Smartphone Theft Drops After Spread of Kill Switches 190
alphadogg writes "Thefts involving smartphones have declined dramatically in three major cities since manufacturers began implementing 'kill switches' that allow the phones to be turned off remotely if they are stolen, authorities said on Tuesday. The number of stolen iPhones dropped by 40 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in New York in the 12 months after Apple added a kill switch to its devices in September 2013. In London, smartphone theft dropped by half, according to an announcement by officials in the three cities.
Parts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
well, duh, the article says as much, between 50 and 75% of thefts still occur...
Re:Parts (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, 100% of all thefts still occur. The total number might be down, though.
The thefts which don't occur aren't thefts. Unless they occur. They don't keep stats on the thefts which don't occur until they do occur.
True facts. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Any word on whether more sophisticated 'parting'/remanuf
Re: (Score:2)
This. Back in 2008 I came to the realisation that it was cheaper to part out a secondhand laptop than sell it as a complete unit. So, instead of a £75 (by the bluebook for the spec) loss-leader as a functional laptop, I sold the lid hinges for £70, the screen for £120, the mainboard for £150, the processor for £65, the RAM for £30, the hard drive for £40, the DVD burner for £80, case plastics for £90 all told and the battery for £40... I got more f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
on your last point, and this might seem a little pedantic, but a death certificate is an official document, ergo issuing a counterfeit or otherwise bogus certificate is technically fraud and possession of a fraudulent instrument, the latter of which carries a minimum term of ten years. To get hammered on that times a hundred (they'll actually run five as specimen charges in English courts) will increase the likelihood of you being smacked down for the maximum term (which by virtue of case law based around t
Re:Parts (Score:5, Interesting)
This is definitely lucrative, especially around the time when a new iPhone rev comes out and people start breaking/bending their latest device. Even a disabled phone still has an intact screen/digitizer that can go for a C-note or two until the market starts getting cheaper ones in.
In one criminal justice class, this is a common MO for high dollar stolen goods... if the item can't be sold, the parts can. For example, a stolen high-end Cannondale bicycle may not be able to be sold as a gestalt due to the serial number being in a police database, but part out the fork, shifting group, brakes, and other items, and a fence can still obtain a good chunk of change from all that even if the frame is never used.
I'm glad the fact that phones being disabled has helped slow down device theft, but I don't think it will go away anytime soon, just because the demand for parts is always there.
Re: (Score:2)
this is the entire point of bike thefts. They're not stolen to order, never have been. They're stolen for PARTS.
Citation needed (Score:2)
They're stolen for PARTS.
O RLY? Parting out a bike takes effort and most used bike parts are worth very little. Most stolen bikes are not fancy ones with valuable parts. There simply isn't enough demand for crappy parts to account for the number of crappy stolen bikes; most are sold intact. Having lived in a number of college towns (where there are lots of bikes to be stolen), I know several examples of stolen bikes reappearing intact with a new owner. That's even been the case for expensive bikes, which evidently were not sold for
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot more effort to fence six sets of bicycle parts from one bicycle on craigslist than fence a whole bicycle, not even counting disassembly time. Plus you have to store them until they're sold, etc. And the market for bicycle parts is very different (more picky) than the whole-bike market who just wants something they can use out of the box. People buying parts often times are part of a very small market and recognize the same sellers pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It must be nice living in the suburbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems that is how the off-market auto parts works. Steal the whole car (or parts - like just Xenon headlights) and chop it up. Hard to sell the chassis because of the VIN# But you could sell the airbags, radio, tires, wheels, fenders etc for big profit. They became so good that these stolen parts made it into the regular supply chain. Next time your cellphone screen cracks - will you send it back to the manufacturer or take it around the corner to the cheap(er) repair shop?
Supply & Demand meets T
Re: (Score:2)
I still see lots of people selling phones for "parts" and quietly noting that the device is locked and they somehow don't have the password. So people are obviously still stealing phones without knowing they can't actually use them.
There _are_ people who legitimately own for example an iPhone and can't get in. For example if you inherited one. Or bailiffs took someone's valuables away, including the iPhone (don't know how legal that is).
Remember the down side (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the primary concern when these laws were proposed. As soon as criminals discover a way to maliciously activate the kill switch on a non-stolen phone, there will be serious fallout. Imagine the ransomware. There are similar concerns with law enforcement, who have demonstrated a desire to be able to wipe or forever disable a phone they've confiscated (usually one documenting their misdeeds).
Voluntary vs mandated kill switch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
won't matter if the thief is stealing the phone to part it out. You can't remotely kill a screen. You can only remote-kill the SIM, possibly the handset CPU via an IMEI lock.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you could put a kill switch in the screen, so that it no longer worked. There is electronics in there that could be disabled. You could do the same for a battery as well, and you certainly can do it for the main board.
It won't work for the case, but if you have removed the value of the screen, battery and main board the residual parts value is probably too low to make it worth a thief's while to steal if to part out.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, kinda awkward when it comes to apologising in the event of an accidental firing though...
Re: (Score:2)
the only way that anybody is protected is if a large percentage of the cellphone population *is* opted in.
You sound like one of those pro-vaccine people. Do you want our phones to all get autism?
Re:Remember the down side (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the primary concern when these laws were proposed. As soon as criminals discover a way to maliciously activate the kill switch on a non-stolen phone, there will be serious fallout. Imagine the ransomware. There are similar concerns with law enforcement, who have demonstrated a desire to be able to wipe or forever disable a phone they've confiscated (usually one documenting their misdeeds).
While it might be difficult to prove, tell me again how this would not be construed as destruction of evidence in every legal way?
Oh yeah, that's right. Law Enforcement did it. I forgot they don't actually have to abide by the laws they enforce upon the rest of us...silly me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the primary concern when these laws were proposed. As soon as criminals discover a way to maliciously activate the kill switch on a non-stolen phone, there will be serious fallout. Imagine the ransomware.
You can really only threaten to do it, otherwise I'd wrap it in the nearest tinfoil and hook it up to my computer over USB to back it up. If they've already bricked it that sucks but they've also lost their leverage for blackmail. Also there's no telling if they actually can and the situation doesn't really change if you hand money over, so they need to make examples and scare people in rounds. That means there's plenty time to find out how the fuck they're doing it and close the loophole, if they start jus
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the primary concern when these laws were proposed. As soon as criminals discover a way to maliciously activate the kill switch on a non-stolen phone, there will be serious fallout. Imagine the ransomware. There are similar concerns with law enforcement, who have demonstrated a desire to be able to wipe or forever disable a phone they've confiscated (usually one documenting their misdeeds).
That's assuming it's a permanent kill switch. If it's just that the IMEI is tied to your account until you release it, then this
isn't a problem. They can steal you phone but unless they can also call up the cell company and get them to release your
phone it does them no good. Paypal has a similiar system. It only allows a credit card or email to be tied to a specific
account. If you try to use the same credit card on a different account, it just doesn't allow you to do it without calling
and answering a b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the primary concern when these laws were proposed. As soon as criminals discover a way to maliciously activate the kill switch on a non-stolen phone, there will be serious fallout. Imagine the ransomware. There are similar concerns with law enforcement, who have demonstrated a desire to be able to wipe or forever disable a phone they've confiscated (usually one documenting their misdeeds).
And how would that work? The iPhone's activation lock is removed by entering the Apple ID/password that set up Find My iPhone on the device. You cannot change the username/password combo online (because the iPhone's activation lock doesn't use network access when triggered)
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably once the phone has been activated on a different account, the original owner wouldn't be able to report it stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably once the phone has been activated on a different account, the original owner wouldn't be able to report it stolen.
Sure they will. The IMEI (unique identifier for the phone) doesn't change when you change sims or accounts, or even providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Reporting a phone stolen when you actually sold it should be a felony on the same level as stealing the phone to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
Reporting a phone stolen when you actually sold it should be a felony on the same level as stealing the phone to begin with.
Making a false theft report IS a crime, last time I looked.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a false theft report IS a crime, last time I looked.
In the UK, it gets an awful lot worse if you actually make a claim _who_ stole it (perverting the course of justice, not even being a minister in the government can save you). And of course if you use that false theft report to get money from your insurance, it's insurance fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
uh, it is, it's called fraud by misrepresentation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what the motivation is for a person to sell their phone, take the cash, then report it as stolen. Where is the profit in this? It's just malicious. I seriously doubt that would happen enough to justify any concern by the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I don't understand the insurance industry all that well then, because it seems that an insurance company would want to have a way to locate that phone. If the insurance company asks around to the major carriers and says "hey, has this phone been activated on your system after ..." then they could contact the new "owner" of the phone, and track it back to the seller. (assuming the phone carriers really want to help stop phone theft).
Is there a reason phone carriers don't want to do this? Is it a pri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wiping the phone and/or installing a different system doesn't change the IMEI. There's now a database of stolen phone IMEIs maintained for the us - just search "gsma imei database blacklist", and another one for Canada, and they merge each other's info.
Part of the problem is that people hesitate to report the phone stolen to their carrier, or think that reporting it to the police somehow makes that happen auto-magically.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They should pass a law making that impossible. There is no legitimate reason the IEMI should not be in a small bit of PROM on the CPU so once set it can never be changed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's radio. The radio chipset is controlled by firmware which can be buggy and hackable, thus is updated through drivers. In a lot of hardware (for example: Broadcom SOCs), radio hardware (wifi, GSM, etc.) has no standing ROM: a 50MHz ARM or Atmel controller has its 32KB of RAM loaded with a small, real-time OS running an IO system to communicate with the radio and the OS.
Consequentially, it's typically possible to overload the firmware and directly control the radio: the radio waves are controlled by
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In Australia, a year or go, it was mentioned on Slashdot that this was a common scam tactic. The seller would sell a phone, call it in as stolen, then pocket both the cash for the phone and either get insurance money or have a new phone. The buyer would be out both, and possibly even have to deal with the law for possessing stolen property.
Only real protection is to make sure to have a bill of sale with the phone's ID numbers on it and a promise that if it is reported stolen by the seller after the sale,
Re: (Score:3)
drop on new phone sales (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars will be next (Score:2)
My prediction, and not exactly a stretch to predict: Cars will be next.
Re: (Score:3)
My car already has a GPS tracker on it, with GSM texting if it moves, and integration into the fuel pump (or any 12v-controlled output) to allow remote-disable.
It cost me GBP30 ($50?) on Amazon. It's this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pro... [amazon.co.uk]
Takes no longer to install than a car radio, hides BEHIND the car radio (and still gets good GSM/GPS signal), even gives you an SOS button if you want it (texts the emergency numbers programmed into it with GPS position), geofencing, speed warning, remote live tracking
Re: (Score:2)
My prediction, and not exactly a stretch to predict: Cars will be next.
Already here. Cars can be disabled by OnStar or similar services.
Problem is by the time OnStar can disable you car it has already been stripped and the parts sent to who knows where..
OnStar (Score:2)
That's right! ...my bad for forgetting it's already here.
ATH+++ (Score:2)
"we are working as fast as we can to re-enable the 207 million phones disabled in last nights vicious attack on 'merica"
'Round Here (Score:3)
Around here, they don't steal the cellphone because it is valuable. They steal it so they have more of a head start before you can call the police.
Wider effects (Score:5, Interesting)
The killswitches seem to have a much wider effects than realised by these insightful articles.
Murder rate at the same time in San Francisco
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/ar... [sfgate.com]
and New York
http://gothamist.com/2015/01/0... [gothamist.com]
seem to have also decined!
monthly payments (Score:2)
Do they activate the killswitch if you are behind on monthly payments?
Iphone kill switch (Score:2)
If my phone is stolen and I activate the "kill switch" can a person still restore the phone and use their own sim card, or is the "kill" all the way down to preventing a DFU restore?
Laputin Machine (Score:2)
Flatlander Woman.
Re: (Score:2)
Dang it... got it wrong... should be LaputAn machine (s/i/a/).
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to believe such a racist comment is posted from an account with positive karma, but even harder to believe this has been upvoted. WTF??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's bigotry when you generalize large parts of the population. The reason this guy is racist, and a bigot is because he's assuming that all people named Tyrone will behave in the same way, simply because of their name, and in doing so stamping on those Tyrones out there who are entirely reasonable human beings.
Re:Now what's Tyyrone going to do for a living? (Score:5, Informative)
Tyrone Willingham
Re: (Score:2)
I had to look that one up.
Touché.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to believe such a racist comment is posted from an account with positive karma, but even harder to believe this has been upvoted. WTF??
Hard to believe people still feed trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because it's fine to be racist by the back door as long as you don't actually make direct reference to the race in question. As long as you only strongly imply that you're talking about one particular race, then you're fine, you can get off scott free.
Meanwhile, this comment is entirely friendly, and not calling you out, because I only strongly imply that it's my belief that you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your ignorance of names and people doesn't make you an expert. I don't know any black people named Tyyrone either. What would you be saying if he used then name Shaniqua instead? I've never met anyone name Shaniqua. Would you be claiming no gender or race is attached to that name?
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you ASSUMED this character was black based on his description of his behaviors alone.
Nope. Your lies are lying again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard to believe such a racist comment is posted from an account with positive karma, but even harder to believe this has been upvoted. WTF??
Are you an American? That would explain your lack of sense of humour. It's called black humour and ironically your righteous indignation makes you sound racist to non-Americans. Get with this century already.
Umm.. that's not what black humor is. Black humor isn't about black people; it's about satirizing the morbid: suffering, pain, death, disease, violence, et al. a sort of self-deprecating look at humanity and our vulnerabilities.
Re:A better solution... (Score:5, Funny)
It's funny how states that allow most citizens to carry concealed handguns don't have a problem with bad guys grabbing someone's phone, knocking them over, and trying to run off.
I wonder if CA, NY, and the rest of them will ever figure out that "An armed society is a polite society."
Heinleinesque fantasies aside, there is absolutely no reasonable data to suggest that people who carry concealed weapons are any safer than not. For every failed attempted cell phone theft, I would raise you an accidental shooting. Neither are common, however. You want polite? Carry the weapon out in the open. For this, I recommend a nice short sword. Decorative, a wonderful fashion statement. No reloading necessary. Practicing requires aerobic exertion (although not so much strength). Doubles as a cane for emergencies. Bonus points for LED lights on the scabbard (we can start a new craze).
What's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
See the thing is, as an SCA guy, if I carry the sword, I'm going to have to bring the shield to be really effective.
WTF? Do you see Ninja's carrying shields around with them?
I suggest you put down the roast turkey leg and the pint of ale and take a good hard look at how "effective" you SCA people are in the real-world!
Re: (Score:2)
When everyone is carrying a short sword bet on the guy that also has a shield.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an old scar you're telling there.
Re: (Score:2)
no such thing as an accidental shooting.
Ah .. so this was a pre-meditated, self inflicted wound? Off-duty police officer accidentally shoots himself [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the single biggest cause of shooting deaths outside of warfare are with weapons that were assumed to be unloaded. (source: every civilian hospital that has to deal with self inflicted and other-inflicted gunshot wounds and every police authority that collects data on firearms incidents)
You know that they say "assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups"? When you fuck up with a firearm, people get dead.
Not on my watch. I've been training with firearms for ten years, and have not had a single reportable inciden
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
England.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, I do, and the word does NOT apply to firearms. EVER.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, I do, and the word does NOT apply to firearms. EVER.
You are clearly confusing the word "negligent" with "intentional". However those two words are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
no, the question was do I know what the word "accidentally" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't.
When a firearm discharges, it is because someone left a live cartridge in the breech. NOT AN ACCIDENT.
IF someone hadn't left a cartridge in the breech the hammer would have hit air, and three year old Johnny wouldn't have shot both his parents with one round (I mean, what, did he have them line up?)
The fault is ALWAYS with the last person to handle the equipment.
Simple proof:
Place a handgun on the floor and place a full magazine next to it. Shout at it to load itself and fire. Scream at it. Yell
Re: (Score:2)
You're just playing with semantics to try to make a point. Look at the definition:
An accident or a mishap is an incidental and unplanned event or circumstance, often with lack of intention or necessity.
Intention being the key here. Lots of people get shot with firearms where there was no intent or plan. Sure it might have been negligent to leave the handgun loaded which little Johnny then grabbed off the table and shot his Mom with, but Mom certainly didn't intend for that to happen, or plan it. She was irresponsible and unsafe, but to say that this wasn't an accident is to say that nothing is ever an accident.
Your point is
Re: (Score:2)
To quote a great movie: "accident implies there's nobody to blame". I believe the person you are responding to would call the officer shooting himself in the foot a negligent shooting.
Re: (Score:2)
A cop shooting himself is negligence. They have the training and equipment to avoid such incidents in all cases. That it happens means it was preventable, thus negligence, not "accidental".
Re: (Score:2)
A cop shooting himself is negligence. They have the training and equipment to avoid such incidents in all cases. That it happens means it was preventable, thus negligence, not "accidental".
I agree that the root cause of the injury was negligence, but the shot was not intentional - hence I still see it as accidental.
In comparison, the cop could have taken his weapon out and aimed at his foot and then fired. The root cause of his injury would still be negligence, but the action would be intentional and not accidental.
Re: (Score:2)
In comparison, the cop could have taken his weapon out and aimed at his foot and then fired. The root cause of his injury would still be negligence, but the action would be intentional and not accidental.
Negligence: "The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm."
As such, that wouldn't be negligent, but would be intentional. An "accident" is something unforseeable. Perhaps a well-cared for gun has a sudden and unpredictable mechanical failure that results in an accidental discharge. But a deliberate isn't the opposite of accident. The dictionary definition of "accident" can include "unfortunate" which would include the deliberate self-inflicted woun
Re: (Score:2)
certainly, if you'll come out from behind that AC sockpuppet and kindly let me know WHO the fuck I'm responding to?
Re: (Score:2)
I already did elsewhere on this thread, so fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You completely miss the point sir... the person who caries becomes more polite, not the neighbor. The neighbor has no idea who carries. Likewise, the person who commits crime is less inclined to do so because he/she can't tell who carries and who does not. Unwilling to play the odds, they move to California or New York to ply their trade. Its a win for everyone (unless you live in California or New York of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least on iOS, it's not so much a "remote kill switch". That is, it cannot be triggered remotely. For iPhones, if you opt in, a setting is set on the phone that if the iPhone is erased a username/password is required to activate the phone again. While you can initiate a remote wipe, that wipe just causes the iPhone to respect the initial offline setting.
For users, it's better if the iPhone is not wiped because then it can still be tracked with Find My iPhone.
Re:well duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation of a smartphone remote kill switch being abused? Especially one that, like iOS, is triggered on an erase and is only based on the owner's credentials for unlocking?