MPs urge government to stop Britain's phone theft wave through tech

The UK's Home Secretary should use her powers to push the tech industry to deploy stronger technical measures against the surge in phone thefts, according to a House of Commons committee. Metropolitan Police figures show 117,211 phones were stolen during 2024, an increase of 25 percent on 2019. Only 1 percent of phone thefts …

[Anonymous Coward]

Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

The tech co's were hit with this before, and their response was to mate every component of the phone together. You can't re-use any components, so there was no point stealing phones: no chop, no sales. Can't unlock them without a central source, a stolen phone is worthless. Hum.

So then there was a great big push for: repairability. "Why are you mating parts?!? These could be re-used, instead of sourced brand-new from the manufacturer, and phone repair costs would go way down!" ---- but now we have the whole chop-shop dynamic of stolen phones.

So choose, population: Theft-proof, worthless stolen phones, or repairable phones where you can recycle parts. Which do you want?

[Blazde]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

I'd just like mine to turn on without Google's express permission please.

I can hear them salivating from here

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

They article says

"Tech companies argue that phone theft is primarily for parts, but there's little evidence to support this"

But AC says

"but now we have the whole chop-shop dynamic of stolen phones".

Which claim is correct?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Reading between the lines,

> "Tech companies argue that phone theft is primarily for parts, but there's little evidence to support this"

The tech companies are speaking about the past, before they started mating parts together so that the end-user can't change them, and in so doing it lead to the chop-shop phone market for parts falling off a cliff. Now we have "authorized repairers" and maybe you can buy "genuine parts" from the OEM to fix something at the cost of buying a whole brand-new device. They're both right: tech companies talking about "before," when they had to do something, and legal heads talking about "now" - mating parts was successful, at a cost of unrepairable devices.

> But AC says, "but now we have the whole chop-shop dynamic of stolen phones".

seems to support the statement of the tech co's?

The greater reading of the article is they want more tracking from tech co's, more locking-down, more registration of users. Great. That sounds just great. They can't monitor who-owns-what and whether it's stolen unless they track the owner, at all times, for all usage of the phone. Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

AC #2 here.

My point was that if the tech companies claim theft is primarily for parts was only correct in the past, then surely, ipso facto, the claim we now have the whole chop-shop dynamic of stolen phones is incorrect.

But no matter, I suspect we actually agree about the bigger picture and are getting sidetracked over semantics.

I certainly agree about tracking etc.

My hope is if anything is to be done, it is done by the manufacturers and carriers do not get involved. However, I'm expecting to be disappointed because MPs & govt will be quietly guided by the spooks and will push for the carriers to take action, which means more tracking, plus of course UK govt has considerable power over carriers and very little over manufacturers.

[Tron]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

I think nation states want a ban on phones crossing borders, so they can demand that all phones sold/used in their country can be spied on, located and killed easily. It's the same as nationalising, censoring and monitoring the UK internet with age verification. Governments can only really control what happens on their turf, so they need to block tech and the net at their borders. I thought they might do it by banning batteries on flights/crossing borders in the post/by couriers, but they can do via anti-theft requirements.

[Blazde]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

The current restrictions/requirements on shipping batteries are fairly widely flaunted, and basically impossible to enforce. Banning them crossing borders more would barely impact smuggling of stolen phones by people already breaking the law, but would be a pain for the rest of us wanting to buy random battery-powered devices, or just spare batteries - especially obscure ones, from law-abiding retailers,

[nobody who matters]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

As the article says - there is little evidence that mobile phones are being broken for parts. The reality is that the vast majority are being snatched whilst in use (and therefore unlocked) so that the thieves can access private data - principally the owners banking/crytocurrency and identity informaton.

Current phone blocking is mainly via the network, but stolen phones are being exported to countries where the network blocking doesn't work. From an article on the BBC website a couple of weeks ago (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20vlpwrzwdo) thieves are getting up to £300 for phones stolen in the UK. Most of these are then sold on to China where they can sell for the equivalent of several thousand pounds. That doesn't sound like a spare parts recovery operation by anybody's definition!

The manufacturers keep claiming it is for spare parts and that they can't do anything about it, because they don't want to spend the effort (and cost) of implementing proper disabling tech within the phone and take on the responsibility for disabling stolen phones themselves. As usual, it comes down to money and greed by the manufacturers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

>The reality is that the vast majority are being snatched whilst in use so that the thieves can access private data ...

Nah. I don't buy that. Have you a source?

I say UK phones are stolen principally for resale in the third world.

Any use of data that is on the phones is a sideline, profitable no doubt, but still a sideline to the main business.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

It's both. Phones almost always end up being resold, either whole or for parts.

But the data isn't just a "sideline" - for many thieves, it's the main event.

If the phone is on (which it typically is when snatched), the thief's first move is to stop you from locking it. They've often "shoulder-surfed" your PIN before snatching it.

Once they're in, they have access to everything. The immediate prize is financial. They get into your banking apps, payment apps (like Apple/Google Pay), and crypto wallets and drain them instantly. They can change your Apple ID or Google password, locking you out of your own "Find My" service and all your cloud data.

But all the other data is incredibly valuable, too:

Blackmail: They go through your private photos, messages, and notes. Anything sensitive - intimate photos, work documents, private conversations - becomes ammunition for extortion. "Pay us, or we send this to your family/employer."

Identity Theft: They have your name, address (from Amazon or Uber), date of birth, and possibly photos of your ID. This is a complete kit for opening new bank accounts or taking out loans in your name.

Scamming & AI Training: This is the new, industrial-scale part. All your private messages, emails, and contacts are harvested. This data is gold for training AI-powered scams. Imagine a scam bot that can perfectly mimic how you talk to your mum or a work colleague because it's been trained on your actual conversations. This is happening now - using stolen data to create romance scams, "phantom boss" emails, and phishing attacks that are terrifyingly convincing.

The resale of the physical phone is the guaranteed baseline profit. The data is the high-value bonus prize that can be worth far more.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Somehow I've never been able to trust my phone with any access to my bank account.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Except for the part about having to enter your current password, not pin, to change any Google account settings.

And NO. They don't really care about data, but only about how many phones they can fit in a shipping container heading to Asia.

[bigphil9009]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

>They've often "shoulder-surfed" your PIN before snatching it.

I'd wager that the vast majority of phones these days are unlocked via facial or fingerprint recognition. Very very few people are using their PIN while walking down the street. And besides, these thefts happen over a matter of seconds - moped pulls alongside, pillion passenger nicks the phone, moped is gone. All in the space of 3 seconds. They're not watching you for 30s beforehand...

[nobody who matters]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

"Have you a source?"

None whatsoever; beyond every news report of people having had their phone snatched and their bank account emptied shortly after, and then finding their credit cards stored on their phone have been maxed out. Along with numerous posts across social media that others have drawn my attention to saying similar things. But, beyond that, no evidence at all :/.

However, I do agree that ultimately pretty much all of these stolen phones will be sold on for use in parts of the world where they are not so concerned about where they have come from, and where their communications systems allow the stolen phones to continue operating with little more than a new SIM.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

> the thieves can access private data - principally the owners banking/crytocurrency and identity informaton.

In that case, is there any flag I can attach to my mobe to proudly declare that I don't do banking on the phone and wouldn't touch cryptocurrency with a barge pole? And if they try to use the "identity" the thing knows about - well, they could "hack" my Register account, which is probably worth a few bob to someone, isn't it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

>None whatsoever beyond every news report of people having had their phone snatched and their bank account emptied

Okay. That's fair enough. Well my source is what I can remember of a lengthy article I read a few months ago in one of the trade rags about the ecosystem underpinning phone theft and it was quite clear that while use of data on stolen phones is definitely a thing, it is a sideline to the main business of nicking and selling on. It also said the majority of stolen phones in the UK were not snatched - so presumably pick-pocketed or burgled etc.

Now both things, ie using data on a stolen phone & snatching a phone, I suggest will get disproportionally reported compared to a phone simply being pinched from, say, an unattended bag and never seen or heard of again.

[Grunchy]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

“The reality is that the vast majority are being snatched whilst in use (and therefore unlocked) so that the thieves can access private data - principally the owners banking/crytocurrency and identity informaton.”

Ha ha, that’s funny. People are using their phone at the bus stop to read the news or idly pass the time. ALL of the banking apps and crypto apps are password protected, it doesn’t matter if the phone is unlocked, nobody is getting past the password biometric tests so they can grab your rent money.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Funny, because I know plenty of people who use the same pin for everything, have biometrics turned off because it annoys them and password manager is too complex for them to use. They often have passwords on the post-it behind the phone. Average person is clueless about security.

[James O'Shea]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

idiots deserve what they get.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

> idiots deserve what they get.

Being pummeled by advertising that buying the latest bling slab will finally make it all work better? Being sold devices woth "our best security ever" which make no effort to teach the "idiots" what the dangers are or take any steps to prevent them reusing the PIN and password? Being conned and bullied into using apps for banks, apps for everything?

That is what they deserve?

[James O'Shea]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Install an ad-blocker on various devices. Use a DVR to record TV, and fast-forward past ads. I haven't seen an ad on my normal systems for years. Where possible, I put ad-blockers on every computer I use; if I can't put an ad-blocker on it, I keep the usage down to a minimum.

Apple's built-in password manager checks for reused passwords, flags them, and says why. It also looks for passwords that have been compromised, flags those, and tells why. Several 3rd-party password managers do much the same thing. if your password manager doesn't do this, or if it does but you don't pay attention, you're an idiot.

Yes, it's what they deserve. Think of it as evolution in action.

[doublelayer]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

What steps do you suggest to prevent people reusing passwords? Many sites warn of this right next to the enter your password boxes, but short of testing it against a bunch of services just to see, there's no way of making people do it. Not reusing passwords is in every security training, list of simple steps to improve your security, many news articles, and generally all over the place. Financial companies in particular often present security recommendations from time to time when you log in. People don't deserve to get robbed, but neither can I blame myself for not having told people how to be more secure. Those who easily could follow instructions but didn't do it because convenience trumps all have more risk and will suffer more as a result. If someone truly hasn't seen those recommendations, that's different, but if they have and decided that following them sounded like too much work, then they have a higher chance of not enjoying the results.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

You can recite your empathetic speech to your parents or grandparents when they ask to borrow money as they haven't got any, now they've been scammed out of their life savings.

[James O'Shea]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Grandparents are dead. Parents use secure systems; I set them up. And they know to check the passwords.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

You sound like the world revolves around you.

It doesn't.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

"ALL of the banking apps and crypto apps are password protected...."

Yes, and those passwords almost invariably stored in the phone, probably set to autofill when the bank website login page is brought up. The thief has your unlocked phone, he also has access to your passwords. As any MFA will also almost certainly come to that phone one way or another, he has that too. It is only biometrics that will hold him up, but how many people actually have those ?

I say 'he'; of course it could be a she, and in a recent bust of a ring who were caught sending large numbers of stolen phones abroad, all but one of those arrested was female.

[James O'Shea]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Around here, all my banking apps (one for checking/saving, one for the credit union, two for credit cards) require at least two steps to get to the login. And the websites associated with them are quite bolshie about security. No, they don't just autofill. My passwords are locked up in either Zoho's or Apple's password managers. Both of them require multiple steps to access; with Zoho, I must fire up an access app... which requires a password, which is NOT autofilled. And has an MFA of its own. And lives on my iPad, so they'd have to steal it too. With Apple, I must log in with my Apple ID... which does NOT autofill and which requires a password or biometrics. I have it rigged to demand a password; it's a 15-item password, ten characters, two of them caps, four numbers, and a symbol. Yes, it's annoying to get into the password manager. It's supposed to be annoying. (The ten characters spell out something in a non-Indo-European language, except that it's deliberately misspelled. A thief would have to guess which language and how I misspelled it and the caps and numbers are not necessarily where most people would expect them to be...) Website passwords are NOT stored in the browser. And, oh, I have three browsers loaded on each of the devices, and I use different browsers for different tasks. The websites themselves will be in the cookies for only one browser. Guess which one. Do it fast, before I nuke the phone remotely.

If a thief gets access to my unlocked phone, he gets access to email and texting, but he had better move fast before I fire up Find My on the iPad or the other iPhone and spin up Lost Phone. (Note that Find My also lives on Macs, and in icloud.com, which is readily available from Windows, Linux, or even Android systems.)

[Richard 12]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

So in reality they've got until the victim gets home.

In central London that's likely to be several hours - and much longer if they were using Apple Pay on the Tube and buses and don't have an alternative on them.

[munnoch]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

I've gotten more and more into the habit of leaving my wallet behind and relying on my phone so losing it when some distance from home represents a bit of a nightmare scenario.

My bank allows me to withdraw from an ATM without a card but you need to generate a code in the app... Setting up the app on a different phone istr is a massive faff of confirmation codes that might even involve a letter in the post. Finding a branch thats still open and staffed would be nothing short of miraculous. I think I'll get back into the habit of carrying a physical wallet.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Banks are happy with not having to provide cards, or devices that can read them physically, as this reduces the associated costs. They're even happier letting you use your phone to do it all as this reduces the risk they face when things go wrong…

Given how easy it is to lose a damage a phone, I've never understood the attraction of using it do anything "essential". And I'm happy both with a relatively low transaction limit and overdraft. When on holiday I like to use one account as essentially a pre-paid card to reduce the total potential risk. This also, incidentally, helps me budget better and I'm sure I'm not the only who can't keep track of all their outgoings (yes, I know there are apps that can do that…) in their head.

[James O'Shea]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

My iPad and laptop are with me pretty much 24/7. The iPad in particular is connected to the car system by USB; I play music on it while driving, and have the maps up if necessary. I unplug it from the car USB and put it next to the laptop in my carry bag. And I have two phones; one is configured as a hotspot so that the laptop has a live Internet connection, which does NOT depend on a coffee shop or whatever wifi. If someone steals one of the phones, I'd be on Find My in under five minutes, probably under one minute. Apple Pay is on both phones and the iPad.

And the phones are in pockets, with zip closures, in the bag when not in use, and have lanyards. And the bag is itself secured adequately with a GOOD strap properly placed; snatch and run ain't happening. Besides, it's usually in the car until I get to my destination, then it's with me in the parking lot until it's in the building with me. The odds of the bag being stolen are... quite low.

Thieves go for the low-hanging fruit. Those who take proper precautions aren't attractive targets.

[I am David Jones]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Having two mobile data devices/SIMs/subscriptions on you at all times goes well beyond “proper precautions” for normal mortals in most places, as does tying yourself up in lanyards, zipped pockets and bags. Simply having a phone in a pocket or handbag when it’s not in your hand is normal and hardly careless (I don’t include phones half falling out of back pockets in that).

Incidentally, things on lanyards are usually easily yanked off by design (for personal safety).

[nobody who matters]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

"My iPad and laptop are with me pretty much 24/7."

You are fortunate that you have a job and lifestyle that accommodates you having all three near to hand all the time.

A great many ordinary people dont have the luxury of being able to do that, even if they were able to afford the cost of having three separate devices in the first place ;)

[LVPC]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Unless your iPad is also on your person, the thief has plenty of time. Your computer? Same story. 15 minutes is more than enough time to put your phone into a faraway metal box and one reset later they have phone ready for the foreign market.

[Snowy]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

From the news the box of choice is some aluminum foil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

There is a thriving market of people selling faraday cage bags, quick and easy to get your device in and out, which also stop the phones from getting scratched in pockets or back packs.

A boon to the hard working thief.

[James O'Shea]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

My personal iPad IS on hand wherever I go, 24/7. Either it's open on the desk in front of me or it's in my carry bag over my shoulder.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

> Around here, all my banking apps (long list of oh, so very many clever things)

And the fact that you have to do all those things just to be safe using a phone away from the house, that is a good thing, a normal thing?

And you expect every untrained user these things are fobbed off on should do the same as you? And it is all their fault if they don't?

Are you training them? Even explaining to them all that they need training? And they need it because these expensive gadgets that they are told to use are not going to help the untrained average joe?

[James O'Shea]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

i do train those whose systems I admin. Family, friends, users at work. Some listen, some don't. Those who don't listen tend to feel the results. When they come crying, I point out that if they'd listened, they would not have this problem. Evolution in action, that's what it is.

I got a case with a lanyard not to protect against thieves, but so that the device wouldn't fall and break the screen; the lanyards work as anti-theft systems as a bonus. Those who don't get lanyards, or who don't use them and break screens or have stuff stolen (breaking screens is far more common), as a result, get zero sympathy from me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

@James O'Shea

Your "solution" is everything that's wrong with IT security.

If it's not straightforward for Joe Average, in other words granny friendly, it's not going to happen.

Yet everyone is being forced by financial institutions to adopt technology they don't understand.

Many pensioners will never understand how to outwit seriously competent high tech criminals - some can't even remember what accounts they've got.

And let's not forget, many scams are achieved by the perpetrators fooling the human managers of accounts by claiming they've lost their devices or they've been stolen, so they don't have access to the password managers and MFA safety nets you think are invincible.

And that's before AI starts being used for scams.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

You might want to watch some of the surveillance of phone thefts in London: if they think you're carrying something valuable, you personally are at risk in attacks that more resemble highwaymen than typically opportunistic theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

It does amaze me that you don't see more thefts in London. It would be so easy to snatch a headset from someone not paying attention and then there are all the tourists who are wandering around with bags from Lego, Hamleys, Harrods etc. Going on the tube past Knightsbridge is always an experience as you see the very over-dressed women with far too much makeup struggling to get on the tube with half a dozen Harrods bags.

I was in Picadilly Circus a couple of weeks back and suddenly there was a scuffle and cries of 'he's a pickpocket!'.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

"It does amaze me that you don't see more thefts in London"

A BBC report a while ago (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65105199) suggested there is a mobile phone reported as stolen in London on average every six minutes - is that not enough for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

I was more hinting about general theft. It could be more profitable to half-inch a harrods bag and flog it all on facebook.

[heyrick]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

My bank site autofills, but you can't do much without giving the bank app a special (different) authorisation code. This cannot be stored and done automatically.

[David Hicklin]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

> Yes, and those passwords almost invariably stored in the phone, probably set to autofill when the bank website login page is brought up. The thief has your unlocked phone, he also has access to your passwords

Then they would also need to take my thumb with the phone - I don't allow anything automatic authorisation (OK London underground is an exception but there is a limit on that!)

[Rol]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Yep, they could quite easily use a keyring fob that once out of range locks the phone.

[JoeCool]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

I read that as the AC stating a hypotheticap,if phones became more repairable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

The only part of a cell phone that can be disabled to render the device unusable as a phone is the locked bit with the IMEI burned in. The only way to make that be usefiul is to convince every goverment to require every cell phone service provider to block stolen devices. The problem is that if some at-war country¹ doesn't like your country, it could add every IMEI to its Stolen Phones database, immediately rendering every cell phone on the planet unusable as phones except for placing emergeny calls.

Can you imagine the utter shitstorm that would ensue were that to happen?

1 - not only countries, but every phone company employee with write access to the Stolen Phone database.

[Grunchy]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

“Theft-proof, worthless stolen phones, or repairable phones where you can recycle parts. Which do you want?”

Yeah nobody steals phones because they want the parts.

[Richard 12]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

Well, possibly they used to, but it's only ever worthwhile if the OEM parts are extremely expensive.

[david1024]

Re: Repairable? or Theft-Proof?

They I wouldn't just use this to brick stolen phone parts... They'll brick my 5c I use as an MP3 player. Just by turning off an authenticator server.

Be very careful what you ask for.

[david 12]

Apple Samsung Google

The Apple system seems ok, if you enable it. I don't know how if that is hard to find.

I've got a Samsung Android phone. If there is an OS-supported method of locking the phone on theft, they've decided to hide it well.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Apple Samsung Google

The Apple "Lost Mode" and "Stolen Device Protection" seem to do what the government requires - render the device inoperable and Apple shops will only unlock a device if you turn up in person as the original buyer with the original receipt. There are posts on the Apple boards by people who have legally bought iPhones at police auctions and Apple still won't unlock them. Unless the gov is saying that these protections can be bypassed then I don't see why they want IMEI blocking. Whatever the truth about phones being stolen for parts, IMEI blocking won't discourage that.

I think that the main problem with these protections is user ignorance. I suspect that there are a lot of users don't know about them so they don't implement them. Also many people buying second-hand phones don't know about device locks and the Apple boards have regular posts from people who have bought second-hand iPhones which they can't activate**. A campaign to advertise how to lock a stolen device might be more useful than more legislation.

The other aspect of IMEI blocking is that I suspect that unblocking a phone would be hard. If I report my iPhone as lost then if I find it a couple of weeks later I can unlock it, turn off Lost Mode (needs biometrics, not passcode) and start using it. I bet any system based on IMEI blocking wouldn't be so easy to unblock.

**of course, many of these could be thieves who are fishing for help to unlock their booty, but the organized gangs in London just send them straight to China

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20vlpwrzwdo

[Woodnag]

Government locking

If UK gov gets their mitts on a mechanism to allow remote phone locking, the following will happen.

1. Capita will get the contract to manage it

2. Capita will get hacked and the access stolen, so crims will be able to offer a lock-a-phone-on-demand service

3. UK gov will start locking phones of people they don't like, such as attending certain protests, which also kills the video recording of said protests

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Government locking

But the phones are stolen to be used in Algeria and China and Hong Kong (Note to Police, HK is now China, we don't own it anymore, ask the Foreign Office)

So presumably the govt will only need to lock phones in Algeria and China, while phones stolen in Algeria and China presumably end up here - so only the Algerian and Chinese governments will need the ability to lock phones in the UK

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Apple Samsung Google

"A campaign to advertise how to lock a stolen device might be more useful than more legislation."

Legislation is what politicians do. It's just another example of "if all you have is a hammer...."

[J.G.Harston]

Lanyard. Physically tie your phone to your body. Plus HOLD THE DAMN THING PROPERLY. It's a *****ing phone, hold it like a ****ing phone, not like a bloody spit tray.

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of people walking around London in very busy places holding their phone in front of their face is bonkers.

It is even funnier when you see people with wireless headsets or earbuds doing the same. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of wireless headsets have microphones so why not keep your phone in your pocket/bag and chat hands free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, too, am amazed at how many people walk around with their phones in front of their face - hold it beside your ear and you usually have a much firmer grip. As for me, I rarely have my phone out of an inside pocket when in public - voice* calls can be made using ear buds or even via a smart watch.

*Video calls are a different matter, but there's rarely a _need_ to make them.

[that one in the corner]

But, but if you hold your mobile up to your ear you wouldn't put it onto speakerphone and all the passersby would be left without the joy of knowing that Kiley's youngest has got the runs again after eating out of the cat's bowl!

[jackharrer]

If you look carefully, tons of them are so addicted to TikTok and similar rubbish they cannot stop even on the street. Thus having them in front of their faces all the time. It is really insane!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the 'head down not looking where they are going' person. Also playing games, not just tiktok.

By far the worst are the 'influencers' with a small entourage carrying a variety of phones, lights, DSLRs and bags. Heaven forbid you get in the shot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Suggest a campaign to hand out free signs printed on tyvek, so that everyone has them ready to hold up behind any "influencers" they come across. Start with the ever-popular "Hello Mum!".

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are being held up behinf "influencers", wouldn't "Wanker Alert!" be more appropriate?

[that one in the corner]

Oh, how I wish phones came with solid, built-in lanyard rings. My grottiest cheap "don't give a dam what happens to it so carry it anywhere" camera has a wrist strap, it came in the box. Even the naffest low-cost multitools have places to run a bit of string to your belt loop.

But hundreds to thousands quid worth of phone? There are a few decently built ones but for 99-plus percent... Heck, even the DECT handset was easy to secure, a couple if turns of line and a spritz of superglue, tie t'other end down; but try that with a fondle slab and it'll be a right mess.

[James O'Shea]

The (very cheap, under $20) case for my iPhone came with a lanyard. Those who want lanyards can easily and cheaply get them.

[Like a badger]

"Oh, how I wish phones came with solid, built-in lanyard rings. "

How will that help? In London posh watches get forcibly yanked off their owner's wrists, so I'd suggest that the crims would think nothing of punching a phone-user in the face and then pulling off or cutting any wrist strap or lanyard. The problem here is that in the villainous cess-pit that is London, the scum know they stand an impressively high chance of getting away with their crimes, and even if caught the sentencing is often laughable. Both Plod and government seem very comfortable with their own ineffectuality, so no change can be expected from them.

There is a solution here: Build a hundred foot high wall all the way round the route of the M25, with no gaps or tunnels, and fill in or demolish any problematic viaducts or tunnels. Leave the vermin of London to eat each other (also making sure Parliament is in session when the last section of wall is put in). If any try and escape, throw them back over the wall with a trebuchet. We'd have to do something about the two airports mind.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

That's the sort of ridiculous metropolitan London-centric sort of policy we've come to expect.

We need to wall off the entire South East - a wall from the Severn to the Wash should be sufficient to isolate them from real people

[tiggity]

A strap of some type is a deterrent - it is a lot "safer" for a crim (often on a bike) to grab an "unsecured" phone from someone's hand - having to stop and attempt to remove it when stopped by a lanyard is a different matter, puts the crim at a lot more risk of getting injured themselves in struggle with victim/ being unable to escape as easily as not instant getting back on a bile and in motion again (it's really easy to knock someone off a slow moving bike - some phone theft victims might well do that as crime tries to get up to speed to escape!)

[Like a badger]

I seriously doubt that the low life who steak or snatch phones do either a considered risk analysis, or bother to consider the health and safety aspects of their chosen career.

[nobody who matters]

It is also apparent that in many cases they don't work alone - recent reports that I have read are saying that they often work in small gangs, and often use very fast electric bikes. It doesn't take more than a fraction of a second for one to grab you whilst the other yanks a lanyard off your wrist/arm/neck or whatever. Unless you have a security rated steel braid for a lanyard, a simple pair of scissors or a sharp knife would very quiclkly overcome that obstacle - but of course, no criminals would carry a knife with them, would they............

And of course, if you did have such a steel braid, the thief would very likely relieve you of your arm in the process of ripping your phone away.

[smudge]

Plus HOLD THE DAMN THING PROPERLY. It's a *****ing phone, hold it like a ****ing phone, not like a bloody spit tray.

The BBC this week interviewed someone who had had her phone stolen something like five times.

"Nowadays I keep it out of sight and only take it out when I need it.", she moaned. "That's not how it was meant to be.".

The worrying thing is that they let people like that vote, and breed.

[L3]

Smart phones, for stupid people

[O'Reg Inalsin]

Don't let the choke be on you

Make sure you get a lanyard with a quick release that will disconnect under slight tension - it won't save your phone but it will save your vagus nerve and spinal cord.

[Scotech]

Here's an idea... Why don't we plant a tiny explosive charge in every mobile device, that can be triggered by the network provider or enrolling cloud management platform if the device is flagged as stolen. I can't see any possible way that could be abused...

On a more serious note, while it's absolutely feasible for the likes of Apple and Google to log a device's IMEI number upon device enrollment, that would be a disaster for privacy, as well as introducing a further impediment to lawful resale of a device while still being gameable by the criminals, just as network-locking is. In that context, the bit I can't fully figure out is why the manufacturers are against it. Do they think lost sales from resale of stolen devices will outweigh the additional sales from people replacing stolen devices and/or avoiding second hand ones for fear they're either stolen or still IMEI-locked to the previous owner's cloud account?

[Alan J. Wylie]

Alan B'stard in 1991

> Here's an idea... Why don't we plant a tiny explosive charge in every mobile device,

Alan B'stard had an exploding wallet back in 1991.

New Statesman episode: Labour of Love

[smudge]

Here's an idea... Why don't we plant a tiny explosive charge in every mobile device,

The IDF already thought of that :(

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been done.

[Anonymous Coward]

> a tiny explosive charge

I hear lithium can make a pretty fire. Now, how to get it into every phone and prevent the user from removing it?

[doublelayer]

"the bit I can't fully figure out is why the manufacturers are against it."

They're not against locking devices, as both Apple and Google have locking methods if you've signed into their respective accounts. If you have enabled that, people are not getting into the device without a nice exploit and they become much less valuable. I think they argue against IMEI-based police-initiated locking because:

1. It's a lot harder to unlock that than the ways they already have, so users are going to find themselves unable to access a phone they lost and recovered and they're going to call Apple and Google to help, and Apple and Google are going to spend much longer trying to help them clean this up than they did before. The previous system used only information that the OS manufacturer had, so it was all under their control for better or worse. The IMEI system will be using data from the manufacturer, the carrier, and law enforcement, so that's a lot of places to clean it up.

2. There are clear possibilities for abusing this, for example locking phones from a specific area if it contained suspected criminals, people who attended a protest that law enforcement disapproves of, etc. If manufacturers enable this, they'll get the blame for breaking people's phones, certainly in public opinion and possibly even in court. They don't want that.

3. Perhaps not for everyone, but this involves collecting and storing even more user data, and while some of them (Google, I mean you) do really enjoy doing that, it's user data they can't really make any money from. It still has all the risks of user data such as others wanting to steal it and laws protecting it.

[Grunchy]

“If you have enabled that, people are not getting into the device without a nice exploit and they become much less valuable.”

True story: While walking the dog I found a brand-new Samsung S20 dropped in the stream, took it home and the waterproofing worked! No harm whatsoever. But, it was locked with a passcode. No owner info on the lockscreen so I could either drive across town to the coppe shoppe and drop it off, or, I could HACK it. So I hacked it. Wasn’t even hard following directions online, just a little complicated. Anyway 5 minutes later here it is, of course part of the procedure is to factory reset it a couple times. But now what. I tried my SIM card, nope, this lost phone is IMEI locked. I could hack a new IMEI but I’m like, the pirate apps to do that are suspicious as hell, no way. I could use it SIMless but pfft, this thing is too big anyway. Also it doesn’t have the FLIR camera like my 2016 iPhone SE has. Theoretically it has value for its parts but practically, not true. I stuck it in the junk drawer and continue to use my trusty, proper-sized, FLIR-equipped 2016 iPhone SE. I found the S20 years ago, it’s still fundamentally useless, even if it wasn’t IMEI locked (I tried it again, it’s still locked. Still too big and cumbersome, too.)

WHATEVER!

[Dan 55]

I would have just checked which operator the SIM card belongs to and dropped it off at a shop belonging to that operator, but you do you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Found a locked phone and tried that in Ottawa, Canada.

The carrier didn't want to know and wouldn't help. (Not all carriers own shops, by the way).

The local police didn't want to know and wouldn't help.

The few people who rang the phone wouldn't provide any contact information for the person they were ringing, nor would they contact them to tell them to ring the phone.

Eventually managed to pull the photos off the SD card (not encrypted) and the owner had a photo of her payslip, so managed to return her phone.

A lot of work and frustration: I can understand people just giving up.

YMMV, hopefully.

[JaneGnrrr]

I would probably have given up before digging into the SIM card. Kudos to you for persevering!

[doublelayer]

That only worked because they didn't also lock it with the Google account. If they had done that, then it wouldn't just be the mobile part that wouldn't work. You would need to sign in as the former user to disable that part too. Given the many Android devices around, I wouldn't be surprised that some of them can be reset in such a way that bypasses the account login, but it's not all of them.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> both Apple and Google have locking methods if you've signed into their respective accounts

> That only worked because they didn't also lock it with the Google account.

So is the current Register commentard advice to sign into Google for safety or NOT sign into Google for privacy (and safety from Google)?

[doublelayer]

We can't advise. You get to make the decision of which of these you prefer:

1. Google cannot access as much of your data because you don't use a Google account (and if you're starting down that path, you might also disable some Google apps and features).

2. You can remotely lock and erase your phone if a thief steals it.

If you're using normal Android, you cannot have both. If you are lucky, you could use a degoogled version of Android which may also have that feature, for example /E/OS. You may also be able to add this functionality using some alternative apps. However, if you would like the turnkey option that is most likely to be difficult to bypass*, then Google's is that.

* This is especially important if an important goal for you is denying the thief ongoing access to your device. App-based methods will likely work to keep them from getting your data and allowing you to destroy that data, but once they erase the device, those mechanisms stop working and they can likely use the phone again. The only way to continue to lock them out after that is if the functionality has been built into the phone's system image. From my perspective, by the time someone's gone to that effort, I won't get my device back anyway so while leaving them with a paperweight would be better, it's not as big a deal as making sure they can't get copies of things I stored there.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Not just phones. I found a Audi S20 in the rain at big Tesco. It was locked but I looked up online how to open it.

Waterproofing worked, but somehow the number on the front was recorded by the police and I couldn't use it on the road

[nobody who matters]

Perhaps you should have put a different number on the front ;)

[LVPC]

The manufacturer would lose sales because theft rates would go down if stolen phones can't be reused. Follow the money.

Over a million laptops are lost every year at airports. People don't reclaim them - easier to get the insurance pay for a new one. Especially if the airport is in another country.

[JimmyPage]

And we are supposed to trust our digital IDs

to these scrote magnets ?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: And we are supposed to trust our digital IDs

No we have to trust the police of all the dodgy countries these phones end up in.

They will need to have the power to lock any UK imei

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern phones, way too expensive/valuable

Stick to feature phones.

Cheap. Theft attraction, low.

It’s just a phone after all.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Modern phones, way too expensive/valuable

Trouble is that it isn't anymore:

It's the MFA login to your work apps

It's the public transit/bikeshare payment app or it's the only way of paying for parking or using an EV charger

It's the loyalty/discount app for the supermarket

For many people its the only way of using their bank / credit card

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Modern phones, way too expensive/valuable

Nope, if work (plural) want me to have 2fa on a device, its going to be a device they have provided. No device, no 2fa, no way.

[tiggity]

Re: Modern phones, way too expensive/valuable

No.

I have no payment apps on my phone - on grounds a phone is too easily stolen (or even lost).

Quite often I do not have my phone with me when out & about (it's easily forgotten & not vital for anything I do).

I have cash in my pocket (& a card if absolutely needed) - if I cannot pay for something using either of those methods then they can **** off.

Zero desire for a (app or physical) "store card" (cheaper shop if they can harvest my data - no thanks I'll just shop elsewhere)

.. Back when I was driving, I was on holiday in the South of the UK & came across a town where all car parks I could find were pay by phone app only.

Given I had no phone with me & no public call boxes around (car parks had a number you could ring for non app users to pay) I just left a sign inside car windscreen saying I had no phone, was a tourist boosting the local economy & could find no information pointing me to alternative parking that accepted coins or card & a drive around had not found any (not naming town in case it has since improved) & so had no option but park there as no alternatives I was willing to pay but they did not offer suitable payment options for non phone users*.

I received no tickets whilst on that holiday.

* I really dislike this presumption everyome has

a) a "smartphone"

b) always has it with them

c) we live in a magical kingdom where a mobile signal is always possible

[Anonymous Coward]

"handsets could not connect to cloud accounts ... rendering the phones far less valuable"

I would see enforced cloud deprivation as an attractive and therefore valuable feature.

[elsergiovolador]

British Fascism

This is a complete surrender of government responsibility dressed up as “innovation policy”. If the Home Secretary’s best idea is to beg Apple and Google to police street crime, then what exactly are we paying taxes for? It’s an open admission that law enforcement has failed so completely that ministers now want Silicon Valley to do their job.

We’ve reached the point where a Londoner has a 1 percent chance of seeing justice if their phone is stolen, and the response isn’t to fix the policing crisis, it’s to ask the same corporations that track your every move to build yet another control layer into your device - conveniently expanding their power even further.

This isn’t “cutting demand”; it’s outsourcing basic public safety to private monopolies because the state has lost the ability or the will to enforce the law. What next - Amazon-run prisons and Uber patrol cars? The message to criminals is clear: don’t worry, the government’s too busy writing letters to Cupertino.

The merger of state authority and corporate power, where elected officials hand over public functions to multinational, tax-dodging giants in exchange for the illusion of competence.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: British Fascism

>This is a complete surrender of government responsibility

Come off it. No it isn't. At worst it's debatable. And I know your game too - it's whipping up outrage!

The phone theft question strikes me as being along exactly same lines as govt few years ago forcing car manufacturers to fit better locks. No one buys a car because of its locks so many manufacturers fitted rubbish locks and buyers suffered. That wasn't going to change so govt regulated. Which is of course one of the relatively few things a good govt should do - applying regulations to counter failures of the free market.

I suggest the real issue here with phone thievery is how the govt decide they want countermeasures implementing. If optional apple style passwords etc, then what's not to like. But if govt push for tracking via carriers then it's just yet one more uninvited intrusion into our lives by the state.

Btw, go look up def of crisis. Tis a much overexercised word. F word though still takes top spot!

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

You’re missing the point. The issue isn’t whether locks are good or bad - it’s who’s expected to enforce order. When a government stops doing its core job (law enforcement) and starts outsourcing basic safety to the same corporations that avoid paying for the system they’re now supposed to uphold, that’s not regulation - it’s abdication.

Comparing it to car locks is quaint. We’re not talking about mandating safer hinges; we’re talking about a government that can’t control street crime turning to trillion-dollar firms to implement surveillance tools that only they can disable. That’s a merger of state authority and corporate enforcement - the textbook definition of fascism, not regulation.

And yes, outrage is appropriate when the “solution” to collapsing policing is to hand more control to private entities already operating above national law. Call it modernisation if you like - it’s still the state giving up.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: British Fascism

>textbook definition of

Funny you should say that because a few weeks back when discussing the OSA you had a very diff definition of that word. I reckon you use it humpty-dumpty fashion to fit whatever particular argument you're making.

Irony is though that exchange of views prompted me to do a bit of digging and I came across this by Orwell written in 1940

https://thephilosopher.net/orwell/wp-content/uploads/sites/391/2024/10/What-is-Fascism-George-Orwell.pdf

and after reading it my lifelong fairly narrow "classic" view of what the word meant went out of the window. Seems even way back in 1940 it meant so many diff things to diff people it's almost meaningless. So carry on and use it however you like. Or perhaps it shouldn't be used at all.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

You read Orwell’s essay and somehow came away thinking it means “no one can use the word anymore”? That’s exactly the kind of comfortable misunderstanding Orwell was warning about. His point wasn’t that fascism can’t be defined - it’s that people refuse to define it when it appears in forms that suit their own side.

We’re living through precisely what he described: the merger of state and corporate power dressed as progress. Labour’s “Online Safety” censorship regime, the outsourcing of policing to tech monopolies, the NHS quietly feeding data pipelines run by US contractors, destruction of SMEs, wage compression through state-corporate collusion - all authoritarian rot packaged as modern governance.

So yes, fascist Labour government is doing fascist things on multiple fronts. Calling that out isn’t hysteria, it’s observation. Pretending the word has lost meaning is how polite society avoids admitting what it’s collaborating with.

[doublelayer]

Re: British Fascism

If people can't agree on what a word means, then not using it doesn't mean refraining from using the word because someone might not like it. It means using a different word or group of words that better communicates what you want to communicate. I fully understand that when you or someone else calls something "fascism", it means you don't like it, but without a lot more explanation of what you think fascism means to you this time, I don't know why. The most common misconception with definitions is the misunderstanding of "corporate state", which is itself a translation issue between Italian and English. If we were trying to decide what fascism originally meant, we could get into a discussion of what they meant by that, which had to do with state enforcement over amalgamated private groups which remained technically non-government. Outside of a historical discussion of what Italy's fascist party claimed to want, though, that discussion is worthless.

If you don't like something today, whether or not your view of it would have worked with a fascist philosophy is a debate that does not help you. Instead of arguing your potentially valid point of whether the UK is doing this because they failed at law enforcement or your very valid point about the potential abuses of this system, we're having this much less important argument about a few terms that, contrary to your posts, do not have a clear definition even if we were only considering 1920-1945 Italian usage and even less of one if we're trying to be descriptivist and include the ways it has been used since then. You can explain why something is bad a lot more clearly than by trying to argue which historical group would have liked it and stating that position as fact.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

You’re making the same error Orwell dissected - treating political language as something to be tidied away when it becomes awkward. The point isn’t whether we can perfectly triangulate Mussolini’s corporate state translation; it’s that the pattern is repeating: state enforcement over nominally private power structures, with citizens reduced to managed resources.

Demanding linguistic purity before acknowledging reality is just a genteel way of saying “let’s never call it what it is”. Fascism was never about style or flags - it was about subordination of individual freedom to the alliance of state and corporate control. That’s exactly what’s re-emerging under the language of efficiency and safety.

If that makes people uncomfortable, good. That means the word still works.

[doublelayer]

Re: British Fascism

> Demanding linguistic purity before acknowledging reality is just a genteel way of saying “let’s never call it what it is”.

I am not demanding linguistic purity and I want you to call it what it is, but I want you to call it what it is in a way that means other people know what you mean.

We all have to change our communication in order to be better understood. At one point in my life, I used to use the word "systemic" to describe problems that happened throughout a program, because from my perspective it meant it was a problem with the whole system, not just this one function over here. I found that some people misunderstood this as blame to the organization and specifically them. Not only did they not understand what I meant, they reacted poorly to misunderstood attacks. Solution: I found a different word than systemic which they did understand. Alternative solution, I could provide a definition of systemic at the start which would add a paragraph then continue using it. Not a solution at all: continuing to use it and having to try to explain to offended people what I meant when I finally determined they had misunderstood me, even if I could then make a convincing case (to myself anyway) that "systemic" did make sense in that context. My job is to communicate and convince, not to win the dictionary game that nobody else wants to play.

We don't have your full definition for fascism and it would waste more time trying to provide one than to make your opinion clear by actually stating it. There are many types of state control, only some of which make sense when called fascist, but all of which could be big problems. Spare yourself and us the discussion of history and translation by stating why it's wrong rather than using a poorly defined term which we're simplifying to "bad government thing". I agree that this is a bad government thing, but if I want to explain why, I need to get into details or, if historical comparisons help, specific ones to specific programs.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

You’re asking for clarity, but what you really want is comfort. “Bad government thing” is tidy, harmless, and forgettable - it lets everyone nod along without confronting how structural and deliberate this is.

When the state fuses with corporate power to regulate speech, work, and data flow, that isn’t just a bad policy. It’s a political system with a name, a history, and a trajectory. I use the word fascism not to “win the dictionary game” but because euphemisms are exactly how we normalise authoritarian structures.

Once people start insisting that the language for describing power is too “imprecise”, it usually means power has already succeeded in defining what can and can’t be said about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British Fascism

> You’re asking for clarity, but what you really want is comfort.

No, he is asking for clarity.

And you are refusing to give it. Hmm, do you recognise these words:

>>> ... Orwell was warning about. His point wasn’t that fascism can’t be defined - it’s that people refuse to define it when it appears in forms that suit their own side.

> You’re asking for clarity, but what you really want is comfort.

What glorious arrogance, to claim outright that you know better what is someone's head than they do, purely as a way to avoid answering the question you really to not have an answer for.

That is not the action of an honest man, that is a hollow trick, meant not to respond to your interlocutor but to win points from an audience: cheap rabble rousing, literal claptrap.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

Oh, ad hominem already starting. Classic.

Already did define it: the merger of state and corporate power used to suppress autonomy and centralise control. That’s fascism in practice, regardless of which party runs it or how politely it’s presented.

You can keep pretending the disagreement is about vocabulary, but it isn’t. It’s about whether we’re willing to describe what’s plainly happening - or keep hiding behind semantics until it’s too late to matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British Fascism

"it was about subordination of individual freedom to the alliance of state and corporate control"

So basically communism but with some private ownership?

It has always seemed odd that the majority of people who constantly blither out this word 1) are using it against people who want LESS government control and 2) are in fact the very same people who want MORE government control.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: British Fascism

@elsergiovolador

I'm disappointed. You misquote me. I never said I came away thinking that.

FWIW my view is with it meaning so many diff things to diff people it's perhaps best not used at all.

Seems silly to use a word when one knows few (if any) of one's audience will understand it as one meant it.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

That’s precisely the point - when a concept becomes uncomfortable, people declare it “too broad to use”. That’s how power survives: by erasing the language to describe it.

You don’t solve ambiguity by silence. You clarify it by example. And the examples are everywhere - the state fusing with corporate power, censorship disguised as safety, economic uniformity presented as fairness. Orwell warned that when a society reaches that stage, the word fascism becomes taboo not because it’s meaningless, but because it’s accurate.

Refusing to use the word doesn’t make the reality disappear; it only ensures no one has the vocabulary left to challenge it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British Fascism

>> Seems silly to use a word when one knows few (if any) of one's audience will understand it as one meant it.

> That’s precisely the point

Ok, glad you agree with that; so, you going to explain the way you mean it, so everyone can play along?

Oops, no, instead of bothering to do that you go into a weird rant that ends in:

> the word fascism becomes taboo

Who is saying the word is taboo? All we want is clarity on your intention in using it.

Once you can manage to do that, and your audience agrees that, yes, you have managed to make it clear, then you can even keep on referring us back to that explanation via the magic of URLs.

> Refusing to use the word doesn’t make the reality disappear; it only ensures no one has the vocabulary left to challenge it.

The only value of a vocabulary is when it is agreed upon, when, knowing the context (e.g. reading a post by elsergiovolador), all parties then know what is meant.

It is not any refusal to use a word that can cause it to drop out of useful vocabulary; it is the precise opposite of that, it is the (deliberate?) obfuscation of the meaning of the word by the overuse of it and, when challenged, the refusal to provide clarity upon the current intent and meaning. So in recent times we see, to take one example, the word "fascism" being used to refer to policies and actions from all quarters; by overuse it loses its usefulness in any vocabulary: it is becoming meaningless.

You have been asked to reverse that trend. To work against the very thing you warn us of.

And yet, instead of doing so, you resort to polemic, to hiding behind the Invocation Of A Great Name and making Profound Declarations instead of providing the basic description that was asked of you. "Profound" and yet, as given, entirely absurd declarations, that merely serve to allow you the excuse to continue with your tub thumping:

> when a concept becomes uncomfortable, people declare it “too broad to use”

Incest, rape, manslaughter, necrophilia, sexism, racism, genocide, nuclear war - too broad to use or are you comfortable with all of those?

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

Clarity? Fine. By fascism I mean the merger of state and corporate power used to suppress autonomy and centralise control - economic, informational, and behavioural. It’s a system where the state enforces the interests of large institutions over citizens, often under the language of safety, efficiency, or modernisation.

That’s not a “weird rant”; it’s a description of what’s happening: censorship infrastructure, criminalisation of independent work, tech-corporate policing, and the replacement of democratic accountability with managerial decree.

If that fits your preferred definition of something else, feel free to use that word. I’ll keep using fascism, because it’s accurate, and because the obsession with perfect terminology is just a polite way of pretending the substance isn’t real.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: British Fascism

>merger of state and corporate power used to suppress autonomy and centralise control

Okay, but that is not what is happening.

The MPs appear to be taking an interest because they judge free market forces are not proving a sufficiently good product for consumers - this is the car locks argument mentioned in an earlier comment.

There's no suggestion they are taking an interest at the behest of any corporate power - so your paranoia doesn't (on this occasion anyway) fit.

The thing I suggest we all need to watch carefully is how the MPs decide they want phone security improving. If it's optional password style protection implemented entirely in the phone hardware/firmware then what's not to like. But if it's tracking via carriers then it'll be yet more intrusion and control of our lives and should be fought tooth & nail - same as digital id.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: British Fascism

You’re describing the surface theatre, not the machinery underneath. Governments rarely announce corporatism; they legislate dependence on private infrastructure until it becomes unavoidable.

“Encouraging” Apple and Google to hard-lock devices isn’t consumer protection - it’s the state deepening its reliance on private gatekeepers who already operate above national law. Once policing, speech, and identity all hinge on privately controlled platforms, you’ve achieved centralised control without a single coup.

That’s why the “optional feature” framing is irrelevant. Every system starts optional until policy, convenience, and liability make it compulsory. That’s the modern route to fascism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British Fascism

Ah, deep state. LMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British Fascism

> Clarity? Fine. By fascism I mean...

Ah, good. You *are* willing to take part in the discussion.

> That’s not a “weird rant”...

Ah, bad. You are still not willing to *honestly* take part in the discussion.

Instead, you are still relying on the tactics of the soapbox: take a phrase that the crowd may recall hearing, such as "weird rant", then carefully misrepresent how it was used: here, you try to claim that you previously presented your definition of the word "fascism" and it was that definition which was derided.

A tactic that cynically assumes your audience is too stupid to remember the reality of the statements (and, in a written form, your audience is too indolent to merely scroll upwards).

Once again, you automatically fall back onto the patterns of the rabble rouser. This appears ingrained in your form of argument and until you can rid yourself of these habits it will remain hard to take you at your word; is your attempt at "clarity" here a truth you hold to, one that can be taken forwards as a basis for discussion, or merely another attempt to tempt applause from the poor drooling audience, staring with glazed eyes at your performance upon the stage?

[doublelayer]

Re: British Fascism

Except, at the moment, it's not really a merger of state and corporate power. It is an intensification of state power which eventually could be used by corporations. Apple and Google can already lock people out of their phones. That is something they don't need laws to do. They have serial number and purchase tracking, most devices are attached to accounts, and unless you keep them offline, that means they have the potential to lock devices. If they do that to random people, they're likely to get sued and lose, so they don't, but they can. This proposal doesn't give them extra powers to do it.

This proposal gives law enforcement extra powers to make them do it and an external method that keeps them from removing it as quickly. Those are powers of the government, not the companies they are planning to order to implement this for them. If it does empower some companies, it would probably be mobile providers whose IMEI blocklists will become more powerful. Your comments suggest that this is primarily an assistance to big smartphone, when it doesn't really give them more power and does give them more problems. That's why both Apple and Google have objected to it; they're not nice people trying to avoid doing something unjust, but since they don't get anything out of this, they aren't motivated to go along.

There are two problems with your argument. If you argue that something is being done to empower the tech-corporates, someone trying to argue against this can point to the tech-corporates arguing against this as evidence that you're mistaken. It also means that your definition of Fascism isn't working with the situation, although Italian Fascism which was a lot more government control than corporate power does fit it much better. We've spent so long on the whether this is Fascism debate that we only now got to understand why you don't like it, and although I also don't like it, I think your reasons are unbalanced toward the corporation side rather than the effects on citizens side.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British Fascism

"Except, at the moment, it's not really a merger of state and corporate power"

Pretty sure that's exactly what's going on behind the scenes.

Governments agreeing not to fine multinationals for lawbreaking in exchange for multinationals demanding laws that are made in their favour.

[Alex Stuart]

Re: British Fascism

They're responding with ChatGPT, I wouldn't bother debating it.

[Dan 55]

Re: British Fascism

Oh do give over. We (by 'we' I mean many countries not just the UK) already have an IMEI blocklist, it's the GSMA CEIR.

Google and Apple of course know the IMEIs of the phones where users have logged-in accounts, it must be one of the first pieces of data uploaded to the mothership.

Difficult to understand what is wrong with Apple and Google blocking phones marked as stolen on the CEIR as participating telecos already do - it would extend reach to areas in the world not covered by participating telecos. They could also wipe phones to keep user data secure.

Apple and Google don't do it currently because it involves doing something with the user's data that doesn't involve adding it to their advertising profile so it's not the kind of thing they want to bother with.

[LVPC]

Re: British Fascism

>> Apple and Google don't do it currently because it involves doing something with the user's data that doesn't involve adding it to their advertising profile

They don't do it because if stolen phones were perma-blocked, there would be way fewer thefts, so fewer replacement phone sales. Line must go up, screw the customer.

[frankyunderwood123]

Re: British Fascism

You need to look up what Fascism actually means.

Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

It is not handing over power to third parties!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: British Fascism

So... localised communism?

[headrush]

Re: British Fascism

Sounds like thatchers government. Things haven't improved since then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason ...

Strikes me if you lock down phones to the point theft is pointless you also tighten supply chain security and remove plausible deniability from the vendor when the three letter people engage in their skulduggery. Apple probably would not like to be seen to be responsible for a Mossad C4 enhanced iphone.

A fair proportion of stolen phones end up in these troubled hell holes where no one is going ask too many questions concerning the phone's provenance so inserting "specially modified" phones into the clandestine supply chain was fairly easy.

[alain williams]

Every 'phone stolen results in a replacement bought

Where is the incentive for manufacturers to reduce sales just to save customers some money and inconvenience ?

[handle handle]

Re: Every 'phone stolen results in a replacement bought

And, as an earlier commentard noted, the manufacturers also want to avoid additional customer support costs if a phone is recovered.

[Caver_Dave]

IMSI is simple to use

From what I remember, when a mobile device powers on and attempts to connect to a network, it transmits its IMSI to the network during the initial attachment process. Part of the IMSI is used to identify you eligibility to join the mobile network. It is not rocket science to lookup a list of stolen phone IMSI numbers at this point and refuse access to the network if it is flagged.

NB I have not worked on mobile phones since the days of the Nokia 2210 where I did the noise reduction and echo cancellation filters in assembler (all paths took exactly the same length of time without the use of no-op waitstates).

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: IMSI is simple to use

Don't refuse access, just tell the user that their phone needs a free upgade, and if they bring it to the nearest Apple or Samsung store there will be a free surprise waiting for them...

[JoeCool]

he suggestion is to use imei

ie. the handset serial number.

The imsi is only linked to the sim card.

[frankyunderwood123]

problem exists between the ears

Is it that difficult to be aware of what’s happening around you?

That hard to realise using your phone on the street makes you wide open to theft?

If you must use your phone in this manner, have common sense to duck into a doorway or something so you are facing outwards and can see what’s coming from both sides.

It’s not exactly rocket science.

If you make yourself a target don’t be surprised when you get hit.

And now it’s supposed to be big techs problem?

Don’t they have enough control over our lives already, without expecting them to have yet more?

What the heck is wrong with this world that people are incapable of taking responsibility FFS.

It’s always someone else’s fault, right?

Thieves have existed since the dawn of civilisation and exercise the very same techniques they have always done, catch people unaware.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: problem exists between the ears

Correct.

Back in the Dark Ages I was always told NOT to check or sort money in plain view.

In some places this meant finding a toilet cubicle to organise your travellers cheques and cash.

I also used to carry a dummy wallet in my back pocket. The genuine one in a front pocket.

[tiggity]

Re: problem exists between the ears

@frankyunderwood123

Or maybe people expect a society where crime is not rampant and they should be free to hold a phone without hiding somewhere.

There's always plenty of police to batter & arrest people on demos in the UK, but they never manage to have enough resources to clear up "low level" thefts.

Before I moved out to the sticks, I lived in a high crime area of a city (it once had the nickname Shottingham, apparently it's improved a bit since I left*). Once I rang the police at night to report an ongoing theft - when I gave my address reply was "We won't be coming out, we only visit that area at night if a crime involving risk to life"

* not related!

[frankyunderwood123]

Re: problem exists between the ears

That would be lovely, but has nothing to do with my point.

Whilst we wait for this sunlit upland of social harmony, crime still goes on and opportunistic theft continues unabated.

Given the state of our policing we should be glad there isn’t more forcible events of theft. I suspect it is currently society holding together relatively low crime rather than policing.

In the meantime, don’t flash your phone about in public willy nilly as the thin blue line is almost invisible.

[Ikoth]

Effective Remote Disable

Maybe they should consult Mossad, they have recent experience with the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Incentive ?

> including Apple, Google, and Samsung, the committee concluded the tech industry could do much more to reduce demand for stolen phones.

What incentive do the manufacturers have? Every phone stolen leads to a new phone sold.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Incentive ?

Tell that to JLR who have had to invest millions in updating the security of Range Rovers (including upgrades for sold models) because they were uninsurable in parts of London due to theft. Second-hand values plummeted, leading to increased lease costs and at one point JLR created its own insurance product to make sure its customers could get insured. Samsung and Apple are obviously not in this sort of situation yet, but if things get worse then it might result in people avoiding the flagship models and only buying the bottom of the range products.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Incentive ?

A perfect example of the free market at work.

On the assumption that all Range Rovers in London are owned and driven Drug Dealers/Gangsters/Footballers at clubs owned by dodgy Russians - self insurance should be an option

Just a simple bumper sticker "Insured by the Mafia, you hit us, we hit you"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Incentive ?

"but if things get worse then it might result in people avoiding the flagship models and only buying the bottom of the range products."

Only in your head.

Not going to happen.

[JoeCool]

a backdoor by any other name

And who would own this centralized database of all devices + ownership credentials in the cloud ?

The government ? Amazon ?

And no possibility of breaching right ?

I think Apple is not wrong.

[cd]

Re: a backdoor by any other name

It's fine. They're going to put the new Digital ID on them as well.

Left hand, meet right hand

[Dan 55]

Re: a backdoor by any other name

It's the GSMA CEIR and it already exists.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Stop putting phone in back pocket...

That is the worst possible place any way.

Other than that: Be aware, and be ready to "accidentally" break an arm by "accidentally" landing your knee with full body weight on it.

Another method: Block the IMEI and SIM, set total alert mode if it shows up - internationally. Makes the phone useless. But then the stolen phones won't be replaced by new ones, which generates more money, so there is no incentive to do so - Again an US pushing its way onto the world, EU (+UK, once it is back) could work here. Even China might approve. Only US won't.

[nobody who matters]

Re: Stop putting phone in back pocket...

"Stop putting phone in back pocket...

It would be interesting to see the statistics for how many phones are in fact stolen out of people's pockets or handbags.

I suspect it is 'not many'. From all the reports of phone theft that I have read or heard about, the thieves snatch them from the users hands whilst they are in use and therefore unlocked. Stealing a locked phone from someones pocket probably isn't going to yield much benefit for the thief.

[AndrueC]

Maybe I'm imagining it but didn't somewhere once run a sting operation with dummy phones that had a built in die pack, like is sometimes used to stop money thefts from armoured vehicles?

[ecarlseen]

Government-mandated remote device bricking vulnerability.

Can you imagine the headaches created with how easily-abused such a system would be?

Social-engineer a phone company or police department to kill somebody's phone, for fun and profit.

How difficult would it be to take two seconds, consider "Gee, how could miscreants abuse such a system?", and then weigh the potential cost/benefits? (this is a rhetorical question)

Also, even if you lock out a phone's IMEI it can probably still be used in mobile bot farms.

[DS999]

Who is given the power to determine a phone is "stolen"?

That's the real question. If the police have the power (ostensibly because the phone's owner files a report when their phone is stolen) to tell Apple or Google "blacklist IMEI xxxx" they are REQUIRED to comply does ANYONE believe that power would not be abused almost immediately?

Also, what would be the process to insure mistakes don't make my phone in the US or yours in the EU stop working because the UK police typoed an IMEI number or a clever criminal was able to misdirect them to think it was someone else?

Its pretty obvious why Apple et al don't want this, because they're going to be the ones getting blamed and having their products look bad when they stop working out of the blue. Also consider that if the UK gains this power every other country will want it, but everyone will have different rules about how it works. The potential for abuse goes up exponentially because even if you're naive enough to believe the UK or US police would always act within the law and never abuse this power, would you say the same about every other country with the same ability to order a worldwide blacklist for any IMEI?

Now I could accept it if it was a two step process. Step 1 I login to my Apple ID (or the Android equivalent) and mark a phone which is currently activated on my account as "stolen". Step 2) I report the theft of my phone to the police who tell Apple "blacklist this phone" and Apple checks and sees that the owner has also requested it and makes it happen. Somehow I doubt the UK would find that acceptable, because they don't want this power to prevent theft, but because they simply want this power full stop.

[DS999]

Re: Who is given the power to determine a phone is "stolen"?

Oh and you still need the parts linking Apple does and a lot of people hate because otherwise the IMEI blacklist does nothing. You disassemble the phone and resell the battery, display, cameras, etc. everything except the mainboard. Still worth it to a thief, at least for recent model iPhones and Galaxies.

[Badgerfruit]

Controversial opinion....

... how about more "bobbies on the beat"?

I'm sure that would reduce crime in almost every single aspect, prevention being better than the cure, after all?

[AndrueC]

Re: Controversial opinion....

That would require one of two things:

a)Police officers pulled off other duties in order to walk the streets. That might not be a very good use of their time. Catching a scrote on the street is addressing the symptom not the cause. You're better off tracking down the gang leaders and the people buying the phones and taking them down, something you can't do if all your officers are just walking the streets because that's not where you find 'Mr Big'.

b)Increase the number of police officers so that you can do both things. This costs money (tax rises anyone?) and assumes that you can scale up your current recruitment process without compromising it.

[xyz123]

Labour physically DEMANDED (and starmer started to throw stuff) when starmer spoke to apple and google that they implement a 'bypass' so the digitial ID app could run constantly, be unable to be disabled and would always have access to location services. Stamer also demanded in the same meeting that (like the U2 album) the digital ID app be silently forced onto all devices, iOS and Android without notifying the user, and not be capable of being uninstalled.

Basically phones would track you everywhere you go, the government would have LIVE access to this data without a warrant and there'd be no way to opt-out at all.

Both Google and Apple told Starmer to stick his plans up his ass, because they knew everyone would go back to buying used ancient phones that don't HAVE location services etc.

It would trash their businesses AND reputation and they'd never recover.

Google has threatened to drag the UK government through every single court in the UK EU and US to prevent this. The US court would be to allow them to tell labour to f--- off without facing any political pushback.

Even trump has never gon e to lengths of screaming at CEOs demanding they implement permanent and complete tracking of every single citizen aged over 13...

[Anonymous Coward]

An AI hallucination, Shirley? A gripping read though nonetheless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which bit didn't you understand?

He described reality, which may be different from your wishful thinking.

[cookiecutter]

because...

creating jobs, creating a stable society and giving people a chance to earn money without nicking phones would be too hard right, so let's hand over more millions to lying consultancies

[AndrueC]

Re: because...

It's always easier to lock criminals away than to fix the underlying causes. Most people want to think that those who commit criminal acts are subhuman and should therefore be locked away. The idea that criminals are just humans who made bad choices most often through unfortunate circumstances rarely gets much airtime. After all to admit that is to admit that:

a) Any of us could end up on the wrong side of the law.

b) It might all be our (ie; society's) fault..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: because...

"fix the underlying causes"

Many attempts have been made over the years, some well thought through, some not so. Look at the Dutch approach to drugs vs say Portland or SanFran in the US. Sadly in some cases, the desire to solve the underlying cause is outweighed by the opportunity to profit.

You can also add 'culture' and 'exploitation of the vulnerable' to your list.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: because...

@AndrueC

Bleeding hearts codswallop.

Yes, any one of us could end up on the wrong side of the law but for most of us it would not be intentional. It would be something like a motoring accident, or nowadays perhaps just posting hurty words on social media.

But the scum that are snatching phones are career criminals and they are choosing day after day to steal phones.

In the UK 50% of all crime is committed by 10% of offenders. That 10% should be locked up for a very very long time. Benefit to society if that were to happen would be enormous.

[doublelayer]

Re: because...

Fixing underlying causes is always nice if we can identify the causes and solutions to them. Pretending that it's all on society is ignoring the fact that some criminals are making good decisions, decisions of the form "this crime generates more of what I want than something non-crime". If stealing phones is easy and lucrative, some will choose to do it, not out of abject poverty they cannot escape, but because that's a way for them to get the things they want. If you think that does not happen or involves some deeper societal cause, I challenge you to name that cause and explain how it leads to this outcome, how eliminating it would eliminate the outcome, and what your way of eliminating it would be. Vague "it's all society's fault" responses are not sufficient.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: because...

"I challenge you to name that cause and explain how it leads to this outcome"

I'd also love to know this!

There is certainly a cultural aspect. In the US some of the most well funded schools are in the most poor minority areas but there is a culture of not going to school so it doesn't matter how much the state spends when the kids are not willing to learn. In the UK you see in the most gammon of areas families who have lived for 3 generations on welfare. In the 80s and 90s it was a good shortcut to a council house for a young girl to get herself a bun in the oven.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: because...

Not an answer - just some info.

45% of UK prisoners are "functionally illiterate" - meaning they have a reading age worse than an average 11-year old. 20% can barely read at all. HM Inspector of prisons reported in 2022 that "Prisoners with the greatest need to improve their reading generally received the least support."

It costs £44k per year (average) to keep someone in prison. Re-offending rates are high because people leave prison with nowhere to live, reduced opportunities of getting jobs - due to criminal record and poor reading skills - and they get bugger-all support once they are out. The UK 2024 prison population was 95k, so we're spending £4.2billion per year on locking people up. It feels to me there's something better we could be doing with 4.2 billion quid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: because...

This does not come as a surprise and there is a complete lack of any form of rehab let alone reeducation.

The US is similar. Although the prison population would be even bigger if it wasn't for the gang gun culture.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: because...

@Headley_Grange

>feels to me there's something better we could be doing with 4.2 billion

Nope. It's massively cheaper for society to keep repeat offenders locked up for a very long time. Remove career criminals from circulation and all sorts of benefits accrue to society and to all of us. It saves money. We feel safer. And surprise surprise, the number of career criminals falls as people turn away from that life choice.

Re illiteracy. What's the figures for career criminals as opposed to all offenders? I'm well aware certain groups of people should not be in prison but career criminals definitely should be.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: because...

I'd like to see the figures that show it's massively cheaper. The benefit of keeping someone out of prison isn't just the £45k, If they're not in prison and if they're educated then they could be contributing - paying taxes and being economically active.

It costs an average of £250k to put a kid through private school - that's less than it costs to lock someone up for 6 years.

[cookiecutter]

Re: because...

because in Britain the Daily Wail mindset makes it impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

There was a scheme a few years ago where the Youf that were arrested and jailed for stealing cars were trained in jail on how to fix cars, get a mechanics certificate and be able to get a job when their sentence was over....got kiboshed because Sun and Daily Wail readers got upset at "MY TAXPAYERS MONEY GOING TO TRAIN CRIMINALS!!"

Another scheme were heroin addicts were able to see their Doctors and get prescribed actual heroin on a regular basis and be able to shoot up in the doctors office every couple of weeks. It worked so well that over a couple of years many of the addicts were able to wean themselves off the drugs as the knowledge that hey would get a regular hit in a safe place meant they had the incentive to work at it. Many were also able to get actual jobs and earn money, taking themselves off benefits. In a few places the scheme was run crime dropped 50% around the surgeries that were in the scheme. Yet again, Daily Wail readers got upset at "WHY ARE MY TAXES BEING USED TO BUY DRUGS FOR CRIMINALS?!!!"

Even looking at some of the comments here on a vaguely intelligent internet forum where you'd think that people are generally well read in subjects that aren't their actual jobs you see comments like "this is a cultural problem" and "why don't we lock them up?" etc.

genuinely fucking pointless.

as dumb as the people who go on about "shareholder value" & "us being in a global market therefor offshoring being perfectly fine" and then complaining that their kids can't get any jobs anymore that doesn't involve stacking shelves in Tesco

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: because...

"comments like "this is a cultural problem""

Please enlighten us as to how it isn't a cultural problem.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If someone has been brought up in a culture of crime or living off the state it is very hard to break the cycle.

[doublelayer]

Re: because...

When did "it's a cultural problem" become the null hypothesis? I could equally easily tell you that it's not one and you have to prove that it is. Neither will be easy to prove. There are people who commit crimes because their parents did and they learned it from them, which may not necessarily be a cultural cause but that's the closest proof you can easily get. There are people who commit crimes because their friends did and they learned it from them, which would be more of an environmental problem. There are people who commit crimes because they find they have no options, which would be the societal problem suggested by the original post. There are people who commit crimes because they decided it works well, which is an individual problem. There are a lot of people who have a combination of multiple factors, for instance they learned how to commit crimes well from people around them (environmental) who initially committed crimes because they could not get jobs (societal) and the person concerned could get one but found that crime worked well (individual) and then taught their children to do it (cultural/familial), and such a situation could occur equally well in a single neighborhood or across continents.

Just as the comment saying that it's all the societal problem are wrong, so is anything ascribing all or most of it to one of the other causes. The complexity in causes is why we can't always eliminate the problem by going after the causes since we may not know all of them or how big the ones we do know are.

[Anonymous Coward]

About 80,000, phones moved abroad

Every year

And about 800 convictions where they catch people

How the hell do you- in an organised manner- move 80,000 phones abroad without anyone noticing at either end of the shipping lanes? Without a couple accidentally left on and highlighting the location of a theft-depot?

Here's a thought, how about the police do some police work?

[nobody who matters]

Re: About 80,000, phones moved abroad

"......how about the police do some police work?"

If there were sufficient numbers of Police, they probably would. As it stands, they are stretched beyond their limits, and after years of pursuing the wrong qualities for new recruits, it appears that police forces such as the Met' are now stuffed full of officers who are too busy looking after their own illicit interests.

It is relatively easy to move 80000 phones abroad - it is not as though they send them all in one container. Neither, it appears, do they necessarily all get sent straight to China - lots have been tracked going individually by various methods in steps via other Asian, Far Eastern or even African countries. Without checking carefully everybody's baggage and every package being shipped through all the usual carriers, and interrogating everybody about the provenance/ownership of any phone found in their possession, what exactly are police/customs/border patrol supposed to do to about it? Interested minds (and law enforcement) would like to know :)

The best way to stop (or at least, reduce) the problem is to take steps to prevent the thefts in the first place, and that is principally up to the owner of the individual phone taking care to not to present the thieves with the opportunity for theft in the first place.

[Goodwin Sands]

Re: About 80,000, phones moved abroad

Article in today's Telegraph answers your question

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/28/britain-stolen-cars-shipped-around-world/o

Relevant bit of the article says the police say ..

"a lack of checks on containers is a weak point in the system. You can book one today and say it's full of teddy bears, and then fill it up with stolen cars and nobody would know." In 2024-25, NaVCIS recovered 450 stolen vehicles at ports, wedged in containers typically listed as holding household items such as furniture and mattresses."

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you want from me?

Naïve question, is an iPhone much use once you have activated Lost mode? I have read articles about people getting threatening messages from China telling them to remotely unlock their stolen iPhones. This suggests that you can't get past this.

OK, you can keep it wrapped in tinfoil and try and get in to someone's private data, but how easy is that for a non-state level actor?

I don't understand exactly what UK gov wants from Apple. To me the best bet would be for Apple to turn on all the security features by default, e.g. stopping USB accessories working on a locked phone.

I know zip about Android.

[scrubber]

Bringing Everything Together

Maybe only allowing a single Digital ID on it would work?

[Dwarf]

Unintended consequences

There is a big trade off here in the field of unintended consequences.

If theft proof means no resale value for the whole phone and any of its componnet parts, then at face value, that looks to be a good thing. However, manufacturers will use these rules as a way of impeeding the ability for people to repair their items - all in the name of security (read profits). Think about all the digitally signed / linked subsystems in an iPhone as a good example.

I see this partially going the way of car stereos. This used to be a big thing, when nobody had a nice stereo in their car, then when tech implemented anti-theft mechanisms, which made it difficult for everyone - including the real owner, after simple maintenance such as a car battery change. Then things evolved again and they simply became part of the car and not easily re-usable in other models, so the problem largely fizzled out.

The big difference though will be that once "security controls" have been baked into products, negatively impacting us for repair and re-use / green objectives. The manufacturers will not turn the controls off once the threats decrease or dissappear, so we need to be careful what *** they *** wish for.