Slashdot Mirror
Best Handset For Freedom?
Father Thomas Dowd writes "The images we are seeing of Iran are being captured on cell phones and the text is being twittered over SMS. Still, the government has some control over the networks, and we are all familiar with fears of wiretap technologies to spy on users. If the cell phone is the new tool of freedom, what would the best 'freedom handset' contain? I'm thinking of a device with an open OS, where each phone could be a router for encrypted messages passed through Bluetooth/WiFi/whatever, thereby totally bypassing physical infrastructures when necessary. Of course, some sort of plausible deniability encryption a la Truecrypt would also be good, in case the secret police catch you with your phone. What else might we need?"
SCUD Wifi...
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
...and that choice is the Neo FreeRunner. :p
Or, for a more capable cell phone, I would believe that any phone with Android would do.
Most likely the next logical step for rural and otherwise disconnected people would be satellite. However currently it is cost prohibitive for the average person.
So the best handset for this purpose would be satellite capable.
that whatever your choice of handset, it isn't very "free" as long as it is locked to a single service provider.
First off, no commercial phone will come with encryption or any sort of privacy option. This means that you will either need add-on applications, or the ability to tweak the OS.
Secondly, you need an OS you can audit. This rules out BlackBerry, iPhone, and the Nokia N line. Realistically, you're going to end up with a Linux phone.
Thirdly, you need one that is well documented, with a vibrant developer and user community.
With these criteria, I can recommend the T-Mobile G1. I compiled my own OS image, I can run whatever I want (I encrypt ALL data, messages, and calls), and none of it shared with the telcos or the government (one and the same at this point).
If you're worried about censorship, there's no better choice than a satellite phone. They're continuing to drop in price, you're not limited to a terrestrial cellular network, and many models can be tethered to provide Internet access. The big problem for non-Western countries (where they'd be most useful) is the cost, of course. In general terms -- there are cheaper options -- airtime is $1 per minute, and bandwidth also is pricey. Still, they'd be perfect in a circumstance like what's going on in Iran right now, or for any sort of major disaster.
So you get it designed and manufactured and all that fun stuff.... you still need it approved by the government to use on a wireless network. How are you going to get around that "roadblock" to freedom? Some backwater country like Iran can say that in order to use it in the country it needs to have an approved "supreme commander shut off switch".
Seeing how the election has gone so far, ummm, an M4 or AK-47?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Step 1: Get cheapest phone you can find with GPRS and USB. Right now that would be probably LG KP100 - a little over $20 without contract. Use this phone only for "secret" communication, with prepaid SIM cards.
Step 2: A netbook. Usual rules of secretiveness apply - make sure it doesn't transmit any identifiable information, keep "secret" OS separate and on a microSD card, transmit through Tor, and so on...
One that hath name thou can not otter
A nicely shielded tin-foil dome to protect my head meat from the aliens!
They're using their grammar skills there.
Yup, a local government will have a much harder time shutting down satellite and radio (HAM, CB, walkie-talkie) communications, and they will be infinitely more reliable than mesh networking.
First off, for mesh networking to work at all, you would need a large number of people that have the phones - a few people buying Freedom Handsets isn't going to cut it. Even then, your signal gets to the edge of down, and where does it go from there? Assuming you can link into the network, then why not just get a network enabled device to begin with and forget this mesh crap? Plus mesh networking will increase power requirements and unpredictability, requiring as big of a battery as a satellite phone.
Some of us believe freedom is worth risking our lives for. If you want to jump at shadows, that's your business, just make sure you don't try to trample my rights in the process. I'm far more afraid of our own government than terrorism.
We've had enemies for decades. Sometimes, one will get through.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
as much as I hate to say it, also in light of the happenings in Iran:
Probably the freest kind of cell phone you could have, which the Iranian people do not seem to have, is any cell phone securely taped to a Smith & Wesson.
On a related note, earlier today I was wondering if it would be useful if it would be useful to send old digital cameras to places like Iran and other regions where oppression is occurring (perhaps distributed by international media offices?). Just counting myself, I have 3-4 pocket-size digital cameras which are sitting around collecting dust. As a result, many more of the protesters and bystanders would have cameras, and would be able to capture evidence of violence and oppression. Even if they don't have internet proxy access (or a computer), they could give their memory card to someone who does have one. Of course, there's already some videos being leaked out (NOTE: videos are quite graphic) in defiance of the regime, but increasing the number of available photos and videos by an order of magnitude or two would be a game-changer.
Of course, I have no idea how you'd go about starting to organize something like that, but I wanted to seed the idea in case it's worthwhile.
Yeah, jumping at shadows is a good way to describe both sides of the spectrum. Especially living in San Francisco, you wouldn't believe the conspiracy theories people talk about from the government. The reality is, the US isn't going to suddenly turn into a totalitarian state anymore than terrorists are going to kill us all. If you're afraid of either, you're out of touch with reality (this only goes for the US: in Iraq or Iran, things are different).
The practical matter of the question is, right now there are people on the ground who could probably use some sort of reliable communication system that is not disruptable. And most of us want to help them out if we can.
Qxe4
not sure how traceable this would be. could you spoof the mac address.
I would also be more likely to film things with one of the very cheap usb video cameras and upload at an internet cafe. not sure how trackable they are, and the quality is not going to be what you get with a Flip or something like that but you could buy with cash, film and toss if need be
For now, ham radio is probably the best communication device in times of dexterity.
...omphaloskepsis often...
That's a risk I'm willing to take...
Know what else is good for terrorists? Oxygen and water. Fighting terrorism isn't the end-all-be-all of our priorities. In fact, the flu and cars kill more American annually than terrorists.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I don't think either is a huge threat to be blunt. I'm far more scared of a traffic accident.
I'd be a lot more scared of both in, say, the UK.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Don't avoid the cellular networks just because the government controls them. If you go on your own frequency, they will just jam it. What you want to do is to piggy back on something else that would be too expensive for them to shut down. This might be too contrarian but I say use the cellular network but disguise your traffic so they can't sniff it out. In the end that leaves them with only the option of shutting down the entire cellular network, which they wouldn't be able to function without as well. Remember when Blackberry lost the patent lawsuit and how businesses and the government started freaking out? Use their tools against them. Hop on their frequencies. Guerrilla tactics! Blend in.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Of course, some sort of plausible deniability encryption a la Truecrypt would also be good, in case the secret police catch you with your phone.
"We have ways of making you talk."
Plausible denial means nothing to the guy with a set of alligator clips, an old-school inverter and a honking big battery.
The real spy hates spy tech.
Each additional layer of complication introduces new risks. If he can send a message in the clear he will. What he really needs is a method or a system so familiar and mundane that no one gives it a second thought.
Just had an idea, you should communicate with each other in the open via botnets and spammers. Chances are that someone you want to communicate with will get the email. Use stenography and spam them across the Internet. Or if you just want to spread the word, spam in plaintext. Either you get your message through or the spam problem gets solved permanently. Either way you come out ahead.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
These are the governments who put taps on undersea cables. They have the best and brightest people working to hide their communcations while at the same time discover the other guy's covert communications. Iran is making nukes. You think they (or the countries that support them) can't build a receiver? Hell, I have a cell phone jammer from China and I'm nobody.
After the Kremlin exited Eastern Europe, the peoples of each nation in Eastern Europe rapidly established a genuine democracy and a free market. Except for Romania (where its people killed their dictator), there was no violence.
In Iran (and many other failed states), no external force is imposing the current brutal government on the Iranians. The folks running the government are Iranian. The president is Iranian. The secret police are Iranian. The thugs who will torture and kill democracy advocates are Iranian.
If the democracy advocates attempt to establish a genuine democracy in Iran, violence will occur. Why? A large percentage of the population supports the brutal government and will kill the democracy advocates.
Let us not merely condemn the Iranian government. We must condemn Iranian culture. Its product is the authoritarian state.
We should not intervene in the current crisis in Iran. If the overwhelming majority of Iranians (like the overwhelming majority of Poles) truly support democracy, human rights, and peace with Israel, then a liberal Western democracy will arise -- without any violence. Right now, the overwhelming majority clearly oppose the creation of a liberal Western democracy. The Iranians love a brutal Islamic theocracy.
The Iranians created this horrible society. It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons. We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
Note that, 40 years ago, Vietnam suffered a worse fate (than the Iranians) at the hands of the Americans. They doused large areas of Vietnam with agent orange, poisoning both the land and the people. Yet, the Vietnamese do not channel their energies into seeking revenge (by, e. g., building a nuclear bomb) against the West. Rather, the Vietnamese are diligently modernizing their society. They will reach 1st-world status long before the Iranians.
Cultures are different. Vietnamese culture and Iranian culture are different. The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
The best handset for freedom will also be the best handset for terrorism.
As I understand it (not being affiliated with them but only observing reports on the open media):
The US intelligence agencies monitor cellphones in the middle east and other areas of interest from satellites. (They definitely tap GSM phones and it would be silly if they didn't tap satellite phones as well.) This was used to map out terrorist networks, using both voice intercepts and traffic analysis (including one they got a big break on because a major message forwarder swapped smartcards in a single handset for the calls to each of his contacts - he didn't know that the phone also sent its own i.d. as well as that of the smartcard.) Eventually the terrorists figured out cellphones were compromised and moved off them entirely.
Given that the US has this ability but is unlikely to share info from it with a regime it exposes, few others have anything like it (for the next few years at least), cellphones hacked for security might be useful for resistance movements (that aren't opposed by a major space-capable power) and boobytraps for terrorists. I'd guess that will continue to be the case for at least another decade or so.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"If the cell phone is the new tool of freedom..." is a faulty premise so the rest is irrelevant.
The only effective "tool of freedom" is the one that denies your oppressor the ability to oppress. In most cases, this is effective violence executed properly against the proper target(s). Any communication that does not serve this purpose is just so much noise.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
the future is not big brother, ie, the govt surveils you everywhere
the future is little brother: it is your fellow citizen who surveil you, completely uncontrollably
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
20 years ago CNN used a primitive version of a Satellite Phone to get "live" pictures back from Tienanmen Square in Beijing, China.
If I recall it took about 20 seconds for a grainy tv-quality frame to transmit.
Similar satellite picture phones were used in the Middle East during Gulf War I in the early '90s.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
With this stories posting my beloved /. has officially jumped the shark.
"If the cell phone is the new tool of freedom, what would the best 'freedom handset' contain?"
All the phone is is the recorder of acts. The freedom comes from dissemination and in that regard the phone is ineffective. More could be accomplished with a flash card hand carried across the borders than relying on infrastructure that can be controlled by a hostile government.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Science Fiction author David Brin has already suggested installing peer-to-peer relays for text messages on mobile phones, as a means to ensure emergency communications could be maintained in case of a partial or complete breakdown of the wireless networks. Such a system would have been quite useful, for example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the bandwidth is so small as to be almost unnoticeable.
Of course, encryption would also be nice, but this would be a good start, to establish such a standard.
Note that the Nextel network already allows peer-to-peer calls, although it does not use phones as relays.
Remind me to plant 4.3GB from /dev/random to some obscure location of your hard drive and label it newworldorder.iso.truecryptX2, then call the guys who hire the men with the alligator clips.
Just for grins, I'll encrypt the file with TrueCrypt using your wife's maiden name as the password. Since you obviously had one layer of encryption and since the decrypted file looks random, obviously there's a second layer of encryption.
"What's the password to the 2nd layer"
"What second layer? I have no idea what you are talking about"
"We have ways of making you talk."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The best possible way to secure your communications is through the use of pre-paid cell phones because there are virtually no records of your transactions nor communications. Simply get a new sim card periodically and add some air time. You won't be able to be easily tracked and you could list a bogus address with the cell company. It is lower tech and whole lot easier.
I have a dream for REAL digital freedom:
An open source wifi phone. Hardware, Software, everything controllable and redesignable by the consumer. With a standard USB port for charging and computer connection.
Every house having a wifi router, all connected to each other in an adhoc p2p network replacing the existing corporate infrastructure.
Everyone could have free anonymous and uncensored internet and phone calls anywhere, at any time.
Fuck wire tapping, fuck Cox, fuck Charter, fuck Apple, and fuck Verizon.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
some wee problems with your version, the big outrage is inside Iran and is not fake, nor is it due to U.S.. The economy is in a mess over there, 30% unemployment etc.etc. and the people are pissed at the government and want change.
In fact, the flu and cars kill more American annually than terrorists.
With the broad definition of "terrorist" I wouldn't be surprised if flu viruses and automobiles were added to the no-fly list soon.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You don't need a phone, you need a television studio, preferably one previously owned by the government. With so many people demonstrating it should be relatively easy to occupy one and spread your message.
-- Cheers!
Wait you mean the US is NOT supposed to keep other countries subdued under the guise of safety? That argument has good logic and reason behind it, not something the "majority" of us Americans excel in.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
The best phone would be one that prevented the Iranian people from getting so worked up over sham elections in the first place -- and that's probably no phone at all.
Knowledge is power, and knowledge doesn't come from SMS (although, on rare occasions, data might).
Quarantines make some sense for diseases which are both highly contagious and highly dangerous. There was a time we thought the 2006 strain of flue would be just that. It turned out not to be the case. There are some diseases, like Ebola, that would warrant a quarantine.
Quarantines also make some sense for highly contagious diseases which are not widespread but could easily become widespread without one. This applied to bird flu in 2006 and it applied to the 2009 swine flu in its early stages. Once a disease that isn't particularly dangerous gets a foothold in an area there's not much point in preventing travel within that area or between that area and similarly-affected areas.
There is a possibility that the 2009 swine flu will evolve into a highly dangerous strain. If this happens, expect quarantines and travel restrictions if you are traveling from an affected area to a non-affected area.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You say that mesh networks are bad, and then go on to suggest that we should all use HAM radio instead. Why would you think that HAM radio isn't just another variation of a mesh network?
1. Doesn't rely on a centralized carrier - check!
2. Radio waves to transmit digital information - check!
3. Equipment can be stationary or mobile for short-range coomunication - check!
4. Digital information is repeated from point to point until its destination is reached - check!
I think that you've been thinking about mesh networks as short-range wifi-like computer-only mesh networks. But there is no aspect of these networks that isn't being done in some fashion on the far older HAM networks! It's slower, older, often manually prformed - but it's just as much a 'mesh network' if not more so!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Of course, some sort of plausible deniability encryption a la Truecrypt would also be good, in case the secret police catch you with your phone.
Truecrypt - a product I'm right fond of and use - isn't going to be able to stand up to the cryptanalysis that some police forces will bring to bear. Their notion of plausible deniability differs: They'll believe you're telling the truth just before (or just after) your death by acts of torture.
I think a blend of well established practice and tech will serve them better. In the form of microSD passed hand to hand or via drops. They're small, elude most metal detectors and can easily hidden or easily disposed of should the need arise.
Yes, yes, there's always one jackass who has to say this or something akin to it. Freedom is good for terrorism so let's become a totalitarian state. I love trolls.
The best handset is a M1911.
Regimes like that don't get a little thing like evidence get in the way of them keeping control. Anyone caught with a handset which can be traced to subversive messages in deep doodoo. Their relatives and friends probably are too.
There are three parts to security: Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability, C.I.A. If the C part is most important, then a netbook with encryption and OS on removable storage makes sense. Availability isn't so good because you can't leave it on all the time to receive messages. Once the revolution has started, availability is more important because the government will be trying to shut down networks, and there is the element of hiding in plain sight if there are a hundred thousand other people in the crowd. In that case, adapt your plans to whatever communications you have left.
The best handset for freedom will also be the best handset for terrorism.
That's because one man's freedom fighter is someone else's terrorist.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
If the "secret police" catch you, the fucking last thing to worry about is "plausible deniability". This isn't the White House, or the Senate. You don't get your "phone call". If the secret police catch you, you suffer. No trial, no evidence, no representation. Worrying about hiding stuff on a phone is moot. Just be glad if you are released alive.
Your best handset for freedom is the one which does not pass through the government-controlled networks. E.g., Iridium, Globalstar, Thuraya. I'm sure that this is the way at least some of the information is leaking out to the West. If somebody catches you with it - well, don't let them do that. Newer handsets are pretty small and look like normal mobile phones.
The answers from slashdot's finest are equally applicable to freedom-wanting Iranians or people wanting to coordinate an attack on, say, americal soldiers in Iraq.
At the moment it and email run over tcpip, but before that, both ran just as well over UUCP which meant connectionless and completely decentralised. The flood fill nature of usenet means that it only takes a single transfer to completely bypass all centralised control.
You could run a similar content (text, documents, photos, videos, etc) sharing architecture over wireless or bluetooth, completely bypassing the centralised networks. It would have to be something store and forward, similar in concept to usenet or email. Phones would then only have to be within 10-100m to transmit and receive information.
I wouldn't worry too much about being caught, cos they're kill you anyway whether they have evidence of you doing something or not. It would be nice though if this could be dressed up as a "file/music sharing" application like edonkey etc and marketed at kids giving you a ready built routing infrastructure.
Deleted
I could agree with the idea that the US media was running this whole war if they hadn't been a week behind in covering it. Why start a conflict if you're going to be outdone in grabbing the ratings? If there's already facebook marches being organized before you report the first story on the war you created you're doing it wrong.
Please repost stating that the protests were created by an alliance of mischievous 4channers and we can talk.
I'm sure that will stop them from totally beating the crap out of you.
At the bottom of the
Some mobile carriers do not allow VOIP communication or will charge you extra if you use it. Since you can't use SSH for VOIP (apparently SSH is not intended for UDP) the only solution is a VPN connection.
So you need a device that is able to create a VPN tunnel before starting a communication, the downside is battery longevity, since having constant 3G connection will eat you battery in no time.
The other solution is a pre-paid SIM card, but in most states you won't be able to get one unless you show your ID.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Check Iran's history. I'd imagine nobody in Iran would want to be associated with 'change through US firepower'.
I always thought HAM radio was the obvious tool for guerrilla communication.
All your points are valid, but the most important one is the independence from the centralized (read: government/corporations controlled) infrastructure.
The required technology is also way more simple to master (DIYish), giving you further freedom.
The point of being slower is certainly a set-back for multimedia, but text-based communication certainly covers most basic needs.
HAM radio For The Freedom!
factor 966971: 966971
Seems beside the point to me somehow. A loser strategy. What about surviving? Political triumph would be nice, but let's be realistic: The Iranian government and their apparati do not wish to "Take Counsel with the Governed" which it says right in the pages of the Holy Quran itself you're supposed to do and is wisely, but not widely, interpreted to be a basis for some measure of democratic input to governance. ISLAMIC FAIL. Mohammed (pbuh) would hit the roof over this kind of bull-crap. Besides filming yourself being beaten to death, may I suggest a cell-phone shadow network? Build cell phone servers that will accept any message from any phone without interrogating the SIMM card, and rebroadcast it on WiFi. Build them into cars. Arrange for a mesh of access points. Then when the "authorities" bring down communications networks, you have your own, ready to go. You could co-ordinate crowd tactics that way....
I've often wonders about p2p text messaging, not for anything noble but just because it seams that certain communities would be great candidates for it (schools, universities, festivals, etc). There are many problems including:
1)Battery life, almost all phones switch of wifi/bluetooth asap to save battery life, which on smart phones is apparently fairly short anyway. To constantly have wifi/bluetooth active would reduce the idle life of most phones so much most people would disable this feature.
2)Carriers wouldn't like it, sending text messages across a room via bluetooth seams fairly trivial, however AFAIK (my current phone is a cheap POS) its much easier to send MMS than SMS because few phones support receiving text, without 3rd party apps. Either this is down to bickering over standards or more likely the carriers putting pressure on phone makers not to implement/standardize such features.
3)Range and complexity, even in ideal situations (high density, high diffusion), the range of wifi/bluetooth is still fairly limited. And as neither are particularly great at handling walls, you would end up with large subgroups of completely disconnected users, and its not that useful to only be able to communicated with people in the room. The way around the separation problem is to buffer and send messages when other users are in range, however this increase complexity & starts introducing possible security problems and DOS attacks.
4)Chicken and egg, this being useful relies on it being installed on most phones, but being installed on most phones relies on it being useful (even ignoring carrier interference)
While 1,3 can be solved technically and 2 will become a moot point as carriers allow smart phones, 4 is the real problem, especially as there is little demand for yet another way of sending text between phones. While fellow /.ers may appreciate the beauty of open-p2p phone networks, most normals wont give a damn.
p.s encryption would be fairly trivial to implement as you could exchange keys when physically near each-other and/or due to the mesh/p2p nature making consistent MITM attacks tricky(especially as if one pear slows down to re-encrypt messages a faster route will probably be found) sign all outgoing messages and encrypt replies (ofc you wouldn't want to send anything sensitive until you trust the keys, probably achieved by standing next to each-other and sending a message)
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
The idiot is the person who thinks he can secure liberty for himself alone.
The time to worry about plausible deniability is before the secret police catch you. And make sure everyone knows the drill too. In the face of the secret police "individual liberty" has no practical utility.
Even an oppressive state can't kill everyone. That's the game going on in the streets of Tehran today. The protesters want to nucleate into a crowd so big that it can't be dispersed without killing lots of people. The government doesn't want to do that, because in Iran that means funerals, which are ready made protest rallies. The government wants to keep the crowds isolated and intimidated so that it doesn't end up signing its own death warrant.
The key to effective oppression is intimidation. The key to defeating oppression is to gather so many people together they can't be intimidated.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You have got to be kidding me."Freedom Handset"?
If people really want to change the situation they are in, they will find a way to communicate their ideas.
The message is so much more important than the medium used to pass the message.
The more "security features" you add to a device, the more difficult it is for the message to get out. You have to have a device to send your encoded messages, and whomever you are trying to communicate with needs a device to receive that message.
I would think that the less complicated you can make the delivery of the message, the better the chance of your message making it to the people that you want to hear it.
The real "Freedom Handset" should be a Bull-Horn.
They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
You mean the huge oil companies who'd found the oil, drilled the wells to extract it, built the refineries etc? Why should they not get at the oil?
Maybe because it isn't theirs? I do not claim that they shouldn't expect a reasonable return on the investment of their efforts, but why would it necessarily give them ownership rights on the resource itself?
isn't this what Barack Obama advocated? To go, "Yay freedom" and stay out of the Iranian Government's affairs?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Where are mod points when I need them
this ain't aloha [Ac]kbar
Google fight:
I'm sure they meant "Hello general" ;-)
Any company greedy enough to cut a deal like that shouldn't be surprised at all when they discover that governments can be greedy bastards also....