Combatting theft of mobile devices

Last April, the Washington Post reported on a partnership between the FCC, police and the wireless industry to develop a centralized database to combat theft of wireless devices. At the time, I tweeted:

.@ctia: US Wireless Industry Steps to Deter Smartphone Thefts, Protect Consumer Data j.mp/IfYVN9 Where’s Canada on this? #CDNtech

— Mark Goldberg (@Mark_Goldberg) April 10, 2012

The CRTC opened a file on the issue, writing a letter to Canada’s wireless industry association on July 17, asking for:

1.  statistics on the number of mobile devices reported stolen or lost to its members, broken down by province;
2. a description of what “initiatives the wireless industry is undertaking to protect consumers from becoming victims of mobile device theft”; and
3. a description of international initiatives for addressing mobile device theft.

The CWTA replied on August 13 [zip], but as Cartt.ca first reported, the CRTC has indicated that it was not happy with the quality of the answers it received. In a letter dated September 28, the CRTC has given the association 2 months to provide greater detail. Indeed, there is an ominous tone to the end of the Commission’s follow-up letter:

It should be noted that if the Commission is not satisfied by the response of the Canadian wireless industry to this issue, the Commission will investigate what further regulatory action needs to be taken to provide the necessary tools to help consumers in this regard.

The exchange between the association and the CRTC is fascinating to observe on many levels. Here are a few thoughts, in no particular order:

• Membership in the CWTA is not a condition of operating as a service provider in Canada and not all wireless providers or equipment suppliers are members of the association. As such, the initial informational inquiries from the CRTC was certainly appropriate, but as an unregulated entity that does not represent all of the sector, should the CRTC’s followup have been more broadly based via an instrument such as a public notice?
• For its part, the industry association reply appears to rely exclusively on its carrier members, despite the fact that theft of devices could include phones from foreign visitors or devices that were not sold by Canadian carriers or their agents. In the initial letter, the CRTC mentioned concerns associated with personal information on stolen devices (‘the fact that the industry is beginning to bring to market mobile devices that will act as “digital wallets”’). This should have indicated a need to include the device manufacturers and those that develop the operating systems.
• Of course, that in turn raises the question of whether this whole initiative should be led by the CRTC or by Industry Canada – the body that licenses all of the carriers and all of the devices that are brought into Canada. The CRTC’s follow-up letter suggests including law enforcement representatives to ensure a more holistic, multi-lateral composition of the CWTA’s Security Working Group.
• This issue is one that highlights the division of authority between Industry Canada and the CRTC in contrast to the FCC in the United States. Will the national digital strategy address the long outstanding recommendation to migrate the authority for wireless licensing to the CRTC?

The Washington Post story indicated that as many as 3 in 5 robberies involved smartphones in the District of Columbia. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. But we need to make sure all of the right parties are are at the table developing solutions and that costs are being managed and distributed appropriately.