Firms’ responses anger owners of stolen gadgets
“I finally concluded that Amazon knew the device was being used and preferred to sell content to anyone who possessed the device,’’ said Samuel Borgese, who lost his Kindle. (Librado Romero/The New York Times)By David Segal New York Times / September 7, 2009
NEW YORK - For decades, when a gadget was lost or stolen, a consumer went through three stages of grief: anger, mourning, and acceptance. You would be miffed, then sad, and then you would move on, in large part because moving on was the only option.
Then came the Digital Age and with it, devices that manufacturers can keep tabs on - and even profit from - when they wind up in the hands of someone who has found or poached them. This has led to a fourth stage of gadget-related grief: rage.
Specifically, rage at the gadget makers, which often know exactly who has AWOL devices, because in many instances they have been re-registered.
But many technology companies will not disclose information about the new users of devices unless a police officer calls with a search warrant. Even a request to simply shut down service - which would deter thieves by rendering their pilfered gadget useless - is typically refused.
The problem has reached new heights with the Kindle reader from Amazon, with its ability to download books wirelessly and store hundreds of titles.
On websites devoted to the gadget, including Blog Kindle and Amazon’s own Kindle Community board, many customers have been in a snit over Amazon’s policy on stolen Kindles.
Samuel Borgese, for instance, is still irate about the response from Amazon when he recently lost his Kindle. After leaving it on a plane, he canceled his account so that nobody could charge books to his credit card. Then he asked Amazon to put the serial number of his wayward device on a kind of do-not-register list that would render it inoperable.
Amazon’s policy is that it will help locate a missing Kindle only if the company is contacted by a police officer bearing a subpoena. Borgese, who lives in Manhattan, questions whether hunting down a $300 e-book reader would rank as a priority to the New York Police Department.
“I finally concluded,’’ Borgese said, “that Amazon knew the device was being used and preferred to sell content to anyone who possessed the device, rather than assist in returning it to its rightful owner.’’
Drew Herdener, an Amazon spokesman, said only that the company acted in accordance with the law and cooperated with law enforcement officials.
Amazon’s policy is not unique.
Sirius XM Radio officials also say they need to see a subpoena from a police officer before they will deactivate or hand over information about missing radios. Patrick Reilly, a company spokesman, said the goal was “to protect the original subscriber who has lost the radio, but also not to incriminate someone who legitimately comes in possession of a radio.’’
But former customers who have inquired about the fate of their stolen radios have been dismayed at how little company representatives are willing to help.
“I still don’t understand why they couldn’t just notify the police department and tell them who has my radio,’’ said Dolly Richards of Kennewick, Wash., whose Sirius radio was plucked from a Chevy Blazer. “I mean, there’s a whole police report about this break-in. They can’t call and say, ‘So and so just registered that radio’ ’’?
Source