[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40044542]Lol good on them, still gonna wear it everywhere.[/QUOTE]
well that's why we have law enforcement (provided restrictions were actually put in place)
I like how they're trying to make this a thing when there are millions of security cameras fucking everywhere, and your phone can be remotely turned on and off to monitor conversations you make. This is anti-progress stupidity at it's finest. Talk to me about privacy when we don't have this shit flying around: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA&fmt=18[/url]
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;40044788]I like how they're trying to make this a thing when there are millions of security cameras fucking everywhere, and your phone can be remotely turned on and off to monitor conversations you make. This is anti-progress stupidity at it's finest. Talk to me about privacy when we don't have this shit flying around: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA&fmt=18[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wait wait wait wait
who and how can on turn my cellphone, which is not connected to any communication network in it's turned off state?
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
And I am pretty sure that depending on the place, there are rather strict rules on what you can and can't do with footage of your security camera (for instance I am pretty sure that logging license plates of passing by cars would be illegal in most places).
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
I am not really raving mad against Google Glass or anything, but I don't think that what you are saying is true.
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;40044788]Talk to me about privacy when we don't have this shit flying around: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA&fmt=18[/url][/QUOTE]
Uhh, that shit isn't flying around. They are going to be deployed in Afghanistan in the future.
Furthermore, surveillance is different. With Google Glass you'd be recorded by hundereds of private individuals every time you go outside, and they'd be free to do pretty much what they want with the footage.
Also, not everyone is living in a police state. I live in Sweden and there are virtually no cameras overlooking public areas.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40044837]Wait wait wait wait
who and how can on turn my cellphone, which is not connected to any communication network in it's turned off state?
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
And I am pretty sure that depending on the place, there are rather strict rules on what you can and can't do with footage of your security camera (for instance I am pretty sure that logging license plates of passing by cars would be illegal in most places).
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
I am not really raving mad against Google Glass or anything, but I don't think that what you are saying is true.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, your phone can be remotely controlled, even when "off". Only counter is to literally remove the battery. This has been a thing for [I]years.[/I] They can track its GPS, turn on the microphone, the camera, anything. [I]especially[/I] smartphones.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40045082]Yeah, your phone can be remotely controlled, even when "off". Only counter is to literally remove the battery. This has been a thing for [I]years.[/I] They can track its GPS, turn on the microphone, the camera, anything. [I]especially[/I] smartphones.[/QUOTE]
no, you watch too much CSI or something.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;40044877]Furthermore, surveillance is different. With Google Glass you'd be recorded by hundereds of private individuals every time you go outside, and they'd be free to do pretty much what they want with the footage.
[/QUOTE]
no, glass doesnt just record footage all the time and upload it to google I dont know why people think this
[QUOTE=Shadaez;40045539]no, you watch too much CSI or something.
no, glass doesnt just record footage all the time and upload it to google I dont know why people think this[/QUOTE]
The US Govt must watch too much CSI too then
[url]http://gizmodo.com/5971743/senate-approves-warrantless-phone-tapping-law?post=55643976[/url]
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-oks-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking-by-police/[/url]
It [I]is[/I] a thing, whether or not you like it.
where does it say phones can magically be remotely turned on and controlled
[QUOTE=Shadaez;40045539]
no, glass doesnt just record footage all the time and upload it to google I dont know why people think this[/QUOTE]
Yes but it's the same thing as walking around with a camcorder that may or may not be on, if it's on it's an invasion into people's privacy, if it's off you're still making people uneasy. If people want to force people to take it off when they enter their premises, they're perfectly within their rights.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;40045596]where does it say phones can magically be remotely turned on and controlled[/QUOTE]
[url]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html[/url]
[quote]The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by [B]U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan[/B]. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.
[B]Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off."[/B] Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.[/quote]
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
And [I]that one[/I] is from 2006.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;40045624]If people want to force people to take it off when they enter their premises, they're perfectly within their rights.[/QUOTE] never said they weren't, and I'm allowed to think they're pretty dumb for thinking it's any different than a smartphone
No one would actually go around recording everything. The camera may be on from time to time, but having it on all the time would be a huge strain on the battery. But that in itself isn't a big problem. Recording seems to be What people are worried about. In that case, it would be impractical to record all the time as it would quickly run out of space. Lastly, if it's recording but uploading to a server, servers would run out of bandwidth and space as hd footage from a million devices a day would run out of space and available bandwidth for them all to connect at once
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40045665][URL]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html[/URL]
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
And [I]that one[/I] is from 2006.[/QUOTE]
did you read that at all, it's referring to a bugged cell phone that has been altered to still transmit if it's off
[quote]That led the FBI to resort to "roving bugs," first of Ardito's Nextel handset and then of Peluso's. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones approved them in a series of orders in 2003 and 2004, and said she expected to "be advised of the locations" of the suspects when their conversations were recorded.Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit ([URL="http://www.politechbot.com/docs/fbi.ardito.affidavit.p1.120106.pdf"]p1[/URL]) and ([URL="http://www.politechbot.com/docs/fbi.ardito.affidavit.p2.120106.pdf"]p2[/URL]) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." That phrase could refer to software or hardware.[/quote]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40045665][URL]http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html[/URL]
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
And [I]that one[/I] is from 2006.[/QUOTE]
Mister Kaplan is a fucking idiot, then.
[quote]Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.[/quote]
Yeah, that's something to do with the PROCESSOR OF THE PHONE BEING ON STADBY, not it's relaying electronics.
If your phone was CAPABLE of being suddenly powered on, remotely, then it's battery would died about as fast as if it was turned on, when turned off, because, woohey, the communication with the cell network takes up most of the energy the telephones need(ed) at least before the smartphone era.
Today, your battery would still die in two days if your phone had to be awake enough to listen to prompts from the network, so it's bullshit, anyway.
I have heard stories about MODIFIED devices, which were made to work with this, but then it's a phone with a tap installed. I guarantee you that any phone you personally buy off the shelf won't do any of this, and whoever says otherwise is an uneducated dipshit.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;40045717]did you read that at all, it's referring to a bugged cell phone that has been altered to still transmit if it's off[/QUOTE]
Depends, did you?
[quote]That led the FBI to resort to "roving bugs," first of Ardito's Nextel handset and then of Peluso's. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones approved them in a series of orders in 2003 and 2004, and said she expected to "be advised of the locations" of the suspects when their conversations were recorded.Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit (p1) and (p2) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." [B]That phrase could refer to [U]software[/U] or hardware.[/quote][/B]
Modifying phone software is shit easy to do with cooperation from the carrier. And they will most certainly have the cooperation of the carrier.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;40044736]well that's why we have law enforcement (provided restrictions were actually put in place)[/QUOTE]
They're not asking for laws, they're asking for social pressure to stop people from using it in public.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40045719]I have heard stories about MODIFIED devices, which were made to work with this, but then it's a phone with a tap installed. I guarantee you that any phone you personally buy off the shelf won't do any of this, and whoever says otherwise is an uneducated dipshit.[/QUOTE]
That story was from 2006, smartphones hadn't really caught on at that point. Well now they obviously have and smartphones are a lot easier to tap than older phones. Granted there are still foolproof methods of defeating a software mic tap, but they require hardware modification.
Long story short, the federal, state, and local law enforcement and investigative agencies have the definite capability to tap and/or track your phone at any time, regardless of its on or off status. They may not be able to do this to a brand new phone, but the ability to remotely install software onto phones is more and more prevalent.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40045764]Depends, did you?
[/B]
Modifying phone software is shit easy to do with cooperation from the carrier. And they will most certainly have the cooperation of the carrier.[/QUOTE]
What part of [quote]Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy[/quote] and [quote]could[/quote] you fail to catch from the text?
Let me tell you that your monitor [I]could[/I] possibly be lined with C4 and Michael Jordan [I]possibly[/I] urinated into your soda.
This is research done by gormless idiots who go for what they want instead of what there is, and now you are further picking what you want to hear, out of it!
This is bullshit, it's not a thing, you are paranoid, period.
And if I was a drug dealer and wanted to ensure my shit is untapped then I gonna get an
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2lrk_fV7DTI/UI99zRjpl8I/AAAAAAAACEI/yHUmIMThdNg/s400/nokia3100pink.jpg[/img] from Walmart or wherever and I swear by my sweaty underwear that nobody will push a software based tap on that, ever!
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40045764]Depends, did you?
[/B]
Modifying phone software is shit easy to do with cooperation from the carrier. And they will most certainly have the cooperation of the carrier.[/QUOTE]
yes it could possibly have been software installed by a person who has physical possession of the phone, but a modern smartphone will not let anyone remotely install and run software without the users knowledge, especially to the degree that it would keep system services running to the point where it can send and receive data while off.
you're misunderstanding the article, they had possession of the phones they altered
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40045799]
Long story short, the federal, state, and local law enforcement and investigative agencies have the definite capability to tap and/or track your phone at any time, regardless of its on or off status. They may not be able to do this to a brand new phone, but the ability to remotely install software onto phones is more and more prevalent.[/QUOTE]
There is not a single case which would suggest that anything like that is a thing, and you still didn't bring solution to the problem that it's easy as fuck to tell your phone isn't really turning off.
Today android and IOS phones, the actual cellular parts are handled by the OS, and for them to be functional, the phone will barely eat less battery when turned off than when turned on, which would be pretty damn suspicious to at the very least me.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40045853]There is not a single case which would suggest that anything like that is a thing, and you still didn't bring solution to the problem that it's easy as fuck to tell your phone isn't really turning off.
Today android and IOS phones, the actual cellular parts are handled by the OS, and for them to be functional, the phone will barely eat less battery when turned off than when turned on, which would be pretty damn suspicious to at the very least me.[/QUOTE]
And 90% of battery consumption on smartphones today is the [I]display and backlight.[/I]
Basic cellphone radio operations take a LOT less power than they used to, especially if they can determine the quality of the audio AND control when they get it. Modern processors downclock themselves when they aren't being used heavily to... save battery. Low level operations aren't going to use much CPU, and thus aren't going to take much more battery. To the average person, suddenly having to charge your phone an hour or two earlier isn't going to raise much suspicion.
You [I]still[/I] underestimate the control a carrier has over a phone on its network, especially if it came from them in the first place. Coming [I]from[/I] the carrier, that means they HAD PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE PHONE. They can push data to phones without you even knowing, clock updates, new emails, new text messages, you can be notified by your phone when that data comes in but that is PURELY a convenience. Amber alerts? those things are a completely different kind of alert that in many cases overrides the rest of the settings you have for notifications and the like.
Are they going to just randomly turn on peoples phones and listen in? probably not. Why? because they have better things to do than find out when suzie's cheerleading turney is or find out what bill is having for lunch. If they have a target's phone number, they can ask the carrier for access to it and [I]it'll happen.[/I] It may take a little bit of time, but it'll happen.
AAAAND for bonus points, let me introduce you to this bill, CALEA:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act[/url]
[quote]The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time.[/quote]
This [I]IS A THING[/I] and denying it is pointless and dumb.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40045977]And 90% of battery consumption on smartphones today is the [I]display and backlight.[/I]
Basic cellphone radio operations take a LOT less power than they used to, especially if they can determine the quality of the audio AND control when they get it. Modern processors downclock themselves when they aren't being used heavily to... save battery. Low level operations aren't going to use much CPU, and thus aren't going to take much more battery. To the average person, suddenly having to charge your phone an hour or two earlier isn't going to raise much suspicion.
You [I]still[/I] underestimate the control a carrier has over a phone on its network, especially if it came from them in the first place. Coming [I]from[/I] the carrier, that means they HAD PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE PHONE. They can push data to phones without you even knowing, clock updates, new emails, new text messages, you can be notified by your phone when that data comes in but that is PURELY a convenience. Amber alerts? those things are a completely different kind of alert that in many cases overrides the rest of the settings you have for notifications and the like.
Are they going to just randomly turn on peoples phones and listen in? probably not. Why? because they have better things to do than find out when suzie's cheerleading turney is or find out what bill is having for lunch. If they have a target's phone number, they can ask the carrier for access to it and [I]it'll happen.[/I] It may take a little bit of time, but it'll happen.
AAAAND for bonus points, let me introduce you to this bill, CALEA:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act[/url]
This [I]IS A THING[/I] and denying it is pointless and dumb.[/QUOTE]
[quote]telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design [B]their equipment[/B], facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time.[/quote]
That concerns the infrastructure - stuff like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange]telephone exchanges[/url] and such, not end user devices. You are again picking quotes about something completely unrelated to what you are talking about.
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
Yeah, they could tap your actual phone calls for decades, now.
No, they can't magically turn your phone on on demand.
Yes they can wiretap your calls and monitor your internet usage and all that, but they can't remotely access phones and turn them on nor could they even use the camera or mic on a stock android/iphone (and most other phones probably, but im not familiar with them so I won't claim anything) even when it's on. You really have to just not understand technology to think that's possible without the user helping.
It's possible that they could do some social engineering and have a person get their phone serviced and modified or push out a malicious fake update possibly (which the user would have to agree to install), but you just can't remotely access a stock phone to do the things you're claiming, and you have 0 evidence supporting it other than a 2006 article you misinterpreted (they had physical access).
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40046163]That concerns the infrastructure - stuff like [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange"]telephone exchanges[/URL] and such, not end user devices. You are again picking quotes about something completely unrelated to what you are talking about.
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
Yeah, they could tap your actual phone calls for decades, now.
[B]No, they can't magically turn your phone on on demand.[/B][/QUOTE]
What evidence do you have that they don't have that capability? Because i see a LOT more instances of "they can" or "probably have the ability to" than I do "they don't have that ability"
So far all your counter arguments have said [I]my[/I]evidence is unrelated or moot because it doesn't specifically say "we can turn on your phone", EVEN in a case where it has been said that it could be turned on or controlled remotely, you said it was moot. However you fail to provide any counter-evidence to your claim past "your evidence is wrong" and "you're paranoid"
And back to your software push thing
If was going to do anything nefarious, I would primarily get a phone straight from a seller, and secondly, I would jailbreak it and flash it with a community driven version of OS - I can guarantee you they can't sneak a backdoor in that.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40046214]And back to your software push thing
If was going to do anything nefarious, I would primarily get a phone straight from a seller, and secondly, I would jailbreak it and flash it with a community driven version of OS - [B]I can guarantee you they can't sneak a backdoor in that.[/B][/QUOTE]
You cannot possibly guarantee that. It is a fundamental fact that you can't absolutely protect data with more data, it is literally impossible to make a perfect software defense.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40046209]What evidence do you have that they don't have that capability? Because i see a LOT more instances of "they can" or "probably have the ability to" than I do "they don't have that ability"[/QUOTE]
The burden of proof is on you. And if you count these cases of "maybe" by people concerned with LAW and not actual technology, then you should be damn concerned about Chemtrails and I hope your tinfoil hat sits tight because the reptilian overlords are watching us.
I want a particular direct example of "we found this phone and it had this software tap installed". Until you find that, you can go you know what.
[QUOTE=The golden;40045991]If you walked around someones business or in a public place and took footage of random people with a video or still camera then you either going to get kicked out or have the cops called on your ass.
Unlike any consumer obtainable camera (besides hidden cams, obviously) this thing can record footage discreetly because it mounts to your face and has no difference between recording and not recording. (As opposed to a camera or smartphone which you have to hold up). You are very silly if you think business owners should take this lightly.[/QUOTE]
There's a light that indicates when it's recording. I hate being recorded, personally, but if someone wanted to record you without you knowing, they wouldn't be doing it with Glass. I just think it's a silly argument. People want glass to have a cool little HUD with GPS or to interact with their phone hands-free.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
