Slashdot Mirror
How To Tell If Your Cell Phone Is Bugged
Lauren Weinstein writes to point us to his essay on the realities of using an idle cell phone as a bug, as a recent story indicated the FBI may have done in a Mafia case. From the essay: "There is no magic in cell phones. From a transmitting standpoint, they are either on or off... It is also true that some phones can be remotely programmed by the carrier to mask or otherwise change their display and other behaviors in ways that could be used to fool the unwary user. However, this level of remote programmability is another feature that is not universal... But remember — no magic! When cell phones are transmitting — even as bugs — certain things are going to happen every time that the alert phone user can often notice."
The "essay" is nothing but speculation with a few facts, no references, and no actual testing or experience. I'm sure this is an amusing blog entry, but why is it on Slashdot? There's nothing to discuss.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
This has always stood as one of those easily reinterpreted components of the constitution -- just look at the way the US Supreme Court enjoys reinterpreting it. And, to some degree, I do see why this should be interpreted in a somewhat fluid way. There are terrorists/freedom fighters out there, and governments should be capable of protecting their citizens-- that is what they're ultimately designed to do.
However, the egregious trampling of our right to privacy, as outlined in the US constitution, starts moving us very quickly in the direction of fascism. And people tend to use the term fascism lightly, but you have to ask yourself how a state can move from one type of government to another? History has shown that this happens everywhere -- just look at history
So, why would I take a break from my ultimate presentation on latency markers in tuberculosis? Well, I feel strongly that you (the person reading this, not just the general "you") should take it upon yourself to encourage those people that you vote for to stand up and strengthen the first levee against tyranny -- our right to privacy. The FBI may, at this point, consider using your cell phone to track you as a legitimate means to and end, but when the FBI cycles through it's current leadership/membership then we can only hope that these means lead to good ends.
And the hope that people mean well is not something I am willing to risk.
"I am completely innocent. I have commited no crimes and am not suspected of committing any crimes."
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that anyone can live in Britain today and not commit any crimes. You've never driven over 70mph on a motorway? You've never put recyclable waste in your dustbin?
There are so many laws in Britain today that you're pretty much a criminal the instant you get out of bed; in fact, you're probably a criminal if you stay in bed all day too. The real problem is _too many laws_, not too many criminals; if the cops stopped chasing people for bullshit crimes with high-tech gadgetry they could get all the real criminals off the streets.
It's not a bug, it's the future
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
If we are concerned with the ability of somebody to alter the phone's behavior sufficiently to initiate a call without your intervention, then we shouldn't assume too much about what other things can or cannot be done.
For example, not being able to make a call when a call is in progress. In time division multiplexing, you're taking one or two timeslots out of eight or sixteen. However, it's pretty clear that if we have modified the phone ostensible behavior enough to use it as a bug, it could also take more than one half channel at a time.
Checking the warmth of the phone is good idea, but not perfect either. The assumption is that the phone is transmitting your words live. What if the phone recorded your conversations at a reduced bit rate, say 3kb/sec, using voice activiation. It could the be stored and dribbled out intermittently, particularly when close to a cell tower. This would reduce telltale power effects. This might not be enough to monitor your every waking moment, but it could be used to monitor snatches of your conversation, particularly as part of a surveillance program.
Even if the phone doesn't transmit your speech, it could use the signally channel to record that you are talking, combined with the GPS or wi-fi snooping, over time the network of people you talk to could be recontructed.
It's a bit paranoid to worry about these things, unless you think the government has a compelling reason to snoop on you. But if you do have such a reason, then you shouldn't make too many assumptions about what they could do with a phone, particularly a "smart" phone which might have megabytes of storage. A simpler phone with a removable battery would be a good choice.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, if They have ordered the phone company to intercept your call, why would they bother with turning off encryption anyway? IIt's not like the phone company needs to break it to intercept your call. f state authorities want to listen in to a conservation, they surely don't have to tune in on the air interface between mobile phone and base station. The call has to be routed through a phone network anyway.
Those callers are bill collectors. Mark was (and likely is) a deadbeat (not that there is anything wrong with that :]). By law, or convention (I'm not really sure) they don't talk about Mark's financial problem with anyone else but Mark. The next round of creditors will start automated messages "I have an important message for Mark (his last name), call...", and this will repeat 4 or more times a day. Get rid of that number now, it won't stop.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
So the reason they monitor you is to keep you innocent.
That's it, you win the doublespeak award this week and it's not even Tuesday yet. Your extremely light two sentences about Belgium announcing "mobile control" whatever that is, doesn't defend the above quote in the least. It's also a logical fallacy. People are not innocent only because they are being watched, they can be innocent just because they ARE, they don't need to be monitored to force them into that state. Others may (or may not) check their behavior knowing they are under surveillance, but being watched is certainly not a prerequisite for obeying the law.
The reason 'they' - the state - monitor you is to catch you doing something wrong, anything. Maybe it wasn't even illegal last week, but it is this week and now you're guilty. With the huge numbers of laws on the books everyone is almost guaranteed to be guilty of something at some point, the only problem has been catching everyone in the act of breaking some law. With ubiquitous surveillance, monitoring algorithms, etc. the state now, more than any other time in history, can keep a dirty file on everyone. The state can only punish criminals, but if everyone is a criminal then the state has achieved another level of control and can selectively enforce prosecution at will to manipulate, coherce, and consolidate more power. That particular 'power' may even be something as minor as increasing traffic ticket revenue, but the result is the same.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
It's really simple:
1. Start a pre-paid phone company.
2. With each new activation, call the new user 10 to 12 times making each call last at least 5 minutes.
3. User is forced to buy more minutes for the phone.
4. Profit!
Layne