[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40046239]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]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy[/URL]
[I]surely[/I] you remember this? Unless you're not in the states in which case that'd be understandable but regardless.
[quote]The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (AKA "Warrantless Wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program", part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S.[/quote]
AAAAANNND
[quote]During the Obama Administration, the NSA has officially continued operating under the new FISA guidelines. However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[/quote]
It was a [I]massive[/I] controversy, because everyone suddenly was pissed about something that people had been warning about for [I]years.[/I]
These days, nobody gives a shit because everyone wants their cell phones.
[editline]adf[/editline]
And for an actual story
[url]http://trib.com/news/local/casper/tapped-cell-phones-implicate-people-in-recent-meth-bust/article_8bac4592-0c8c-5a2f-b601-fea9f39e98c3.html[/url]
[quote]Police say they listened in as Lea Lewis vowed to stop talking about drugs on the telephone.
A few tapped phones served as the linchpins of an investigation that led to dozens of arrests related to methamphetamine distribution in Natrona County.
Lewis and Norman Frederick play a central role in a newly released police affidavit that details how the two allegedly traveled to Las Vegas and California to pick up drugs they would deliver to a network of cohorts in Wyoming.
Allegations rely largely on Lewis’s and Frederick’s phone and text message conversations with each other and their co-conspirators.[/quote]
Isn't there a red light on it when it starts recording?
Its not much different from cameras on phones.
[quote]"We are not calling for a total ban," one of the campaign workers called Jack told the BBC in a message sent via anonymised email service Hushmail.
[/quote]
Is it just me, or is this person just a little too paranoid?
Don't you have to say "Okay glass, take a video" out loud anyway for it to take a video? Which pretty much isn't any different than taking out a fucking phone and recording video?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40046329][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy[/url]
[I]surely[/I] you remember this? Unless you're not in the states in which case that'd be understandable but regardless.
AAAAANNND
It was a [I]massive[/I] controversy, because everyone suddenly was pissed about something that people had been warning about for [I]years.[/I]
These days, nobody gives a shit because everyone wants their cell phones.[/QUOTE]
We're not argueing that they can't monitor our calls / usage, we're arguing that they can't remotely control a (an unaltered) device
I'm still convinced we don't need actual laws to deal with this. You are an asshole if you walk around with a recording camera attached to your face while you interact with people, and I don't think people will be shy about letting you know. Plus, it just looks so fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40046329]
And for an actual story
[url]http://trib.com/news/local/casper/tapped-cell-phones-implicate-people-in-recent-meth-bust/article_8bac4592-0c8c-5a2f-b601-fea9f39e98c3.html[/url][/QUOTE]
and that shows they're intercepting cell calls, nothing to do with what you originally stated
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;40046355]Is it just me, or is this person just a little too paranoid?[/QUOTE]He's part of a group terrified of proof-of-concept technology and basically the internet because "Ohh my word my privacy!" so I'm not surprised in the least. Yeah, I'd say he and everyone involved are fucking psychopaths or idiots.
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40046377]I'm still convinced we don't need actual laws to deal with this. You are an asshole if you walk around with a recording camera attached to your face while you interact with people, and I don't think people will be shy about letting you know. Plus, it just looks so fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]This would have to mean it is actually recording the entire time. (This would be stupidly infeasible for so many reasons that it is just not worth mentioning.)
[QUOTE=Shadaez;40046374]We're not argueing that they can't monitor our calls / usage, we're arguing that they can't remotely control a (an unaltered) device[/QUOTE]
That is what [I]you're[/I] arguing. He's arguing the other point. To my knowledge anyway.
I direct you back to 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 [B]requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment [U]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.[/U][/B][/quote]
And I like the design, I don't see what is wrong with it. Is everyone expecting it to be stuck on a pair of $10 shades from Walmart or big horn-rimmed glasses?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40046448]And I like the design, I don't see what is wrong with it. Is everyone expecting it to be stuck on a pair of $10 shades from Walmart or big horn-rimmed glasses?[/QUOTE]
I want a pair on shutter shades
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40046442]That is what [I]you're[/I] arguing. He's arguing the other point. To my knowledge anyway.
I direct you back to CALEA
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act[/url][/QUOTE]
you're being silly
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.
yes monitor real time communications and internet usage
not turn phones on and take pictures / send audio
These things happen at different levels, you don't need access to the persons phone to listen to the calls they're having, or to monitor their internet use. They can do that through the phone provider, independent of the phones.
Who cares if you're being recorded, specially when someone is wearing a camera very visibly on their face.
Cameras are tiny, you can fit them in ties, pens and even suit buttons nowadays. Those are the ones you should be paranoid about. If someone wanted to record you, they would do so without wearing an obvious camera on their face that has a light that shows that it is currently recording.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;40046497]Who cares if you're being recorded, specially when someone is wearing a camera very visibly on their face.
Cameras are tiny, you can fit them in ties, pens and even suit buttons nowadays. Those are the ones you should be paranoid about. If someone wanted to record you, they would do so without wearing an obvious camera on their face that has a light that shows that it is currently recording.[/QUOTE]NO! You see! They are constantly recording but they just don't say it! And all of this video is uploaded live to Google's servers, where the FBI and CIA then sift through it all and keep records on everyone!
[QUOTE=latin_geek;40046497]Who cares if you're being recorded, specially when someone is wearing a camera very visibly on their face.
Cameras are tiny, you can fit them in ties, pens and even suit buttons nowadays. Those are the ones you should be paranoid about. If someone wanted to record you, they would do so without wearing an obvious camera on their face that has a light that shows that it is currently recording.[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was going to say.
People have for years and years been able to record people in public without anyone even knowing. Google Glass just makes it obvious to you that you may actually be recorded.
People can hide cameras in their jacket's buttons, Google Glass is visibly on peoples faces.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;40046489]you're being silly
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.
yes monitor real time communications and internet usage
not turn phones on and take pictures / send audio
These things happen at different levels, you don't need access to the persons phone to listen to the calls they're having, or to monitor their internet use. They can do that through the phone provider, independent of the phones.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.flexispy.com/[/url]
This is a commercial product that lets you remotely control a phone.
If there is a [I] commercially available product[/I] that can do it, then I 100% guarantee you that the Govt has their own.
[url]http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20061027462FSupp2d565_1976.xml#FR_2[/url]
[quote]The government applied for a "roving bug," that is, the interception of Ardito's conversations at locations that were "not practical" to specify, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(a). Judge Jones granted the application, authorizing continued interception at the four restaurants and the installation of a listening device in Ardito's cellular telephone.1 The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be.[/quote]
And here is an exact court case where a "roving bug" was "installed" on the target's phone. They don't specify whether it was a physical bug or a software bug, but that right there proves the capability and use of it. Whether or not these are pre-installed is impossible to determine, as you can guarantee that that bit wouldn't show up on an ATT advertisement.
As long as they wont become mandatory for modern life like personal computers became, As long as its an option im totally fine with it.
If they can track it, they can control it.
Remember, your phone is not actually yours - its the service providers. (if on contract)
I read that whole 23 arguments against google glass article, and I must say that most of it is nit-picking. The only valid ones are the ones that involve distraction.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40046442]That is what [I]you're[/I] arguing. He's arguing the other point. To my knowledge anyway.
I direct you back to CALEA
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah I am not and I made that clear
[quote=mother_fucking_me]
Yeah, they could tap your actual phone calls for decades, now.
No, they can't magically turn your phone on on demand. [/quote]
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40046820][url]http://www.flexispy.com/[/url]
This is a commercial product that lets you remotely control a phone.
If there is a [I] commercially available product[/I] that can do it, then I 100% guarantee you that the Govt has their own.
[url]http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20061027462FSupp2d565_1976.xml#FR_2[/url]
And here is an exact court case where a "roving bug" was "installed" on the target's phone. They don't specify whether it was a physical bug or a software bug, but that right there proves the capability and use of it. Whether or not these are pre-installed is impossible to determine, as you can guarantee that that bit wouldn't show up on an ATT advertisement.[/QUOTE]
Yes. You have to get your hands onto the device and manually install it.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40047303]Yeah I am not and I made that clear
[/quote]Sorry I missed that then.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40047303]
Yes. You have to get your hands onto the device and manually install it.[/QUOTE]
For the commercial product, sure.
The court case doesn't specify install vector.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40047461]Sorry I missed that then.
For the commercial product, sure.
The court case doesn't specify install vector.[/QUOTE]
It is virtually impossible to force something on to someone else's phone without having physical access to it or using some kind of social engineering. The govt can't just put software on your phone willy nilly, it's impossible. You can keep saying that it's possible but so far you haven't proven anything, you just keep on chewing the same wiretap crap back to us.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40047461]Sorry I missed that then.
For the commercial product, sure.
The court case doesn't specify install vector.[/QUOTE]
you're hilarious, you're jumping from, "Someone with physical access to a device can install software to listen to your mic, phone calls, and SMS when it's on" to "the government at any time can remotely take control of your phone and do all of these things with a stock phone, even while it's off" just because they're the government and must have special powers
that's quite the leap
In the great words of Andrew Ryan:
[QUOTE]' A man [B]creates[/B]. A parasite says, [B]'What will the neighbors think?'[/B]
A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... ' [/QUOTE]
In all seriousness, claims and movements such as the one this thread regards are bound to happen as technology progresses. It's natural for humans to be skeptical on an innovation. Remember when the cell phone was progressing, and it received claims of having the ability to "cause" cancer? Now, privacy isn't as radical as a worry that the cell phones had on them. With Glass, privacy would be a recurring topic through its years of development and use.
Would you yourself go out and buy a pair of Google Glasses to stalk people with? The typical answer is no (yes if you're that 0.1% :v: ). Google Glasses could also be beneficial towards the information gained on a crime scene. If one of the victims (not dead, hopefully) happened to be recording with their glasses, this could provide the local police with better facial identification, height, body type, etc. of a law breaker comparative to the use of security cameras in public places.
wake up sheeple, google is the government, also has 6 letters in its name and 666 is the number of SATAN
And so was the organisation Purity First formed.
They never asked for this.
[QUOTE=Hullu V3;40055606]And so was the organisation Purity First formed.
They never asked for this.[/QUOTE]
I never asked for them.
TECHNOLOGY WILL FIND A WAY
"It's ok for every business and government office to have a camera, but civilians should not be allowed to record in public anywhere." Is basically what I just read. They gave no clear example of what they [i]don't[/i] wan't, other than "We just don't want it at all".
This is stupid, and if you are arguing for privacy you need to go take a walk outside in a city, surrounded by thousands of people and just as many cameras on the buildings as there are people in the streets. Get over it or stay inside.
God forbid I wear a pair of glasses to record you, would you rather me carry my phone around to record you like people do today?
is everyody seriously forgetting about the red LED
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
