Apple vs Met Police: the real path to cutting iPhone thefts in London

London iPhone thefts and the blame game: what Apple and the Met get right, what they miss, and how to actually move the numbers

London has a phone theft problem, and the argument over who should fix it just got louder. On one side, Apple points to tools that already make a stolen iPhone far less useful. On the other, London’s Metropolitan Police say Apple could do much more with its privileged access to industry data. What sits between them is not only a grim statistic – tens of thousands of phones reported stolen in the capital last year – but also a coordination gap that keeps victims stuck in paperwork while thieves keep moving.

At the center of the dispute is the National Mobile Phone Register, or NMPR, a database used by UK law enforcement and industry to check devices reported as stolen. The Met says Apple has full NMPR access and uses it daily – but primarily to verify the network status of trade-in devices, not to proactively flag theft. The police view: if Apple is already tapping the system, it should also run anti-theft checks and take meaningful action when a match appears.

Apple’s counter is blunt: policing belongs to the police. Company executives have argued that the most reliable way to cut theft is traditional policing – arrests, prosecutions, and shutting down the real-world routes that move stolen phones. Apple also notes an operational point: the Met rarely submits formal, trackable requests to Apple for individual stolen devices. Without those requests, Apple says, there is less it can lawfully and consistently do on a per-device basis.

Both positions have logic. Apple’s ecosystem already includes Find My, Activation Lock, and Stolen Device Protection – features that can make reselling a stolen iPhone painful. Find My helps owners try to locate a device; Activation Lock and Stolen Device Protection make it far harder to wipe and reuse; and remote erasure can nuke personal data quickly. Apple is also exploring whether to block devices at the IMEI level when they appear as stolen, but that path is thorny. If you accept any single report at face value, you create the risk of false positives and harassment: a malicious actor could attempt to block someone else’s phone by claiming it was theirs.

The police case is equally pragmatic. They see how theft interlocks with other crimes, including violent robberies around nightlife hubs and commuter choke points. They also see how stolen handsets move: some are stripped for parts; others are fenced domestically; many are exported fast. For investigators, a tech company’s ability to instantly confirm that a device is both stolen and effectively bricked is leverage – it discourages resale and can generate leads that matter in the first 24 to 72 hours after a theft.

Complicating the optics, the politics of smartphone crime are not new. Back in 2023, City Hall demanded tougher measures from both Apple and Google, even though both platforms already had core anti-theft features. The uncomfortable truth is that technical deterrents and policing tactics work only when they are aligned. London’s year-over-year theft figures reflect not just the availability of lucrative targets but also the speed at which thieves can convert a handset into untraceable cash.

So what would alignment look like? First, a clear two-way lane between NMPR and Apple: when a handset is flagged stolen, an automated query should confirm its status inside the Apple ecosystem and push a deterministic state back to police and legitimate refurbishers. If the device is Activation-Locked or marked lost, that should appear instantly in both places. Second, a standardized packet for police requests – submitted in a consistent digital format – so Apple can act quickly and auditably. Third, stricter, transparent rules for trade-in checks: retailers and marketplaces should be required to run both NMPR and ecosystem checks before paying for a device, with penalties for non-compliance and a published compliance rate by chain.

Fourth, focus on the funnels thieves rely on. If most stolen phones either leave the country or get broken for parts within days, then the tactical wins are at transport nodes, shipping brokers, and repeat-offender service counters. Data from Activation Lock and NMPR could trigger rapid inspections for suspicious bulk shipments. Fifth, give victims clarity. A simple dashboard should show the state of a reported device: flagged on NMPR, Activation-Locked, remote-erased, police request submitted, and any updates. The current experience – a blur of reference numbers, insurer forms, and silence – is demoralizing and helps nobody.

There is also work to do on the user side. Many thefts happen in predictable contexts: crowded pavements, pub gardens, late-night buses. Apple’s Stolen Device Protection is powerful but under-used; setup nudges, clearer on-device prompts, and retailer-assisted onboarding could lift adoption. Small UX choices matter: a reminder to enable Stolen Device Protection when adding a new card to Wallet, or when Face ID learns a new appearance, would raise the floor for everyone without turning the iPhone into a nanny.

My take: the argument is understandable, the stalemate is not. The Met is right to demand faster, structured signals from Apple – real-time confirmations that make a stolen iPhone economically worthless. Apple is right that policing is a public duty and that device-level blocking must be resistant to fraud. The path forward is not a press release; it is a protocol. Wire NMPR, trade-in platforms, and the Apple device state together with strict authentication, auditable logs, and a victim-first dashboard. Publish quarterly numbers: time-to-lock, time-to-arrest, trade-in compliance rates, export interceptions. When both sides share the scoreboard, the blame game becomes a race to drive the number down.

One last point that echoes what readers keep telling us: accountability has to be local. Londoners don’t just want apps and acronyms; they want safer streets and fewer snatches. That means targeted patrols where theft is hottest, quick follow-ups on serial IMEIs, and visible actions against the stores and shippers that look the other way. Pair that with Apple’s ecosystem locks and clearer victim workflows, and you finally get something thieves hate: friction they can’t route around.