Shared publicly  - 
Good.  The carriers are smart to reject this.  It sounds like lawmakers trying to regulate something they don't understand.

Take this gem:

"CTIA also said it supported legislation by Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, which proposed to make it a federal crime to modify cellphones to circumvent the stolen-cellphone database."

Mr. Schumer probably doesn't even know of Cyanogenmod, etc.  Would those ROMs be illegal if they don't include the probably-not-open-source "anti-theft" apps?


If anything, block the IMEI at the towers and make it hard to change the IMEI/etc, but don't require software running on the device.  That's just terrible design.

Anybody stealing a phone is committing a crime... they have no qualms committing another crime and flashing a device image without your dumb anti-theft app which probably wastes RAM and battery anyway.
Lawmakers in San Francisco and New York are pushing cellphone makers to adopt a so-called kill switch that would allow users to deactivate a phone after it had been stolen. But the cellphone carriers are not on board.
James Tucker's profile photoBrad Fitzpatrick's profile photoBrandon Mercer's profile photoAndres Soolo's profile photo
...and I thought only our german politicians are stupid when it comes to technology... What's up with them trying to regulate things they've no clue about...
The article seems pretty vague.  But my understanding is that it's common outside the united states to blacklist IMEIs of stolen phones, making the trade in stolen phones minimal since they are hard to sell.  In the USA there's an active black market (most commonly on craig's list and ebay) and it's stolen phones is one of the most common crimes in some areas.  NYC took an interest in that when a dramatic rise in crime year on year was largely due to stolen smart phones.  In the past carriers have fought against IMEI black listing because would love to sell you a 2 year contract for your stolen phone while the victim has to pay full price for a replacement.

So blacklisting IMEI = good.  Restricting users tinkering with their android phone = bad.  AFAIK it's not feasible to alter a phones IMEI by tinkering with various community android distros.  Not that clueless legislators couldn't be confused on the issue.
+Ryan Jenkins, the counterpoint doesn't add much if anything from the original article I linked.  I'm concerned about the technical requirements and side-effects of the law here; I'm not pro-thievery or pro-carrier.
+Brad Fitzpatrick you're absolutely right. I made the mistake of reading the article headline and assuming too much. I just finished actually reading the article and more clearly understand your position. Good call.

I'm other news, I work at ebay and would love to hear how we could help with this situation since we're right in the middle of many of these transactions. 
Why don't you require imei entry and check it against the database?
I'm not sure how this is even still an issue... your phone gets stolen, you call your carrier... it's not like they can't see it pop up on their grid! 
I've got ATT and tmob. Certainly they'd be able to deactivate the service/phone if you didn't pay your bill... so they must be able to pinpoint location. 
Maybe I've seen one too many episodes of Person of Interest ;) 
+Brandon Mercer, the articles discuss stealing phones in one country and selling them in another.  You would need world-wide cooperation between carriers and agreement about policies of who can add to the stolen phone database and under which jurisdiction and burden of proof.
Ahhh yes, that would be quite the problem to solve.
The lobbyists approached it the wrong way.  They should have sold this as a killswitch for terrorist phones.
Add a comment...