Hacker News Reader

Comment by leephillips | Hacker News Reader

“the main product was an app...that would lock the phone if it was stolen, or if the customer stopped paying. The app was built as part of the Android OS, so you couldn't uninstall it. It would lock the low-level features that allowed you to make calls, use Wifi...until you paid up.

All good.”

No, not all good. There’s the problem right there. If I stop paying you can stop providing me the service I’m paying for. Using WiFi has nothing to do with you. Breaking my property this way, without a court judgement allowing you to do it, is not only unethical, but should be a criminal offense, and is at least a civil tort.

The potential liability here is literally unlimited. I believe responsible cell providers allow you to call 911, or the equivalent in your location, even if your account is delinquent. But you can’t do that if your phone is locked in this way. Did anyone die because of this product and this guy’s recklessness?

View on HN

Why do you assume the users own the phones? There are plenty of business models where the company owns the phones and the user gets to use it by paying a monthly fee. One of the services being provided may well be the use of the phone itself.

That would be something to discuss with the user and the company that then might own the phone. In this case though, someone completely unrelated to the contract locked the phone. Someone in another country. Someone working for some completely unrelated telco company. Someone who just randomly locked some phones by banging out a script to generate phone numbers, without checking if the phones were owned by the user, their telco, or my grandmother.

Great so if my employer decides that I shouldn't have the phone anymore I can't even call 911 in an emergency.

Even if/when they don't fully "own" the phones, users ought to always be able to access their data (at least for backup) and call emergency services (which is a legal requirement in many countries).

More generally and regardless of time pressure, I can't believe someone can "play" with such test a script (used with a production tool) without even thinking it might fuck up and hit real phone numbers... (and if the developer was aware that his approach might fuck up, then he should make his boss aware that he had no time to fully test the feature rather than play russian roulette. Time pressure is not an excuse for everything...)

I guess some people just don’t make mistakes. Wish I was one of them.

Because (pardon my language) fuck that business model, that's why. It's reprehensible on a number of different levels, and specific aspects of that have been made illegal, but companies keep trying to bring back the exploitation.

Just because there's a business model doesn't mean that we have to support it, or help it be implemented. We can shame our fellow developers choosing to enable scams and write malware/computer viruses.

Lets say I start a business and the business model is going to be "every time tcskeptic posts a comment to HN, they give me $1". Sounds pretty great to me! As part of this contract, no objections to this business model will be allowed. There's the small detail that you didn't agree to this contract, but hopefully it illustrates that just because I have a business model doesn't mean anybody has to accept it.

That’s a pretty bad metaphor imo.

It’s more like either I spend $500 on this device and own it or I spend only $100 but have to deal with ads. Yeah I hate ads but I can use that extra $400 to fix my leaking roof.

Put frankly, you're out of touch with how south america works. Things you would never expect can be paid in installments here. People just don't have heaps of disposable cash.

There's litterally lines at the atm 2 times a month, pay day. The rest of the time people are day to daying without cash in their pocket.

The things that you pay in installments do not suddenly and simply die if you miss a payment.

There are right and wrong ways to go collect payment, and this one is a wrong one.

The product was for phones that had not been paid off-- if you get a phone on a 2 year contract, you dont "own" the phone until it is paid off

Not usually the case under UK law at any rate.

The headline says South America. I don't think they use UK law.

UK common law is pretty prevalent all over the world

English Common Law is prevalent, but that is the basis of the law and certainly not the specific codes and minor changes that have been made since 1950

Not in Europe.

The author works in the UK and there's one company listed on his LinkedIn that provides the services he described, which is situated in Cambridge. The description of the product seems to indicate that the software is written to allow carriers to lock out people who stopped paying, mostly targeting people who'd normally have trouble getting credit for their phones.

Unless the company specialized in sales outside the UK and likely also outside the EU, I think this company is probably breaking the law, as are the carriers using their services. I doubt the people who buy phones on extended credit will have the cash laying around to bring up a lawsuit, though.

The phone numbers generated for testing were in South America, but the app can block anywhere in the world from any country in the world, including UK. That stuff blocked random phones on the globe, if that is not clear enough.

Perfectly legal in the UK-- the company was British. Customers were in Europe, America etc

Apropos the UK...it depends on the contract and how the phone is financed. Here's an example of EE's (UK company) "Pay Monthly Terms":

https://ee.co.uk/content/dam/ee-help/help-pdfs/pay-monthly-n...

Section 10 explains ownership:

Starting with...Section 10.1:

"You may get Equipment from Us directly when You take out a Price Plan, whether for free or for an upfront cost. Unless We tell You otherwise, or You get Equipment under a Finance Agreement, We will own any Equipment provided to You by Us for the first six months of the Minimum Term."

...and it goes on.

> We will own any Equipment provided to You by Us for the first six months of the Minimum Term.

But yet they all make pains to separate airtime, and devices in the contract for example clauses that say you can't cancel the airtime contract if the phone proves faulty

Huh? So you're telling me that I can walk into the phone shop, get them to give me a phone with financing, and then not pay it, and... still own it? Sweet deal!

Yes, just like you still own the phone if you take out a bank loan, use it to buy the phone, and then default on the loan.

But you don't, not if you secured the bank loan using the phone. Which you did if you financed it through a carrier.

Just like if I go to a bank, get a loan for a car, buy that car, and stop making payments... THE BANK OWNS THE CAR.

I assume that isn't done because the value of the good is too low to justify the effort of repo'ing it.

Correct. Which is why they instead simply disable the device (and this has been done for quite a long time, by the way, with banned IMEI lists, back before phones were useful for anything without a cellular connection).

Normally they'd come after you with debt collection agencies / court cases rather than asking for the handset back. They want their £40/mo for 24 months, not a used handset really.

Not under Brazilian law either. I wonder where in South America those phones are.

> If I stop paying you can stop providing me the service I’m paying for

Indeed. In many cases, that service is the phone itself, given that it is leased or financed through the carrier. And in those cases, based on the contract which the customer signed with said carrier, ownership of the phone generally reverts to the carrier if you don't pay up, like with any other secured loan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com