Just adding a little bit of context about AT&T: I collect used cell phones, erase them, unlock when possible, and distribute them to unhoused people through several local food shelves, which allows those people to access benefits, housing, health care, jobs, etc which would otherwise be out of reach. With AT&T I can go to their website and unlock an old phone in minutes, allowing them to use a no-cost carrier like QLink Wireless. With T-Mobile or Consumer Cellular (or many others) they just give you the finger. The phone could be e-waste for all they care.
Slightly OT, but as someone who escaped poverty this is the type of volunteering that is super helpful and makes a huge difference. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything like this in my local area, do you have any pointers on starting/finding a program like this to contribute to?
I really what you are doing, I have been looking for a way to give back now that I am in a financially secure position and that sounds more impactful than just giving money. If you would prefer, I can be contacted at my username at google's email service.
I stumbled into this because I volunteer at three food shelves around Burlington, Vermont doing food distribution. At the largest one there is a day shelter with outreach workers and a kitchen serving hot meals. I gave a few phones to the outreach workers that I got from family members, and found that there was high demand so I just started posting on community forums asking people for their old phones. In a few cases I have replaced batteries or screens but if the phone is usable I distribute it as-is after erasing it and applying any software updates. I buy cables and chargers in bulk so I can deliver a complete kit. Almost all the work is sitting down with the donor and erasing it.
Many charities are very happy with money btw, our local food bank prefers it and cites a 3x factor in “value” compared to food donations due to discount s they get when buying bulk.
Just saying, don’t feel bad for “just” giving money.
Regarding monetary donations, if you believe institutional misuse outweighs efficiency gain, then your area food banks are in a much worse shape than my local area, which I hazard to guess is merely average.
Food banks can do so much more with cash, such as buy fresh produce from local farmers, than they can with your unwanted groceries, usually canned goods. Or if you're buying food specifically intending to donate it, do you really think the average person reading this (and 50% of you reading this are below average) is a better shopper with their $100 than the food bank is with $10,000+? Instead of shopping, spend that time with them, and still donate the same amount you would have spent.
I was surprised when I spent my own time and found out how much further they can stretch each dollar, and often provide healthier food.
I would begin with contacting an appropriate state department that helps those people and seeing if they know of any similar organizations, or if they provide grants for non-profit organizations that can assist people in poverty that way. California had quite a bit of money allocated for that, which led to some abuse of the system by a few of them.
This might be the first positive thing I've ever heard someone say about at&t. Mad props for distributing phones though! If you wrote up even a brief guide as to how to do this and common pitfalls I'd do the same in my area.
There's also huge e-waste and technological regression from shutting down the 2g and 3g networks. I have several perfectly good old phones that are now useless as phones. They were better phones than current ones, because they were smaller and used much less power, through the one weird trick of not containing what we used to call workstation-class processors. I don't understand why they couldn't make the current base stations (they are SDR anyway) serve multiple standards. I had thought that was possible.
> I don't understand why they couldn't make the current base stations (they are SDR anyway) serve multiple standards. I had thought that was possible.
They can, but 2g and 3g are not built for sharing spectrum. They'd need to allocate a block of spectrum to each, and the minimum size blocks are too big. LTE and 5g can better share, so a block can use LTE compatible coordination with 5g for some slots and LTe for others. This should let LTE stay deployed for much longer (unless 6g can't be deployed in a compatible mode)
Is there a way to get phones to you or information about how to do this myself? I am sure I could find similar programs if I looked but it sounds interesting.
Locking the phone to a carrier is not an anti-theft mechanism. They're available in abundance on the used market with no special protections of any kind from the carriers, the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier.
Maybe you're thinking of the locking mechanisms built in to Android and iOS?
I was mostly asking because the comment I replied to wasn’t perfectly clear and I’ve read more than a few complaints about e-waste caused by people forgetting to release things from their account before tossing it. I think what they’re doing is a great idea and was curious how much hassle it involved.
This issue is about carrier locks. It doesn’t prevent a phone from being used, it just prevents a phone from connecting to a service provider that isn’t the original retailer’s
> the only difference is that they sell for a fraction of the cost because you're locked in to the single carrier
I mean, that’s honestly kind of a theft deterrent. One that’s distributed on average amongst the set of all stolen phones, but anything that reduces the average expected value of a phone thief is de facto a deterrent.
Because carrier-locked phones to major carriers don't suffer a severely depressed price. AT&T has high market share it doesn't matter enough if a phone is locked to AT&T to prevent theft and depress resale prices.
>Most criminals clear less than they would working minimum wage.
I know people hate "Source?" as a reply but I think this claim really needs a source.
There is also the assumption that everyone has access to a job, which depending on where you are and what you're background is (we are very hostile to people with disabilities, physical "deformities" that people find unpleasant to look at, felony convictions, etc.) may or may not be true. A lot of folks turn to theft out of desperation.
It depends on what you mean by crime, income, etc. and what factors you consider - but as you note, people often start out desperate, and then escalate because crime doesn’t really solve the desperation. Some crimes do produce good income, relative to the same effort in a legal occupation, but most don’t. And in many (but not all cases) the people involved can’t actually get equivalent legal work. So it is difficult to compare.
An unlocked phone is indistinguishable from a locked phone until you attempt to sign it up for another network. That distinction isn’t made until the phone is already stolen.
If I’m a thief, I steal the phone either way. Sometimes I get a carrier locked phone and only make $10 (realistically more. Carrier locked phones sell at a discount around 20-50%), or I get an unlocked phone and make $400.
Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.
If the average selling price of a stolen phone drops, the incentive to steal phones does so too.
> Your argument is the same that carrying less cash would make you less of a target for pickpockets. It won’t. They will steal a wallet with no cash as fast as a wallet stuffed with hundreds.
People don't tend to carry cash any more. And you know what has stopped happening as often as a result?
But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525.
The carrier lock mostly just affects the owner of the phone, and the resale value when they are done with it. In completely unshocking news, TMobile also has a program to buy back t-mobile phones, unlock them, and sell them on.
Stealing a $400 phone vs stealing a $525 phone is irrelevant to the thief.
What DOES stop thieves is activation and firmware locks. Phone theft is way down since Apple effectively made it impossible to use a phone that hasn't been logged out of. Those phones are only worth what their unlocked parts are worth, which is not that much.
> But what you are missing is that a carrier locked phone isn't worthless, it is worth quite a bit. A carrier locked iphone 14 sells for ~$400 on ebay, an unlocked one sells for ~$525.
A reduction in average selling price is a reduction in incentive to steal, full stop. I'm not sure how you can argue with that. I'm not stating it's 100% effective, I'm not stating that it's worth the cost, all I am saying is that it is a disincentive.
Because my belief is that the number of thefts doesn't exist on a relatively linear curve, which would have to be true for your position to be correct.
My bet is that stealing phones is more like a thresh-hold. Does this crime pay > $x? Then I will do the crime. In this case I suspect that $x is well below the selling price of an unlocked phone. There isn't a gradual dropoff, at least not in the region between $400-$520.
I could also argue that carrier locked phones could have a paradoxical increased effect on theft. If the expected value of stealing a phone is lower, the average thief needs to steal more phones to make the same amount of money.
Phone theft in areas with predominately iPhones went from ‘very common’ to ‘non-existent’ because of Apple’s remote bricking.
In theory there may be a point you’re describing, but in SF for instance people just started looting cars instead of mugging (or snatch and grabbing) phones.
Carrier locking is not firmware locking! Carrier locking doesn't disable a stolen phone. It disables the use of non approved carriers on the phone, stolen or not.
That's my whole point. Carrier locking used to be standard, even on iPhones, and phone theft was very common too. Carrier locking wasn't a theft deterrent.
Firmware locking is a great theft deterrent. A stolen iPhone is basically just a few cheaper used parts, and all the expensive ones are useless.
Yes, but one harms the consumer far more than any possible benefit from reduced theft (again, I would argue that carrier locks don't reduce theft), and the other causes no harm to the consumer while providing a huge benefit by reducing theft.
So we have a measure that is, at best, “marginally effective” as a theft deterrent by your phrasing and actively harms consumers while actively benefitting the entities that artificially impose it.
The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.
You seem to think that I have said there is a marginal reduction in theft due to carrier locks. I do not think that is the case at all, and I have said so.
I am arguing that the reduction in theft due to carrier locks is 0. You are arguing that it is small (marginal).
I am saying that no matter what, the actual cost of the carrier lock to the consumer (as demonstrated by used phone values on eBay), is far higher than whatever marginal benefit you are arguing for.
It is a massive net loss to the consumer, and the only guaranteed beneficiary is the wireless carrier.
Indeed. Anecdotally I’ve seen in a few places where the going rate for one carrier or another is actually a bit higher than unlocked because people aren’t that well-informed and think “I need a Verizon phone cuz I’m on Verizon.”
Which was pretty universally true in the USA 15 years ago.
Before Verizon stopped using pre-LTE, most unlocked phones wouldn't work on Verizon. I imagine you get burned by that once, and then you pay attention longer than necessary.
Ding ding ding, that's the key. There are some people who will mug you for any amount > $0.00. You can't make crime disappear by lowering the value. As that value drops, though, fewer and fewer people will bother as the risk/reward ratio shifts. You'll still have crimes from people desperately sick with drug addiction who need something, anything, to get more, and they're notoriously bad and risk/reward calculations anyway. You'll have fewer crimes from people who'd otherwise think, hey, let's go out and boost some phones for spending money.
It is 100% an anti theft mechanism - it prevents people from stealing phones from carriers. The scam is:
- get a new iphone from tmobile that costs $30 over 2 years.
- don’t pay them anything: you just got a free iphone. Tmobile is mad and won’t provide service to that handset because you stole it from them.
- You open a new line with at&t and tell them you’re bringing your own phone.
Carrier locking prevents this. If someone steals your phone on the train that’s a different problem with a different solution
That is a weird take which is not informed by an understanding of how business operates.
It is 100% an _exclusive dealing_ mechanism. (This is a term of art for a business strategy which may not be legal in the current context, by the way.) It was undoubtedly implemented because it's a way to make more money. Businesses love imposing exclusive dealing. It can reduce their competition and increase their margins. We have businesses all over the American economy doing it.
Now does this particular case of exclusive dealing also serve to reduce theft? Perhaps it does, a case can be made. But what is 100% certain is that anti-theft was not the motive for doing exclusive dealing. It's the other way around. The FTC recognizes that. Any nominally honest judge or business executive would recognize that. Anti-theft is an afterthought compared to the billions in profits at stake.
This is incorrect. You can pay off a phone early and simply ask that it be unlocked - the carrier will happily comply because you are no longer a credit risk. You can also just purchase phones unlocked by paying cash upfront. You don’t need to be a genius to deduce how this works.
The imei blacklists for theft were created much later and aren’t honored globally
Where are they not honored globally in the first world bar Romania and Africa/China?
iPhones are effectively rendered useless even with IMEI blacklisting due to the iCloud tie-in. When stolen phones end up there, the receivers on the Asian end try and guilt/shame/social engineer the original owner to unlock from iCloud - but there's basically no technical solution.
For those that claim 'oh but the OEM parts resale value only' need to keep up with the news:
Back in 2012 there were international agreements which required us cellular carriers to enforce locking phones. Those may have been unwinded by now but it’s not a simple “just force the companies to do it” scenario
A) This isn't what OP was asking about. They're pretty clearly asking about stolen devices from a consumer, not consumers stealing devices from carriers.
B) Your take is complicated by the fact that there actually is a secondary market for locked phones [0], so this isn't just about people rent-to-owning a phone with an explicit installment plan.
My point is that carrier locking is about managing credit risk and fraud, not an evil plot to trap customers, and not a mechanism for discouraging street theft.
It’s only complicated if people conflate issues or fail to understand the mechanics of carrier locking. You can just call up a carrier and ask to have the phone unlocked and they’ll oblige if its paid off. Sometimes people confuse carrier locking with imei blacklists, which is for stolen handsets. Sometimes people confuse phones with modems or firmware that only work with specific carriers as “carrier locked” but again, that’s not the same thing
They're essentially extending credit lines to people they know nothing about. Sounds like they should just stop doing that. Their "lock down the phone" solution should be illegal.
That sounds like a speculation on a tangential benefit instead of the major consideration in locking phones. The carriers can blacklist any phone's IMEI at any point (in addition to the usual collections attempts, credit reporting etc) which achieves the same effect but better if a phone is stolen from them.
It’s not speculation - this is literally why cell phone locking was invented. The imei blacklists were created much later specifically for theft, not to manage credit risk of customers getting subsidized phones.
You can literally just call your carrier to ask how to get your subsidized phone unlocked. There’s no need to speculate- it’s not a secret!
To be fair, that was an argument that was put forth by carriers years ago (at least in Canada). That said, I don't think it has popped up as much (or at all) in recent years.
So your average phone costs $700-$800 retail new. Cost of repossession would be going to court, court costs, lawyer bills etc. I would end up costing $5000+ for a piece of used goods that is worth $300 if they are lucky.
None of the carriers care if the phone is stolen, unless it's reported as stolen. They only care if it stays on their network. As a practical matter I have to work with the phone's previous owner to erase it (eg, an Apple phone that's been associated with an iCloud account, or a Samsung phone associated with a Samsung account). The carrier lock only matters after I've gone to the trouble of erasing it since I won't distribute a phone that hasn't been erased.
So far I have never handled a stolen phone as far as I know so I don't know much about that angle. What I get are peoples old iPhone 7's that have been sitting in a drawer for a few years. They are eager to donate them but have no idea how to get their personal data off them, so the work I do is sitting down with them and walking them through the process. I would say that's about 1 hour per phone including getting to and from the donor, teaching them how to reset their iCloud account password (or Samsung account, whatever) to erase the phone. When I get a carrier locked phone I sell it on eBay and buy an unlocked phone or a bunch of chargers and cables. I'm always happy when the phone is from Verizon or was bought unlocked, but AT&T is better than most.
Nice. I can imagine volunteering to do that. Or helping to wipe old hard drives or laptops. Sounds satisfying.
Do you also help teach them how to navigate the changes to each new version of iOS/Android? I would find that frustrating... so many "hidden affordances", and increasingly complexity.
I imagine the phone's previous account having removed the device/cancelled service without filing any sort of loss/theft claim would help. And then a red flag would be the unlock call coming before the previous account adds a replacement phone/cancels service.
At least on the 4g days there was such a thing as a lost and stolen device database that was shared between providers. When the phone presents its IMEI to the network the process that checkes it’s subscriber status also checks if it’s IMEI is on that block list.
Upvoted in recognition of your activity, while "downvoting" the reality you report.
I should also mention that - while not directly accessible to homeless people - today it is quite easy to obtain new Smartphones, probably in bulk, which are quite usable with new version of Android and new apps, albeit not the most snappy, for something like 50 USD apiece (I just searched on AliBaba for example). I know such things can be quite legit technically, since I bought a a 75 USD smartphone individually, 10 years ago; and though it sometimes struggled a bit, it worked just fined. Only stopped using it because I was mugged, which was funny because the guy who took my phone was probably not happy he lifted something this cheap :-)
Anyway, that's an optional for buttressing your collection of used smartphones, to distribute.
I'm studying for my CFE (Certified Fraud Examiner) and can shed some light on this.
As others mentioned, unexplainable business models or money coming out of nowhere are major red flags. A few others to look out for if you are applying for a job:
1. Few or no internal controls. A medium-size or larger company not having a CFO is particularly questionable.
2. People in high positions, including the CEO, lack qualifications or experience. Often the CEO will hire inexperienced or incompetent people for high-level positions because they a) won't figure out what is going on or b) can figure it out, but are too grateful for the position to say anything. Or maybe the CEO never finished college in a field where everyone has a PhD (think Elizabeth Holmes).
3. History of experienced / qualified people joining the company and leaving soon after
4. Seemingly unexplained success.
5. Extravagant spending and inappropriate workplace behavior.
6. Cult of loyalty to the CEO and/or a "circle" around this person, including close interpersonal relationships.
I just had a meeting for a Job. Flags 2 and 4 were there already. Unclear business model. I have a PhD. While this does not make me necessarily smart, I have an insight and understanding of many industries. If I don't understand you business in a few sentences, you are either a fraud or are much much smarter than me.
I give you a few more red flags, but remember, this are red flags, not proof of fraud.
1. Operating over many jurisdictions.
2. Opaque payments/salaries. Either to good to be true or commission based.
3. People who don't understand numbers and often are off by a magnitude. The stock is worth 5 bucks, could go up 200 times and then ist 10k per stock. Company is worth now X billion, could be 200 times more. 200 times? We are taking market capitalization of the biggest players here, is this even possible for this specific industry?
4. Mentioning big names. Studied at MIT etc. (but very likely did not) Or for low lever frauds, build trust by assigning with law enforcement. (My farther works for the police, is a judge etc.)
5. If you know an industry you know the stuff, you know the numbers and you are never caught off guard by a question.
The pipeline into our collective understanding of tech is now:
scifi hype pitch -> VC flood of investment -> press releases across world -> governments worry -> disappointing IPO -> malpractice -> one or more execs arrested/sacked -> media elite across world convinced new invention will destroy the world
uber creates a taxi service, amazon an online mall, openai a ghost writer -- and we're all subject to an industry of VC hype men desperately trying to get those multiples above 20x by assaulting the popular consciousness with delusional BS
Most of them only have 'wild and inexplicable success' on some internal metric, they generally don't claim to have magically found a way to make billions of dollars on 'arbing btc in Tokyo'.
To be fair, there are business models where GAAP doesn't give the full picture. I am currently running an online poker business and GAAP is quite inadequate there
I think a big one is if nobody can explain you where the money is supposed to come from. If it is all hand-wavy and nobody can explain what that company is doing get out. In the best case it was legal, but they are incompetent morons.
Worldcom acquired the company I worked for. I saw their culture featured all manner of players, hustlers, empire builders, untouchable princes, etc. battling for turf. Lords and serfs. The stock was supposed to always go up. "Genius" businessmen somehow figured out how to print money where others had not. The company had a mutual fund that only held Worldcom stock in the 401(k) retirement plan. That was a huge red flag for me and it resulted in many of my colleagues losing their retirement savings. I was far from the levers of power but I had a really bad feeling about the leadership and left before the crash. Since then I have always instantly liquidated all options and stock grants and put them in safer investments. That can be a hard decision to make when you see many people getting rich (perhaps temporarily, perhaps not) betting on the equity to keep improving. But I kept expenses low, saved a lot, and still retired at 49 so I'm happy with how it turned out even if I passed on some big gains.
I think the hard part of this for naive young people is that you have to actually do some investigation. This should be front-and-center during your interview process. When they get around to asking if you have any questions for them, you should take that opportunity to see if this is a serious place.
1. When you cannot explain how, mechanically the business works
2. Management is elusive, opaque
3. Employees are lax about controls, compliance, even morality
If your gut says they might be criminals, they are probably criminals.
Far reaching stories of how money is made and the numbers don't actually make any sense. Or it is all financialization. Also unrealistic profits. Without known number of paying customers and known spending.
Worked in crypto and I got that vibe so left. Regret it. For every SBF there are hundreds who get away with it. Tons of talentless crypto millionaires still roaming free. Look at the Axie Infinite guys plundering a whole country. Token could collapse, but there’ll be no justice and they’re sitting on at least 8 figures individually
Lots of comments below criticising this post for "regretting not being a fraud" or some such. Be charitable... the sentence parses just fine as "I regret having worked in crypto".
> Reminds me of working for MCI-Worldcom. When you think you’re working for crooks, you probably are. Run away.
>> Worked in crypto and I got that vibe so left. Regret it. For every SBF there are hundreds who get away with it. Tons of talentless crypto millionaires still roaming free. Look at the Axie Infinite guys plundering a whole country. Token could collapse, but there’ll be no justice and they’re sitting on at least 8 figures individually
my understanding of this comment:
They worked in crypto, got the feeling they may have been working for crooks, so left and regret being part of it at all. They are upset that many scammers who made millions are still walking around and will face no justice.
vs what I think is a total misreading:
> Wait. Do you regret leaving? Because the fraud works out for some?
There are loads of people who successfully made millions and won't face justice, and they regret leaving before making similar money.
That is a weak justification, commonly used by criminals. A liar might say, 'everyone lies'; honest people don't say it. Unless we are engaging in a very philsophical discussion (possible on HN), we don't need to explain the problem in detail.
It's not a "justification" of anything, just a question for someone who blames other people industry as fraud. Just curious about way of thinking, nothing else.
And everyone lies indeed, those who deny it are either delusional or liars. It's human nature.
I didn’t blame an industry as fraud. GP was describing a specific fraud that occurred in an industry. Not the same. I’m sure there are legitimate crypto businesses.
Profiting by deception is why marketing even exists tbh. Nobody's plastering ads that outline products in factual unbiased way, it's all just a hair above what the law defines as actual fraud. Except one every so often that deliberately breaks the convention and is often even more likely to be deceptive by fooling people into thinking it's honest.
Worldcom had a business model that was ahead of its time. Show growth, raise stock price, use stock to buy companies, grow, rinse and repeat.
It worked great until regulators disallowed the Sprint purchase because it would have put too much of the long-distance market in one company. (And as we all know, we stress a lot about choosing our long-distance carrier these days.)
Then all of the somewhat shady side-deals became concerning, as WCOM was no longer growing like it was. Then people started looking more closely at the financials. Then it all went kerflooey.
It was ahead of its time because it's not that different from tech companies today, only replace business growth with user growth. Profits? Ha ha ha, don't be silly.
Worldcom was a fraud. I believe they were caught inflating their earnings (i.e. saying they made more money than they really did). This was not a business model “ahead of its time”. It’s a crime.
My YouTube addiction is scrolling the home screen looking for the viral garbage they promote to pollute my recommendations with things I would never want to see. I frequently don't watch any videos - I just play Whac-A-Mole on the recommendations.
Fastidious care for tires, and brakes. Best available tires for local conditions. Perfect windscreen hygiene. Possibly LED lights or replacement lenses.
This diet falls into the same trap that all temporary diets do: assuming a brief change followed by a return to SOP will result in meaningful change. Your diet is properly understood as what you eat regularly for long periods, or forever. Change that and you may get somewhere. After your 30s, eat less total calories each year.
