If all smartphones and tablets came with a Kill Switch that could render them inoperable remotely, it could save consumers $2.5 billion per year in the U.S.
That's according to William Duckworth, a statistics professor at Creighton University. His research found that consumers spend around $500 million replacing devices that have been stolen per annum.
When you take into account the money spent by consumers on insurance policies, it gets even worse. According to the study, consumers spend around $2 billion ever year on premium insurance plans obtained through their carrier.
So what is a kill switch? Simply put, a kill switch is a mechanism by which a stolen device could be rendered completely inoperable remotely. This protects consumers on two fronts; the first being that personal information on stolen devices may be inaccessible once it's remotely killed, and the second in a broader sense would reduce crime.
Arguments for and against
An astonishing amount of robberies in the United States involve mobile devices, with estimates reaching up to a third of all thefts in some places. Police and policymakers have often dubbed the problem "apple picking", and see a major disincentive being created for criminals if devices came with Kill Switches by default.
The industry generally opposes such mechanisms being mandated by government, and there have been some steps toward providing consumers with these options. However, some consumers are also put off such mechanisms due to the threat of hackers or the misuse by law enforcement / government agencies in the future.
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon said on the issue recently that the wireless industry must move to prevent the victimization of its customers. He is joined by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in believing that state-wide or federal regulations are the answer to this question.
A conflict of interest for the wireless industry?
As stated previously, Duckworth's study shows that customers spend around $500 million replacing stolen devices every year, and around $2 billion on premium insurance policies. The study showed that over half of 1,200 smartphone owners said they would buy cheaper insurance policies that do not cover theft if it became less of a concern. Manufacturers would lose out on the sale of new devices, while carriers and third party insurers would also lose money.
"In addition to saving lives, the common sense theft deterrent features we have been advocating for will also help save consumers money," Gascon and Schneiderman said in a statement about the study, reports HuffingtonPost.
"Manufacturers and carriers need to put public safety before corporate profits and stop this violent epidemic, which has put millions of smartphone users at risk."
When you take into account the money spent by consumers on insurance policies, it gets even worse. According to the study, consumers spend around $2 billion ever year on premium insurance plans obtained through their carrier.
So what is a kill switch? Simply put, a kill switch is a mechanism by which a stolen device could be rendered completely inoperable remotely. This protects consumers on two fronts; the first being that personal information on stolen devices may be inaccessible once it's remotely killed, and the second in a broader sense would reduce crime.
Arguments for and against
An astonishing amount of robberies in the United States involve mobile devices, with estimates reaching up to a third of all thefts in some places. Police and policymakers have often dubbed the problem "apple picking", and see a major disincentive being created for criminals if devices came with Kill Switches by default.
The industry generally opposes such mechanisms being mandated by government, and there have been some steps toward providing consumers with these options. However, some consumers are also put off such mechanisms due to the threat of hackers or the misuse by law enforcement / government agencies in the future.
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon said on the issue recently that the wireless industry must move to prevent the victimization of its customers. He is joined by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in believing that state-wide or federal regulations are the answer to this question.
A conflict of interest for the wireless industry?
As stated previously, Duckworth's study shows that customers spend around $500 million replacing stolen devices every year, and around $2 billion on premium insurance policies. The study showed that over half of 1,200 smartphone owners said they would buy cheaper insurance policies that do not cover theft if it became less of a concern. Manufacturers would lose out on the sale of new devices, while carriers and third party insurers would also lose money.
"In addition to saving lives, the common sense theft deterrent features we have been advocating for will also help save consumers money," Gascon and Schneiderman said in a statement about the study, reports HuffingtonPost.
"Manufacturers and carriers need to put public safety before corporate profits and stop this violent epidemic, which has put millions of smartphone users at risk."
