iPhone Users Sue AT&T For Letting Thieves Re-Activate Their Stolen Devices 197
An anonymous reader writes "Following on the heels of the FCC and U.S. mobile carriers finally announcing plans to create a national database for stolen phones, a group of iPhone users filed a class action lawsuit against AT&T on Tuesday claiming that it has aided and abetted cell phone thieves by refusing to brick stolen cell phones. AT&T has '[made] millions of dollars in improper profits, by forcing legitimate customers, such as these Plaintiffs, to buy new cell phones, and buy new cell phone plans, while the criminals who stole the phone are able to simply walk into AT&T stories and 're-activate' the devices, using different, cheap, readily-available 'SIM' cards,' states their complaint. AT&T, of course, says the suit is 'meritless.'"
Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Funny)
Which is more likely?
That a company that puts someone in a 3-year contract worth thousands of dollars per customer has no record of what they are selling or they figured that they could get away with selling the same service twice to two different people?
"Your phone was stolen? It's only $550 to get another one, or we can just charge you for the services. Hang on, I've got a Mr. Crowbar McGee on the other line, how odd, same phone as you but no receipt."
Re: (Score:2)
Which is more likely?
That a company that puts someone in a 3-year contract worth thousands of dollars per customer has no record of what they are selling or they figured that they could get away with selling the same service twice to two different people?
"Your phone was stolen? It's only $550 to get another one, or we can just charge you for the services. Hang on, I've got a Mr. Crowbar McGee on the other line, how odd, same phone as you but no receipt."
You are forgetting there is a second-hand market. They have no way of even knowing if the person who reported the phone stolen is even the one who currently owns the phone. The original owner could have sold the phone without notifying the carrier. i could see the carrier possibly disabling the phone if someone attempts to use the phone on a different customer without the phone first being de-registered with the carrier by the previous customer. Unfortunately, that would probably cause another group of peop
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are only two situations where the original owner could have sold the phone:
1. The original purchaser bought a new phone. 99% of the time, this comes from the carrier, but either way, there's a new phone talking to their towers with the old SIM card. No mugger steals the phone but leaves you your SIM card, so this is an easy one to catch.
2. The original purchaser stopped using that company's service. This also can't happen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Playing Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Just because this example is simplified...
1. Sell iPhone to unsuspecting customer
2. Report it stolen.
3. Receive returned phone.
4. Repeat steps 1-3, until finally arrested.
Just being a wise a$$. But what authority does a pimply faced sales clerk have to seize and hold a potentially stolen device? Much less detain an individual while waiting for the Police.
Some people would threaten to sue for defamation and etc for being accused of having stolen a product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree they have a moral obligation to refuse to activate stolen phones, as an added discouragement for theft. But I don't see any profit motive in not doing
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but if the thief tried to register that car, it would show up as stolen and the DMV would not allow him to register it under his name. They call the police.
Why is it so unreasonable that AT&T do the same? They can tell the damn phone is registered to someone else, they can't take a minute to see if it was stolen or not? How many people sell cell phones to strangers with all their personal information on them? I mean, really?
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like my mod points expired today else I would have kicked this post up a notch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DMV does not actually police. Yes they are a state agency but if your vehicle is stolen do you *want* the DMV to issue plates to the person that stole the car? If you file a police report because your phone is stolen do you want the thief to get service on your device? I under stand the difference between the two and would not have used a car as an analogy. I am however smart enough to not debate politics accept to say yes we do have enough problems already.
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Informative)
I fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them.
It's called a police report. It's good enough for the company insuring the phone against theft, so why would it not be enough for AT&T to cut the service?
If the police report is fraudulent, well, there are already legal mechanisms in place to deal with that. The point is, obviously they could do something, they just choose not to because it benefits them financially.
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, obviously they could do something, they just choose not to because it benefits them financially.
And that in turn benefits America, because when a corporation makes a profit, that creates jobs, which improves the economy. So why the hell are you doing your patriotic duty and stealing from your fellow citizens so you can give to the corporation?
On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.
Re: (Score:2)
On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.
Oh, I know, and I'm sure that very few people that report a cell phone stolen ever really expect to see it again. Honestly, the few times we've gotten ripped off (stuff stolen out of our garage, stuff stolen out of our car) the police themselves told us that recovering stolen property was an extremely low priority in the grand scheme of things but if the stuff turned up they'd let us know (it never did). We were bummed obviously that our stuff was stolen, but our insurance covered the theft, and that was
Re: (Score:2)
Theft of private property is just... not important.
it sure is when its the police taking your shit!
its called 'asset seizure' and they LOVE taking your shit if they can link you to some 'bad stuff'. its trivial to link any citizen to bad stuff; any cop can (and sadly, many do) pull it off. its the new way to enrich their funding. and yes, they DO get to keep most of what is seized.
like business, if there is no profit incentive, the cops don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
its called 'asset seizure' and they LOVE taking your shit if they can link you to some 'bad stuff'. its trivial to link any citizen to bad stuff; any cop can (and sadly, many do) pull it off. its the new way to enrich their funding. and yes, they DO get to keep most of what is seized.
if it's cash, they'll just claim it's drug money. Once in a while a judge tells them to produce proof or give the money back, but not always (usually?)
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Insightful)
On a less sarcastic note, the police have often refused to get involved even after a police report is filed _and_ the person knows exactly where the cell phone is (hello? They're radio transmitters). Police resources are only used in cases of violence, property damage, or theft of corporate property. Theft of private property is just... not important.
They're right, it's not important, compared to catching murderers and rapists and the like. The problem isn't that the police don't care about less important cases like the theft of an iPhone. The problem is that we as a society have decided that WE don't care enough to properly fund our police departments, so that they can handle these less important cases in addition to the more important ones.
Every time you vote to reduce taxes, and vote for politicians who say the government is too big, this is what you're voting for.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time you vote to reduce taxes, and vote for politicians who say the government is too big, this is what you're voting for.
Yeah, that must be it.
Let's see what happens when we throw billions at 'securing' our airports. It will be better for sure.
Let's spend billions more in education. Test scores will skyrocket and dropouts will become rare.
No, when I am voting to reduce the size of government and taxes I am voting my lack of confidence in government to solve problems and to do anything meaningful with my hard earned money. When I vote for someone to a particular office I vote on their integrity, leadership, and qualifications.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, at least in Australia every time there is an election both side scramble to say how tough on law and order they are going to be. But it is still almost impossible to get police to be interested in minor crime.
Not that this is surprising. The police are largely there to keep order so that the rich can stay rich. There are plenty of examples of the police being used to keep down the common man, the most recent of which was the way they broke up the 'occupy' movement.
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Informative)
The carrier probably has it in their phone records for that account. The IMEI is part of how a device identifies itself to the network. It's used to prevent using stolen phones in many other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I messed up posting the link. IMEI [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked.
That makes absolutely no sense. Besides the fact that they already have methods in place to verify the account owner and prevent for much more important concerns (changing service plan, cancelling the account, etc) how would it be any different from what would happen today if someone were able to convince AT&T that your phone was stolen? They already deactivate the phone from your account wh
Re: (Score:3)
All of those things you mention are pretty much completely untraceable. Obviously, this is not the case with the iPhone, since the service requires the handsets to be uniquely identifiable at all times on their network.
Besides, go ahead and try and register a car reported as stolen with your local DMV. Watch what happens.
No one expects AT&T to do anything that is not already completely within their power to do, nor is it something that any reasonable person would consider out of line at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Because after they add it to the "do not use" list because Account Holder X reported it stolen, they'd never be able to remove it from the "do not use" list when Account Holder X reported it recovered. That would be impossible.
Now sure if Account Holder Y wants to use it then no go, until they can convince Account Holder X to report it recovered.
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Informative)
I'll wager the are using the term brick in modern usages, and not archaic usage(5 years ago)
Making rendering it unable to make calls or connect.
Disable would have been a better term for them to use.
I know I know, we have are precise language, and then non nerds get a hold of it and butcher it to the point where hacking is using a facebook account that someone didn't log off from.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I know, we have are precise language,
Well, some of us do...
/snert
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously you are applying your restricted definition of "bricked" to an anonymously written slashdot summary? Even though the word "bricked" is not in the linked articles themselves, instead there's actual descriptions of "blocking" the phones?
OK, so your either an idiot or incredibly trusting an naive. Either way, there's no point arguing is there...
And by the way people who break into computer systems using software they found on the internet and have no understanding of. They are called "hackers". Like
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine you don't have to take advice from an idiot. I also never claimed my language skills were wonderful and I certainly don't put any effort into slashdot comments.
Still I'm sure you can see that "an naive" should be "and naive" - it's called a typo greatly enhanced by my keyboard which randomly drops some keypresses*.
Of course I'm also sure you can see past my spelling and grammar ineptitude. You know that "bricked" doesn't actually mean "bricked". Just like "hacker" doesn't actually mean "hacker".
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, another Slashdot user who doesn't understand '1984'.
Corporation can already turn your phone off, so you better get rid of it.
AT&T netwrok is what the phnoe ueses. It is not unreasably to ahve them turn off a phone when they have a police affidavite stating it was stolen.
You go you At&T.
You make the request
You show the affidavit You made.
They turn it off for You, the person paying the bill.
In no way is that unreasonable or Orwellian.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unreasonable for an idiot to lose his/her phone and then sue the fuck out of AT&T because it failed to protect the idiot from themselves.
It's unreasonable for the idiot to then clog up our court systems with frivelous lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions of dollars
It's unreasonable for AT&T to be required to spend millions on a system designed to protect idiots from themselves and then pass those expenses on to responsible consumers.
It's unreasonable for forgetful idiots that leave their phone
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cars are located and disabled with OnStar, but all vehicles do not have OnStar. If a car with OnStar is reported as stolen, OnStar will work hand in hand with police to get the car recovered. This is a core feature that sells the OnStar service. Ditto with services like LoJack (which they provide for computers now, I used to sell it myself). However, you cannot register a stolen car with any DMV in this country. They check their databases specifically for this reason. The DMV is not a police officer, but I'm betting most reasonable people are cool with them electing not to register cars reported stolen.
For one thing, 99 times out of 100, the police do not recover the phone at all. If it's not resold and reactivated, it either ends up a toy for some thief's kid to play with or broken into a million pieces or rotting at the bottom of a lake or river. How many reasonable people have ever lost or had stolen something like a cell phone and actually expected to see it again? Stolen property, especially stolen property that's relatively cheap like a cell-phone, is not a priority for any police department in this country. If they come across it while investigating other crimes, they'll be good enough to give you a ring and have you come pick it up (unless they need to keep it as evidence), but they don't actively check personal electronics to see if they're stolen unless they have a compelling reason to do so. They don't have the time. No police force in this country has that kind of time, obviously.
Your only recourse now if your phone gets stolen is to call the police and buy a new one. Nobody is expecting anything any different there. All they're asking is that the thief not be able to take that stolen cell phone into another store and reactivate it when AT&T can tell perfectly well that it is a stolen phone. AT&T is not being singled out here. Any time a person has a reasonable suspicion that a good may be stolen they're required to act accordingly regardless of their relationship with that person. If someone offered to sell you a brand new PS3, still in the box, for $50 out of the back of a van, for instance, and it turns out it's stolen, you can't feign ignorance because a reasonable person would have known better and you are guilty of a crime. If a used car salesmen agrees to buy a car with scratched off or non-matching VINs, they are guilty of a crime.
Your "Orwellian society" and "Corporatocracy" claims are pretty ridiculous when people are trying to make a corporation be accountable for once, and requiring them to brick phones they know to be stolen is part of that. As I said above, there is plenty of precedent already covering this, the concept is not new.
What exactly is it that you're worried about here? That AT&T is going to vindictively brick cell phones? That they're going to just let any old person call up and brick any phone he wishes? You can't even talk about your fucking bill without giving them a whole bunch of personal information first, so what exactly are you worried about here? What power is this going to give the corporation to abuse? They've already got this power, so if they were going to abuse it, they would have long before now...
Re: (Score:2)
iPhones, expensive as they are, constitute felony theft in many areas. The police LOVE to go after felonies if they don't have much else to do. By contrast, felony theft WILL get you arrested and not just a summons. Regular theft is pretty much a slap on the wrist and a fine, maybe probation. Felony theft starts with a large fine and probation if you have a clean record..if not you're going to do at least thirty days IF you can pay the owner back..if not you might do six months.
Re: (Score:3)
The money that corporations have to put into systems like this to protect idiots from themselves are passed on to responsible consumers like myself.
You do understand that they can already do this, right? I mean, you worked there. What money do they have to spend? They've already spent that money, being able to uniquely identify every handset on the network is a necessity for the things to work in the first place, obviously. All anyone is asking is that they brick a phone that is reported stolen by the owner with a police report on file. It is completely trivial for AT&T to do this, and you know this. What compelling reason is there for them n
Re: (Score:3)
Taxpayer dollars. What the fuck are you talking about?
Oh, wait, you worked for AT&T. You be stupid. The smart ones went to Lucent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware that "bricking" is a misnomer being used by many entities right now and it's the cell phone equivalent of a MAC address being blocked? (The IMEI) And there's nothing "permanent" about it... A remove the IMEI from the blacklist, update/refresh the database, and it's live again.
Re: (Score:2)
No one who knows anything about this system has ever claimed they would be permanently "bricked"; anyone who says so is just plain incorrect. The system will prevent them from being reactivated on a new account by keeping track of stolen phone IMEIs, etc, in a centralized database that is shared among providers. It's not making the phone self-destruct or anything, jeez. If you can convince them your phone wasn't stolen they can remove the block and allow it to be reactivated.
Besides, this is something a
Re: (Score:2)
"Imagine in a world where: the cable company polices stolen TV shows and movies.."
They already do that. they don't give a crap about your $2000.00 TV, but that crap Sitcom episode from 10 years ago? They want you anal raped in prison over that.
They already track things that are easily replicated for free, they just choose to tell the consumer to go fuck themselves over everything that does not benefit them directly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with AT&T in this case - they aren't even bothering to disable stolen phones on their own network. Verizon, for example, does disable phones reported stolen so at least they won't work on their system.
The big deal with the proposed system (likely via heavy FCC "encouragement") is that not only will the carriers be required to disable phones on their network, they will post the info to a central database so all carriers can do it.
Re:Only if they reported it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how these companies could validate with 100% certainty that the device reported stolen actually belong to the owners that claimed to own them. This is important; because if you can't validate the owner with 100% certainty, then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. This would be a denial of service prank/attach and I'm sure it would be a much larger liability for AT&T than simply letting theives reactivate a device that was obtained nefariously. Are they going to make everyone that claims to have a phone stolen produce a receipt to validate ownersihp? To requre AT&T to get involved would be a disaster. When you require/allow corporations to get involved in things that should ONLY be law enforcement investigations, then you open a whole new can of worms.
It's been done in just about every other country in the world for some time now. The process works, and it also cuts WAY down on smartphone theft. In Washington, DC (where I live) there has been a rash of armed holdups for smartphones for some time now, and the chief of police has been begging AT&T (because iPhones are the prime target...sorry Android users) to do this. Police departments in cities all over the country have been calling for this to be done.
Yes, it's possible to cause trouble for someone else by filing a false police report. It's also a felony, and quite certain to get you caught. I could cause trouble for you by claiming you stole my phone. But then, AT&T would happen to have that phone associated with your name, SSN, credit card, address, and blood type...and would have had that association for quite some time. So, I would go to jail instead. Following your logic, we shouldn't allow people to say that their cars were stolen, either, because I could just walk up to you in your car and say "THIEF!" and send you to prison while I drive away in your vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Our company uses Sprint for wireless service. When I call and report a phone stolen, I have to use the account PIN to complete the transaction. The phone is logged to a lost and stolen database and if the phone shows up again, I have to get the phone removed from this database before reactivating it.
My users bring me grey market phones to activate for them on a regular basis. I call Sprint and often they tell me that the phone is in the lost and stolen database and cannot be reactivated unless the original
Re: (Score:2)
Because AT&T most likely sold them the phone in the first place. And the id was associated with their account. And then reported lost/stolen by that account holder who had AT&T remove access to their line from that phone.
Then someone else wanders in a week later and activates the exact phone on a different account and AT&T couldn't care less.
Now obviously there's the case in which someone gives/sells a phone to someone else and then tells AT&T that the phone was lost/stolen. That seems a rar
Re: (Score:2)
They bought the phone from AT&T or from Apple. They have a record of this. That and we can presume that whoever first signed up the phone for an account is the original owner. Of course, a few phones might be stolen before the buyer gets them activated for the very first time. But, other than this, it's easy check the IMEI number.
The receipt is only needed if AT&T is too stupid to keep records. Are they? Are they that stupid? Even if they are, that doesn't justify the stupidity.
This is simple
Re: (Score:2)
This is important; because if you can't validate the owner with 100% certainty, then you open the door to situations where person A falsly reports persons B's phone stolen and gets it bricked. ... or sells it on Craigslist -- cash -- and then gets it back two days later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T has your serial number, IMEI and SIM number on record for every phone they sell.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will about Telstra... (Score:5, Interesting)
in Australia, Telstra have a bad rap for fucking over customers, but this isn't an issue with them. A year back I lost my iPhone, reported it stolen, and within a week another Telstra customer began using it. Telstra stopped their service, had them come into a store, and simply took the phone from them and let me know I could collect it. As gravy, the idiot who'd been using it caused a scene in the Telstra store and had the police called on them - they were known to the cops and arrested for other reasons.
On the bad side, I'd already bought another iPhone in the meantime. Win some lose some.
This should be criminal, not civil (Score:5, Insightful)
If I call AT&T or its agent and tell them that my phone has been stolen, then they are engaging in a criminal act when they reactivate that phone. There are no legitimate excuses for this behavior.
If somebody steals a car that is equipped with a kill-switch in the engine and I, knowing that it is stolen, disables the kill switch so that the thief can drive the car, then I'm going to go to prison. The only difference between my behavior and AT&T's is that I am not a massive corporation, so I am subject to the laws of the United States.
Re: (Score:3)
If I call AT&T or its agent and tell them that my phone has been stolen, then they are engaging in a criminal act when they reactivate that phone.
NO, they are not engaged in a criminal act. You made that up.
If these plaintiffs win their case, then it might be considered a criminal act, but until then there is no specific law that covers this.
Its not just AT&T, its ALL carriers that do not block IMEIs. (MEIDs for CDMA phones).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was merely responding to the GP who alleged it was a criminal act.
If there was a finding that they did violate specific laws, even if by a civil jury, you can expect it will go to precedence if the inevitable appeal is upheld.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen any perp walks?
Any AT&T execs being lead out of their offices in hand cuffs?
Any other carriers execs arrested?
No?
Thought not.
Re: (Score:2)
Harboring known (or should have known) criminals is itself a crime. A carrier re-activating a phone that is known to be stolen, because it is reported by the verified owner that it is, or the original owner's term contract is still active, and not reporting that person to the police, is a crime. And as Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, too", that corporation needs to spend its 30 days in jail, if convicted.
Re: (Score:2)
It's most certainly a conspiracy, and given their size, interstate status and other factors it probably qualifies for RICO as well. They knew the devices were stolen, they involved themselves in a conspiracy of theft and I'm willing to bet that at a minimum 1 time a stolen phone was taken across state lines which brings in RICO.
I wish there were more prosecutors like those in NY that went after companies like ATT for stuff like this. A couple RICO charges against the company and making an example out of the
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they are engaged in a criminal act: receipt of stolen property.
Not that AT&T is taking possession of the stolen property, but they are receiving service payments because of the stolen property.
To follow along with the car analogies, it's like someone using a stolen car to provide taxi services. While the driver is in possession of the stolen vehicle, the taxi company itself is also culpable because their business is profiting from the theft.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily, it has to be proven that the person receiving the stolen goods knew they were stolen, or at the very least that a reasonable person would have known or suspected. For instance, if someone sells an intact, but stolen, TV at a pawn shop the clerk isn't on the hook. However, if the person is trying to sell a TV with the serial numbers scraped off or wants next to nothing for what otherwise would go for a lot more, then the clerk should have reasonably suspected it was stolen and, at the very
Re: (Score:2)
Possesion of stolen property is a crime regardless of whether you have prior knowledge or not.
No matter the means of how you took possesion of stolen property, you have no rights to the property and it can be confiscated without reimbursement.
Normally the loss of the property is the punishment for those who didn't know it was stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disabled IMSI search (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Disabled IMSI search (Score:5, Informative)
I seriously doubt you worked as a system engineer if you don't know the difference between an IMSI and and IMEI.
IMSI [wikipedia.org] = International Mobile Subscriber Identity, allows you to find out information about the account hold. Its on the sim. It allows you to violate people's privacy, which is why Joe Tech should not be able to look this up, not without a warrant.
IMEI [wikipedia.org] = International Mobile Equipment Identity, a unique number built into the hardware. It can be used to block service to the device. That will bring the user in to complain. No warrant needed.
Re:Disabled IMSI search (Score:5, Informative)
I seriously doubt you worked as a system engineer if you don't know the difference between an IMSI and and IMEI.
IMSI [wikipedia.org] = International Mobile Subscriber Identity, allows you to find out information about the account hold. Its on the sim. It allows you to violate people's privacy, which is why Joe Tech should not be able to look this up, not without a warrant.
IMEI [wikipedia.org] = International Mobile Equipment Identity, a unique number built into the hardware. It can be used to block service to the device. That will bring the user in to complain. No warrant needed.
It was IMEI, you're right. I'm not as much into cell phones..unix, linux, and the actual messaging systems in the background (SMTP email schleping). Was just a tool I had access to. My actual title was Engineer IV. I reported to Kevin Tromp, still the director of Messaging. Yes, I did work there. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you ask him why it sometimes takes 20 hours for an SMS, made from an at*t phone on an at*t tower, to a likewise phone/tower, to deliver?
If it's a national problem (everyone affected nationally), it could be a problem with the SMSC, particularly the SMSC database. Seemed to always be its weak spot. If you can't text or make calls and it's a national problem, it could be the HLR. If the problem only happens in one area, or it's all the time, but only with your phone, it's more likely to be a problem with a tower or maybe your own device. Your best bet is to try narrowing it down. Does it happen everywhere? Is it happening every day at 4
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, you've got to be a total idiot to get one letter in a Slashdot post wrong.
...an IMSI and and IMEI.
Re: (Score:2)
He subsequently stated he misspoke, and it was an IMEI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I used the feature today.... And I used it in 2004.... and all the years in between.
Then you're in some real specific area where they allowed it to stay. As far as I knew, the tool was yanked.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about Snooper?
That the name of the IMEI query application? I'm not sure. The tool was supported by IT and I was in Nat'l Eng Ops.
There is no money in stolen phones (Score:3)
...The money is in the use of them - if someone wants something that's not traceable to them in the commission of some other criminal activity, they're gonna do one of two things: buy a disposable prepay or steal a phone. Either way, said handsets are going to be used once or twice, then disposed of ASAP. Whether that be from simply binning them or selling them on to some unsuspecting sucker.
ALL carriers should have a mandate to brick handsets reported as stolen. Yes, there is a way of reactivating most handsets (by flashing them), but I don't think $crook would bother with the expense. He'd rather go buy a disposable prepay, and everyone's a winner. You get to keep your iphone, carrier gets to sell more handsets, and GCHQ gets to track more and more unregistered gear ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if the Nike analogy fits here - a pair of sneakers isn't something uniquely identifiable like an IMEI, nor is it something that can be bricked. Back to the phone thing: a brick signal sits on the server until the phone is activated. When it signals the nearest cell to register on the network, it receives, instead of an ACK, a BRICK. End of phone. The important point here is that when you brick a handset you're not bricking the SIM (which carries the number), you're bricking the handset (which c
Me too (Score:2)
Why single out AT&T? (Score:2)
They all were doing it.
I liked the old legal system (Score:2)
AT&T not a give a shit about their customers? (Score:2)
Where do you get this crazy talk? Now if you'll excuse me I need to enslave another sedan chair carrier.
Used car dealers go to jail for that (Score:2)
Used car dealers who assist in the reselling of stolen cars are routinely sent to jail. Pawn shop operators, ditto. Why not cell phone companies?
3rd party insurance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RIght, because of course when someone sells a phone they're going to immediately report it as stolen.
It's not like any records might exist that they had put it up for sale or something...
Re: (Score:2)
RIght, because of course when someone sells a phone they're going to immediately report it as stolen.
It's not like any records might exist that they had put it up for sale or something...
That would depend on how they sell it. If they meet up at the corner and everything is done with cash, what record exists? Perhaps, the seller is pissed at the buyer and the seller calls in the phone as stolen out of spite. That would be especially possible if the seller was trading the phone to relieve a debt owed.
Re: (Score:2)
When buying phones off Craigslist I have just insisted that the transaction take place at the carrier's store so that there can be no question about what is going on - no "bad ESNs", problems with activation, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy a stolen phone, don't expect it to operate. If you didn't know it was stolen, someone duped you. Go after them and report them to police. It's no different than if they had shipped you a brick.
Re: (Score:3)
The ability to keep track of stolen IEMI numbers and not activate a phone on that list is elementary, and in an age where you can track an iPhone across the planet via GPS, such a simple detail screams that they simply did not want to do it. Worse for AT&T, is the fact that they look up the IEMI to enforce customer use; just try to use an iPhone on a non-Iphone data plan. This check is done autonomously.
There are plenty of instances where registrations are checked to assure that they're not stolen. A
Re:Hoist by own petard (Score:5, Interesting)
Would the DMV be liable if they licensed a car that was reported stolen....I think so
The DMV is required to do this by law, because they are creating a title to real property of significant value.
AT&T isn't required to do that.
They are not granting you a title simply because they are selling you a service.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real reason that cars have such a system and phones haven't is cultural, with some economic self interest involved. The cultural is that personal transportation, at least in the US, is a big issue. There was a time when horse thieves were simply hanged. If someone comes into you home and steals all you stuff, there is not as much as a furor as a car theft.
Then there is economics. Cars are insured by th
Re: (Score:2)
2) Your analogy fails because the car operates no matter who has a "key". Same with a phone, right? Sort of. The difference is, is the device has to AUTHENTICATE with the carriers servers *before* the device is even put 'on the network.' So, no, the two are not the same. The authentication isn't some sort of magical ether. It happens every time you make a call, every time you turn on your phone and every time your cell goes in or out of range of a tower. Just because that authentication cant "be seen" doesn't mean it's automatic or granted.
Wrong-o me bucko.
You can (and I have) removed my sim from one phone and put it in another phone, (totally different make and model that never once crossed AT&Ts doorstep), fired up the phone and it works out of the gate. The beauty of GSM.
As long as the SIM is good, the carrier does not care about the phone's serial number. You are confusing the authentication between the carrier and the Sim card, with the unique serial number burned into the phone. I ran that new phone for a year, when AT&T only
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two different technologies at work here, gsm and cdma. one requires a sim, and has the convenience of moving your sim to another phone and your service follows it. (and you can have a phone with 2 or 3 sims installed in it, each with a different phone number, so like a business and personal phone all in one) The other just goes by hardcoded sn in the phone to identify itself, and you can't transfer it.
One ties the service plan directly to the handset, the other ties it to the sim card. But both
Re: (Score:3)
Because Sprint and a large chunk of Verizon handsets don't use SIM cards, and most people would have brain meltdowns if they saw what the actual retail price of a replacement phone would be. So, they buy a new contract to try and get the purchase price down.
Re: (Score:2)
from a TV set, a VCR, a car radio or any other usually stolen good. If you get your device stolen, it's completely and totally your own damn fault. Don't get me wrong, yes, it sucks, but how is it in any way shape or form AT&T's problem?
If your stolen TV or VCR is recovered, you get it back. AT&T has the ability to tie stolen phones to the people using them, who may or may not be the thief. Either way, the legitimate owner would get their property back.
WIth that said, sure, AT&T could probably come up with a solution and market it, but don't pretend criminals won't just unlock them and bring 'em to verizon, or sprint, etc... heck, iPhone are great iPod touches too.
Network compatibility issues aside, IMEI numbers can uniquely identify a phone regardless of carrier. Which is why they're launching a national database that includes all the major providers.
What I have a beef with is that no one is forcing anyone to buy something new. And then what's stopping someone from selling their iPhone for cash, then claiming it was stolen? No, this is going too far.
I imagine people would learn very quickly to get a receipt when they buy something. I ask for one
Re: (Score:2)
Overpriced, fragile, insecure BS!
That describes my HTC Android phone pretty well, too.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no it isn't. In fact, I think you need to read the reply above yours. If a cell carrier is informed that a given cell phone is stolen, then it needs to be bricked and not allowed back onto the system. Yes, it sucks for people who buy a phone second hand without doing their homework, but it also makes phone theft much much less worthwhile for thieves, which will make the whole thing moot. No phones stolen == no stolen phones bought by foolish people.
Frankly when my first cell phone got stolen I was pisse