[aklug] Re: brick phones

I agree.  Bricking the phone is extreme.  

Much more concerning to me is goverment legislation at any level.  Customers and carriers have the freedom to come up with some range of service without government involvement at all. Some might choose bricking and some might choose something else.  Even a third party service would be preferrable to legislation.  If there is a market for some service, let the entrepreneurs figure it out.

Dean Sawyer

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Mike <barjunk@attglobal.net>
Date: 02/10/2014 11:08 AM (GMT-09:00)
To: James Tweet <jamestweet@yahoo.com>,aklug@aklug.org
Subject: [aklug] Re: brick phones
 
I think bricking the phone is too extreme.

It makes sense to limit the service to 911 only or to send a text 
message saying they need to contact the carrier because of some problem.

Mike B.

Quoting James Tweet <jamestweet@yahoo.com>:

> You have never had a $600 dollar phone stolen have you.
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:11 PM, Christopher Howard 
> <christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> wrote:
>
> For those of us who haven't had time -- is there anyone who has been
> watching this issue?: I've been hearing about a recent push (I think
> this has been suggested before) from members of congress saying that we
> should try to end all cell phone theft by forcing manufacturers to
> design their cell phones so that they brick themselves when stolen.
>
> Personally, anytime I hear the word "legislation" used in any discussion
> related to technology, I get a nervous twitch. But anyone know more
> about this?
>
> --
> http://www.lugod.org/presentations/pgp/why.html

---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.

---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Mon Feb 10 19:35:16 2014