Re: Is anyone else disgusted with ATT and Apple?

1arc · ‎09-13-2010

This discussion captures the frustration of many customers - especially when it is obvious to anyone who can Google "IMEI blacklist" to realize that AT&T could stop a large percentage of phone theft practically overnight. I can only presume that AT&T intentionally chooses not to implement IMEI blacklisting because stolen phones are a substantial revenue source for it (as new long-term contracts are signed for replacement phones and for the stolen phones).

Conversely, if it were in AT&T's economic interest to stop phone theft, it could presumably turn on IMEI blacklisting practically overnight. Why do I assume this? Because AT&T uses the same network hardware and management systems (by Nokia, Siemens or Ericcson) as the European GSM operators who do implement EMIA black listing. In fact, there are over 40 operators who already implement the GSM association's IMEA [blacklist] Database, which has existing since 1996 - or for 15 years! (http://gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/handset_theft.htm#nav-)

Yet, somehow nearly all AT&T customer service reps have told me that it is not possible to stop the stolen phones from being reactivated. I have now pointed five different AT&T reps to the link regarding IMEI database (by GSM Association), and most of them quickly change their tune after a quick discussion - and apologize for AT&T not offering such service. This clearly is not a technical challenge; AT&T simply chooses not to stop the phone thieves.

Once the technical excuses are exhausted, the AT&T reps start to mumble something about privacy laws, safety concerns and other issues that aren't relevant. Why? Very simply, credit card companies share the stolen credit card numbers with merchants in real time and stop them from being used instantly. Cell phone companies can do the same. The difference is that once a credit card is reported stolen, the credit card company is responsible for new charges. If the same applied to cell phone companies, the cell phone companies would instantly block the phones upon receiving a notice of theft, track down the phone thieves and have them arrested. It is very easy for them to track the phones (especially GPS phones, but others too) - they do it every day for law enforcement purposes- they just choose not to do it for their customers.

So, AT&T management, please stop the excuses and do the right thing - implement IMEI blacklisting. Sooner or later some litigation outfit is going to turn this into a class action law suit or Congress is going to make the cell phone operators responsible for charges on stolen phones. I am next going to use my other AT&T cell phone, not yet stolen, to call my Congressman. Maybe others will do so also.

johninsj · ‎07-07-2010

1arc wrote:

Google "IMEI blacklist"

After that google how to change imei to see why blocking an IMEI is futile.

BrianfromNO · ‎03-16-2006

How exactly would an IMEI blacklist "stop a large percentage of phone theft practically overnight"? People would still steal phones, particularly ones like iPhones, even if they couldn't use them as phones. Unless blacklisting a device completely disabled it, phones like the iPhone could still be used as iPods, or shipped to another country where blacklists don't exist. And sorry, but I doubt enough phones are lost/stolen for the source of revenue to be considered substantial within the context of AT&T's overall business.

Blah blah blah...you can talk all you want about Europe and the UK, but without regulatory intervention an IMEI blacklist here is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. And you can continue to conflate cell phones and credit cards, but you will continue to be wrong. I've already illustrated where the similarities end. You really have NO IDEA how any of this works...a blacklisting operation would have to involve significant process re-engineering to go along with the technical engineering, and involve separation of duties to ensure that malicious people aren't blacklisting phones for nefarious purposes (i.e., robbers, thieves, disgruntled ex's). Imagine what happens if an estranged husband or wife has a partner's phone blacklisted and then KILLS him or her. What kind of a lawsuit (or worse - criminal charges) would AT&T be facing then?

All the imagineers can instantly come up with marvelous new ideas that aren't as simple to implement in reality as they are in users' overactive imaginations. Keep trying.

1arc wrote:
This discussion captures the frustration of many customers - especially when it is obvious to anyone who can Google "IMEI blacklist" to realize that AT&T could stop a large percentage of phone theft practically overnight. I can only presume that AT&T intentionally chooses not to implement IMEI blacklisting because stolen phones are a substantial revenue source for it (as new long-term contracts are signed for replacement phones and for the stolen phones).

Conversely, if it were in AT&T's economic interest to stop phone theft, it could presumably turn on IMEI blacklisting practically overnight. Why do I assume this? Because AT&T uses the same network hardware and management systems (by Nokia, Siemens or Ericcson) as the European GSM operators who do implement EMIA black listing. In fact, there are over 40 operators who already implement the GSM association's IMEA [blacklist] Database, which has existing since 1996 - or for 15 years! (http://gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/handset_theft.htm#nav-)

Yet, somehow nearly all AT&T customer service reps have told me that it is not possible to stop the stolen phones from being reactivated. I have now pointed five different AT&T reps to the link regarding IMEI database (by GSM Association), and most of them quickly change their tune after a quick discussion - and apologize for AT&T not offering such service. This clearly is not a technical challenge; AT&T simply chooses not to stop the phone thieves.

Once the technical excuses are exhausted, the AT&T reps start to mumble something about privacy laws, safety concerns and other issues that aren't relevant. Why? Very simply, credit card companies share the stolen credit card numbers with merchants in real time and stop them from being used instantly. Cell phone companies can do the same. The difference is that once a credit card is reported stolen, the credit card company is responsible for new charges. If the same applied to cell phone companies, the cell phone companies would instantly block the phones upon receiving a notice of theft, track down the phone thieves and have them arrested. It is very easy for them to track the phones (especially GPS phones, but others too) - they do it every day for law enforcement purposes- they just choose not to do it for their customers.

So, AT&T management, please stop the excuses and do the right thing - implement IMEI blacklisting. Sooner or later some litigation outfit is going to turn this into a class action law suit or Congress is going to make the cell phone operators responsible for charges on stolen phones. I am next going to use my other AT&T cell phone, not yet stolen, to call my Congressman. Maybe others will do so also.

DimentoGraven · ‎03-25-2008

It's not futile. Some phones it's just not possible to change the IMEI number and have it operate reliably, or have that change remain undetected, which is why on some of those very same sites that supposedly describe a method of changing IMEI numbers, you have so many people looking to TRADE their blocked phones to other countries not using the international blacklist.

What those sites don't tell you too is that you can't just change the IMEI number to some random 14/16 digit number and expect it to work. The structure of the IMEI number has to be meaningfull so you'll need to know how to represent the particular model, origin, serial, and software version number of the device so that at the very least THOSE match up when phone is initialized on the network.

Then you've got to be able to generate the appropriate LUHN for the IMEI number you've created, so that you reduce the chance of the IMEI number being detected as an 'incorrect entry' in the CEIR and EIR registries. Usually this isn't hard, but I saw no discussion or facilitation of this on the 10 or so different IMEI changing methodologies that I perused.

Your final problem is avoiding using an already active IMEI number. If that happens your phone is likely to be blocked and possibly tracked down. Depending on your country, changing an IMEI number can result in some pretty severe penalties up to and including prison.

Trust me, it's difficult enough that niether your typical practitioner of petty theft, nor your typical purchaser of items known as stolen, isn't going to have the knowledge, brains, or patience to deal with it, thus reducing the "risk vs. reward" ratio to the point of significantly reducing the demand for stolen phones.

There's not enough reason to NOT do it, so the cellular industry should just do it.

DimentoGraven · ‎03-25-2008

BrianfromNO wrote:
How exactly would an IMEI blacklist "stop a large percentage of phone theft practically overnight"? People would still steal phones, particularly ones like iPhones, even if they couldn't use them as phones. Unless blacklisting a device completely disabled it, phones like the iPhone could still be used as iPods, or shipped to another country where blacklists don't exist. And sorry, but I doubt enough phones are lost/stolen for the source of revenue to be considered substantial within the context of AT&T's overall business.

Blah blah blah...you can talk all you want about Europe and the UK, but without regulatory intervention an IMEI blacklist here is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. And you can continue to conflate cell phones and credit cards, but you will continue to be wrong. I've already illustrated where the similarities end. You really have NO IDEA how any of this works...a blacklisting operation would have to involve significant process re-engineering to go along with the technical engineering, and involve separation of duties to ensure that malicious people aren't blacklisting phones for nefarious purposes (i.e., robbers, thieves, disgruntled ex's). Imagine what happens if an estranged husband or wife has a partner's phone blacklisted and then KILLS him or her. What kind of a lawsuit (or worse - criminal charges) would AT&T be facing then?

All the imagineers can instantly come up with marvelous new ideas that aren't as simple to implement in reality as they are in users' overactive imaginations. Keep trying.

All this ignoring the fact that AT&T has been a founding participant in the IMEI black list that's actively in use in multiple countries? IMEI black listed phones can be disabled for non-emergency calling and you know it.

ALL OF THIS IS in place RIGHT NOW. No significant changes need be made.

An extranged husband/wife/significant other doesn't need to have a phone blacklisted to make it inoperable, they could simply call up, about an hour ahead of their planned nefarious deed and say, "I'd like to cancel service on that number, immediately." Any and all constraints that would keep you from canceling service on an account/phone that isn't yours works equally well for black listing a phone that isn't registered to your account. Any and all phones/numbers on your account you can already disable at your leisure anyway, so your example is a disingenuous distraction that has no REAL merit. So your fear mongering on liability issues need not be attempted here.

Just like now, I can report my phone stolen to a cellular company and they can "black list" the SIM, there's no extra equipment, procedures, personnel, processes, separation of duties that would be REASONABLY required to also toss in adding the IMEI number to a blacklist, a number which the cellular company ALREADY RECEIVED when your phone was initialized to the network.

The only thing extra that they might need to do, if they don't already have capability now (again seeing as how most US cellular companies were founding members of the GSMA and participated in the creation of the IMEI black list) is the ability to transmit and recieve updated blacklists from the GSMA.

Everything else, is there. They're already checking for invalid IMEI numbers, and for numbers that would show up as invalid in the equipment registries, and you can bet they're already black listing those.

Where we do agree is that, for whatever illogical/immoral/greedy reason the US cellular industry may have, they apparently aren't going to do a darn thing until the government actually REGULATES them to. When companies refuse to do the right thing on their own, it requires government regulation.

Too bad corporations make such lousy citizens.

dwmitchell61 · ‎10-19-2008

BrianfromNO wrote:

Too bad corporations make such lousy citizens.

That's exactly why our economy is well on it;s way to collapse. The corporations may make lousy citizens, but with their lobbyists, they make POWERFUL voters. Ever see a Congressman turn down additional income for morality reasons? Me, either! LOL!

AboutToGoPostal · ‎08-16-2005

DimentoGraven wrote:
...
All this ignoring the fact that AT&T has been a founding participant in the IMEI black list that's actively in use in multiple countries? IMEI black listed phones can be disabled for non-emergency calling and you know it.

ALL OF THIS IS in place RIGHT NOW. No significant changes need be made.

...

You're right on all points except this one (in bold). If a blacklist goes live, AT&T revenues (from phone sales, ETFs, etc.) will drop notably. They'll have to make changes to make up for the lost revenue. ( i.e. yes, i'm joking around, though not entirely.)

I pushed the FCC to consider this, and they did, but I didn't get very far. I got a reply to the email below and followed up with the citizen's advisory board, as suggested, who considered it as an agenda item, but beyond that, I think, did nothing. I did not attend the advisory board meeting. (They're in DC and public, and webcast, but I was traveling.) A few more folks do the same and something more might happen. But cynically speaking, it'd probably take a riot or two.

To: fccinfo@fcc.gov

Subject:IMEI blocking hearing

Hello. I'd like to propose that the FCC hold hearings on mandating that mobile phone carriers block the IMEIs of phones that are reported stolen and have IMEIs.
Last week, I was witness to a young woman punched in the face and kicked when she tried to chase down someone who had stolen her phone.
Millions of dollars worth of phones, and information on them are lost when owners never get their phones back. Thousands of assaults are motivated by the street value of a stolen phone.
Again, I'd like to propose that the FCC hold hearings or otherwise consider mandating that mobile phone carriers block the IMEIs of phones that are reported stolen.
How do I go about doing this? Can I email the commissioners?
-{Name/Mailing Address/phone}

AboutToGoPostal · ‎08-16-2005

1arc wrote:

...In fact, there are over 40 operators who already implement the GSM association's IMEA [blacklist] Database, which has existing since 1996 - or for 15 years! (http://gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/handset_theft.htm#nav-)

Australia isn't listed. That seems strange to me.