Can a 'kill switch' cut the rate of smartphone theft?
There are so many things technology does to make our lives better. There's also some things technology could do to make our lives better but for some reason doesn't.
Here's an interesting example. Did you know that, even as crime overall in the United States has been dropping during the past 15 years, smartphone theft has reached epidemic proportions?
It's not surprising. Those things can cost $600 and are easy to swipe, conceal and transport. The theft numbers are amazing. The FCC in 2012 released a survey of smartphone theft. Among the stats: Forty percent of the robberies in New York City involved smartphones. And many thieves, of course, are after something more valuable than the phone — your personal information, access to your banking and email, and other deviousness.
So what are we going to do about it? That's the question some consumers have been asking for years, and it seems as if there's a simple solution: adding a feature to allow owners to render a stolen device useless via a blocking device — the so-called “kill switch.”
Lawmakers in California, spurred by the state attorney general, have been considering a mandatory kill switch bill. That proposal caught the attention of the industry; California is such a big market it would make a de facto national standard. In the meantime, a group of senators in Washington have proposed a similar bill, the Smartphone Theft Prevention Act.
The idea of both is that, once it's understood that stolen phones were probably unusable, the market for hot phones would be at least trimmed. (Phones could still be stolen for parts, I guess.)
A consortium of phone companies campaigned against these laws. One argument: That kill switches could be hacked — there's even the specter raised of Homeland Security phones being bricked en masse in a terrorist attack. Leaving aside the silly latter part of the argument, I'm still not convinced this is an issue. It might be true that someone wanting to do you mischief might take the time to brick your phone out of spite, but that should be as preventable as any other type of hack, right? And, seriously, the chances of that happening are a lot less than that of the phone getting stolen. And there certainly isn't a similar financial incentive.
Another argument against the kill switch is that a better solution would be a national database of stolen cellphones, which buyers would presumably check before a secondhand phone is bought. This has supposedly been available for years, but you don't hear much about it.
As the momentum for the kill switch has grown, execs at a few companies have begun to tone down their opposition and begun to cautiously advocate for universal adoption. I understand that there's a complex web of manufactures and mobile providers involved here. That said, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps the corporate lack of enthusiasm on the subject is that they make a lot of money from folks having to replace all those stolen phones.
E-mail Kim Komando at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pa. business interests decry EPA ozone proposal as economic albatross
- Just Mayo has egg industry in a panic, emails show
- Housing bright spot as Beige Book survey shows Pittsburgh region’s growth slight
- Coal company, UMW settle suit over use of non-union workers
- PPG’s new CEO to push organic growth with existing clients
- Stock indexes enter correction territory; bear market could be lurking
- U.S. stocks bounce back from precipitous drop
- Coal stocks on a roller coaster ride they can’t get off
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gives alternative to customer service frustrations
- Shale gas violations down as DEP steps up inspections
- Steady hiring pace increases odds of Fed action