A great deal of crime is circumstantial and/or opportunistic: Change the circumstances, maybe crime doesn't occur in the first place.
Much has been written about declining crime rates over the past two decades, but one of the few categories where one occasionally sees increases at the local level has been "robberies," and this tidbit from the Washington Post ("Wireless carriers partner with FCC, police on database of stolen cell phones," April 9) perhaps explains that occasional aberration: "Cellphone theft has been rampant in cities across the country. More than
40 percent of robberies in New York involve smartphones. In the
District [of Columbia], 34 percent of all robberies are of cellphones, and cellphone
theft increased 54 percent between 2007 and 2011."
That's perhaps unsurprising, but not a trend I've heard discussed much. I wonder what percentage of robberies in Texas involve smart phones? To the extent that's a driving factor, a new national initiative may soon all but eliminate smart phones as a motive for robbery. Reports the Post, "Within six months, consumers will be able to call Verizon Wireless,
AT&T, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile if their devices are stolen and the
carriers will block the phones from being used again."
Excellent news. Just like it's easier for homeowners to lock their doors and windows than for police to solve a burglary, it's easier to eliminate the payoff from stealing a smart phone by disabling it than it is to generally deter through punishment alone.
RELATED: From Bruce Schneier, see 'Lost Smart Phones and Human Nature,' and 'Law Enforcement Forensics Tools Against Smart Phones'
And what happens when the uses of that database start expanding? For example, "Hey! Let's shut down the cell phones of those Occupy protesters!"
ReplyDeleteWell, if the database is of those reported stolen, that shouldn't be an immediate problem.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, as I think of it, Dwight, maybe it's not the database that's the problem but the existence of a kill switch. Hmmmm ...
ReplyDeleteWhile I generally am glad when anyone looks for non-criminal justice solutions to crime and other social problems, I may have to reconsider this one, or at least investigate more thoroughly.
how true grits! Like anything else that started with a good ideal. The devil is in the details. We have too many databases now that we have no control over. With this one there is no guarantee that 6 months after it's in place the govt takes it over.
ReplyDeleteIf they're going to do this in six months, doesn't that mean the kill switch is already in our phones now? Had this been reported?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely something that needs to be looked into as far as how it works. From the article:
ReplyDelete"Some carriers already shut down voice and data service of stolen phones upon request. They will also use unique identifiers to keep track of stolen phones on their network. Within 18 months, companies will combine those individual databases in an effort to contain the widespread and fast-growing trade of stolen wireless devices inside and outside the United States."
It sounds to me like they just use the database to deny setting up service for a phone that's been reported stolen. That's just a guess based on the limited information above.
That's what I think, John. The database and the kill switch appear to be separate issues.
ReplyDeleteThe results of a quick web search, in fact, shows the ship may already have sailed on the kill-switch issue; says this source:
"Google, Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) have with little fanfare embraced technology that lets technicians instantly and remotely purge unauthorized content from users’ machines. So- called kill switches are standard on Android handsets and iPhones, the smartphone leaders. The capability will soon become more widespread with the release of Microsoft’s Windows 8 software for tablets and computers."
I just read that article, Grits. While that kill switch technology does seem to have some benign goals, there is definitely a dark side that makes me uneasy.
ReplyDeletehmm one more reason why i WON'T be moving up to windows 8. I can't stand smart phones and i certainly don't need a computer that copies one!
ReplyDeleteThis little search and destroy feature just makes it worse!
Decide to accept/not accept the terms and conditions when purchasing.
ReplyDeleteI was probably a little more curt yesterday than I should have been. I was writing in a hurry, and should have waited.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with phone carriers having a database of stolen phones. I don't have a problem with remote wipe or "find my phone" technologies like those in the iPhone.
I do have a problem with this being government mandated and government controlled, rather than left up to the individual carriers. Maybe I'm drawing the line in the wrong place. Maybe once the databases exist there's nothing to stop the government from abusing them, even if they are private. ("Nice cell network here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.")
But as much as I hate AT&T, I trust them to do the right thing more than I trust the government. Would you be willing to give the power to shut off someone's cell phone service to your worst enemy?
Technology certainly looks good for this. Although it will look bad on the local police.
ReplyDeleteThe local police will take all the credit for the drop in crime.
ReplyDelete"I was probably a little more curt yesterday than I should have been"
ReplyDeleteNo worries, Dwight. You made me think twice about it and that's always a good thing. Carry on!
Sounds no different than calling the credit company to report a card stolen - and how much has that option really impacted debit card abuse?
ReplyDelete