers on a phone. If the phone is stolen or lost, the person can call the carrier and have the phone disabled forever. This would destroy the incentive for stealing smartphones. Carriers won't want that as they make a lot of money on insurance and replacement phones.

Fairly certain the USA has this too. :|

 

[Lithium381]

Any kill switch access will not be limited to carriers. People in DC will find some "for the greater good" way to subvert the original intent.

yep, if they somehow wanted to turn on us more aggressively, they could block a lot of communications this way

 

[drebo]

Works well for gun control right?

Not sure what you're trying to say. Illegal gun ownership isn't strongly punished at all.

Notwithstanding the 2nd Amendment concept that means "illegal gun ownership" is an oxymoron.

 

[Dari]

In most cases you can install software to do a lot of this yourself.

Outrage not found.

What software would that be?

 

[CPA]

Why is it the company's responsibility to deter theft of your phone?

 

[brycejones]

Fairly certain the USA has this too. :|

No not yet. I work in the industry. This is one area US carriers have been far behind. Each carrier may have its own list but there is not an industry wide list. So it is really easy to steal something like a Nexus 5 and get it activated on another carrier. However the big 4 have finally agreed on a way to share this data and it is coming very soon.

That being said preventing a device from being activated again isn't the same as remotely killing a device preventing it from being accessed further.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Hey how about a kill switch for cars? D:

*Billionaire whispers in ear* "Interested in running for office"?

 

[spacejamz]

What software would that be?

It is standard with android (IIRC 4.2 and later)...you have to go in the device settings and enable remote wipe and locate services. Then you log into your google account and you can see the location of the device and have the option to remote wipe it....

 

[Nintendesert]

No not yet. I work in the industry. This is one area US carriers have been far behind. Each carrier may have its own list but there is not an industry wide list. So it is really easy to steal something like a Nexus 5 and get it activated on another carrier. However the big 4 have finally agreed on a way to share this data and it is coming very soon.

That being said preventing a device from being activated again isn't the same as remotely killing a device preventing it from being accessed further.

Thanks for the update, I'm not too sure what's difficult about sharing a database for stolen phones. I'm guessing it was never technical reasons that stopped it.

Remote kills switch is something very different though, I can't wait for that system to be compromised and everyone on a provider or area have their phones remotely wiped. :twisted:

 

[brycejones]

Thanks for the update, I'm not too sure what's difficult about sharing a database for stolen phones. I'm guessing it was never technical reasons that stopped it.
:

Frankly it wasn't as big of deal before either given how balkenized the domestic cell industry is. Different basic technologies and restrictive policies locking devices to networks. with the shift to LTE and devices that support most if not all of the domestic bands in the long run it will be easier to move devices from carrier to carrier. We aren't there yet but give it another 5 years or so.

 

[Nebor]

It is standard with android (IIRC 4.2 and later)...you have to go in the device settings and enable remote wipe and locate services. Then you log into your google account and you can see the location of the device and have the option to remote wipe it....

But that won't disable the phone forever, it'll just restore it to factory defaults, right?

 

[Engineer]

It is standard with android (IIRC 4.2 and later)...you have to go in the device settings and enable remote wipe and locate services. Then you log into your google account and you can see the location of the device and have the option to remote wipe it....

I might be wrong but I don't think we're talking about remote wipe here. I think we are talking about making the phone completely useless upon theft. Thieves don't give a shit about wiping the phone...hell, most will do that anyway. They just want a working phone.

Seems like a phone that is stolen should be able to be placed on some sort of blacklist that stops it from working on ALL networks. Not sure why this isn't in place already.

 

[Dari]

But that won't disable the phone forever, it'll just restore it to factory defaults, right?

Exactly. If anything, it only protects the data, it does not prevent the criminal from using it on another network.

 

[Exterous]

Not sure what you're trying to say.

Stronger penalties do not equate well to reductions in crime.

 

[drebo]

Stronger penalties do not equate well to reductions in crime.

And your proof of that is "illegal gun ownership"...which has very little, if any, actual penalties.....?

You're not very bright, are you?