|
Mobile Phone Security Solutions
Not long ago I wrote of the concerns of communications professionals within the business community and public services as to the vulnerability of employers to attack, and the state of their preparedness to prevent, detect and respond effectively. It was the concerns of the specialist professionals that led to the establishment of the Institute for Communications Arbitration and Forensics ICAF in the spring of last year.
One of those areas in which the new Institute has been especially active is that of Mobile telephone related crime. In this article, I want to discuss some of the key issues that affect all of us directly and indirectly, and some constructive approaches to combating m-crime.
A commentator on GSM recently mentioned that saturation of mobile telephony in a country is generally acknowledged to have been achieved when 82 percent of the population own a mobile phone. Here in the UK it is reported that over 73 percent of the population own a mobile or have access to a mobile. Some 43 million of us subscribe to GSM and send approximately 70 million SMS texts in a year.
If those statistics are correct how many mobile telephones are owned? The answer to that question may never really been known. Not least because some users will only have one mobile unit and some will own multiple units. What we all appreciate though is that GSM is ingrained in our consumer and business society. GSM therefore is a success story, for it brought a technological advantage to the market place that genuinely met a customer need, both public and business, and is a credit to all those involved in creating such a user-friendly communication system. This should not be forgotten when set against the morass of reports about crime.
But ‘events’ mean that we are now being forced to deal with the question of mobile telephones and crime, whether we like it or not. Why is that so? As a consequence of supply into and demand from the consumer market place, crime has risen apparently exponentially. It ranges from road traffic accidents at the bottom of the scale to use of mobile phones used in the commission of a crime, from malicious and hoax telephone calls to drugs importation, armed robbery and murder. At the top of the scale, certainly as measured by current media coverage, is the theft of mobile telephones themselves.
Attempts to quantify mobile phone theft are problematical because such theft has so many aspects. One example, what are the figures for theft of brand new mobile telephones occurring from robberies from warehouses and shops and sent for export (this is known as the grey market)? There are numerous reports on TV and in the press about this but little by way of statistics to show how prevalent it is.
It is understandably theft from the vulnerable, our children, that has particularly engaged public attention. This has recently been reported in a Home Office Research Study, 235 Mobile phone theft, prepared by RDSD (Research, Development and Statistical Directorate) and published in December 2001. The report points out :
“There is currently a dearth of research concerning mobile phone theft. However, the marked increase in mobile phone ownership in the last few years, particularly among young people, has made mobile phones an attractive target for theft. The fact that, among young users in particular, mobile phones are frequently on display only adds to their vulnerability.”
In order to distinguish how such thefts occur the “report concentrates heavily upon robberies in which mobile phones are involved” brought about by “Concern over the recent rise in robbery offences and claims that the rise was fuelled by phone robberies, led the Home Office to set up several Working Groups.”
Figures cited in the report indicate the level of theft at approximately 500,000. Underpinning that stark statistic is a user culture amongst young people possessing mobile phones. The user culture is one in which young people display their mobile units. It’s a culture that mobile network operators and handset manufacturers have actively promoted, with phones portrayed as must-have fashion accessories. Would-be ‘cool’ male users, as indicated in many reports and news articles, perceive certain types or models of unit, the more functionality the better, as affording them greater status. Females on the other hand still look to fashion. Both male and female acquire music ring-tones to indicate their individuality. Now we reach the point where a number of informed commentators and experts have suggested that mobile phones should be used and removed from sight immediately. Or only used in private. Are the operators and manufacturers going to wear that?
It has been suggested also that organisations examine the causes, nature and extent of theft within the general population in comparison with theft of business mobile phones, from among their own employees. That sounds like an excuse for yet another internal audit for an organisation, another policy and procedure to be written, or at least an existing one updated.
A key element with a GSM mobile telephone is its combination of handset and SIM (Subscriber Identity Module). Both have a value and once activated both contain features that are appealing to the criminal.
Handsets
Multi-rich feature handsets are now rising in price, but not as a consequence of responsible action to deter theft from young people. It has more to do with moving users to the next generation of feature-rich mobile technology. GSM doesn’t really lend itself well to 3G features such as video streaming and emails, despite the appearance of WAP.
‘Pre-paid’ exploded into the consumer market place and handsets were virtual give-aways, bringing the UK close to saturation. The mobile industry wants to move on, but I am not sure the educated consumer agrees that now is the time. And the recent crime statistics suggest one reason why not. ‘Empowering’ people with ever more highly priced accessories, no matter the status symbol, may encourage the less than honest. Employers, for example, do not want their employees being menaced and robbed.
The mobile handset manufacturers need to educate business by working more closely with business. They need to explain why organisations should use their products. This is taken for granted at the moment and unless the organisation asks about security the subject is submerged in the glossy sales patter. Thus the culture change is for the handset manufactures to make, and not business.
It potentially means less fashion oriented advertising and more dialogue and research with the industry associations’ security sectors. Most certainly the Institute for Communications Arbitration and Forensics (ICAF) would welcome this approach. The positive outcome for manufacturers will be to find out at the local level what needs to be done rather than attempting one global solution that doesn’t work.
SIM (Subscriber Identity Module)
This is another area where network operators and SIM manufacturers should not be excluded. SIM is a credit card and is numbered in accordance with the ITU-TE118 charge card numbering scheme. Whilst the handset (a card accepting device (CAD)) has a value and is seen as a fashion accessory, a stolen SIM can generate a charge until it is barred or its credit runs out. Theft of handsets also entails theft of the SIM leading to multi-million pounds sterling losses to network operators and their customers each year.
SIM, as with high priced feature-rich handsets, is a target for those who are less than honest. For example, if new services come on line that allow SIM to be used to make purchases from vending machines, that could further accelerate the rise in theft of handsets.
M-Commerce
The Government is a formidable proponent of E-education and the requirement for technologies to bring e-commerce to the consumers. Mobile telephones have been an essential ingredient and perhaps one reason why sale of the 3G licences ran into billions. With the rocketing figures for theft of mobile phones, this is an issue that neither Government nor the mobile network operators can afford to ignore.
Future
It would be unfair of us to demand simply that the mobile network operators, SIM and handset manufacturers should do more to prevent the rise in robbery of mobile telephones. Its no good expecting answers from them without both supply and demand sides of the industry having identified and considered those factors that contribute to appropriate questions being asked in the first place.
Those factors are scattered throughout the user spectrum. Here ICAF, together with its parent CMA, is well placed to help provide an informed basis, one that enables the right questions to be asked. Then we might get some real solutions.
If the mobile industry continues on its present path it may find itself facing some form of regulation. The major players may feel their industry is already over-regulated. They may well prefer self-regulation. In that case they must accept that with self-regulation comes responsibility. That, in turn, leads to a possible way forward to help deal with mobile phone crime. First, I would argue that government could and should provide adequate resource to those organisations or bodies within the industry who are best placed to help ask the questions and find solutions at the local level. In addition, and if necessary as an alternative, the industry should take up the resourcing priority.
CMA, parent association of ICAF, is a possible partner here. It has a 43-year history in the telecommunications sector. When technology integration came about CMA was one of the first to embrace the challenges. CMA remains the premier body in the UK for communications management. It foresaw the need for effective security and the identification of communications related risks arising from the delivery of new technologies.
Last April, CMA launched the Institute for Communications Arbitration and Forensics (ICAF) to deliver best practice in security related matters. The combined knowledge and experience of both these organisations is already providing support for working partnerships with others.
ICAF is active in industry sectors across the communications technology spectrum, as well as with law enforcement and other interested parties. Output includes the production of recommended policies, and the training necessary in applying the procedures that underpin those policies. Technology solutions are also being identified along the way.
Mobile phone crime cannot be put right by a simple technological modification alone, it is more diverse and widespread than that. It requires a change in the whole supply and demand chain, value-added chain, as well as new technological solutions.
There have been many lessons learnt from the government’s approach to dealing with terrorism. It consulted with those working at the coalface. It went further and empowered several private sector groups to assist. This needs to be extended much further.
The same well-balanced approach should be applied to communications technology related crime through partnerships with and resourcing of trusted-third parties. That applies especially to membership-based user bodies which can access the depth and diversity of knowledge contained within their members. Getting user-organisations involved substantially but expecting them to contribute free-of-charge is no longer viable.
The outcomes of government and/or industry resourcing for such an approach are twofold. Firstly, the understanding of mobile network operators, SIM and handset manufacturers will be enhanced, helping them to come up with implementable solutions that genuinely meet customers needs. Secondly, user organisations and those they represent can implement an informed response that will benefit themselves and others through incorporation into their own policies and procedures. The ultimate goal here of course is to reduce the paths which crime exploits.
So, much as the media might like them, there are no simple answers as to how we go about reducing mobile crime, especially theft of mobile phones. Because of its impact, damage and other implications, this is an issue for the business community as much as it is for the private citizen. It is evident that previous solutions, applied under a tightly controlled regime, are failing. There are constructive ways forward. But who is prepared to resource the work needed to get progress?
 Top of Page
|
