Decay On Net

errr..how does the wrong password triggering the automatic sending of a sms to a pre-defined number of your choice disclose the thief's handphone number?

Do you mean if sim card is inside? What if the user is not a thief but bought the phone off someone else? Then the number you receives is not the thief right...

Also, what if the perceived "thief" did not do anything about it? Are you going to chase up their service provider for their detail? Should they release to you the information just because you ask for it? Even if you mentioned Bak2u, do they have to meet your request? What if they do not, what else can u do? Even if they release the details to you, what are you going to do about it? Get a lawyer and sue him? Sue him until his pant drops? Get him at any cost? Is it worth it? The money can be spent buying another brand new phone! I am skeptic about how this thing would actually work in reality. If this service is provided by singtel or M1 maybe they could integrate it into their system and provide some security of sorts. But Bak2u is who? Even if you go to the police to tell them Bak2u has helped you to catch the apparent "thief", they would go like "huh" ? Bak2u? Who are they? How do they identiy? How perfect is their system? Bear in mind, even odex's case was so powerful but still threw out by the court. And that is something worth pursuing because a lot of money was involved. But a mobile phone? I think the prospect is overated. Just my 2 cent.

Q. errr..how does the wrong password triggering the automatic sending of a sms to a pre-defined number of your choice disclose the thief's handphone number?

Do you mean if sim card is inside? What if the user is not a thief but bought the phone off someone else? Then the number you receives is not the thief right...

If a wrong password is entered it indicates that the user is not the owner, thus pick up the necessary information and send it out.

Password can be changed when the phone is sold, since owner can enter into the program and reset it to the new owner.

As for the rest of the question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29kj9Pchjmw

Right, say if i pick up a phone on the floor, i then switch it on. It ask for my password. I enter a password and then its wrong.

So then your "necessary information would be smsed to somewhere".

Now where did the "necessary information" comes from?

Sorry paddy, i think i need to rephrase my question.

What i meant was the person keying in the wrong password.

Lets call him A since he might not be a thief. So A keyed in a password, it says wrong. And you mean then the information of A would be smsed to somewhere?

My question is where and how do you derive any information about this person by a wrong password?

Refering to your youtube video, I understand about the mobile ID thingy. And i understand about the possibility of tracing a lost/stolen phone through its ID. I think the service provider could actually do it if they wanted to. But i think they are not putting this out as a service to subscriber.

Back to my point, how am i going to get my phone back if some information had been smsed to me. What is in the information?

I like to use the example of insurance..

Some of us have insurance. If something happens, that involved cash or support it is there as a safety net.

But having insurance should not make us not careful and careless also. Crossing the road, you still gonna watch for the cars.

There is no perfect system if the user or owner do not take care of its own life or properties also.

If a phone is lost, without any form of security protection it can be as good as lost forever too.

When the sms is received, the spouse, colleagues, IT support can call the police or the thief.

We work with the police to provide the necessary documentations too and till date many phones have been recovered also.


Again, replacing a mobile phone is easy but definitely not the data that is in it. The value of the data for some users may just exceed the value of investing in the software itself also. :)

It is however not for everyone also, just like whether one believe in insurance or not drawing in parallel.

What i meant was the person keying in the wrong password.

Lets call him A since he might not be a thief. So A keyed in a password, it says wrong. And you mean then the information of A would be smsed to somewhere?

My question is where and how do you derive any information about this person by a wrong password?

----\

Good question! Lets say based on this software which requires the password due to the mechanism of the operating system...

yes a password is required. So now we are based on a situation where someone found it.

Say when this person has no intention to return, probably he may switch it off? Since the owner will most likely call back his own number? So the information will be from the SIM card of the person with no intention to return.

In that Youtube video, that was in reference to another software PhoneBAK Mobilephone for Nokia etc... that one do not require password but instead trace on the unauthorised SIM card.

I suggest you refer to:
Http://BAK2u.com where there are more details which be easier to read than to cut and paste all over DK's blog :)

Again, there is no perfect system so we ourselves also dont dare to claim it is but at a fraction of the price of the phone, there is a fighting chance that it be returned or at least secured confidential information also even if the phone is not retrieved back.

Right, but our first reaction on a stolen phone or a found phone is to switch it on first, so if we see a bak2u login screen, then why would i still want to put in my sim card knowing the phone is secured by baku2?

Also what if i am a buyer of a found or stolen phone? Am i require to return to you by law? IF i don't, am i liable for any lawsuits? I mean even if i am, does it make sense to sue?

Also not forgetting the sim card may be a top up card, in such situation there will not be any information available.

So theoritically if bak2u is popular worldwide one day. Thieves switching a stolen phone and greeted by a baku2 login screen, would just deem the phone unusable and chuck - i think that is a reasonable assumption. So then my phone is still not returned to me anyhow. In short i am paying $19.90 for my phone to be deemed unusuable if it is lost one day?

Ahhh ok then a "fighting chance".

Ok, noted with grace.

Hi, just to clarify incase it is read that anyone who found a phone is a thief. They are not. :)

Sometimes, it is not that the person has the intention to steal but at times they are curious over the lost phone and play with it.

Therefore when the owner/spouse/friends calls up they be more than happy to return it. The objective is getting the Phone BACK (bak) and not to catch the thief.

The authorities are the better guy to do so, not us the citizens to take matters onto our own hand.

More than often, the person will be more than willing to return cos with the ability to call up the person telling him that you know he took the phone, it be quite shocking.

If not, show the message and make a police report and with the contact number of the person, he be asked to explain himself also.

There was a case last year:
http://tinyurl.com/26g8rz

Err... you are assuming that there is a password with huge BAK2u logo indicating that it is an anti theft software in it. It dont :)

Wow... I was just away for a couple of hours and this place become a mini FAQ forum. Haha.

Errr.... anything that I can help?

Anon: There is no 100% foolproof anti thief software/device. But BAK2u does increase the chances of your phone being returned to you.

Hahahah! Yeah I happened to be reading your post and saw some questions so just answered them.

Hope you dont mind DK.

Need to go off soon, anon drop me a mail or something if you like.

paddytan AT gmail.com

One more question, does the police recognise bak2u? Do they know who you are? Have they tested your system?

Why i'm asking this is because the last thing i want is to have police not recognising the system i bought because they haven't heard of it and don't know how reliable it is.

Ok so theoritically, your system works on 2 assumption.

1) The "person" putting in his personal(not top up) card and switch it on and put in a wrong password.

2) The "person" is shocked and therefore willing to return.

Noted.

Actually one of your point is quite good, i think there is a market to have the data in the phone to be smsed to somewhere so at least the data is recovered eventhough the phone is lost?

DK > Yes i just realised that. Thanks : )

Ans: I cant say that all police will know us, know us.. hey we are still a startup that been around for 2.5 yrs and no one knows us and only after we won some recognitions overseas :)

But we do provide documentations upon request for local authority and overseas police agencies.

And with media exposure .. well we cant say all police will know us but we do keep in contact with the local authorities and agencies.

--

Top cards work as well cos passport or IC are scanned when purchased (can check with the 3 telcos)

--
As for data, no it is difficult and not that practical cos sending out data (we dont know if the thief's sim card has GPRS or 3G and requires permission to send). So it is best to wipe it all clean (optional) to prevent any risk of it being leaked out too.

Paddy, i have a question for you : Is it legal to have the information of a sim card sent out to somewhere without the rightful permission of the sim card owner?

I mean the sim card owner can return the phone, thats no problem. But does bak2u has the right to disclose information found on a sim card that belongs to another person? Lets say he is not the thief, and he is not the founder of the mobile. Lets assume him to be any person like me and you on the street. Does blog2u has the legal authority to influence an event by enabling a function of technology to "steal" a piece of data and deliver to somewhere else?

I think in view of this system, questions regarding relevant legal standard should be articulated so that user can be clearer about the adoption of such a product.

To the latest question, is it legal to have the person using a phone that do not belong to him in the first place? I think there is no need to create so many scenanios just to corner paddy on this. If you don't believe in it then do not buy or use it. The person can always clarify with the finder who should theblaw protects more the victim or the thief?

Instead of seeing it as good i find the person above just nitpicking and trying to find flaws. No wonder singapore companies cannot make iy because everyone just busy seeing the negative buy not the positive sides of it.

To Jaime Lee :

I'm sorry but i have to disagree with you on the basis that the question i've raised is to make clear or to erect protection rights for thieves.

First, having a sim card in the phone is not equal to be using it, the phone cannot be used especially when the phone is password protected. So your question on whether is it legally right or wrong in using a phone is seen as invalid.

Second, you cannot without evidence, categorize the owner of a sim card owner as a thief.

This is not a scenario but a very valid legal point in which whether the technology that the company engaged in the system is compliant with the law in the countries that the products are being offered?

I believe this is not a flaw in the product but rather a point where users need to be made clear and understand to avoid risk of falling foul of any confidential information constituted acts.

Of course this i think has not a thing to do with Singapore companies and of course i do not see this as a negative side of a product but rather a potential legal challenge.

Don't be a fool, no one would spend thousands of dollars to sue just because someone got hold of their mobile number.

Kevin : Put it this way, the illegal taking of another person's information without the person's freely-given consent is classified as theft(of stealing) is the eye of criminal law.

Imagine this, if you say that is alright, what about if someone were to develop a product, specifically design a system whereby it abstract information from sim cards and transmit the data to somewhere. And then use the data for something else without your rightful consent.

How do you feel about this?

Of course its great to have a technology where information can be retrieved from somewhere when it is needed, but can we not say that the same technology can be a method of abuse by another?

You are making it like the software is out to capture confidential information. So the best is ask permission of the unauthorised user first if the information can be sent? You know what does unauthorised means?

For those answers given to your questions asked you don't seem to follow up after that and even a word of thanks. So what's your point here?

I did not mention the software is out to capture confidential information only, but you cannot deny the fact that 'confidential information' would be captured and delivered.

There is no unauthorised user as the mobile phone cannot be used without password. To call a person an unauthorised user when all he did is switches on a phone without getting pass the login screen is already an assumption that is invalid on any term.

I wonder is it the message which you disagree? Or me?

Frankly, i see what you mean but what is the possibility of that happening??

Hi Anonymous ... are these the same person or different? :)

I answered earlier: "but we do keep in contact with the local authorities and agencies.' we can go around the circle whole nite with these Q&A.

Frankly I dont intend to us DK's blog to go round and round as if is a proper FAQ for BAK2u.

On the password, if it is the owner of the phone he or she will know the password. So I am not exactly sure what you mean no unauthorised user as the phone cannot be used? With right password it identify that the user is the owner. Which part is not clear on the earlier explanation and is invalid on any term and btw, whose term?

Anyway, I intend to leave this discussion drop me a mail if you have inquiries.

Anon: I think if someone don't intend to steal/keep the phone, he/she would not remove the orginal SIM card and place his/her SIM card in the phone.

DK: if I want to steal your phone just for the heck of it and smash it into a million pieces, let's see how it comes "Bak2U".

p/s I hope you're getting paid for this shameless advertising. haha

Childish.

Anon: I got this software free from Paddy. I like the idea of this software a lot and so I introduce it to my blog readers. So why is this call "shameless"?

Nicole: Couldn't agree more with you.

DK : To classified someone who remove sim card or place any sim card in the phone as a thief just speaks of your ability to discuss.

Have a nice day.

Paddy : I have no intention to discuss with you the legal issues regarding your products behind closed door. If you have any answers to my questions, just post them here or you can do it on your bak2u FAQ. Cheers.

Then can you tell me what the hell is the person swapping sim cards on a phone that do not belong to him? I think you are the one with the ability to differentiate between a thief and owner.

By the way, you sound like Harry Lee that gets defensive whenever you get answers that you do not want.

What is this no intention to discuss behind closed door? You are the one posting a lot of stupid questions and when answered, you don't like it you asked somemore. Some of your questions are just asking the same thing also. If you find the software is a bad flaw then don't use it, simple about it.

I'm sorry, but i think it is unwise to call someone a thief just because he is not the owner.

And of course i do not believe if someone is holding your mobile phone, he is a thief.

And you sounded like Nicole Tan who owned the blog nicolekiss who of course we know is a confused being.

I have no intention to discuss behind closed door because this issue do not concern only me but every user of the product. I do not like or dislike an answer, i think an answer has to be derived from logic and reason and not my personal preference.

Same for you, if you find my topic too difficult for you to discuss, don't reply, as simple as that.

There is don't need to go below the belt, harry lee. You are just a troll.

I believe the points raised were valid, but of course you do not have to agree.

And of course i do not judge a product based on "it is given free to me" or because Paddy is my friend.

From a legal standpoint, if you abstract information about someone without his permission and use it for any purposes is liable to be sued according to the common law of privacy in Singapore.

You cannot just assumed the data of the person the technology had abstracted had stole the phone and is responsible for the lost of your phone and are require to return to you your phone.

It does not mean because you had managed to make technology worked a thing and privacy data of a person could be compromised. And more so on the assumption that the person is the thief!

Whether he is the thief, or the founder, or a buyer or the policeman or anybody, to collect information and delivered to you by force can be criminal whether the phone belongs to you or not.

The law is fair and applicable to everybody, even if your phone is lost.

Just because you are eager to get your phone back does not mean you can rewrite the law in your favour.

Even if you think the person holding your phone is a thief, does not give you any rights to break any law to get him.

If does not mean you can use technology to force data of a person to be delivered to you just because you think he is a "thief".

You cannot do that even if he is not a thief. The law is fair and just to all people, regardless of what you think of him.

Try asking samsung and lg with phones that come with the same software also selling internationally.

Your explanation of law is as accord to what you think you know.

Even microsoft or apple doing something with technology is not mean they are not against the law.

Size of a company is irrelevant to rule of law.

I'm sure you have heard of lawsuits against microsoft. The total payout thus far is amount to US$9billion. Just in case you missed out on the news, i've attached the link below for your reference.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2005/07/14/microsofts-lawsuit-payouts-amount-to-around--9-billion

You are right, my explanation of law is as accord to what i know. And of course you are free to tell us instead of what you know. I mean this is a discussion right? We are not here to condemn or slander anybody. We are trying to discuss whether something is on the right side of law right?

I have a question for paddy. Sorry paddy, i'm not being skeptic about your product, but if we purchase your product, are we require to sign any documents that disclaim the company of any liability and we are solely responsble if we get sued using the product? I think if anything goes wrong in using the product and the company would handle the legal side instead of its consumer then there should really be nothing to worry as a user.

The software is installed into the owner phone. If the phone is to be used by another person with permission than software will not work since it can be disabled.

If the phone is used by an unauthorised person the software will not be disabled by the owner.

So when the unauthorised person uses a phone that do not belong to him, it is illegal.

The software will work by capturing the information of the unauthorised person's sim card when he uses it and send to the pre-defined numbers to inform the owner's friends.

The software belongs to owner, the phone belongs to the owner, the phone has been taken away from the owner. I do not see how it is not right to assist the owner in retrieving back the phone?

From Samsung http://www.samsung.com/sg/consumer/detail/features.do?group=mobilephone&type=mobilephone&subtype=entertainmentphone&model_cd=SGH-J750ISSXSO

Found this

There was a report in Straits Times where a thief was caught whent the software caught him after he stole the phone from Samsung store at vivocity. Police was called in and thief caught.

Date:
15 Dec 2006 -

"Theft at Samsung centre. SCARED OFF by phone that tells tales" The New Paper & lan he wan bao

http://bak2u.blogspot.com/2006/12/bak2u-on-news-new-paper-wan-bao.html

Samsung has money to settle privately if kanna lawsuits

Found another one. Paddy's company is quite impressive to be able to have the software years before the big manufacturers follow.

Doing some research on the net on legal vs privacy laws and it is perfectly ok to use this type of antitheftt softwares.

November 26, 2007
New Handsets From LG Feature Anti-Theft Tracker

LG rolls out two fully loaded phones -- KG 288 and KG 285.

http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/fullnews.asp?edid=22938

Johnnyft, no it is not a matter of settling privately or not but will a thief sue if he is caught by such software.

Another angle is if samsung cellphone caught the thief and had the media covering it last year, the police or IDA would have stopped the selling of the phones. But it didn't.

I myself is using one of the model also and have checked by Singtel beforehand if who will bear the responsibilities and should we call police or the thief. The advise is to contact police and they will follow up.

Wow... this thread is moving fast and furious. Sorry if I can't catch up with the comments.

Anon: I think your comments are very insulting to me and my integrity. Are you trying to say that I'm writing a good review about this software just because Paddy is my friend and I got this program for free?

Let me give you some background. I helped Paddy with the beta testing. He gave me the program for free in return. He did not asked me to write this review for him. He doesn't need to because there are already several good review about BAK2u.

I'm writing this review because I feel that it is a good software and I want to introduce it to my blog readers. End of the day, I believe my blog readers are intelligent enough to decide for themselves if this is a good software or not.

So you make your statement here that you don't like this software. I'm totally fine with it. I'm sorry that you don't like the software that I introduced in my blog. But I can't really do much about it. I mean I can't please everybody with the things that I blog here. Perhaps you might like the next recommendations that I make here.

So why not just move on from here? Have a nice weekend. Cheers.

Karen, Singtel did not ask me to sign any document when I bought the phone at the shopping mall.

It will have been mispresentations if the operator sells phones without telling the customers the legal liabilities.

Nicole: chill. No need to get so worked out over it.

Bypassing: Yes, I do agree that it's below the belt. Perhaps we should issue him a yellow card. haha.

IMU : Your theory is not wrong. But it is based on the assumption that the user is a thief. But in reality, i can buy a phone off someone and i become the authorised user because i had paid for it therefore i am authorised to my own product.

The phone is not being taken away from the owner. There are many ways a phone can depart from its owner. You surely can humour us with all your assumptions of in your choice of words such as "thieves", "stolen", "unauthorised", "taken away".

You assumed all kind of situations about the person holding the phone to justify your need to get the lost phone back without looking at how the technology had broke the law in doing so.

I think you are failing here not because you couldn't understand the operation of the technology and the intent of it. So you do not need to actually explain the usage or its purpose.

But rather the law that governs the privacy of an individual even if he is a thief, though we know that that person might not be a thief.

I'm not interested to know how you can define someone holding your lost phone as a thief because i know you couldn't. He can be anything a founder or he can be a buyer. He can be anything.

Found another one on absolute.com and as a singaporean I am very proud that this bak2u really stands out with the widest coverage of devices.

Absolute.com is on windows laptops (but only usa market) and they are serving gahment agenies with their antitheft software too. So it is perfectly legal to use such softwares unless the CIA or FBI arrests themseles for using it.

http://absolute.com/resources/request-government-whitepaper.asp?ref=government_whitepaper

Anonymous, what is so difficult to just call to check with the finder? It is like I lost a phone with or without the software, and if i call back my own number the person answered and refuse to return, then he is a thief. If he answered and more than willing to return than he is not a thief.

From your latest reply, you are indeed out to pick a fight just because others have their own views. Not everyone has to agree to a single point of discussion.

We do not have to continue this discussion anymore. Anonymous is just out to spite everyone that see things otherwise.

From imu's links,it is legit to use and not breaking laws too.

Anonymous best to refer to those links and those agencies using them. It gives a clear answers to all those that you are against.

"I'm not interested to know how you can define someone holding your lost phone as a thief because i know you couldn't. He can be anything a founder or he can be a buyer. He can be anything."

Troll speaks.

Bypassmotion, again you are wrong. Who is to say if the user is the owner of the phone?

The law that governs the privacy of an individual even if he is a thief, though we know that that person might not be a thief. It is better to protect the rights than to govern over everything.

IMU: if the phone is lost it is lost. Can just replace it, there is no important things in it.

dk, so with a free software without paying $24.90 you can just sell your soul to claim it is good. What cannot be bought over then? Even nuffnang movie you also attended.

Anon: I think you are too much. Stop insulting my integrity here.

I already explained my stand. Take it or leave it.
If you don't trust my blog entry, then too bad. I can't please everybody.

Let the rest of the blog readers be their own judge.

Sorry, that wasn't me. We are 2 separate person.

I am the original anonymous. Lets take my name as Daniel.

IMU : There is nothing wrong in calling back or calling anywhere to check anything. I am not disputing your rights to check something.

Imagine this, your information that is classified as "confidential" in any universal term has been collected because of some great technology and transmitted to somewhere without your permission. And now using this information, they managed to trace to you and now they demand something from you and deem you having the responsibility to take care of the thing you are holding and ensure it is safely in the hand of the owner.

Where in the world did common sense told you can use technology to steal my information eventhough the phone belongs to you but for some reason is now in my hand? You can call your phone and i can pick it up alright alright. But to have my information so you could identify me and use that information to blackmail me into taking responsibility of your "lost" item and ensuring it return to you safely?????

If you lost something, it is on the goodwill of people who found it to return to you, you cannot use any technology to force just because you know that thing belongs to you. And more so by stealing information off that person and making use of that information to force.

Something is not quite right here.

And DK, i am not against, this is your blog, the last thing i want is to come to your blog and insult you. Those insulting postings was not posted by me.

Daniel: Noted. Thx. :D

PADDY: Anyway i'm not againt you, i'm sorry if i let you feel so.

Though i agree your product is great but i think there are legal considerations that your business might need to be prepared for just in case someone decides to do something 'silly'.

Someone might want to sabo or just make money of you if there are law loopholes that can be found. A lot of lawsuits are also not objective but "money that can be made" driven.

My 2 cent.

I wonder does Singaporeans know what confidential and privacy is.

Confidential and privacy are yours as birthright, inalienable and not bestowed like some gift with or without technology, whether one loses phone or not.

If another tries to remove your rights to keep private your information (i deduced this from reading this thread since i don't know how the software works), then that is consciously an infringement. Even if he just tries, he don't have to do it, its still liable to answer for breach of encroachment. This is liken to you trying to kill someone but didn't succeed in killing.

Cheers

I wonder why paddy tan is keeping coming back to this blog but not replying?

Like they say, when something controversy is going on, we must hear, there might be some underlying reasons why people are asking him questions and also why he refuse to answer in the open.

I personally dislike the software because it broadcast your information to unknown people. The buyer is paying to them to buy the information of the founder of your phone(if it get lost). They use their computer knowledge to find the information and then sell to you for $19.99. Of course $19.99 is prepaid.

Anon: Maybe because Paddy has already made his stand and everyone agrees with his saying except you?

Time to move on dude.

Bobby: That is a very interesting way to look at it. But if the founder don't insert his own SIM card into the phone, then his handphone number will not be given to the owner of the phone. :)

Hi, i'm in legal practice and i thought i could offer my knowledge to the public before it gets too far off.

The question here is "Can I be sued for using a product that feeds on confidential information to work?"

So after losing your mobile phone, your predefined source receives a special message. You feel eager to call the number, more so than usual, because your mobile phone is now in the land of this person and you now have the information that leads to it.

It is reported that a mobile phone is lost every 10 seconds, most of which are misplaced. Among these, many contains important and personal information. Should something like this ever happen to you, and you using a piece of technology managed to trace it to the person who found it, demanded it to be return, could you be sued otherwise for "stealing" confidential information through scrupulous means?

For a successful legal privacy claim, the plaintiff must establish (1) the piece of information revealed to be confidential; (2) no negligent of breach of duty or contract by the defendant; (3) proximate causation of plaintiff's damages; and (4) damages to the plaintiff. Let us assume that confidential information is consider private to the existence of the person founding the phone.

The next step is to determine whether the company(that sold the product) breached its duty to explain to the client the potential of a legal lawsuit for obtaining information which is considered confidential without rightful permission of its owner. To determine breach of duty, most jurisdictions have a reasonable case standard; basically, under the circumstances, did the company act like any other reasonable company that is selling a product similar to its measure. Using this example, most reasonable companies probably would not sell a product without disclaiming dormant rights.

If that is the case, the company would had disclaimed itself of any negligency of breached of duty. In contrast, however, if the company had not disclaim any rights of any nature of the product to its seller then it would seem that the company had not acted reasonably since other companies would do otherwise.

The important question is if the user bought a product without agreeing to any disclaimer in black and white, could then the responsibility of negligence that led to the damages be thrown back to the company? Most laws require that the plaintiff present a "but for" and "proximate" causation to sustain a negligence claim. For those privacy suits i've encountered, a client sued his company for alledgely disclosing confidential information, claiming such disclosure caused the government officials to press criminal charges against the plaintiff. However, the client could not prive that the disclosure of the confidential informtaion was what actually led to the criminal charges, so the case was threw out by the court.

So the question remains, how can one prove that "buy for" the loss of a mobile phone the outcome would have been different? The importance and duplicability of the confidential information that is in the phone later probably will answer this causation question on a case by case basis. However, in this day and age, it seems doubtful that most customer and their company would not have agreed on some sort of disclaiming issues as it is important to note that to date , i have not heard of a privacy suit against a company for using technology to retrieve confidential information for its customer, but however that fact of it being legal has not arise because no one has done it.

The real concern at this point may be not so much one of disclosing confidential information but one of awareness of and compliance with the obligations that can arise under a notice of security breach statute. Already instituted in law, the statutes provide another possible claim for the defendant. For example, there is a law that states,

Any person or business that maintains data of technology system that includes personal information that the person or business do not own shall notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the data immediately following discovery, if the personal information was, or is reasonbly believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person.

Such statutes allow a cause of action as "any customer injured by a violation of this section may institute a civil action to recover damages"

With the notice of security breach statutes, it appears that the causation issue is easier to prove than any privacy claim since the founder of the phone merely has to show that the phone containing personal information cannot be assessed but however he needs to establish why was it not reported immediately following the discovery of it. Any company should be wise enough to tell his customers or clients as to whether its product are able to avoid this kind of claim.

So while there is no reported case of company breaching confidential information arising from usage of a technology, one should not rest easy. Other laws such as the notice of secutity breach statutes are availble for use by clients. Take every reasonable precaution not to lose your phone. And the company needs to take every reasonable in drafting a disclaming document. Otherwise fallout could be messy and disastrous.

Chris: Wow, you wrote that at 2am? *Salute*

Is the below website similar to Bak2u?

bestmobilesoftwares.com

Just having doubts;)

This is from hongkong. But i know paddy tan operates many many blogs and websites and apparently his software are sold at different prices in different websites?? Is that how he got into first place for goozle? If so i'm not surprised if he got more than 100 blogs promoting his BAK2U.

Jacelyn: bestmobilesoftwares.com is BAK2u's distributor.

Paddy > Do you have any affiliate program??

In japan if i leave my mobile phone on the table for 2 hours no body will steal because we dun use sim card

Paddy you said

Err... you are assuming that there is a password with huge BAK2u logo indicating that it is an anti theft software in it. It dont :)


But according to DK he said

Once installed, the phone display a message "Protected by BAK2u".

Who is one is the truth?? Since paddy is doing the stunt similar to what nuffnang was doing now, could someone come out and clarify??

Anon: Very tiring leh. You are out to find fault and we need to rebut everything you said.

The "Protected by BAK2u" appears after you key in the right password. But then.... does it make any difference?

Typical LAME Kiasu mentality!

Your knowledge is just very limited about handphones, as proven by your false believes of security. Securities are basically all just ILLUSIONS.
All software can be hacked and reprogrammed, most handphones' software can be easily ERASED and REPLACED via just a cable connected to a computer. All securities are compromised immediately. The technical skills are very popular in particularly PRC to do these things. Scams now can reprogram handphones to fool users by displaying falsification of CALLER IDs and pray by impersonations. Virus to hack and Trojan handphones are so rampant.
Your knowledge is just very limited about handphones, as proven by your false believes of security. Securities are basically all just ILLUSIONS. Dream on Insecure Cowards! You can never be SAFE! Just in case if you don't know, entire IC chips can be de-soldered and replaced in any street stall in e.g. Shen Zhen commonly, and that is called UPGRADING, no reprogramming even necessary. They are so skillful, they actually assemble their own handphones from IC chips to LCD screens to PCBs & modules in the tiny shops and sell with warranty. Cheap & good.
You are just reading from lame Ang Moh craps and similar security illusions like the GOONs Ang Mohs. That's why their handphone businesses all lost to Asians!

No difference just that if i see a bak2u before the password, then i will not insert my sim card into it. I will instead smash your phone into million pieces.

And also whats the point of showing bak2u after i log in? Funny.

Anon: Show BAK2u, u say funny. Don't show BAK2u, you say u don't know what software is it.

Hard to please you leh.

It is not about me. It is about the logic of it.

Anon: I don't see what is wrong with it and I don't see your logic.

We been going on this for 80 plus comments. Time to move on lah. We all know you don't like the software. You made your point. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow you.

We just have to agree to disagree.

err..which anonymous were you replying to? I think several people posted as anonymous. Anyway i'm one of those in the middle part of the thread.

I am wondering why paddy decides to only comes in and read instead of replying? Normally he is quick to correct public impression but this time he is letting all kind of impression growing around him?

Paddy, if you read this, i am a user of your nokia version. Can you explain your position with regards to the legal sides....i know nothing is perfect but at least show us you know what it is all about? If you keep quiet, we dont know what you're thinking, in that case how do i recommend your product to others?

Anon: I also lost track of how many anonymous are there.

Actually I have not been following up on this thread anymore but visiting this blog for other posts by DK.

Thanks Chris for the advise. We have our lawyers advising us on that too especially as we are moving towards international markets also.

Ken and Jacelyn, Bestmobilesoftware is our retailer (see here)

It be best for those anonymous to place your actual name in replies for it is confusing who is who and the credibility also brought into questions if it is a competitor or someone that just refused to take the answers we provided too.

There is no reason for me or my company to avoid replying questions, it will hurt us afterall. But for those that probably knows me, I dont walk away when customers have doubts.

However we cant keep replying the same questions asked by probably the same person but as 'anonymous' to tell it is otherwise. This takes up a lot of time and effort to keep track.

As much as we want to remain helpful there is also so much we can do also, as afterall this is not a big company and everyone is off work during the past few days too.

Paddy, do you mean since what you gonna say will do your company more harm than good, then you can keep quiet? Is your profit now more important than your customer?

Hi Dave, may I know which of my replies indicate that?

My latest sentence was 'There is no reason for me or my company to avoid replying questions, it will hurt us afterall. But for those that probably knows me, I dont walk away when customers have doubts.'

Also there was no mention about profit more important than customers too.

Not sure why no one is reading what I written earlier. It is legal to use the software and I just called up singtel to asked. The supervisor assured me that my samsung utrack is legal and will not result in any legal prosecutions by the person who took it nor the police.

Singtel is the court ar? Are you going to go to court and say "singtel say it is legal" therefore you assumed it is legal?

You are basically responsible for your own action, and in this case, the company that sold you the software is responsible, no question about that.

In court, you can use singtel or microsoft or apple or whoever, at the end of the day, if you rob a bank, then you go to jail, not the person who told you "robbing a bank is legal".

Paddy, then if someone sued me one day, can i refer it back to your company?? will your company take full charge of the lawsuit?? Or am i liable for it because i am now responsible for what i want to use in my mobile??

I really hope you can clear doubts of such nature instead of spending time telling us how customers are importnt to you. I hope you can show you are different to nuffnang.

Such programs are useless. Handphone hackers hacked every brand and makes and any countries of origin. No exemption at all. To pay money for security illusion is damn funny.

It is not like you pay and they guarantee you your phone back? Like insurance there is a guarantee. This, i am not sure what you are paying for. Like one of the commentors said, if i smash your phone to million pieces, how are you going to come "BAK2u"?:P

Paddy, i know it is legal to sell and probably use. But if lawsuit comes my way for using it, is your company liable or am i liable for myself?

I think it would be great if you could issue official statement stating your company will take full charge of any court case instead of the user because as a user, i paid for the service so i expect your company to sort our whatever problem i faced using your product. Cheers.

Lets establish who is suing first.

The thief? The person who found the phone not knowing it is your phone and inserted his SIM card but when you called to request for he returns?

I replied to Chris earlier that our lawyers are looking into it esp when we are going international now.

For Singapore market, all is cleared as we work with the authorities on the legal framework before developing these softwares.

I shall take my leave from here now but if have any questions please do contact us via BAK2u.com instead.

We will try our best to reply to you as soon as possible. But please be responsible with no personal attacks, slanders and vulgarities towards the staffs too.

Update (96 comments later): I think things are getting out of hand here. I don't mind if the 96 comments are proper comments. But some of the comments are just too much. Just because I don't moderate my comments or close the commenting in this entry doesn't means that you can do anything you like.

I think all this has to be stop. It makes no sense to keep reading and replying to some crazy comments here. We are going in circles. Go read BAK2u's Term Of Use if you want to know more. Everything is answered there.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL BAK2u, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES THAT RESULT FROM THE USE OF, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS SITE. THIS LIMITATION APPLIES WHETHER THE ALLEGED LIABILITY IS BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OR ANY OTHER BASIS, EVEN IF BAK2u HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. BECAUSE SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, BAK2u's LIABILITY IN SUCH JURISDICTIONS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.

And what's wrong with that? You guys are all thinking will tio sue just because you use the software? If scare don't buy lor. Hahaha! Then lost your phone o-b-good!

To be fair, every company has such disclaimers also. You are just nitpicking finding errors from anywhere. All people from sammyboys are like that? I would have ignore you bunch of people, only paddy so free to entertain you guys.

dk your blog is now a playground for sammyboy.

But i also need to add, not every company CEO will run away like how paddy attempted to on this thread. LOL

Paddy, i have never seen you so keen to escape from a discussion. Are you hiding something from us?

What a joke. If this is a marketing ploy, it failed big time!

Hey fake danny, don't try to post as me when you are not! You are just trying to use my name to create problem.

Paddy had answered the questions and yet still trying to be funny here? Get a life!

Hey fake danny, don't try to post as me when you are not! You are just trying to use my name to create problem.

Paddy had answered the questions and yet still trying to be funny here? Get a life!

Paddy : Impossible gua, you dont follow up then how come you know we're talking about you?

I think you are purposely avoiding the topic and running away. Now with that disclaimer we know now we are responsble if kanna sue one day.

Now paddy tan has chose to avoid this thread because he knows he do not have the answers.

Paddy > Like that you still want us to buy your software?

Mark: What you want? Tell you go read term of use already, which part of that you don't understand?

See how some readers managed to make paddy run away like a dog with tails between his legs LOL.

This thread has provided real humour.

You guys are really pathetic trying to discredit others. No wonder singapore companies cannot make it.

Singapore companies CMI because they are not good enough. They run away instead of facing critics LOL