San Francisco DA happy with anti-theft initiatives from Apple and Samsung
The DA of San Francisco wouldn't reveal how the two systems work. Apple's security plan is part of iOS 7 and is covered by a non-disclosure agreement. Apple did show off its Activation Lock at WWDC last month. Even if thieves try to wipe the phone, the device won't activate with an account name and password. For its part, Samsung has a deal with a third party security company to provide users with a subscription to a security service.
Since Google doesn't provide an anti-theft system for Android phones, Samsung has turned to LoJack to provide a branded solution to the problem. While it is similar to Apple's "Find My Phone," the LoJack system works hand-in-hand with police and does cost $29.99 a year. So far, the system is available only for the Samsung Galaxy S4.
Last month, both Gascon and Schneiderman started the Save Our Smartphone initiative, calling for manufacturers to add a remote control kill switch that could disable a smartphone in case of a theft, making them less valuable to steal. "I'm very optimistic that they came and were willing to share their technology with us," Gascon said.
source: SFExaminer via AppleInsider
1. Dingy_cellar_dweller (Posts: 141; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)
A step in the right direction.
Manufactures may have woken up, if they brick stolen phones, they'll sell more new ones and look like they're doing the right thing.
2. Whateverman (Posts: 3061; Member since: 17 May 2009)
$29?!? Samsung, you can do better than that.
3. g2a5b0e (Posts: 1384; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)
If you can't afford $30 a year to protect your smartphone, you probably shouldn't have one in the first place.
5. Whateverman (Posts: 3061; Member since: 17 May 2009)
Dude, don't go there with me. Its not about what I can afford, its about providing a service to the customer. If Apple can provide Find My Phone for free, Samsung can do better than making people pay for the added protection.
Don't make this about my finances and how much I can afford and I won't make it about how little money I think you have either. I already pay an extra $130 a year for insurance to protect my phone. I have the right to say when enough is enough.
6. g2a5b0e (Posts: 1384; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)
You already got your little panties in a bunch, but you should realize that that was a general you & not a you in particular. No one was trying to make anything personal. I don't even know you. Let me rephrase before you whine further.
"If one can't afford $30 a year to protect his/her smartphone, one probably shouldn't have a smartphone in the first place."
7. Whateverman (Posts: 3061; Member since: 17 May 2009)
Guess I must have hurt your feeling with that one huh? Yet, I'm the one with the panties in a bunch? How I'm I not to think it was personal when you replied to me.
And if I made a mistake, you could have said, "I wasn't directing that at you personally", and being the man I am, I would have apologized. But then you made it personal with your second comment. So I guess you decided the low road was best after all then, huh?
8. g2a5b0e (Posts: 1384; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)
My feelings are perfectly intact, bud. Sorry, but people on the internet do don't much to affect them either way. In regards to your last statement, if calling it that is what makes you happy, then so be it.
4. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 1511; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
Yeah, I like the anti theft feature.