▲ 13 ▼ Met police chief calls for law to make stolen phones ‘unusable bricks’ (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/worldnews@sh.itjust.works 9 comments fedilink hide all child comments The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has asked the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, to force all phone companies to make stolen devices “unusable bricks” in order to make them harder to sell on and less desirable to steal.
[–] inari@piefed.zip 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) Why is that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] BoatmanCodex@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago* When you create the ability to brick phones you create the ability to mass-brick phones. Imagine a totalitarian regime seeing an uprising on the horizon and bricking the phones of protesters that attended some protest. Imagine hackers or three -letter agencies getting this ability wanting to disrupt the economy of a town, city, or country. I wouldn't be opposed to someone having software on their phone to remote brick it. I'd be surprised if something like that didn't already exist. It's government mandating a backdoor that's the problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago Because the authorities could then brick anyone's phone at any time. Including rich people and corporations that could hire security consultants to manage hackers to do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago They will still steal them, just part them out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* Because it’s the police’s responsibility to stop the snatchers in the first place? Not insist that other companies make up for their lack of results. It’s not a COMPLETELY terrible idea, I know Apple already bricks stolen phones upon request, but at the owner’s expense. It’s still the people hired to solve the problem passing the responsibility on to others. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BoatmanCodex@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago* When you create the ability to brick phones you create the ability to mass-brick phones. Imagine a totalitarian regime seeing an uprising on the horizon and bricking the phones of protesters that attended some protest. Imagine hackers or three -letter agencies getting this ability wanting to disrupt the economy of a town, city, or country. I wouldn't be opposed to someone having software on their phone to remote brick it. I'd be surprised if something like that didn't already exist. It's government mandating a backdoor that's the problem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago Because the authorities could then brick anyone's phone at any time. Including rich people and corporations that could hire security consultants to manage hackers to do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago They will still steal them, just part them out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* Because it’s the police’s responsibility to stop the snatchers in the first place? Not insist that other companies make up for their lack of results. It’s not a COMPLETELY terrible idea, I know Apple already bricks stolen phones upon request, but at the owner’s expense. It’s still the people hired to solve the problem passing the responsibility on to others. permalink fedilink source parent