Are Apple and Samsung helping to prevent your tablet and smartphone from getting stolen? Not according to San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, who last week accused mobile device makers and data carriers of doing little to nothing to fix a problem that costs their customers tens of millions of dollars a year in replacement costs.
"For the manufacturer and the carriers, all a theft means is another sale," Gascón told me. "People are going back for a second phone; there is usually an up-sale, because the model that they had is generally no longer available—so people get sucked into new contracts. At least on the surface, [the companies] appear to be very mercenary, very profit-oriented, and not very socially conscious."
Last year, cellphones were stolen in nearly 30 percent of all robberies, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Between 2007, when the iPhone was introduced, and 2011, thefts involving cell phones in Washington, DC, increased by 54 percent. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg blamed iPhone thefts for single-handedly increasing the city's major crime rate last year. In San Francisco, nearly half of all robbery cases last year involved a mobile communication device. "People get traumatized by this," Gascón says. "At the same time, we're seeing young people starting to accumulate very, very serious criminal records."
Major wireless carriers say they're working to prevent thefts through a national registry for logging the serial numbers of stolen phones. By April 30, customers buying a new phone will be informed of ways to remotely lock the device and erase its data.
In New York—but nowhere else—Apple works with police to track down stolen iPhones.
But Gascón says those efforts fall far short. He points out that many stores will jailbreak a stolen phone "no questions asked," at which point thieves could sign it up with smaller carriers that aren't participating in the registry. Other critics of the approach say that bad guys will just ship the stolen devices overseas.
Gascon believes that if smartphone makers really cared about preventing thefts, they'd create a way to track or shut down their devices anywhere in the world, regardless of which carrier was being used.
"That seems like something that is reachable," Kevin Mahaffey, the chief technology officer of Lookout, a maker of anti-theft smartphone apps, told me.
Indeed, after New York's Mayor Bloomberg blamed Apple for fueling a crime wave, the company partnered with the NYPD to track down stolen iPhones using each phone's unique tracking number, known as its International Mobile Station Identity. Using that number, Apple can locate a phone even if it's registered with a different wireless provider. According to the New York Post, one stolen iPad was even tracked to the Dominican Republic and recovered with the help of a cop in Santo Domingo.
Why? Apple didn't return a request for comment, but a reader of the tech blog Slashdothad an idea: Tracking or locking stolen phones "would reduce the likelihood of theft," he figured, "which would in turn reduce 1) Apple street cred; 2) The need to purchase another Apple device."
The biometric handgun used by James Bond in Skyfall.
Yesterday in San Francisco, a group of leading Silicon Valley tech investors announced a partnership with the families of Sandy Hook victims that will seek to raise $15 million in seed funding for 15 to 20 start-up companies dedicated to preventing gun violence. "A year from now we will be able to point to the Googles, the Facebooks, and the Twitters of gun safety," said Ron Conway, a billionaire angel investor who made big early bets on those companies. "This is a huge area for genuine innovation."
With several Newtown families standing by, the tech investors announced the partnership, the Sandy Hook Promise Innovation Initiative, on the three-month anniversary of the massacre. "In the instance of our shooting, it was the mother's guns that were used," said Nicole Hockley, whose first-grader was killed. "Had she had biometrics on the gun, or a different sort of safe technology protecting the guns, then he would not have had access to them in the first place."
A member of a powerful DC-based coalition of education and labor groups says Microsoft tricked him and others into opening the door to the Immigration Innovation Act, a federal bill that would promote the offshore outsourcing of American jobs.
"It was a classic bait and switch," says the source, a member of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) Education Coalition, an umbrella organization of some 500 corporate, labor, and education groups that was cofounded by Microsoft. The source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of jeopardizing his relationships with allies on Capitol Hill, described Microsoft's approach to the bill as "lobbying malpractice."
Though Microsoft did nothing illegal, it appears to have run afoul of its would-be allies by making the bill a vehicle for for significantly looser immigration restrictions—thereby putting its own interests ahead of those of the education and labor groups it had seduced by promising something more palatable.
For more than a decade, Microsoft has supplemented its American-born workforce with foreigners who come to the US on temporary H-1B work visas. The federal government offers just 65,000 H-1B visas each year, however, and in prosperous years the cap quickly maxes out. In September, the software giant claimed it couldn't fill some 6,000 domestic jobs due to a shortage of qualified Americans and a lack of available visas.
When you get down to it, the debate over the sequester—the automatic budget cuts that kicked in on Friday—is really about the future of the middle class. Democrats want to close tax loopholes for the wealthy to preserve education and social programs for the rest of us. Republicans call this socialism, and flatly refuse to consider any option other than cutting bigger holes in the social safety net.
As these opposing views come to a head, a new video based on Mother Jones' well-known income inequality charts has been making the rounds. Even if you've already seen the originals, it may put Washington's latest squabbles in a different light:
UPDATE, Thursday, February 28 (Brett Brownell): Following the video's viral spread this week, Mother Jones reached out to its mysterious creator, YouTube user "Politizane." "Z," as he signed his messages, told us that he is a freelance filmmaker "living and working in a red state (Texas)" who is staying anonymous in order avoid losing clients or jobs due to "a vague political affiliation."
At first he saved the original "Ariely chart" to his phone, and from time to time would "try to wrap [his] head around it." The chart, created by Mother Jones and based on polling data by Dan Ariely and Michael L. Norton, showed Americans' mistaken expectations of wealth distribution. Eventually Z decided to visualize the disparity in his own way by tinkering with After Effects software over a period of a few days. He also says he vetted the math/curve-fitting among some "geeky friends."
"Wealth Inequality in America" is his only politically minded video so far. "These issues are simply things I think (and perhaps angst) about in my spare time," Z says."The really incredible thing for me is the simple fact that people are now talking about these issues…So it's pretty neat to open some eyes and get people thinking."
This week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged Congress to issue more H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers. The US needs "an immigration system that brings the best, brightest, and hardest workers to our shores," he said. His words echoed an editorial published last year by Bloomberg News headlined "Help The US Economy With Visas for the Best and Brightest."
Unfortunately, the phrase "best and brightest" has a slippery history. It's best known as the ironic title of journalist David Halberstam's book about the architects of the Vietnam war. And it applies in a similarly upside-down way to foreign tech workers, who, according to a study released yesterday by the Economic Policy Institute, demonstrate no more talent in important areas than similarly educated Americans, and in some cases may be less qualified.