A new approach to Re: Itch3: Anti-lost/theft protection

[Attila Csipa]

On Wednesday 28 February 2007 21:29, kkr wrote:
> > out that it is sending expensive foreign/roaming SMS-es because the
> > previous owner 'forgot' to turn off a silent alarm/anti theft application
>
> Is the same for car alarm... When you sold something, you do have to do
> the necessary action (in other case, you're too responsive for the
> damage)

It seems I have been a bit too cryptic - I put the word forgot in '' exactly 
because that way a Neo seller can fraud you by _intentionally_ doing this. 
Image the suggestion in a previous message in this context: 

overtaxed calling number (for the profit of the victim). 

If someone sells you a phone with that enabled _on purpose_, so he would get 
both the price of the phone AND some money frauded from the unsuspecting 
buyer (and claim later that he either did not get any money or that the theft 
alarm was not on on purpose). If he does this on a small scale, he could even 
get away unnoticed for months or years sipping a few $ per month from the 
real victim which is in that case the new owner of the phone. That's one of 
the main reasons why proactive theft reactions, especially financial, are NOT 
really an option.

> In this case, when you buy on ebay, you do have to receive the prove
> that the phone is not stolen, in other case (even if I'm not a lower),
> the buyer is too in fault...

Since in our case it is already a second hand item proof of purchase is not 
readily available on most of the ebay items in that category - not many 
customers keep the papers, or even boxes that came with the phone. Sure, you 
can say that it is unwise or even illegal, but many of the used items on ebay 
have absolutely no 'proof of ownership' (do you ask proof of ownership on a 
garage sale or a flea market ?).