Lost and found in the age of personalized devices
Just received this on the CS graduate students mailing list:
> **Subject:** [cs-grad-l] FW: Found iPod
>
> I found an iPod in Duncan hall on the third floor. […]
> If you can identify the color and make of the iPod, I will get it
back to you.
This is the standard proof-of-knowledge test applied in lost-and-found situations: Can you describe the appearance of the item in a way that uniquely identifies you as its owner?
In the case of an iPod, this sort of works: there are many different models spread out over several generations (multiplied again by a variety of colors). But what if the lost object had been, say, an iPhone? There are just a few of those, and a betting man (or woman) would guess “iPhone 3G, black??? and have just under a 50% shot at it.[^3G]
[^3G]: I mean, who’s got an original iPhone still? *Seriously.*
OK, you could drop it off with AT&T (or O2 or Rogers or whatever) and allow them to find the proper owner via SIM, IMEI, and so forth. But an iPod touch lacks these identifying features, as do many other portable (and lose-able) gadgets.
I argue that there’s still an effective way to identify the original owner, even in situations where the exact specifications of the device are easily guessed by anyone. It’s afforded by the increasing _personalization_ of these gadgets: They may all look alike on the outside, but on the _inside_ they’re totally different.
So, if I were to come across a lost iPod, I would instead issue this challenge:
**“If you can identify 5 albums, podcasts, or games on this iPod, it’s yours.???**