Cellphone concerns

Research by the U.K. Home Office has found that students are especially vulnerable to snatching of mobile phones. This is something that should interest Indian parents, some of whom are mindlessly generous to their wards in this respect. - K.R. DEEPAK

While use of cellphones to facilitate crime is serious, of greater concern is the fact that these phones have become a profitable target for street gangs.

They are offences of a particularly worrying nature. They are worrying because of the effect which they have on the public, the effect they have on the victims in particular, and on the fact that they undermine the criminal justice system.

- Lord Chief Justice Wolf of England and Wales (2002)

THAT technology is both a blessing and a curse is a generally accepted proposition. Nowhere is this truer than in the case of mobile telephones, which, until about five years ago, were a luxury, but are now annoyingly ubiquitous and an unmitigated intrusion into polite and serious conversation. We are all helpless witnesses to their staggering growth, a phenomenon that was predicted only very slightly earlier.

China had 374 million subscribers last year; there could be 430 million by the end of 2006. The numbers are galloping in India at an annual rate of 15 per cent and are expected to touch 128 million in a few months. More than four million phones were added this August alone. Incidentally, India is the fifth nation to join the `100 million mobiles club', which includes the United States, China, Russia and Japan. This mind-boggling growth has no doubt facilitated international commerce, trade and travel. But it has brought along with it problems that have an undeniable impact on crime.

Like cyber crime, in which computers have been the targets of crime as well as the medium through which crime is perpetrated, mobile phones are both objects of theft and tools that enable easy commission of crime of a wide variety. Theft of phones, in particular, is mounting so fast and leaving the victims so traumatised that Lord Chief Justice Wolf of England and Wales was once greatly provoked when handling the petitions of three thieves appealing against lower court sentences. He went to the extent of enhancing the penalty of two of them. While doing so, he said:

"Frequently they involve offences against victims who are either young in age... or elderly people - people in both categories who are vulnerable because of their age. The courts have no alternative but to adopt a robust sentencing policy towards those who commit these offences. Those who do so must understand that they will be punished severely. Custodial sentences will be the only option available to the courts when these offences are committed, unless there are exceptional circumstances. That will apply irrespective of the age of the offender and irrespective of whether the offender has previous convictions."

These strong sentiments expressed by an outstanding judge highlight the gravity of this category of modern crime.

Mobile phones are sleek and becoming more and more user-friendly. The number of functions they can perform is increasing by the day. So much so that they have nearly replaced personal computers. Most importantly, not all brands are expensive, although a few with extraordinary features are. Also, operating costs are low because the sheer volume of traffic has persuaded many companies to bring down call rates. Naturally, everyone would like to own a mobile phone for the convenience it brings to day-to-day life. So far, so good.

The flip side is that criminal gangs find cellphones to be a useful tool to communicate among themselves from any location, especially a crime site, without attracting attention. Such phones have doubtless made the commission of crime easier than before and are therefore a thorn in the flesh of law enforcement. There is hardly anything that even the best of policemen can do to check the extensive use of cellphones by law-breakers. (There is a feeling that SMS messages are more difficult to intercept than regular conversation over cellphones and therefore elude the law enforcement net.)

It is an entirely different matter that those who are expected to uphold the law, such as jail staff, themselves smuggle phones into prisons for the benefit of inmates, wholly for a monetary consideration!

While use of phones to facilitate crime is serious, what is of greater concern world over is that these phones have become an attractive and profitable property for street criminals to target. According to one estimate, over 2 million phones are stolen every year in the United Kingdom, which has about 37 million phone subscribers. The computed cost of the stolen phones is 390 million. In London alone, about 10,000 phones are stolen each month. Elsewhere on the Continent, in recent years, a major city like Amsterdam reported an 80 per cent rise in cell phone theft. In the Czech Republic and some of the other East European countries the number of phones stolen every year is about 11,000.

Unfortunately, Crime in India, which is the official publication of the Union Home Ministry, does not provide this specific piece of statistic. My own impression is that our cities do not lag behind their Western counterparts. I also know that there is a general apathy in the country, which is not exactly conducive to bringing this form of crime under control. The insurance cover that most phones enjoy could be one major reason for this indifference to protective measures that are generally recommended. Police personnel also do not care very much, citing other priorities, which presumably do not permit the luxury of spending time on investigating phone theft. I am almost certain that the trade in used phones is going to flourish in our country, irrespective of the fact that inexpensive phones are flooding the market.

Theft of mobile phones is a serious issue because it encourages violence on the streets. Instances are many of criminals literally snatching such phones ("phone-jacking") from those who openly display them in public. Any resistance during such a confrontation leads to a grave injury to the victim. A U.K Home Office research finds schoolchildren especially vulnerable. (This is something that should interest Indian parents, some of whom are mindlessly generous to their wards in this respect. I wonder how many of them care to advise prudence to their children in using such phones.)

A spurt in robberies and mugging in the U.K. during last year was attributed to crime that targeted mobile phones. Official statistics collected by the police and the sponsored British Crime Survey (BCS) confirm this trend. Attempts to steal a phone by violent means are grave enough to induce policy-makers and professional policemen to examine how to intervene and put those specialising in this form of crime out of business.

Internationally, there are several measures, including legislation, aimed at curbing phone theft. These are relevant more than before because this crime is rising alarmingly in almost every country. There is a well-drafted Consultation Paper of the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which it prepared as early as January 2004. It sets out the problem in all its dimensions. Not much is, however, known about the follow-up action taken by the Indian government.

The strategy everywhere is primarily one of enforcing some discipline among cellphone users, so that they deny an opportunity to the underworld. Open display of phones - especially when a cell phone has ceased to be a status symbol - is an invitation to disaster. A few years ago a young woman in London was shot in the head during a struggle with an offender who was trying to snatch her phone.

Receiving or making a call while on a crowded street has to be avoided as far as possible. This is a difficult act of self-denial, although it may not be a wholly impractical way to neutralise a thief. Unattended phones in the office, at home or in any public place are an easy prey. Statistics indicate that a substantial number of phones are stolen from cars left in parking lots.

Crime prevention experts generally advocate target-hardening measures to reduce crime. These would include basic action to render a phone useless to a person who steals it from its lawful owner. Security settings of almost all telephones come with features that enable one to use a PIN (Personal Identification Number) that bars anyone who does not know this number from using the phone. When this number is known to have been compromised, the owner should immediately report it to the service provider who disables the SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card that enables one to make calls. This is almost like first-aid in a medical emergency.

Deactivating the SIM does not make a stolen phone unusable forever. The offender can still buy a new SIM card in his or a fictitious name (something that is becoming increasingly difficult with service providers demanding proof of identity). It is here that the facility to disable an instrument itself comes in handy. Each has what is known as an IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identifier) number that can be used to deactivate the instrument itself, so that it becomes totally worthless in the hands of an unlawful possessor. This is why it is necessary for each owner to keep the number readily available in his records, so that he can inform the service provider.

According to some service providers, the IMEI is not tamper-proof and it is not difficult to duplicate a legitimate IMEI. (The U.K. has a Mobile Telephones (Re-Programming) Act, 2002, which makes it a criminal offence for anyone trying to alter the IMEI. I wonder whether our lawmakers have ever thought of this.)

A few handset makers counter this by pointing out that the more-recent phones have chips carrying the IMEI, which are not all that easy to hack. I am not competent to dispute either claim. Suffice it to say that an IMEI provides a measure of safety that will be unwise to ignore by a phone owner, especially when he stores so much precious personal information in it.

Utimately a lot will depend on the partnership between government and phone makers/service providers to do everything possible to frustrate a potential phone thief.

I find this partnership very strong in the U.K. Five major operators there have joined together to set up a Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum (MICAF), which pledges action within 48 hours of the reporting of a lost phone to block it from an unauthorised possessor. They will actively share information on stolen phones that is crucial to the whole exercise. (The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) has its role cut out here.) The U.K. also has a national database of lost telephones, which comes in handy to a police investigator.

The online auction site eBay and the National Mobile Phone Crime Unit (NMPCU), comprising several enforcement agencies such as the Police, Immigration and Customs departments, have also teamed up to fight the menace. This initiative is helped by a National Mobile Phone Register, which holds details of over 10 million phones. Everyone buying a phone is encouraged to register here so that the information provided comes in handy during the investigation of a theft.

An ingenious measure adopted by the Amsterdam Police is to bombard possessors of stolen phones with an SMS message, every other minute, that will read: "You are in possession of a stolen cell phone. Did you know that stealing a cellphone is a crime punishable by imprisonment? Using a stolen cell phone is too, and you are risking a prison term of one year." If this does not persuade a thief from turning in the instrument, what else will?

Perhaps more ingenious is a software that sets off a scream from a phone that is being snatched. I am sure many of us would fancy such a device if not for the protection it offers at least for the entertainment it provides to those watching the intruder scurrying away from the scene.