Hacker News Reader

Comment by aasarava | Hacker News Reader

Serious question, not rhetorical: Is there any precedent for forcing manufacturers to modify their product simply to prevent the product from getting stolen?

Cars and houses can have alarms, and customers decide whether they need them or not. We do not require that all cars and houses come equipped with them. Wallets can be attached to a chain or placed in the front pocket. We don't require that you can only purchase a wallet with a chain.

Unlike childrens' toys that require battery covers to be screwed shut, or cars that must have seatbelts, the theft of a device does not seem to be a public safety issue. Your decision to own an expensive phone and take it out of your pocket at the train station seems no more necessary of regulation than your decision to wear an expensive necklace.

View on HN

I'm not necessarily defending the mandate, but maybe I can clarify the concept behind it.

It's not a case of legislators saying "it would be better to have less phone theft so let's try to reduce it this way" - instead it's more like, users want this, but don't have the bargaining power to compel the phone makers to build it in or the telcos to support it.

Without the mandate, the makers and telcos profit from theft: the stolen phone user (not necessarily the thief) pays phone charges, the victim has to buy a new phone, and thieves have a continuing incentive to steal them. With the mandate, the phones are less valuable to thieves (and to robbers - a personal-safety gain), and the telcos can't profit from the forced transfers.

Again, not saying it's a good or bad policy (can someone remote-kill my phone when I still have it?), but these are the considerations - a kind of market-failure correction.

Thanks, it's helpful to consider it from that perspective -- at least as potential reasoning for why the bill was written in the first place.

But we can counter that it's specious to claim customers are clamoring for this but not getting anywhere with manufacturers. Apple's Find my Phone feature is already one step toward addressing this issue, and there are a handful of third-party apps on the market that do similar things. These market solutions will continue to get better over time if they're popular.

And of course, there's the question of why it's the manufacturers' responsibility to address theft in the first place. Jewelers aren't required to engrave and register all their necklaces.

> It's not a case of legislators saying "it would be better to have less phone theft so let's try to reduce it this way" - instead it's more like, users want this, but don't have the bargaining power to compel the phone makers to build it in or the telcos to support it.

I am sick of reasoning like this. The purpose of government is to preserve your freedom to do something. If some users want something and cannot arrange it themselves, then they may just not be able to get it. It is not the government's place to mandate that everyone gets what some people want. That goes against personal freedom. It is certainly the government's place to punish thiefs---a person who deprives another of their freedom to control their property. The government should not mandate certain ways of arranging private (between a person and the phone company) affairs.

Indeed, there are ways to magnify your bargaining power outside of the government. Most people generally aren't willing to pay for it, though. A stolen phone fund or phone theft insurance could accomplish the same goals without involving the legislative and executive branches. However, the cost would be obvious, in the form of an upfront or recurring charge. It's much easier to assign the task to a government, and then wonder years later why taxes are going up, or the government is constantly in debt.

> The purpose of government is to preserve your freedom to do something.

That's maybe what you think the purpose of government should be, but it doesn't really match reality. Consider the whole section of labor laws, for instance.

That is one perspective on the purpose of government, yes.

I think this is more of a public safety issue. Currently, a mugger has an incentive to harm someone to take their device and sell it. If it becomes known that there is no profit in selling a disabled device, then there should be fewer mugging attacks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com