That number is the absolute # of thefts in that area. The image that I posted is a rate relative to the # of people living in the area. More people, more cars, more thefts even if the rate at which cars are stolen is held constant. In addition, the image that I posted showed a long term downward trend over 20 years. And that graph had ups as well on the way down.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New York Attorney General Presses Apple and Google on Smartphone Thefts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That number is the absolute # of thefts in that area. The image that I posted is a rate relative to the # of people living in the area. More people, more cars, more thefts even if the rate at which cars are stolen is held constant. In addition, the image that I posted showed a long term downward trend over 20 years. And that graph had ups as well on the way down.
Car companies were not required by law to do this--They did it based on market demand. Where this becomes a poor idea is when a government decides to make it the manufacturer's problem for absolutely no reason.
There is, however, no reason carriers should allow a reported stolen IMEI back on their network. I'm fine with laws against that.
They were after him for his phone because they saw him talking on it. According to subsequent reports by witnesses to the police, he was either giving it to him or about to when he was stabbed.
I'm not saying Apple's responsible for one person stabbing another. I'm saying that Apple can and, morally should, cook up a way to deter this sort of thing from getting started again in the first place.
yet making it a lot more difficult to do hurts it a lot more plus kills resale value of the phones.
----------
Not so much because the consumer market demands it. It is the insurance companies that are demanding it. Consumer market does not as a whole like it as much as it really drives up the cost of the keys.
So one would need to call each of them separately and submit such? Then do the same with all the other countries that use the same tech - GSM?
----------
... where they mostly work anyway?
Actually it is against the law to profit off of illegal activity, so you could argue that carriers are already breaking the law by allowing stolen phones back on to their network. It's really just due diligence to make an attempt to see if the phone was reported stolen.
In my town if someone brings a bicycle or car into a reseller they are required to check the part# for the bicycle or the VIN for a car against a police database and report it if it's found to be stolen, why not a $400+ phone? It's the 21st century, not a difficult thing to implement.
----------
It takes 10min to transfer AppleCare when I sell my old MAC, a carrier could easily have a transfer of ownership webpage that does the same thing. Plus it's technically illegal to buy or sell stolen merchandise so it protects both the seller and the buyer. All for 10-15min of your life, sounds like a reasonable trade to me.
Higher cost of keys, or significantly greater chance of having my car stolen and my insurance going up... hmmm let me see...
Let's try a real-life example
You show up to your local Nissan with a Maxima on a tow truck and ask the dealership for a new ignition, locks and set of keys for the Maxima. Would your dealership make those changes without verifying you're the rightful owner of the Maxima? Of course, they wouldn't. Neither should Apple but they currently do. Apple will allow an iPhone previously registered to one Apple ID to be used with another Apple ID without giving the previously registered owner the opportunity to approve/deny that change. This is in effect facilitating the changing of the ignition, locks and keys on the rightful owner (and by the way, they know the rightful owner). And since Apple is the only one that can facilitate that change in usage and they are doing it for thieves, it's a big issue. That's what the issue is. I'm not asking Apple to become law enforcement. But I'm saying they can stop allowing thieves to change locks on the rightful owners.
You show up to your local Nissan with a Maxima on a tow truck and ask the dealership for a new ignition, locks and set of keys for the Maxima. Would your dealership make those changes without verifying you're the rightful owner of the Maxima? Of course, they wouldn't. Neither should Apple but they currently do. Apple will allow an iPhone previously registered to one Apple ID to be used with another Apple ID without giving the previously registered owner the opportunity to approve/deny that change. This is in effect facilitating the changing of the ignition, locks and keys on the rightful owner (and by the way, they know the rightful owner). And since Apple is the only one that can facilitate that change in usage and they are doing it for thieves, it's a big issue. That's what the issue is. I'm not asking Apple to become law enforcement. But I'm saying they can stop allowing thieves to change locks on the rightful owners.
Last edited:
If you are the victim of a crime, who is supposed to help? The police, right? Find My iPhone lets the victim of an iPhone theft know where his phone is. He should be able to give this information to the police and have the police take care of it!
Don't the police go after bank crooks with GPS transponders placed in the bundles of money??
Now, if NYC is too cheap to let cops go after iPhone thieves, that is NYC's FAULT and NYC's PROBLEM to deal with--NOT APPLE'S.
That's exactly the problem. Once a phone is stolen, Apple will allow a new Apple ID to be used to be used with the phone and Find My iPhone no longer works. All of this can happen 5 minutes.
Yes but cars have a solid method of determining ownership, the title.
Phones have nothing like that. How do I prove the iPhone I bought is mine? What if it is used, bought on Ebay or Craigslist? What if it is a gift?
Let's say person A sells an iPhone on Craigslist to person B. Person B shows up and low-balls the price. Person A accepts because he needs the cash, but he's a little bit irritated. Calls Apple and reports it stolen. Apple sees that person A registered it, so they turn off the iPhone for Person B.
You can see why Apple doesn't want anything to do with this. It's all he-said, she-said.
Actually you do. When you buy your phone through your carrier with a plan you and the phone are linked. That's how they know how to bill you. Yes, most of that information is on the sim card but they also punch in the phone's serial# (which is on both the outside of the box and in your phones settings.
If you buy an iPhone from Apple directly you register your phone with them.
Additionally if you buy AppleCare for your phone the phone is attached to you and the policy as well, and you can transfer your AppleCare to another person when you sell them the phone.
So there is already a mechanism in place, they just need to extend this transfer policy to the phone itself. It's really VERY simple.
Not so fastor at all
HDTVs cost appreciably more than any smart phone, as do any number of appliances or other items owned. If phones are in a unique category of their own, does Schneiderman propose kill switches for all we own?
I smell a rat. Since when did the government really care about your private property (or privacy for that matter), or even safety? Hell, in many jurisdictions they've announced you're on your own with such as burglary and will not bother to investigate. So now some keen interest in a relatively inexpensive commodity communication device?
Could it be their interest extends no farther than having a kill switch on all communication devicesand one they would ultimately control, whenever and for whatever liked.
HDTVs cost appreciably more than any smart phone, as do any number of appliances or other items owned. If phones are in a unique category of their own, does Schneiderman propose kill switches for all we own?I smell a rat. Since when did the government really care about your private property (or privacy for that matter), or even safety? Hell, in many jurisdictions they've announced you're on your own with such as burglary and will not bother to investigate. So now some keen interest in a relatively inexpensive commodity communication device?
Could it be their interest extends no farther than having a kill switch on all communication devicesand one they would ultimately control, whenever and for whatever liked.
I get that it would take effort and money on the part of Apple but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Ownership could be transferred just like car titles are transferred today. I'd feel differently if Apple didn't have such tight control over the phone but Apple does. I just activated a new iPhone 5 a few seconds ago and I needed an Apple ID for it. You can't do anything on an iPhone without an Apple ID and Apple regulates that amongst many other things. Apple can't maintain such tight control over the phone when it benefits them and then wash their hands off when it doesn't.
They are already doing something similar by creating a national stolen phone database. It doesn't work.
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/02/new-stolen-phone-database-having-little-effect-on-thefts/
If you could carry your 60" TV in pocket, maybe...
I'm not actually advocating a kill switch but a sort of "do not activate" kind of thing. Basically unless the original owner transfers ownership (like you do with say AppleCare) you cannot reactive the phone on a carrier. The phone isn't dead just not useable on any carrier that sells iPhones.
It's not a 100% solution but most iPhone thefts are crimes of opportunity and most are resold nearby. If the average shmuck can't transfer the phone when selling it on Craigslist or eBay and they aren't connected to some "international phone crime syndicate" they are likely to not even bother.
Make it a less attractive target and you'll see the number of stolen iPhones drop.
HDTVs cost more but once I buy an HDTV, I don't need an HDTV ID from the HDTV manufacturers to use the TV. With an iPhone/iPad I do need an Apple ID. Apple and Apple alone issues the ID and Apple and Apple alone allows the ID to be switched. Meaning Apple wields a lot of power over my phone. With power comes responsibility. Also, they can't choose to maintain such tight control when it comes to everything I do with the iPhone - apps, music etc but then turn a blind eye when it gets stolen and they know who's using it.
Nope, that is not proof of ownership at all. Not even close. You can buy a phone with no plan at all, or you can buy a phone with a plan and sell it the next day to someone else for cash.
An IMEI is a serial number, not proof of ownership.
Car title transfers are handled by your state government Title Agency. It would require a huge nationwide effort to title cell phones like automobiles, and would largely be a waste.
Cell phones, unlike (most) cars, can phone home. They could be enabled, disabled, and transferred via technological means without the need of a government title agency. At least within a country, it would be possible to require the carriers to verify a phone is not stolen before allowing it on the network. Or a cell phone manufacturer could implement something as a competitive advantage. The major issue with the latter is educating people that they're not the true owner until that transfer has occurred. That's a big hurdle to overcome, and probably why Apple/Google/etc. haven't attempted anything like that.
Unfortunately, things get much more complicated when you realize it's possible to toss phones into a box and ship them to another country. This is a complex problem. If it were easy, someone would have a solution by now.
Quite a lot. They stampped the VIN on the car in many places. So much so that it can't be resold as a car. It's only use is to be cut up for parts. You were unlucky but over all car theft is way down from what it was.
The same could apply to phones they could be made such that a stolen phone could never again be used as a phone. But the LCD screen of cource could be used for repair of a broken phone. We'd still see phones striped for parts but theft woud be very much reduced to the point were it is rare.
The car companies have done a lot and it's working. I've had three cars stolen but that is just luck. over all those anti-theft devices (like VINs) work.
----------
A database is NOT the same as disabling a phone.
Apple could go even further. After a phone is reported stolen...
1) Display a message in the screen "Please retuen this phone to any Apple store"
2) Read out the GPS and send the phon'e location to Apple or the police
3) turn on the camera to photograph the person holding the phone
4) Display n the screen the current address and photo of the person and a notice saying both are sent to the police.
5) Announce over the speaker every 15 minutes loudly "Please return this lost phone". and then make some annoying sounds you can't disable
A database is an inert, passive thing but a smart phone can do stuff. It can do tuff that makes it so that no sane person would steal one because they would be tracked.
My Macbook is currently programmed to do several of the above things. However it would be easy to turn this off by reformatting the disk. A phone could be made with the above described security features permanently burned into non erasable memory.
But why would Apple do this. They make money from iPhone theft. I don't see Apple having any motivation to do this.
Had that in New Zealand for YEARS, you simply submit your police complaint along with your IMEI number to your phone provider and they kill that number so that it can not be used with any other provider in New Zealand.
The thing is, its NOT in the cellphone carriers interest, if cellphone thefts drop, new sales drop. The people who steal high end phones are NOT going to buy one, nor are the people who buy stolen phones. The carriers best interest is to pay lip service to the theft issue but do nothing concrete about it so they can continue to sell replacement phones. The other thing about the replacement phone is because insurance pays there will be no carrier subsidy and the user is probably still locked into their old contract, so its and even bigger win for the carrier.
It's called unequal income distribution. It is easy to find two people where one has 10X the income of the other. Historically when this is common we see revolutions. It is a credit to our democratic government system that we see only political arguments.
They HAVE, its called IMEI, a UNIQUE number for every phone, now if only the carriers would blocked stolen phones based on IMEI numbers. They do that in New Zealand. So in this case it is NOT Apple that is morally responsible , it is the carriers.
The carriers dont want to, there is too much money being made in supplying new phones to replace stolen ones.For a start there is no carrier subsidy being paid to entice the owner.