Profits from crime
Profits from crime
Updated 00:31am (Mla time) Sept 18, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the September 18, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
OUR recent series on the epidemic of cell phone thefts and robberies, which we've published in concert with our media partners, indicates several problems we've addressed in this space. The first is that the rampant theft and resale of stolen phones present one of the most accessible gauges of the government's law enforcement efforts. Or, as our reports have shown, the failure of those efforts.
Another remarkable thing about the widespread racket involving stolen cell phones is that we Filipinos spend a large percentage of our resources on the service--both for the phones themselves and the services cell-phone providers offer.
The third thing is that consumers really have very limited options when it comes to securing their cell phones.
Our front page last Monday instructed our readers on how to get their International Mobile Equipment Identifier or IMEI number. This number is needed when you make a report to the National Telecommunications Commission in case your phone is lost or stolen. A reported number can then be listed as stolen or lost, and the NTC can in turn instruct cell-phone companies to block those phones, making them useless.
Of course, there is the problem that just as cell phones "locked" to a particular telecom provider can be "unlocked" for P150 or less in stalls in many commercial districts, the IMEI number of a phone can be changed by programmers in the same stalls. This is, in fact, a security problem that plagues all kinds of technology: the crooks are often several steps ahead of the law enforcers.
However, when telecom providers state, as a spokesperson for one company told our Business section last Wednesday, that cell phone theft is a "purely law enforcement issue," they aren't being fair to consumers. To argue that it is the job of the police to go after phone snatchers passes the buck to the government, which is obviously not up to the job, while leaving consumers in the lurch.
The fact is that if ways were found to make the reporting and disabling of stolen phones easier and more effective for the consumers, a large portion of the law enforcement work of the government would be done. A useless, disabled phone, is a phone that cannot be sold or traded. And we must ask what the telecom providers have done to make cell phone security easier for their customers.
We have yet to hear of a telecom provider taking the time, effort and expense to brief their customers on their cell phone security options. It begins with most phones having a programmable security code, which the consumer can program into their handsets, much like the PIN in an automatic teller machine. There is, too, the notorious PUK code, the importance of which is known to many consumers who inadvertently lose or trigger them, requiring a call to the telecom provider. Then there is the serial number of each phone as well as its IMEI number.
In sum, security for the consumer begins with information. Just as telecom providers spend millions in advertising the many attractive ways consumers can avail themselves of their services (and thus spend), these companies should make it part of their responsibility to inform their customers on how to secure their phones. Between the telecom provider, the handset manufacturers and the consumer, a whole array of options already exist to improve cell phone security.
Instead, no resources for cell phone security are offered by telecom providers, because where's the profit in doing so? A lost phone means increased sales, one way or another, whether for lost or damaged SIM cards, actual handsets, or more prepaid cards. Lost phones, besides supporting a growing and highly lucrative underground economy, eventually trickles down to handset manufacturers.
Is it unfair to argue that by omission, telecom providers and handset manufacturers are actually abetting criminality? The telecom providers say this is actually what media reports imply. But it is not media that imply this, fairly or not. It is the public. And common sense.
We cannot continue passing the buck-or the phone. Telecom providers can play a large role in stamping out an illegal industry that thrives on petty crime and unethical reprogramming of equipment. It cannot put all the responsibility on the NTC, or the police, because in the end, it continues to profit, however indirectly, from the criminality of others.
Updated 00:31am (Mla time) Sept 18, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the September 18, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
OUR recent series on the epidemic of cell phone thefts and robberies, which we've published in concert with our media partners, indicates several problems we've addressed in this space. The first is that the rampant theft and resale of stolen phones present one of the most accessible gauges of the government's law enforcement efforts. Or, as our reports have shown, the failure of those efforts.
Another remarkable thing about the widespread racket involving stolen cell phones is that we Filipinos spend a large percentage of our resources on the service--both for the phones themselves and the services cell-phone providers offer.
The third thing is that consumers really have very limited options when it comes to securing their cell phones.
Our front page last Monday instructed our readers on how to get their International Mobile Equipment Identifier or IMEI number. This number is needed when you make a report to the National Telecommunications Commission in case your phone is lost or stolen. A reported number can then be listed as stolen or lost, and the NTC can in turn instruct cell-phone companies to block those phones, making them useless.
Of course, there is the problem that just as cell phones "locked" to a particular telecom provider can be "unlocked" for P150 or less in stalls in many commercial districts, the IMEI number of a phone can be changed by programmers in the same stalls. This is, in fact, a security problem that plagues all kinds of technology: the crooks are often several steps ahead of the law enforcers.
However, when telecom providers state, as a spokesperson for one company told our Business section last Wednesday, that cell phone theft is a "purely law enforcement issue," they aren't being fair to consumers. To argue that it is the job of the police to go after phone snatchers passes the buck to the government, which is obviously not up to the job, while leaving consumers in the lurch.
The fact is that if ways were found to make the reporting and disabling of stolen phones easier and more effective for the consumers, a large portion of the law enforcement work of the government would be done. A useless, disabled phone, is a phone that cannot be sold or traded. And we must ask what the telecom providers have done to make cell phone security easier for their customers.
We have yet to hear of a telecom provider taking the time, effort and expense to brief their customers on their cell phone security options. It begins with most phones having a programmable security code, which the consumer can program into their handsets, much like the PIN in an automatic teller machine. There is, too, the notorious PUK code, the importance of which is known to many consumers who inadvertently lose or trigger them, requiring a call to the telecom provider. Then there is the serial number of each phone as well as its IMEI number.
In sum, security for the consumer begins with information. Just as telecom providers spend millions in advertising the many attractive ways consumers can avail themselves of their services (and thus spend), these companies should make it part of their responsibility to inform their customers on how to secure their phones. Between the telecom provider, the handset manufacturers and the consumer, a whole array of options already exist to improve cell phone security.
Instead, no resources for cell phone security are offered by telecom providers, because where's the profit in doing so? A lost phone means increased sales, one way or another, whether for lost or damaged SIM cards, actual handsets, or more prepaid cards. Lost phones, besides supporting a growing and highly lucrative underground economy, eventually trickles down to handset manufacturers.
Is it unfair to argue that by omission, telecom providers and handset manufacturers are actually abetting criminality? The telecom providers say this is actually what media reports imply. But it is not media that imply this, fairly or not. It is the public. And common sense.
We cannot continue passing the buck-or the phone. Telecom providers can play a large role in stamping out an illegal industry that thrives on petty crime and unethical reprogramming of equipment. It cannot put all the responsibility on the NTC, or the police, because in the end, it continues to profit, however indirectly, from the criminality of others.
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home