MPs are criticizing Apple and Google for allegedly delaying an important anti-theft feature in order to prioritize their profits.
The Metropolitan Police instructed the two tech giants 18 months ago to implement a change that would render stolen smartphones useless to thieves.
But despite soaring phone theft – a staggering 80,000 devices were stolen in London last year alone – neither company has acted.
Now MPs have slammed the delay, warning that criminal gangs are cashing in while tech giants rake in billions.
Conservative MP and former Home Office minister Kit Malthouse expressed concerns, stating, ‘It feels to a lot of people like you’re dragging your feet … and actually sitting behind this is a very strong commercial incentive.’
‘The fact that £50 million of mobile phones are stolen in London every year means that if that stopped, that would be £50 million in sales that were depressed.’
According to Detective Chief Superintendent James Conway, the Met’s lead on mobile phone crime, two thirds of thefts in the capital now involve phones, costing customers and insurers an eye-watering £50 million a year.
Apple and Google are under fire from furious MPs who accuse them of deliberately stalling a vital anti-theft measure – all to protect their bottom line
But despite soaring phone theft – a staggering 80,000 devices were stolen in London last year alone – neither company has acted
James Conway, the Met Police’s lead on phone theft, said the scale of phone theft in London last year had a street value of around £20million and a replacement value of £50million
And the scale of international trafficking is staggering – 75 percent of stolen devices are shipped overseas, mostly to Algeria, China and Hong Kong.
Because UK mobile carriers block phones using IMEI numbers, rendering them useless here but overseas, the rules are often lax, making the phones a goldmine.
Police say it’s simple: stop stolen phones accessing Apple’s iCloud or Google’s cloud services, even abroad. That would make them useless to thieves.
‘We’re asking the cloud providers specifically to prevent a lost or stolen device from connecting to their cloud services,’ said Darren Scates, the Met’s chief digital and data tech officer.
‘This doesn’t even need to involve the police.’
When grilled by MPs on the Commons science, innovation and technology committee, Apple and Google execs refused to commit to implementing the change.
‘You could tomorrow stop phones that are on the IMEI blacklist connecting back to your services, if you so wish, both of you. But you won’t do it, why?’ demanded Lib Dem MP Martin Wrigley, a former tech industry professional.
Apple’s Gary Davis, global senior director of privacy and law enforcement, pushed back, claiming concerns over fraud and insisting Apple was still considering the request.
‘I deny a suggestion that we must somehow benefit from our users suffering the traumatic event of having their phones and being disconnected from their lives,’ he said.
Darren Scates – the Met Police’s chief digital, data and technology officer – told MPs about 80,000 smartphones were reported as stolen in London last year
Davis added that Apple had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-theft features, but failed to explain why the simple cloud-blocking request hadn’t been met.
‘Apple and Google continue to make profit and continue to sell more phones because these phones are not removed from the system,’ Wrigley shot back.
‘You owe it to the customers around the world to implement this immediately. No ifs, no buts, just do it.’
Google’s Simon Wingrove echoed concerns, saying the company needed to decide as an industry whether the move was ‘safe and sensible’ – but stopped short of any commitment.
He added that Google was ‘open to have that discussion’ with the Home Office.
The committee’s chair, Chi Onwurah, summed up the mood: ‘It is clear from the mood of the committee we don’t feel that either Google or Apple have a road plan to effective phone protection that doesn’t involve IMEI.
‘The lack of urgency about the subject given the suffering it entails is also coming across to us.’
