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
Because writing letters requires absolutely no effort yet still makes it look like they're actually doing something.
The Greatest show on earth
Yep leave it to the empire state to go and have there AG send letters.
This will go NO where with Apple, and I do not blame them, you knew when you bought the device what its capabilities and limitations were still you bought it.
Now it gets stolen and you go whining your sissy ass off to the state and fed govt to help you and make them do this.
Either protect yourself and your device's along with accounts or stay out of the latest and greatest technologie's
Every thing does not have to have government interaction's
Yep leave it to the empire state to go and have there AG send letters.
This will go NO where with Apple, and I do not blame them, you knew when you bought the device what its capabilities and limitations were still you bought it.
Now it gets stolen and you go whining your sissy ass off to the state and fed govt to help you and make them do this.
Either protect yourself and your device's along with accounts or stay out of the latest and greatest technologie's
Every thing does not have to have government interaction's
I hear you bro. Asking manufacturers to use technology they already have to combat theft is a slippery slope to tyranny.
A lot of hostility here to the idea of improving phone security... I fail to understand it.
I do care that Apple on my phone company do not do all they reasonably can to decrease the likelihood that my phone is stolen. I do care that there are very few disincentives for stealing phones, particularly when rather obvious technical disincentives are available. I care about theft not because of some fuzzy left-wing ideology, but because I am a consumer who really does not like stealing, let alone losing personal property through theft. Apple can choose to react to consumer demand or not, and I can choose to buy their phone or not. I don't understand why Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia etc. haven't cottoned on to the fact that consumers generally want more security for their phones.
- I don't care if some politician is trying to score political points with this.
- I don't care if Apple or the carriers have any duty or responsibility to minimize theft, and whether or not they make money by selling phones is wholly irrelevant.
- I don't care if anti-theft measures can be defeated.
I do care that Apple on my phone company do not do all they reasonably can to decrease the likelihood that my phone is stolen. I do care that there are very few disincentives for stealing phones, particularly when rather obvious technical disincentives are available. I care about theft not because of some fuzzy left-wing ideology, but because I am a consumer who really does not like stealing, let alone losing personal property through theft. Apple can choose to react to consumer demand or not, and I can choose to buy their phone or not. I don't understand why Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia etc. haven't cottoned on to the fact that consumers generally want more security for their phones.
I think you're giving yourself too much credit. It may not be the dumbest statement ever, but it was still a good effort.
Because security need to be balanced with privacy, property rights, and other rights of the individual. Sometimes the "obvious" solution has unintended consequences.
I agree. And companies like Apple should become much more aggressive about it. How about this? If NY moves forward with anything remotely like this we're going to shut down all New York Apple stores, fire the employees and stop the sale of Apple devices in all of New York state. Let's see what that does.
Same with google. Did you see the federal court decision in Germany today about the autofill feature? Google should shut down the google.de domain tomorrow and let the German nanny state build their own search engines.
I work for a large healthcare provider - pretty much the only game in town and in the region. Instead of helping the Obama government figuring out Obama care we should've told them that we're not accepting Medicare patients any longer. Sorry, cash only business from here on.
Instead everyone is ***** footing around. Everyone is complaining about "corporate power" - but it doesn't get used really. Not even when it's to protect people and consumers from stupid government intervention.
It's still a lot more labor intensive to do that which takes a lot of the profit out of the deal and they can go on to stealing something more profitable. Beside if whole lot of iPhones are converging on a point on a map before they go dark for good that really narrows the search area for the police like Interpol.
Not all that labor intensive or costly. Particularly when it cost the, little or nothing and then they take the cheap half fake into an Apple Store to try to get a warranty replacement (and if they pick the right store at a busy time, often pull that stunt off)
And they 'go dark' as soon as they are grabbed so folks have no chance to use find my iPhone. Takes two easy to get screwdrivers to open a phone and disconnect a battery if nothing else works (like removing the SIM card to take it off line)
Last edited:
Again....They are not required. Whether there are benefits or not, the state shouldn't be able to mandate it.
----------
That is only if they are used.
And again....the state didn't mandate that these other 'effective deterrents' be added.
----------
ok...that is a good thing. And how long did it take for cars to 'step up their game'?
Decades, but my point is simply that the State shouldn't be allowed to force phone manufacturers to implement a mandated kill switch.
Namely? I do no see how increased security harms privacy, property rights, or any other right. Security measures have dramatically reduced car theft, but these measures do not violate anybody's rights. In any case, all I am saying is that as a consumer I would like to see better security measures.
That's my point. You (or I) don't see all the potential consequences. Increased support costs. Potential for abuse. Privacy issues with a permanent identifier. Property rights involved with the ability of a corporation to permanently disable your phone remotely. Government involvement in disabling your phone.
As pointed out earlier, the most common auto security is designed to prevent car theft. And it's in the control of the owner of the car. Not much can prevent the theft of a smartphone short of a physical tether.
Remote security such as LoJack or OnStar are additional services offered to owners that they can choose to enable. Much like Find my iPhone. And like Find my iPhone, they are useless if the thief disables the signal.
Sure. Completely reasonable. But the solution is hardly obvious.
Why is it Apple's job to make sure their phones aren't stolen after they've been sold to a customer? Once those products leave store shelves, they're out there in the real world and they shouldn't be expected to do too much about it. =/
Wait 'til someone "permanently disables" your phone as a prank, then get back to us.
Here's one possible solution:
If anybody but me tries to hold my smart phone, big metal spikes come out and pierce through their hands.
If anybody but me tries to hold my smart phone, big metal spikes come out and pierce through their hands.
Not sure if this credit is positive, but there're countries with pretty similar income distribution. Singapore, New Zealand, Portugal, Israel. But such ****** doesn't happen there. Shooting on a subway in Israel? No. For a phone? No. Crime rate in Singapore as high as in US? No. Revolutions? No.
