Senior figures at Apple and Google have clashed with the police over its recommendations for how best to deal with phone theft in the UK. The Met's James Conway told the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee - which is considering the question - that two-thirds of thefts in London now relate to mobile phones. With up to 70% of knife crime linked to robbery, he told MPs that meant phone theft was "significantly driving parts of our violence problem". The Met wants phone companies to use the unique identifying number - known as an IMEI - that each device has to block any that are reported as stolen. But Apple and Google - who dominate the market - raised concerns about the idea. "Focusing on IMEI blocking might miss some of the problems," Apple's head of law enforcement requests, Gary Davis, told the committee. "We worry that there is a vector for fraud... we are concerned about a world where it would be a person who claims to be the owner who's asking." Stolen devices are blocked from being used in the UK by phone networks by using its IMEI, but this is not the case globally. This means a stolen phone can still be used in some other countries if a criminal is able to bypass the device's security. But Mr Davis said he was concerned that phone owners already face "extensive fraud attempts", which he estimated at more than a thousand people trying to access devices each month. "They do it for malicious purposes, they do it to maybe blackmail you," he said. "I would like to think in an area such as this our expertise built up over time in relation to attack vectors would mean something." The firms pointed out they have implemented several new safety features in the past 12 months to help combat phone theft. Apple has introduced Stolen Device Protection while Android - which is owned by Google - has brought in Theft Detection Lock. Police officers said they were looking for action from phone providers to help prevent further thefts. The Met's chief technology officer Darren Scates said 75% of phones which were stolen are moved abroad, with 28% ending up in either China or Hong Kong. "We're asking the cloud providers specifically to prevent a lost or stolen device from connecting to their cloud services," he said. "This doesn't even need to involve the police." He said they had been asking for this since October 2023, but had not yet been able to convince the firms to take action. Some MPs accused the two tech firms of lacking the will to take action. "You could tomorrow stop phones that are on the IMEI blacklist connecting back to your services if you so wished, both of you, and you won't do it," Lib Dem MP Martin Wrigley said. "I'm not saying that we won't do it," Google software engineering manager Simon Wingrove replied, adding the issue needed an industry-wide approach. He said the global database of IMEI numbers is built, maintained, populated, read and used by network carriers. "If we want to change that so that it becomes a database that is used by other actors to do other things to devices to block them in other ways, that is an industry-wide discussion that is not in my power as an engineer at Google," he said. "I think we need to decide as industry that is a safe and sensible thing to do." He pointed to Android's factory reset protection as an area it was continuing to work on to improve security and make it harder for thieves to reset stolen devices. "The most recent changes that we've announced we made in the most recent version of Android," he said. "We're really hopeful that we will see a significant impact - we haven't stopped investing in that." But one of the main threads of the day was a clash between MPs and Mr Davis over the market for second-hand parts. "I worry if we focus on IMEI blocking only you are going to miss the market for parts," he told the committee, to frustrations from those in attendance. "It's clear from the mood of the committee that we don't feel that either Google or Apple have a road plan to effective phone protection which does not involve IMEIs," Labour MP Chi Onwurah said. Apple is concerned that when devices are stolen, rather than being reused elsewhere they are instead being chopped up into component parts - like screens, processors and batteries - which can then be sold on for repairs. "Our best protection is Activation Lock," he said. "I understand you will take the view that it obviously mustn't be working because there are still devices being stolen. But that is the best protection." Activation Lock is a feature which links certain iPhone or iPad components to a person's Apple ID - meaning a person must use their password to allow these parts of their device to be used in repairs. The feature was well-received when it was announced in September as a way to deal with thieves. But the committee wanted to focus on blocking the IMEI of a stolen phone being used elsewhere. "It feels to a lot of people that you're dragging your feet," Conservative MP Kit Malthouse said. But Mr Davis said he felt Activation Lock was "a major step" in disrupting the second-hand market. "It could well be that IMEI blocking is a natural next step," he said. "However I would want to make sure that as part of all of that the Met police continues to do traditional policing, which means sending requests to us for stolen devices, and Apple responding to those requests. "We're not seeing that, and I think it's very important." Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletterto follow the world's top tech stories and trends.Outside the UK? Sign up here.
Apple and Google clash with police and MPs over phone thefts
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Apple and Google Respond to UK Police Concerns Over Rising Phone Thefts"
Bbc News
8.0
TruthLens AI Summary
Senior representatives from Apple and Google have engaged in a contentious discussion with UK police regarding their recommendations for addressing the surge in mobile phone thefts. James Conway from the Metropolitan Police informed the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee that mobile phones account for two-thirds of thefts in London, linking a significant portion of knife crime to these thefts. The police have proposed that phone manufacturers utilize the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number to block stolen devices, a measure that Apple and Google have expressed concerns about. Apple’s Gary Davis highlighted potential issues with focusing solely on IMEI blocking, citing risks of fraud and the challenges of verifying ownership. He emphasized that while stolen devices can be blocked in the UK, they might still be operable in other countries, presenting ongoing challenges in the fight against theft. Davis also pointed out the high volume of fraud attempts targeting device owners, which complicates the implementation of any blocking measures.
In response to the police's request for more robust action against phone theft, both tech giants noted their recent advancements in security features. Apple introduced Stolen Device Protection, while Google has implemented Theft Detection Lock in Android. Police officials underscored the urgency of collaboration from phone manufacturers, with the Met’s chief technology officer stating that 75% of stolen phones are exported abroad, predominantly to markets like China and Hong Kong. Some MPs criticized Apple and Google for their perceived lack of urgency in addressing the problem, suggesting they could easily implement IMEI blocking to curb the issue. Discussions also touched on the secondary market for stolen phone parts, with concerns that stolen devices are often dismantled for components rather than being reused. Apple defended its Activation Lock feature as a significant deterrent against theft, but MPs expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of current measures, urging the companies to take decisive action to protect consumers and reduce theft rates.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article highlights a significant clash between major tech companies like Apple and Google and law enforcement in the UK regarding the rising issue of phone thefts. With mobile phones increasingly becoming a target for thieves, the Metropolitan Police are advocating for more robust measures, particularly through the use of IMEI blocking to deter such crimes. However, Apple and Google express concerns about the feasibility and potential for abuse of this approach.
Concerns Over IMEI Blocking
The police's proposition to utilize the IMEI number to block stolen phones is met with skepticism from Apple and Google. They argue that this method could inadvertently create opportunities for fraud, where individuals may falsely claim ownership of stolen devices. This highlights the tension between the need for enhanced security measures and the potential risks associated with implementing them. Apple's representative emphasizes the existing challenges users face with fraud, indicating that any new measures must be carefully considered to avoid exacerbating the situation.
Industry Response to Theft
Both Apple and Google have introduced new safety features aimed at reducing the incidence of phone thefts. This proactive stance suggests that they are aware of the problem and are taking steps to address it, albeit in ways they believe are more effective than the proposed IMEI blocking. The technological advancements introduced can be seen as an attempt to balance user security with the need to deter criminal activity.
Public Perception and Safety
The clash between tech giants and law enforcement may influence public perception regarding the responsibility of phone manufacturers in combating theft. As phone thefts are linked to broader societal issues like violence and crime, the article may seek to underscore the urgency of the situation, pushing for accountability from tech companies. The framing of the narrative suggests a need for collaboration between the police and these corporations to enhance public safety.
Hidden Agendas
While the immediate focus is on phone theft, the underlying implications of this conflict could point towards broader issues in tech regulation and consumer protection. There might be concerns about how effectively the technology companies are safeguarding users against theft and fraud, potentially indicating an area where consumer advocacy groups may seek to apply pressure for better protections.
Manipulation Analysis
The article does not overtly manipulate information but presents a clear narrative that emphasizes the importance of addressing phone thefts. The language used is straightforward, aiming to inform rather than incite. However, the framing of the tech companies as resistant to police recommendations could influence public sentiment against them, suggesting a subtle form of manipulation in portraying their motives.
Trustworthiness of the Information
The article appears to be based on factual events and statements from credible sources, such as police officials and representatives from Apple and Google. However, the selective focus on the disagreements could be seen as an oversimplification of a complex issue. While the information presented is credible, it is crucial to consider the broader context of the ongoing dialogue about privacy, security, and the role of technology in society.
Potential Impact on Society
This discourse may lead to increased scrutiny of how tech companies manage security and user data. It can also spark debates on the balance between privacy and safety, influencing public opinion on regulatory measures. Additionally, if phone theft continues to rise, it could provoke a demand for more stringent policies from both law enforcement and tech companies.
Community Engagement
This news may resonate more with communities directly affected by crime, particularly urban areas where phone theft is prevalent. It appeals to public safety advocates and may find support among those seeking stricter controls on technology to mitigate theft-related issues.
Market Reactions
In terms of market impact, this news could affect stock prices for Apple and Google if it leads to public backlash or regulatory scrutiny. Investors might be wary of potential legal challenges or the cost of implementing new security measures, prompting a closer examination of these companies' approaches to consumer safety.
Global Context
The article touches on a relevant global issue of theft and security in the age of smartphones, reflecting ongoing concerns about crime in major cities worldwide. It aligns with current discussions about the responsibilities of tech companies in ensuring consumer protection, which is a significant topic in today's digital landscape.
AI Involvement
It is unlikely that AI was directly used in the drafting of this article; however, elements of AI may have influenced its structure or phrasing if it was edited with AI tools. The focus on clarity and straightforward language suggests an effort to make the information accessible, which is a common goal in content created or refined by AI.
The analysis of this article reveals a complex interplay between public safety, corporate responsibility, and regulatory challenges. It highlights the need for continued dialogue among stakeholders to address the multifaceted issue of phone theft effectively.