Skip to content

Loughborough University

Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171

The View - Spring / Summer 2008

Woman using a mobile phone with man in background

Making mobiles better by design

With mobile phone theft on the increase, a group of researchers from Loughborough’s Midlands Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice have been investigating the security measures that could help to reverse the trend, and whether the solution ultimately lies in handset design.

Until the early ‘90s, mobile phones were large, cumbersome objects – ‘bricks’ now remembered with a nostalgic mockery. But with the miniaturization of digital components has come increasing portability and ever more extensive technical capability. It’s therefore unsurprising that mobiles have become some of the most desirable objects to thieves.

According to the British Crime Survey, while general theft and robbery have declined significantly in the last decade, mobile phone theft is increasing. The rise can partly be attributed to the rapid growth in mobile phone ownership, which has doubled in the UK in the last six years. But researchers from the University’s Midlands Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice – Professor Graham Farrell, Jen Mailley and Shaun Whitehead – wanted to see whether a handset’s design also affects its attractiveness to thieves, and what types of security measures could impact positively on phone crime.

Over the last few years, the Government, police and industry have worked together to take steps to tackle the issue – a National Mobile Phone Crime Unit was established by the police in 2003; the Mobile Phone Crime Reduction Charter, introduced in 2006, committed the industry to block stolen phones quicker, making them less appealing to thieves; and legislation brought in made it illegal to try and reprogramme or ‘un-block’ a handset. To determine what other measures could be taken, the researchers initially looked to the car industry.

“The police have worked with the Home Office for many years to publish a car theft index, which shows the makes and models of car most at risk of being stolen and thereby provides consumers with invaluable information about vehicles’ security,” explains Jen Mailley. “As a result of the index, manufacturers made major improvements to car security, leading to a significant drop in vehicle-related theft.

“Inspired by this, we published what we think is the first-ever Mobile Phone Theft Index. Using data from over 100,000 stolen phone crimes in London, supplied by the National Mobile Phone Crime Unit, we compiled an initial top ten list according to the number of each model stolen.”

Unfortunately the team were unable to access sales figures for the phones, meaning they couldn’t be factored into their analysis of the police data. “It could be that the model that came top of our first list was simply the most commonly sold phone, rather than it being the most attractive to thieves,” explains Jen. “However, in our second version of the index we listed the phones on their risk of being stolen. We split the data into two – crimes, for instance burglaries, where a phone was taken alongside other items, and thefts where only a mobile was taken, which are more likely to involve the thief basing their decision on the phone’s model and design. By comparing the proportions of phones taken in the two types of robbery, we were able to develop the risk-based index.

“We know it’s still not perfect,” admits Jen, “but it’s a start. It’s at least focused attention back on the issue.”

However, the usefulness and validity of the index has been questioned by Jack Wraith, chairman of the Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum – the body representing members of the industry, including the phone networks, phone manufacturers and high street retailers, which was set up to address phone crime.

“A thief, in the main, steals a phone because the opportunity is there or the phone is a by-product of a robbery,” he claimed. “I don’t believe a thief stands on a street corner thinking: ‘I’m going to steal that because it’s a Samsung and not that one because it’s a Nokia.”

It’s a view that Jen strongly repudiates. “During the course of our research we interviewed former mobile phone thieves. From that we know that they do make decisions, albeit in haste, about the models to steal. The most appealing to them are obviously those that are of high value and are easy to sell on – the latest, ‘in-demand’ models.

“It’s surprising and disappointing that someone who’s the head of what’s meant to be a crime action forum is so out of date with the evidence that underpins reputable academic research.”

So what more could the industry be doing to address the issue? Design engineer Shaun Whitehead would like to see security measures built in to phones from the outset. “It usually follows that anti-theft devices are only applied to products once they’ve become serious crime targets, and even then it happens slowly, with the top-of-the-range models typically benefiting from the greatest number of features.When security becomes a competitive issue it’s a wonderful incentive, as we’ve seen with cars, and we hope that will happen with mobile phones,” he says.

Although some of today’s phone models have better security features, Jen believes their introduction is more for the industry’s benefit than the consumers’. She explains: “The iPhone has the functionality of the iPod and if you want to download music, for instance, the phone needs to be registered. But although the primary driver for that is more than likely to monitor consumer behaviour, it could also make the iPhone easier to trace if it’s stolen.”

As part of the research project, Shaun Whitehead reviewed the extent and nature of current anti-theft measures used by phone manufacturers, to determine the more effective devices and identify what else could potentially be done. He concluded that anti-theft designs should include at least one of a set of characteristics: they need to be Identifiable, Neutral, Seen, Attached, Findable, Executable, Hidden, Automatic, Necessary, Detectable, and Secure, which together form the acronym IN SAFE HANDS.

The team also interviewed around forty mobile phone thieves – a fairly novel approach, even within crime prevention research, says Jen.

“It sounds quite obvious, but if you want to know how and why a thief steals a mobile, ask one! We showed them some new security concepts that had been devised by the University’s Design and Technology students and asked if they’d deter them from taking a phone. I think they enjoyed looking at the issue from the other perspective.”

So what would the team like to see happen now in light of their research?

“Although steps have been taken to address some of the issues, the industry hasn’t really done anything new for a few years now, other than signing the charter to block phones more rapidly. And what they have done was in response to the Home Office’s drive to tackle street crime. All the key actions happened over a period of a couple of years, when the issue of street crime was getting a lot of media attention. Since then, independently, they haven’t done a huge amount,” says Jen ruefully.

“However I think the production of the mobile phone theft index by either the Home Office or police on a regular basis – perhaps even quarterly, so the data reflects reality on the streets – would really help to spur the industry into action, as it did in the car business. If consumers are demanding phones that offer better security, alongside great design and functionality of course, then the industry will have no choice but to come up with new, innovative solutions, which can only benefit everyone – except the thieves, of course!”

Want to know more? Contact: Professor Graham Farrell T: 01509 228369 E: G.Farrell@lboro.ac.uk Jen Mailley T: 01509 223616 E: J.C.Mailley@lboro.ac.uk and Shaun Whitehead E: shaun@creationeer.com

 

Want to know more?

Contact:

Professor Graham Farrell

Jen Mailley

Shaun Whitehead

* Photographs courtesy of the Royal Geographical Society

Also in this issue

Previous issue

About The View

The View highlights the important and original research that takes place at Loughborough University – research that matters.

The View is published by the
Public Relations Office
Loughborough University
Loughborough, LE11 3TU
T: + 44 (0)1509 222224
E: publicrelations@lboro.ac.uk

Editor: Judy Wing
T: +44 (0)1509 228697
E: J.L.Wing@lboro.ac.uk