Crusade for smartphone 'kill switch' heats up, but would it work?

Law enforcement officials are pushing smartphone manufacturers to develop a kill switch to disable stolen phones. They see it as a way to stem rampant smartphone theft.

Bebeto Matthews/AP
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon speaks Thursday in New York at the launch of the 'Secure Our Smartphones' initiative, which is aimed at encouraging the cellphone industry to adapt technology to deter cellphone theft.

The crusade to force smartphone manufacturers to put a "kill switch" on their devices began in earnest Thursday.

A coalition of public prosecutors, police, consumer advocates, and politicians from more than a dozen states announced the creation of SOS – Secure Our Smartphones – which is aimed at stamping out what officials called an “epidemic” of smartphone robberies. Citing statistics that 1 on 3 robberies nationwide involves a cellphone theft, they said a kill switch on smartphones – essentially rendering it useless – would eliminate the incentive for would-be thieves.

But industry watchers say SOS will not be enough to motivate the smartphone industry, which has so far decided against introducing such technology. Moreover, others worry about the pitfalls such technology might create, such as the possibility of smartphones being "killed" by accident.

“There is no question that something needs to be done,” says Peter LaMotte, a digital communications expert at Levick, a public relations firm. But to get the industry to respond, “there has to be a huge public outcry, and one news conference is not a huge outcry.”

The press conference Thursday preceded a “Smartphone Summit” with representatives from top smartphone manufactures such as Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Samsung. "The industry has a moral and social obligation to fix this problem,” said San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon.

The kill switch capability already exists, say software industry analysts. It would work by identifying a specific phone that has been stolen and then shutting it down. For the such a program to work, though, all the providers would have to be on board, otherwise a thief could just switch carriers to use the phone.

The key is "sharing reported stolen phone identifiers and blocking all identifiers – not just the ones reported by its own customers,” says Rob D’Ovidio an associate professor of criminal justice at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

If it worked, a kill switch might help mitigate some of the demand for stolen phones, but it’s not going to change the black-market demand for stolen phones, says Ken Westin, founder of Gadget Trak. “Even if the switch is implemented, there are ways around it. Criminals with enough technical knowledge, or those dedicated enough, it will essentially view it as a speed bump.”

For those who steal smartphones for the corporate or personal data on them, the kill switch would be irrelevant, adds Adam Ely, co-founder of Bluebox Security.

Consumers could also run into troubles if the phone company makes a mistake, says Joel Jacobsen, assistant attorney general of the criminal appeals division for New Mexico.

“We can be absolutely confident that mistakes will happen, because any human operation involving millions of decisions can't avoid mistakes," he says. "What do you do when your only phone has been remotely killed?"

"Another concern is whether the power to flip the kill switch is reserved to the customer or controlled by the phone company," he adds. "That's very important.”

Once a company has the power to flip that kind of switch, it will have to decide how to exercise it. “That will mean developing rules ... that won't necessarily coincide with the customer's wishes," he says. "Flipping the switch will cost the provider next to nothing, at least in the short term. But the cost to the customer in terms of time, hassle, and lost productivity would be enormous. That kind of imbalance – when one party has the power but the other bears the cost – always spells trouble.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Crusade for smartphone 'kill switch' heats up, but would it work?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today