The smartphone kill switch debate is just getting started. Legislators and lawmakers in California as well as those in Washington D.C. are convinced that a mandate for a smartphone kill switch would greatly curb smartphone theft. Now, a new study reveals that not only do the majority of smartphone owners support the idea, but that a kill switch mandate could save consumers as much as $2.6 billion each year.
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, as well as legislators in California and New York state, are working hard to pass a law the would require handset makers and or network providers to create some kind of kill switch for all new smartphones. So far, nothing has come of the proposals, as carriers and smartphone manufacturers continue to fight the kill switch mandate.
Carriers and manufacturers are somewhat resistant to the idea for several reasons. Manufacturers often worry that a kill switch mandate will limit their ability to innovate and customize their devices, while carriers express concern over accidental activations of kill switches and wonder if kill switches will deter thieves or if customers even want that feature on their devices.
William Duckworth, associate professor of statistics, data science and analytics at Creighton University, decided that he wanted to find out.
In February 2014, Duckworth and ResearchNow surveyed 1,200 smartphone users about the idea of a smartphone kill switch and the results were astonishing.
The survey found that 99 percent of smartphone owners thought that carriers should be able to deactivate stolen smartphones. Another 83 percent believed that adding a kill switch would significantly reduce smartphone theft. Additionally, some 93 percent thought that the kill switch service should be free.
Dukcworth also estimated that consumers pay $580 million a year to replace lost and stolen smartphones and an additional $4.8 billion for insurance on their devices. After finishing his study, Duckworth calculated that if smartphone kill switches were made available, consumers wouldn't have to spend that $580 million replacing lost smartphones, or pay the most expensive type of device insurance anymore, resulting in at least $2.6 billion saved each year.
"I thought a high percentage would say yes, but it was a little surprising and maybe a bigger number than I would have guessed," he said. "I view losing a credit card as a similar frame of reference. If it is stolen or lost, I can call the credit card company and get it canceled and they can issue a new one. There is safety there. My smartphone has tons of information and accounts in there, so the idea that I could call and say 'kill it' is a very reasonable thing."
Leaders of the movement for a kill switch mandate are already taking advantage of Duckworth's findings to drum up support for the law on the state and national level.
"This survey confirms what we already knew to be the case, that wireless consumers would benefit tremendously from the implementation of theft deterrent technology on all smartphones," San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon said. "Beyond the financial benefits to consumers, however, the human costs of not implementing this technology on all smartphones are simply too great."
