Verifying lost/stolen iPhone at AT&T store?

[Noke]

I am buying an unlocked iPhone from someone on craigslist and will be meeting with him today at an AT&T store to get it from him. Can I ask an AT&T employee to verify that the phone has not been lost/stolen? Is there anything I should ask them to check?

Thanks!

[dwill05]

I doubt that AT&T will tell you anything relating to someone else's phone or account.

[anton697]

---

dwill05 wrote:
I doubt that AT&T will tell you anything relating to someone else's phone or account.

---

Notwithstanding the above comment, I would also argue that IMHO AT&T (or any of the other U.S. wireless carriers) would not put much effort into checking as to whether a phone that someone is asking to be activated is stolen or not, given that they (and the other U.S. wireless phone carriers) don't currently maintain a blacklist of phones reported lost or stolen.  AT&T would never admit it, but in their minds they're in no hurry to ensure that a stolen phone doesn't get activated on their network.  After all, an activated stolen phone generates revenue (in the form of a phone plan) for the company whereas a blacklisted phone doesn't generate any revenue since by definition it can't be activated because it's "blacklisted".

Perhaps my comments may be a bit out of line and/or farfetched, but let me ask you this--what percentage of activated phones amongst the various U.S. wireless carrier companies are phones that were previously reported as lost or stolen?  Since there is no blacklist, it goes without saying that there is no official figure but if I were to guess I'd say easily thousands--if not tens of thousands--of phones probably fall under the lost/stolen category but are actively in use by unscrupulous or unsuspecting customers.

[youngjm ACE - Professor]

---

anton697 wrote:

---

dwill05 wrote:
I doubt that AT&T will tell you anything relating to someone else's phone or account.

---

Notwithstanding the above comment, I would also argue that IMHO AT&T (or any of the other U.S. wireless carriers) would not put much effort into checking as to whether a phone that someone is asking to be activated is stolen or not, given that they (and the other U.S. wireless phone carriers) don't currently maintain a blacklist of phones reported lost or stolen.  AT&T would never admit it, but in their minds they're in no hurry to ensure that a stolen phone doesn't get activated on their network.  After all, an activated stolen phone generates revenue (in the form of a phone plan) for the company whereas a blacklisted phone doesn't generate any revenue since by definition it can't be activated because it's "blacklisted".

Perhaps my comments may be a bit out of line and/or farfetched, but let me ask you this--what percentage of activated phones amongst the various U.S. wireless carrier companies are phones that were previously reported as lost or stolen?  Since there is no blacklist, it goes without saying that there is no official figure but if I were to guess I'd say easily thousands--if not tens of thousands--of phones probably fall under the lost/stolen category but are actively in use by unscrupulous or unsuspecting customers.

---

ATT and the other us carriers are working on  a blacklist for stolen phones.  This was announced within the last few months.  We just are not sure how it will work and when it will be in place.  This is something that many countries in Europe and others all ready do.

[Revenge Of DG]

Anton,

You're right on the money.  Where AT&T (and other providers) has been required to maintain a black list, it is my understanding they work with the IMEI DB which is accessible to all GSMA members (AT&T being a founding member of the GSM Association, of course, has access to this).

The IMEI DB is a database of blacklisted phones and various vendors can update their own blacklists, and update this ensuring phones reported as stolen do not do anything more than dial 911 (or whatever the local emergency call number is).

A stolen phone generates non-subsidized profit.  Since, at least in the US, most cell phones are subsidized based on the customer agreeing to a multi-year service contract, a STOLEN phone that is activated on a cellular network is pretty much "pure profit" for the cellular provider.  The cellular provider doesn't have to 'front' the cost of the phone and hope the contract is maintained long enough to pay equipment costs of the handset.  Nope, a stolen phone generates profit from the moment the person posessing the stolen phone activates a contract.

Why in god's name would ANY cellular provider ever voluntarily blacklist any phone?

[Revenge Of DG]

---

youngjm wrote:

ATT and the other us carriers are working on  a blacklist for stolen phones.  This was announced within the last few months.  We just are not sure how it will work and when it will be in place.  This is something that many countries in Europe and others all ready do.

---

Hmm...  Yeah, "...working on it..."  You do know that an IMEI DB already exists, right?  That all cellular providers have their own equipment registries that include the IMEI numbers of the phones on their networks, right?  That the cellular providers DO ALREADYHAVE the ability to deny service to ANY IMEI number they have listed in their equipment registry, right?

So...  Exactly WHAT do the cellular providers have to "work" on to make this happen?

They'll drag their feet just like the cable industry did with the "provider nuetral/universal cable box"...  The cable TV industry agreed to having a box built that the end user could purchase and use to access cable television on any provider's network, thus saving the end user box 'rental' fees.  So far, what...  almost 40 years later, the cable TV industry is STILL, "...working on it..."

[anton697]

---

Revenge Of DG wrote:

---

youngjm wrote:

ATT and the other us carriers are working on  a blacklist for stolen phones.  This was announced within the last few months.  We just are not sure how it will work and when it will be in place.  This is something that many countries in Europe and others all ready do.

---

Hmm...  Yeah, "...working on it..."  You do know that an IMEI DB already exists, right?  That all cellular providers have their own equipment registries that include the IMEI numbers of the phones on their networks, right?  That the cellular providers DO ALREADYHAVE the ability to deny service to ANY IMEI number they have listed in their equipment registry, right?

So...  Exactly WHAT do the cellular providers have to "work" on to make this happen?

They'll drag their feet just like the cable industry did with the "provider nuetral/universal cable box"...  The cable TV industry agreed to having a box built that the end user could purchase and use to access cable television on any provider's network, thus saving the end user box 'rental' fees.  So far, what...  almost 40 years later, the cable TV industry is STILL, "...working on it..."

---

LOL you beat me to it--I was gonna say that anyone can come out and say that they'll start "working on it", but it's another thing to have that actually come to fruition.  Gotta love the excuses folks offer as to why the U.S. carriers don't currently have an active phone blacklist database--isn't the U.S. the most advanced nation on the face of this planet, yet they can't offer what "lesser" countries have been offering for years (phone blacklist)? I mean, if each of the 50 U.S. states can maintain and share motor vehicle databases (which undoubtedly contains over 200 million registered vehicles combined) with each other...then how hard can it be for a handful of carriers to maintain and share a list of mobile phones?

[wingrider01 ACE - Geek]

Come back when it it international. A national blacklist is a inconvience to the casual thief or a lost phone, it is so easy to get around in equrope it is not funny, take phone stolen in england across to one of the other countries, sell it and they buyer cn activate it, in the US, take it to rogers in Canada or América Móvil in Mexico and it can be activated.

Minor step in the right direction though

[Revenge Of DG]

That's the thing though, the IMEI DB which is accessible to all GSMA members, is effectively an international list by default.  Any provider that is a member of the GSMA already has access, by default, to the IMEI DB.

Whether or not those members choose to submit and retrieve updates from the black list the GSMA already has, or retrieve those updates from providers in other countries...  Well that's another thing altogether (as you effectively stated, and I have to agree), but as stated ad nauseum in this forum, the service providers have no incentive to until a government makes them I guess.

You'd think that Apple would work it into their iTunes/App Store services though.  Sure, a lot of stolen iPhones will probably be jail broken, some done so even in an attempt to modify the IMEI number, but a lot of those phones won't be and therefore will require iTunes for activations, and/or the App Store for updates and such.  After all, Apple could be losing a small percentage of sales when a phone is stolen.  Not everyone replaces a stolen/lost iPhone with another iPhone...

[graphite07]

i do not think AT&T will help you.

[BadBadLeroyBrown ACE - Warrior]

This argument again? Just because the technology exists doesn't mean the business processes are in place to support it. The carriers in the UK apparently did such a bang-up job at maintaining the blacklist that the Metropolitan Police took it over. As poor as customer service for the American carriers is, do you honestly want them blacklisting phones with no accountability?!

[Revenge Of DG]

---

BadBadLeroyBrown wrote:

This argument again? Just because the technology exists doesn't mean the business processes are in place to support it. The carriers in the UK apparently did such a bang-up job at maintaining the blacklist that the Metropolitan Police took it over. As poor as customer service for the American carriers is, do you honestly want them blacklisting phones with no accountability?!

---

Ahh, but you more or less make my own argument for me:  Accountability.

Had the providers been accountable for being a party to the trafficking of stolen merchandise, you can be darn well certain they would have been a lot less lacsidaisical about maintaining the list.

The fact that there were probably no, or at most very little, repurcussions for NOT maintaining the list well allowed the providers to get away with half  efforts in that regards.

That to me is what I don't get.  In most nations if you knowingly enable the trafficking of stolen items, then you are a defacto party of the crime and can be prosecuted.  If a phone is stolen and an owner reports the fact to his provider, and the provider STILL goes ahead and allows that phone to be activated on their network, they can LEGALLY be considered part of a criminal conspiracy and can be indicted as such.

The technology is there.

The processes are there.

It's even possible to "black list" and disable a phone so that it can ONLY dial emergency numbers.

But the desire for good corporate citizenship is not there.

It seems most providers would rather make a dishonest profit than assist the common good in lowering the criminal desirability of smart phones.

[word filter avoidance]

[wingrider01 ACE - Geek]

---

Revenge Of DG wrote:

That's the thing though, the IMEI DB which is accessible to all GSMA members, is effectively an international list by default.  Any provider that is a member of the GSMA already has access, by default, to the IMEI DB.

Whether or not those members choose to submit and retrieve updates from the black list the GSMA already has, or retrieve those updates from providers in other countries...  Well that's another thing altogether (as you effectively stated, and I have to agree), but as stated ad nauseum in this forum, the service providers have no incentive to until a government makes them I guess.

You'd think that Apple would work it into their iTunes/App Store services though.  Sure, a lot of stolen iPhones will probably be jail broken, some done so even in an attempt to modify the IMEI number, but a lot of those phones won't be and therefore will require iTunes for activations, and/or the App Store for updates and such.  After all, Apple could be losing a small percentage of sales when a phone is stolen.  Not everyone replaces a stolen/lost iPhone with another iPhone...

---

In europe that is handled by law enforcement, not by the provider. Most phone stolen by those that make livings at it are transported to other countries, reactivated and used with no problems what so ever. Lets not get into cloning techniques that get around any form of number recognition also. IMEI modification is fairly simple, easier then working toe jailbreak hack a phone

[Revenge Of DG]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

In europe that is handled by law enforcement, not by the provider. Most phone stolen by those that make livings at it are transported to other countries, reactivated and used with no problems what so ever. Lets not get into cloning techniques that get around any form of number recognition also. IMEI modification is fairly simple, easier then working toe jailbreak hack a phone

---

Sure, the DB is maintained by law enforcement, but the blocking still occurs on the provider's network.  The mechanisms are there and are in place for darn near every 'modern' cellular provider on the planet, it's just that most providers choose to profit from criminal activity, rather than help stop it.

Yeah, you can quote all the workarounds to the blacklists you want but here's some obvious facts:

1.  Most criminals are stupid.

2.  Most criminals are lazy.

Other than shipping a phone to another country, which only requires:

1.  A box of appropriate size.

2.  A properly filled out address label.

3.  Postage

The other work around you mention aren't always as 'easy' as you're suggesting.  Most newer phones make it very difficult, if not nearly impossible to change the IMEI number, a number that's typically "burned in" to the firmware of the phone itself, ie:  PROM based memory.

And even if a criminal were so motivated, they'd have to have the software, and in some cases hardware ready for each model phone, for each version of OS on the phone, and enough in depth knowledge on the structure of the CURRENT IMEI number schema to make sure he doesn't setup the phone to misidentify itself to a cellular network in such a manner that the phone is unusable.

Also, if cellular providers are 'on the ball' enough to at least DETECT duplicate IMEI numbers (which they should be) the criminal has to be carefully of that as well.

Shipping a phone to another nation, absolutely, well within the capability of your common crook.

Properly modifying an IMEI on a modern phone?  Not so much.

If you make things difficult, or even appear difficult, MOST criminals won't bother.  They're into criminal activity specifically for the EASY buck.

So again, cellular providers need to stop allowing stolen devices to be used on their network, for anything other than calling emergency numbers, and the desirability of trafficking in stolen smart phones will go down considerably.

We'd like it so that the average crack head on the street won't really bother punching that mother of two in the face to steal her iPhone so that he can sell it for another bag of rocks.  That's really all.

I certainly don't expect super villains, or globe encompassing criminal organizations, or even goat herding terrorists to be stopped in their tracks by the IMEI black list.

[anton697]

---

Revenge Of DG wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

In europe that is handled by law enforcement, not by the provider. Most phone stolen by those that make livings at it are transported to other countries, reactivated and used with no problems what so ever. Lets not get into cloning techniques that get around any form of number recognition also. IMEI modification is fairly simple, easier then working toe jailbreak hack a phone

---

We'd like it so that the average crack head on the street won't really bother punching that mother of two in the face to steal her iPhone so that he can sell it for another bag of rocks.  That's really all.

I certainly don't expect super villains, or globe encompassing criminal organizations, or even goat herding terrorists to be stopped in their tracks by the IMEI black list.

---

Exactly--a similar analogy would be that of car anti-theft alarm systems; I'm sure most will agree that the majority of vehicle thefts (here in the U.S.) are:

1) Done mostly by "amateurs" rather than by professional car theft rings;

2) Done primarily for joyriding, pulling car parts (e.g., wheels, stereo) or as a getaway vehicle, rather than because the perp needed a "permanent" vehicle for personal use or wanting to turn around and sell it

Car alarms will not stop the experienced, professional thief but will deter most amateurs from even attempting to steal a vehicle so equipped--does that mean it is pointless to offer car alarms?  Of course not...

[Revenge Of DG]

---

anton697 wrote:

Exactly--a similar analogy would be that of car anti-theft alarm systems; I'm sure most will agree that the majority of vehicle thefts (here in the U.S.) are:

1) Done mostly by "amateurs" rather than by professional car theft rings;

2) Done primarily for joyriding, pulling car parts (e.g., wheels, stereo) or as a getaway vehicle, rather than because the perp needed a "permanent" vehicle for personal use or wanting to turn around and sell it

Car alarms will not stop the experienced, professional thief but will deter most amateurs from even attempting to steal a vehicle so equipped--does that mean it is pointless to offer car alarms?  Of course not...

---

Checking available FBI statistics, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-... you can see that car theft has gone down over the last few years.  I believe it would be due to technologies like OnStar, Skyway, etc becomming ever more prevelant (that's really the only change I can think of to explain the downward trend.  As more vehicles get these technologies, the less those vehicles are targeted).  Technologies that don't do much to prevent the initial theft, but once a stolen vehicle is reported can track and/or even shut down a vehicle remotely.

And note:  These technologies are NOT controlled by any state agency, though they will freely work with law enforcement to bring an appropriate resolution to the crime.

So even the stupid and lazy are being made to think twice.

If cellular providers would do the same for the smart phones on their network, I would imagine we'd see similar downward trending of incidental theft of phones as well...

[jayp101]

Can you imagine the cost that it would take for the providers to do a Blacklist?  I wonder who would endure the financial strain of the cost?  Do you think that there would be a chance the this cost could get passed on the Customer? I think that we would have a bigger problems on our hands. Just imagine someone Selling you a phone and than going to a retail store and reporting it as stolen just because they are made at you.  This Scenario alone puts the provider in a very bad position. I think that there has to be a better way of handling lost or stolen phones. What ever happen to people NOT taking things that don't belong to them? The good old days of honesty are gone Anyhow .. @ The OP .. I think that you made a wise decision to meet the person in a public place and wanting to know if you are doing a legit transaction.

[wingrider01 ACE - Geek]

---

Revenge Of DG wrote:

---

anton697 wrote:

Exactly--a similar analogy would be that of car anti-theft alarm systems; I'm sure most will agree that the majority of vehicle thefts (here in the U.S.) are:

1) Done mostly by "amateurs" rather than by professional car theft rings;

2) Done primarily for joyriding, pulling car parts (e.g., wheels, stereo) or as a getaway vehicle, rather than because the perp needed a "permanent" vehicle for personal use or wanting to turn around and sell it

Car alarms will not stop the experienced, professional thief but will deter most amateurs from even attempting to steal a vehicle so equipped--does that mean it is pointless to offer car alarms?  Of course not...

---

Checking available FBI statistics, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-... you can see that car theft has gone down over the last few years.  I believe it would be due to technologies like OnStar, Skyway, etc becomming ever more prevelant (that's really the only change I can think of to explain the downward trend.  As more vehicles get these technologies, the less those vehicles are targeted).  Technologies that don't do much to prevent the initial theft, but once a stolen vehicle is reported can track and/or even shut down a vehicle remotely.

And note:  These technologies are NOT controlled by any state agency, though they will freely work with law enforcement to bring an appropriate resolution to the crime.

So even the stupid and lazy are being made to think twice.

If cellular providers would do the same for the smart phones on their network, I would imagine we'd see similar downward trending of incidental theft of phones as well...

---

So you are willing to pay a monthly surcharge for the service - Onstar, Skyway, LoJack are per month service charges and only if you have the equipment installed in your car. Unless you have an active subscription they may not help you at all.

Suspect the drop in numbers is more due to the advancements in the generic built in devices from the manufacturer of the cars, not from 3rd party chargeable addons. Comparing my 2013 ford to my 2009 ford the advancement in anti-theft is tremendous

Bottom line, this is no comparision, somebody is going to foot the bill for these databases and for the developement of all the surrounding applications - it will etierh be done by surcharges fromthe goverment or by a surcharge added to your monthly bill frm the various carriers, unless the databases are international there will be a very limited impact on the total number of illicitly obtained devices.

[anton697]

Oh puhleeze, enough with the "who's gonna foot the bill" (counter)arguments--you folks don't think consumers as a whole are footing the bill for all kinds of things already?  When utilities have to cough up money to pay for infrastructure improvements...who do you think winds up footing some--if not most--of the cost?  And so what if (some of ) the costs for creating/maintaining a blacklist gets passed on to consumers?  It's not as if customers would see a huge increase in their phone bill as a result...

[Revenge Of DG]

Wait...  Are you guys more concerned about the cost to the cellular providers of implementing a black list (something that already exists, by the way, reread my posts, seriously guys are you just ignoring the fact that a black list is already maintained by the GSMA and that most major cellular providers are "FOUNDING" members of this organization?!?!), or are you more concerned with the costs of the loss of the illegal proftis from the cellular providers complicity in the trafficking of stolen phones?

As far as the costs are concerned, sure there might be some, though I imagine as hinted above that the cellular providers are more worried about losing income from the plans these stolen phones generate than the actual cost of implementing something that ALREADY exists for them.

Oh, and the argument of someone getting a phone marked as stolen that's easy enough to handle:  The only person who can report a phone stolen and have it blacklisted is the person who originally initialized the phone when it was first registered.  When you pull your smart phone out of the box and set it up to be able to work on your provider's network you're providing a plethora of info, your name, phone number, account number, IMEI DB, SIM number, etc.  Anyone other than you or law enforcement reporting to the provider that your phone is stolen wouldl be held up for clarification.

If you bought a phone second hand and it was reported stolen after the fact, provide your receipt.  If you bought a phone second hand and it was actually stolen, sorry guy, it's just like ANY OTHER stolen property and law enforcement should confiscate it and return it to its rightful owner.

Your arguments are insufficient against the need to resolve this long standing issue.

[Revenge Of DG]

---

wingrider01 wrote:

So you are willing to pay a monthly surcharge for the service - Onstar, Skyway, LoJack are per month service charges and only if you have the equipment installed in your car. Unless you have an active subscription they may not help you at all.

Suspect the drop in numbers is more due to the advancements in the generic built in devices from the manufacturer of the cars, not from 3rd party chargeable addons. Comparing my 2013 ford to my 2009 ford the advancement in anti-theft is tremendous

Bottom line, this is no comparision, somebody is going to foot the bill for these databases and for the developement of all the surrounding applications - it will etierh be done by surcharges fromthe goverment or by a surcharge added to your monthly bill frm the various carriers, unless the databases are international there will be a very limited impact on the total number of illicitly obtained devices.

---

Trust me, even if you haven't paid for it for years, it's still possible and a call from law enforcement will make it happen.  Will OnStar, et al, unlock your car doors for you if you haven't paid your bill?  Nope.  Will they respond to a request from law enforcement on the status/location of the vehicle?  You bet your rear end they will.  You might receive a bill from them afterwards, but they won't ignore a police request just because your bill hasn't been paid...

As far as surcharges etc., have you looked at your phone bill recently?  There's plenty already there, and if providers would just use what's already in existance from organizations like the GSMA, the costs would be minimal, maybe a small percentage increase in customer service personell,

[Please keep it courteous]

[Revenge Of DG]

The cellular customer begins to win:

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/apples-first-app-store-malware-now-history-8...