Slashdot Mirror


Smartphone As Your Most Dangerous Possession

Hugh Pickens writes "CNN reports that now that smartphones double as wallets and bank accounts — allowing users to manage their finances, transfer money, make payments, deposit checks and swipe their phones as credit cards — smartphones have become very lucrative scores for thieves and with 30% of phone subscribers owning iPhones, BlackBerrys and Droids, there are a lot of people at risk. Storing a password and keeping your phone locked is a good start, but it's not going to protect you from professional fraudsters. 'Don't think that having an initial password set on your phone can stop people from getting in there,' says Nikki Junker, a victim advisor at the Identity Theft Resource Center. 'It's a very low level of protection — you can even find 30-second videos on how to crack smartphone passwords on YouTube.'"

154 comments

  1. I do not think that word means what you think it d by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe you mean "risky" not "dangerous." The most dangerous item I own is probably a knife.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  2. Explosive deterrence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a phone which will self destruct if someone tries to tamper with the security.

    Preferably in a painful way to the person doing it.

    1. Re:Explosive deterrence? by hodet · · Score: 1

      That's a little harsh. Remote wipe is good enough. My corporate Blackberry can be wiped remotely. I think any smartphone should allow me to login to my account online and activate remote wipe to my device. Maybe they do already. I am sure many folks here have smartphones, does that exist on personal accounts?

    2. Re:Explosive deterrence? by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Hardware that was even making a token effort at security, would need to be capable of cold zeroisation.
      To remotely wipe data, it needs a power source AND a signal.

    3. Re:Explosive deterrence? by hodet · · Score: 1

      Yes but remote wipe would take care of 99% of the dumb criminals. There is very little defence against the smart ones. TFA talks about posting to Facebook and using your device as a credit card which would imply connectivity.

    4. Re:Explosive deterrence? by mlts · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see more phones have the option to completely erase contents after "X" period of time with no network signal. This way, someone can't just pull a SIM card to keep access.

      As for remote wipes, sometimes phones do provide non-corporate customers the way to do this. Apple does, (you used to need a .me.com account, but apparently with iOS 4.2.1, not anymore.) Motorola's Motoblur accounts also have this ability as well.

      I do think having E-mail with an Exchange provider (that supports OWA) is a good thing even with these options, just because of the ability to wipe the contents using a different mechanism.

    5. Re:Explosive deterrence? by Prune · · Score: 1

      The only weakness on a BB with full encryption enabled is a weak password. Note the flash memory would have to be moved to different hardware and the hardware keys extracted from the phone board, since the phone hardware checks firmware signature so you can't just load your cracking software on the phone hardware

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    6. Re:Explosive deterrence? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Give me a phone which will self destruct if someone tries to tamper with the security.

      Call me crazy, but I wouldn't want to carry around explosives near my ear or crotch. My phone crashes enough, I'd prefer it not have the option of crashing then burning my nuts off.

    7. Re:Explosive deterrence? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Self-destruction does not have to be explosive. Though GP sure seems to think so.

  3. And how many people actually protect their phone by hsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With passcodes, setting the phone to wipe on a few failed tries? Almost everyone I know lacks a passcode on their mobile device - giving anyone the freedom to dig into their personal lives. I just don't think people realize what a risk it is at all.

    I'd also like to know which devices can be cracked in 30 seconds. With iPhone 4's full device encryption, I don't see how the key can be cracked in under 10 tries before it would wipe itself. But, I'd like to know.

  4. Security of a smart phone by Wowsers · · Score: 1

    Actually no I do not use a smart phone for banking etc.. I cannot control the OS installed on the phone, I therefore cannot add bits (apps) knowing for sure that they work as intended, so I do not use the smart phone for banking, or surfing to sites that need log-ins. Log-in type of browsing I use my Linux desktop / laptop for.

    Those that do use a smart phone for everything, they should treat the phone just like cash, where if you loose it, you could be well forked, and out of pocket in more ways than one.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Security of a smart phone by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The security on a smart phone isn't any worse (in many cases better, even) than that on most people's personal computers. The OS question is irrelevant, the big difference is that it's much easier to gain physical access. Just be vigilant and be have a plan ready to immediately block all access if you do lose your phone.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    2. Re:Security of a smart phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is lose not loose. Why is it that so many people mix up these words?

    3. Re:Security of a smart phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just come out and say it. Phone security is leagues ahead of desktop operating system security. Let me know when every app on your desktop computer is sandboxed to its own process, unable to read the memory of other apps, unable to read/write to external storage without explicit permissions, each app with its own private data storage other apps cannot access. Sorry, but Windows and OSX are a joke.

    4. Re:Security of a smart phone by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      It is lose not loose. Why is it that so many people mix up these words?

      Because they're illiter8 ba5tards.

    5. Re:Security of a smart phone by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I have a smartphone, a Droid. I control the OS, I have added "bits", kernel modules.

    6. Re:Security of a smart phone by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I therefore cannot add bits (apps) knowing for sure that they work as intended,

      Working as intended isn't what worries me with smartphone apps. Working as advertised is a much bigger impediment to my comfort levels doing banking on the phone.

      I stop short of having my gmail account on my smartphone. Banking, etc, get done from a stock-configured browser in a virtual machine that only ever gets used for that (and is configured read-only).

    7. Re:Security of a smart phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just a bit better, it's a *lot* better. I'm not familiar with android or windows mobile, but on iOS if you set a passcode:

        - you have to enter the pin to use the phone, except to answer a phone call or make an emergency call.
        - you have to enter the pin to plug the phone into someone else's computer.
        - you have to completely erase the phone's memory to reset the pin.
        - if you get the pin wrong several times in a row, it will make you wait 5 minutes to enter it again. get it wrong this time, and you wait 10 minutes. *every* incorrect try makes the wait longer, not sure how far it goes, but when a kid got hold of my iPad, he pushed it to a 1 hour wait before you could try the pin again.
        - unlike a PC, nobody seems to know how to take out the internal memory and plug it into their workstation to access it that way, if it's even possible.

      TFA references to youtube videos claiming to bypass all this in 30 seconds, but doesn't link to any of them. As far as I know, they're security holes which have been patched long ago.

    8. Re:Security of a smart phone by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      It is lose not loose. Why is it that so many people mix up these words?

      In this case, it might well be accurate. If I loose (let loose, free from restraints, or even release my grip on) my smartphone, just like if I did the same with my wallet, I might very well be "forked".

      Hopefully, thieves won't start grabbing phones out of our hands, but it's possible!

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    9. Re:Security of a smart phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shudder to think how much money you have in savings accounts to justify that level of paranoia. Diversification of your assets is a more reasonable approach than trying to turn a virtual machine in to fort knox.

  5. The power of technology.... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It continues to make almost everything more convenient, including ruining you.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:The power of technology.... by fermion · · Score: 2
      We need to be aware of the security risk of the instruments we use. That said more advance and abstract instruments are not necessarily more risky. For instance in a barter system we might use goods, but have the risk of those goods losing value due to decay or market forces. We might say a objective measure such as gold could be secured, but not against inflation. Gold has not kept up with inflation for most fo the past 35 years.

      So maybe we have currency which can also be lost, stolen, and has no protection against inflation. So we use bank accounts and saving accounts with can secure money against loss due theft and inflation. But we use checks to get the money, and check can be stolen and used. We can stop checks, but that is no guarantee, and it is our money we are spending.

      Credit cards then come, in which we spend others money. We can let our assets gain interest, and spend other assets. We pay more for product, but do not risk our money. Even if we lose the card, and charges get made, it is not our money.

      So what does this have to with the telephone. Telephones hava an added bit of security with an access code. Telephones can be remote wiped, unlike credit cards or checks. Around the world telephones are being linked to store valued accounts which allows user to more securely use and transfer monies.

      I do not use my phone for money, and I do not use any of RFID technologies, but I was raised on credit. This is the same as some people who were raised on checks not using credit cards. But to say that phones will inherently lead to less secure behavior or less responsible behavior is not supported by facts. It all has to do with education and custom.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:The power of technology.... by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "It continues to make almost everything more convenient, including ruining you."

      Freedom of choice includes the burden of making wise choices.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  6. It Can Get Worse... by IonOtter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Throw in one of these, and you're looking at truly ridiculous amounts of pain if you lose your phone.

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:It Can Get Worse... by neumayr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Took a little while to recover from that ridiculous commercial)
      Seems like that device is made to accept credit card payments, not to pay people with credit cards. How does that make losing ones phone any worse than it already is?

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    2. Re:It Can Get Worse... by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Do you even understand what squareup does? You losing your phone has nothing to do with it.

    3. Re:It Can Get Worse... by goingToSay · · Score: 1
      The other replies to your post already noted that this service does not store any data on the phone. Here is text from their site: https://squareup.com/security
      • Card numbers, magnetic stripe data, or security codes are not stored on Square client devices.
      • Applications developed in-house are subject to strict quality testing and security review. Web development follows industry-standard secure coding guidelines, such as those recommended by OWASP.
      • Card-processing applications adhere to the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS), Level 1.
  7. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't own a car? That is probably the "most dangerous" class of item that people own.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  8. Not so many by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Close to (still not quite reaching that number, IIRC) 30% of device sales are smartphones, not 30% of subscribers (and as to "Droids"...Samsung seems to be positioning themselves firmly on top; unless the term starts becoming a genericized (shortcut of) trademark)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  9. i'm kind of a big deal by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Informative

    The late '90s were a zenith of Western society, a fair balance of regulation and freedom; technology and tradition.

    Now the government's breathing down everyone's neck while they're neatly distracted by thinking they're such a big deal that they need to be contacted at every minute of the day or night.

    Minimise your shitty gadgets. Do only what needs doing. Relax a little. If you think you need to bank from your 'phone, you're doing life wrong.

    1. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Also ~"moral and intellectual demise of youth will soon destroy civilization" - don't-remember-who, Ancient Greece.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fifty years later, their civilization was, practically speaking, destroyed.

      Just saying.

    3. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      It's generally true, but then some revolution or war or other instability comes along and shakes things up a bit. We've experienced too much stability to reinvigorate the new generation.

      Also, school is fucking easy now. It's never been easier. The mass Western privatisation/unionisation (delete as inappropriate to your political prejudice) of education is unique to the last couple of decades. Contrast the 400 years of what counted as formal or informal higher education, or skip over the Dark Ages and contrast with Ancient Greek higher education.

    4. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by sznupi · · Score: 0

      Crap, my hangover must be worse than usual, I was convinced of writing some reply via means made possible by technical civilization of "humans"; even worse - being member of their species...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Even with hiccups it still roughly gets better and better...

      (also, can't really vouch for educational systems other than my local one... but according to one of my parents (accountant, so with some steady contact with basic math) - my generation apparently covered before highschool their Baccalaureate-level math; generally, schooling isn't even for that long very widespread in the first place / the average level of education is very much higher from the old times / we probably still get greater proportion of the "really wise" ones, those worth remembering at all from the really old times & skewing our perception)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Wikiquote to the resque:

      Socrates - misattributions

      "Children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

      Apparently dates from 1953: see Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service, Edited by Suzy Platt, 1989, number 195.
      Actually a paraphrase of a quote from Aristophanes' Clouds, a comedic play known for its caricature of Socrates (w:The Clouds)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    7. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by epine · · Score: 2

      The late '90s were a zenith of Western society, a fair balance of regulation and freedom; technology and tradition.

      You've got to be kidding. This ranks right up there with Jody Foster defending Mel Gibson as "not such a bad guy to work with" while the Russell Williams story was breaking in Canada. He was a great guy in the office, too, but had defects in other life aspects.

      You cleverly post this right after I finish reading a long treatise on the nutter-of-the-moment and his trigger words.

      Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin of an Accused Killer

      One sentence (nice touch with the semicolon) before you spout on the G-word. Plus you're potty mouth to no useful effect.

      But let's argue the point. If the late 90s was a zenith, it was the kind of zenith that ought to include a parachute, but doesn't, or the parachutes are fabricated in metal: gold for the precious few, lead for everyone else. Nortel stock needed a parachute *and* a heat shield *and* a giant sofa cushion.

      I just finished watching the movie Moon. There's a character who throws up in his space suit. His slashdot nick was Ralph Nadir, cause throwing up in a space suit is a *bad* day at the office. How did you pick your nick?

      Or am I not giving you enough credit all around, and you're actually talking about the late 1890s?

    8. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK grandpa, some of those gadgets offer a lot of convenience. They do in fact make life easier and/or more fun.

      Although personally I never do it, accessing your bank info on the fly as needed from wherever you are can be very useful. When it's secure I will do it too.

    9. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If you have to drive home to move money, or worse to the bank, you're doing life wrong. I have far more fun stuff I could be doing.

      I remember the 90s it was just as bad as now except for air travel, that was better. Our government has not gotten better or worse.

    10. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      If you have to drive

      Why would I have to drive?

      home

      Why is the alternative to go home?

      to move money,

      What about you is so disorganised or overcomplicated that you need to move money around your accounts while you're on the move?

      or worse to the bank,

      The richest people I know do precisely that. I don't. But there you go.

      I have far more fun stuff I could be doing.

      I'm not sure what's fun about needing to manage your bank accounts while travelling.

      I remember the 90s it was just as bad as now except for air travel, that was better. Our government has not gotten better or worse.

      Wow. Assuming you're in the UK, the USA or some Western European country, you really need to pay more attention to your country's legislative progress, even if you've never suffered the consequences of new laws. Government has gotten a lot worse.

    11. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2

      Your drunken post was very difficult to read. Are you countering by pointing out that some tech stock was overvalued? Maybe you're young/selfish enough that it's the sort of thing which you consider the height of importance, but perhaps you ought to concentrate on the freedoms and opportunities people enjoyed.

    12. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      What country? GCSE mathematics in the UK is a joke compared to O-level, and A-level has had the syllabus progressively reduced. More importantly, questions have turned from requiring ingenuity to being something the student will have already seen in the textbook (produced by the same publisher which happens to own the exam board).

      As for the average level of education, it's true that more people can read, but learning specific technical skills is not the same as the exercise and application of imagination and ingenuity. Like Einstein said, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift."

    13. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by sznupi · · Score: 1

      The difference between 50s and 90s in Poland. Note: apparently there was also some decline during the last decade, perhaps largely because of poorly executed educational reform (and...modeled on wrong examples; a bit in the spirit of post-colonial mentality: "they are prosperous, so all must be better").

      Nothing too dramatic though, and I'm pretty certain it will continue to improve. Don't look at fluctuations; doesn't help that we are merely convinced of how good our memory is. Add variously colored glasses. And how we are not greatly aware of multi-decade changes, we are tainted by how hugely our own perspective shifts (IMHO it's not much of a stretch to say that we are generally closer to our peers than to ourselves at some distant life stages)

      Look how rapidly the world has improved lately, all things considered (despite there being still a lot to do of course). Look how relatively stagnant it was during your time of "great thinkers"

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    14. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      Why would anyone have to go all the way home? That's a pretty poor straw man argument.

      I organise my money when I have access to a computer that happens to be on a network I feel that I can trust. I have to do that once a month, when I get paid. Then I take this wallet sized piece of plastic with me and just use that. Since I still need to carry around ID, drivers license, etc, taking my debit card around the place is hardly inconvenient so please, don't try and play that card.

      Like the poster before me said, perhaps you should organise your life a little better. And maybe learn that you are not so important that you can't get along without a phone 24/7.

    15. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      If you think you need to bank from your 'phone, you're doing life wrong.

      Seriously agree. In fact, those commercials that show someone querying their credit card or bank balance to see if they can buy a huge flat-screen TV or, quite frankly, any mobile banking issue, illustrates something very wrong with that model and poor personal financial planning and management by those who would rely on such features.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      That's my strategy... works really well. I can transfer money online or via telebanking, but I just use that to pay bills. I use cash for everything, and my daily withdrawl limit with the plastic is $100. I cannot direct pay with my bank card... or rather, I can, but the daily limit is $0. I have a VISA card, but I restrict the use of that for recurring monthly payments (TV, Cell phone, Internet), and large purchases.

      By forcing myself to use cash for everything, I force myself to have something tangible in hand to exchange for goods. That makes it a lot easier to keep track of what I'm spending, and also forces me to be more aware of the value of what I purchase. This helps to significantly reduce impulse buying.

      Similarly, by forcing myself to actually go to a bank teller to withdraw more than a small amount of money, I also make sure I'm not carrying large amounts of cash, again reducing the amount of impulse buying that gets done. By requiring me to actually go to the bank to move around large amounts of money between accounts, or to get a large amount of money in hand, I again force myself to be more conscious of my spending, and prevent myself from spending money I don't have. The main reason people get rich isn't luck, it's being aware of what they're buying, and not spending more than they need to.

      Seems to work. There's a comfortable margin left in my bank account right now. Not as comfortable as it used to be, but I bought a car last week, and paid cash.

    17. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely, you are naiive, or jesting. Some comparisons between the 1990s and now.

      Gas then: Swipe your credit card in the pump, pay less than a buck a gallon.
      Gas now: Swipe your credit card. Enter in ZIP code. Wait until the guy at the desk sees who you are and that you are not a terrorist, and he might finally press the button to allow you to fill up a vehicle.

      Commute home then: Travel some well kept streets until you hit highway.

      Commute home now: Dodge the potholes due to no rood upkeep. At stoplights, deal at best aggressive panhandlers who are more than willing to decorate someone's windshield with a baseball bat because they didn't get money for their rock of crack. (Cops don't want to arrest those guys because they will shit their pants and require a patrol car cleaning.) Get on highway, only to deal with gridlock due to 24/7/365 NAFTA semis, who exit off and come back on the highway, thus jamming the exits.

      Vacation to nearby parts then: Gas up, drive somewhere, have fun, drive home.

      Vacation to nearby parts now: Doublecheck traffic routes make sure to avoid wrecks, be careful for the lights and speed traps (65 to 35 the common one), notice the tons of new stoplights for subdivisions. Find that the refugees from California's mortgage crisis are moving into your home state and driving up property values, so the once peaceful and quiet fishing hole now has a full parking lot full of SUVs with out of state plates. The once peaceful, well stocked campgrounds are now chock full of morons with construction grade generators (Read: generators with no sound dampening ability) having them rattle all night long so they can watch TV. Find the mom and pop who once ran the fishing hole were forced out and it is owned by people who have little interest in upkeep of the property, although their fees have gone up by a factor of four.

      Hitting a downtown club then: Park on the street, walk to club, return to car, drive home.

      Hotting a downtown club now: Start looking for parking, find a garage. Find the garage is actually not open but someone is faking the job of a parking lot attendant, so all cars in the garage end up towed. Find a surface area lot. Pay $10 to the machine. Avoid the hordes of hoboes who have fled California and are either getting in your face for a handout. Have a decent time. Leave the club, dodge the gauntlet of nasties again. Take 30-45 minutes getting home due to the constant roadblocks for sobriety checks.

      Job fair at graduation in the 1990s: Pick a cool named company, bam, hired.

      Getting a job today from college: Either you already have a job due to an internship before you walk, or you are just plain fscked. You at least get some rank for college when enlisting in the Armed Services.

      Radio in the 1990s: Always something new on the radio, pick a genre. Cool concerts every weekend being mentioned.

      Radio now: Same shit since 1995. Same 100 songs, never changing. If they advertise a concert, it is some place about 200-300 miles away. Only thing new are the ads.

      Internet then: Yes, bandwidth was slower, but USENET was usable, people wrote proper English, and conversations were mainly meaningful.

      Internet now: "This sucks." "No, you suck." "No, your momma sucks and swallows!" is the gist of almost any conversation these days if there is no moderating mechanism, or live moderators who are astute with the ban sticks.

    18. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by definate · · Score: 1

      WOW! You must be a hell of a big deal, because you literally just told us how to live our lives.

      I wish I had mod points right now, I'd mod you down so hard, you wouldn't shit right for a week.

      Regardless of what you think is "right" or "wrong", if you think you can describe what people "need" to do so easily, then you're definitely wrong.

      I've got a fair few friends who ONLY have a smart phone, and this smart phone is their entire life line to the world. They don't have a computer, or they have one, but they're continually moving around in rural Australia, that they can't get a good internet connection, and often 3G won't cut it. So they use their phones for all net stuff, and it works well.

      But thank you for your message. I shall tell them to put down their only means of doing banking (since many rural towns don't have branches now).

      You're an idiot.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    19. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      I've got a fair few friends who ONLY have a smart phone, and this smart phone is their entire life line to the world.

      At the risk of receiving another angry response from you, would you perhaps consider advising your friends that having a smartphone as your "entire life line to the world" is an unnecessary and fairly dangerous risk? If you're travelling around remote locations, you'd be well advised to carry multiple means of communication - particularly equipment which does not rely on terrestrial infrastructure. A satellite 'phone is an option, as are transceivers for the CB or amateur radio services.

      they're continually moving around in rural Australia, that they can't get a good internet connection

      Ah, the rare exception to prove the rule gambit. Yes, I'm sure there are at least a couple of dozen Westerners who must travel light for months on end in the middle of nowhere. I'm sorry for making a point which considers almost everyone except these guys, for whom the rule about not using shiny gadgets as a substitute for organisation still applies but for whom the detail of application differs slightly.

      Out of interest, what are these friends actually doing? The only people I've known who have genuinely spent weeks trekking across Australia without any sophisticated contact with civilisation have done it for leisure.

      often 3G won't cut it. So they use their phones for all net stuff, and it works well.

      That's weird. I've used laptops to connect to the Internet via mobile 'phones since about 1998, before 3G was deployed.

    20. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Since I can check my bank balance every day on my phone, I have a much better grasp of my finances. Especially now that I have just bought a house and have additional mortgage payments, it has been a great help in keeping my finances in order. It might depend a lot on the sophistication of the app that your bank provides though, mine has a lot of nice advanced features.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    21. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're just plain wrong. You're probably one of those barely capable moron seat-fillers who was hired in the boom, then expected that people would continue to overpay you after the bust.

      Sorry your best years are behind you, but that's not the world, that's you.

    22. Re:i'm kind of a big deal by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Since I can check my bank balance every day on my phone, I have a much better grasp of my finances.

      What are you doing with your finances that means you need to check your bank account to find your balance? Aren't you aware of your incomings and outgoings?

      The only argument I can come up with is that you want to check for bank error, which is fair enough, but if you feel the need to do that daily then you probably need another bank.

  10. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't own a car, but I do own a lightsaber. Not as clumsy or random as a car; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.

  11. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by sznupi · · Score: 1

    I remember how not so long ago any new SIM card came with its PIN. Lately though, out of the box, they often don't require any authorization (a PIN can be still set up of course, but...)

    It would seem people prefer it that way (at least at my place, but I doubt it's very unique)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  12. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by KtHM · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking my shotgun is a little more dangerous than my station wagon.

  13. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would also like to know what devices that can be cracked in 30 seconds. In fact, I can't find an iPhone crack on googling. The "cracks" on youtube for iPhone don't work.

  14. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone should mod this up. It made my day.

  15. Freakonomics by sakdoctor · · Score: 2

    Semantic quibble, which comes down to people's ability to asses risk. Guns vs swimming pools.
    The point is, the phone is a terrible choice for security related matters, because it wasn't specifically designed to be an e-wallet from the ground up.

    You can never, ever just bolt-on security.

    1. Re:Freakonomics by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2

      You can never, ever just bolt-on security.

      Wait - Isn't that exactly what we do with doors?!

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:Freakonomics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1) A swimming pool has a primary purpose other than killing.

      2) "bolt-on" would be a compound noun. "Bolt on" is a compound verb. Stop hyphen abuse!

    3. Re:Freakonomics by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

      Yeah but there's a difference between putting a bolt on a glass door or on a steel reinforced one.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    4. Re:Freakonomics by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Depends on the door.
      A wooden door, with an after market bolt, would only stop opportunistic threats.
      A door designed from the ground up to be secure, would have multiple locking bars which engage in all directions, into a metal frame which would also be part of the overall secure design.
      That would go some way to reduce the single point of failure which a single bolt represents.

      Analogy stands.

    5. Re:Freakonomics by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      The point is, the phone is a terrible choice for security related matters, because it wasn't specifically designed to be an e-wallet from the ground up.

      You can never, ever just bolt-on security.

      By this implied definition of e-wallet, a real wallet isn't really designed as a wallet from the ground up either. My wallet has essentially no security once it's out of my hands through theft or loss. But I do get the point, one might store even more valuable information in an e-wallet than just the cash and credit card numbers present in an r-wallet. Bank passwords, other account passwords could lead to considerably more damage than the $50 per credit card loss one might incur. Unless of course, you carry your passwords on paper in your r-wallet.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    6. Re:Freakonomics by mlts · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I stuck a deadbolt cylinder on a hollow core door used for internal rooms, someone could easily kick it in without a moment's thought.

      If I stuck a cylinder on a European lock that had multipoint locking, a solid jamb that uses steel rails that are sunk into the foundation, it would require a hydraulic ram to open it.

      Similar with phones. If I stuck a PIN on an open device, there would be ways to get around it. However, if the device was built from the ground up with encrypted filesystems, keys in a secure RAM partition, and anti-brute force code where PIN guessing resulted in longer delays, and eventually a complete zeroization of the device, the same PIN that might be worthless on one device may adequately protect another.

      One can see this when comparing a TrueCrypt keyfile stored on a cryptographic token (or an IronKey) compared to one stored on a generic USB flash drive. After try #20 with the USB flash drive, it doesn't matter, especially if one just copies the cyphertext to another image to protect against self destruct software. The same data stored on a hardware device using hardware encryption will be long gone before attempt #20 could even be made.

      A 4 digit PIN can be excellent protection, or it can be a joke depending on how the device is architected.

    7. Re:Freakonomics by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      and to be truly secure the walls would have to have a lattice of welded bars all the way around (and in the roof and floor.

      any good attacker will locate the weakest point and use that (ultra secure door does Zippo when your walls are made of sheetrock

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    8. Re:Freakonomics by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      No. If you just bolted on a door to something built without other consideration of security, it's not going to do very well. In fact, a house *is* security--the door is your access point. A door as just "bolt-on" security would be a door sitting there without any walls.

    9. Re:Freakonomics by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 1

      Semantic quibble, which comes down to people's ability to asses risk.

      Spelling quibble. Just couldn't help but assess as laughable.

    10. Re:Freakonomics by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      With stick-frame construction a door is still bolt-on security, even if it's a solid steel, multi-point locking door in a steel jamb.

    11. Re:Freakonomics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) A swimming pool has a primary purpose other than killing.

      So does a gun - it gives the owner the illusion of having a penis.

  16. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2

    The risk appears to only be for Android phones, because the swipe-to-unlock leaves smudges that can be visually decoded to tell the thief the "password". I can't see how this security vulnerability affects iPhones with their tap-based passcode.

    And yes, I have a passcode on my phone. It takes about a day for the annoyance factor to dissipate, and IMHO you're nuts not to have one.

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  17. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't have to reload a station wagon on a crowded sidewalk...

  18. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I thought it was people, not guns, that were dangerous. Thanks for clarifying that.

  19. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by neumayr · · Score: 1

    It comes down to how much you perceive the risk of using a tool. You know your shotgun can potentially do a whole lot of damage. That's its express purpose after all.
    A car doesn't seem as dangerous, but even though it wasn't designed for that purpose it can do a lot of damage, and I wouldn't be surprised when the relevant statistics show that percentage wise, a lot more people get accidentally hurt by cars than by shotguns.
    The same partly applies to blunt vs. sharp kitchen knives, with people getting cut by the former way more often than by the latter, and also how most accidents happen in people's homes, where they feel secure and safe and thus become careless.

    To get back on topic, smartphones are not perceived as the high risk devices they are, making them more dangerous.

    --
    Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  20. Depends by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    If you store the most critical things in the cloud, specially things that you access thru your phone, is your password your most dangerous possession, mainly because stealing your phone is not a requirement for getting your data (if your password is unsafe or used from an unsafe location, i.e. with a keylogger). Of course, that have as advantage that if your phone gets stolen, and you are fast enough, you could change your cloud password and disable your phone number.

    You could also store directly in the phone sensitive information like passwords, but there are apps that are meant to manage that information that have a master password to enable you to access (and that password will be the important one there)

    1. Re:Depends by neumayr · · Score: 1

      Storing your personal data on systems you have no control over is bad. News at eleven.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    2. Re:Depends by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Only if the added utility is insufficient to outweigh the potential risk. Assuming your phone has a remote wipe feature, and the other security features on the phone buy you enough time to use it, then having your data in the cloud is useful because you haven't lost any data, only the physical phone.

  21. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Gripp · · Score: 0

    i think the average user doesn't realize what they are risking, or just assume that it couldn't ever happen to them.

    i've personally known a number of people that left their wireless open, despite me explaining very clearly the risk and ease that people can get at your info; i even showed one of my ex-coworkers how easy it was to record her vonage calls with wireshark while parked some distance away... she still didn't care; she didn't want to deal with the hassle of her router.

  22. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, I thought it was people, not guns, that were dangerous.

    Well, that's true. Any suitably light-fingered individual is well qualified to attempt to lift my phone out of my front pants pocket, provided that they don't mind taking the chance that I might smash their brains in.

    But then I personally think it's incredibly stupid to put any kind of financial details on anything that is so easily and casually stolen. I don't even leave such information lying around (at least in a form that is worth the trouble of attempting to decrypt) on my computers at home where I can guarantee a larger degree of security.

  23. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by hsmith · · Score: 1

    errr i mean iOS4 not the iPhone 4

  24. Bolt-ons and built-ins by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 0

    The point is, the phone is a terrible choice for security related matters, because it wasn't specifically designed to be an e-wallet from the ground up.

    If you actually look at the design of iOS4 you might find that security has been built in very deeply with a hardware key among other things the OS. If you have access to Apple's WWDC 2010 sessions, take a look at session 209.

    You can never, ever just bolt-on security.

    As a shameless plug, I believe that we have 1Password for iOS (a password management system) well designed to use both our own security layer on top of what is built into iOS.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  25. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    I would also like to know what devices that can be cracked in 30 seconds. In fact, I can't find an iPhone crack on googling.

    So don't bother to RTFA. That might inform you of the casual smudge-track left by those crappy 3x3 gesture-passcodes.

    Of course, the simple solution here is not to use it, but what the hell. Anything for a lame story...

  26. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 3, Informative

    android phones have numeric or alphanumeric passwords that can be enabled as of version 2.2

  27. Use Keepass for your passwords by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Android users: use KeepassDroid for storing your passwords in a keepass database, and then randomize your important accounts.

    Now all you need to remember is one good password. When you tap on an entry after decryption, keepassdroid puts a notification item up, that when activated, pastes the password in your clipboard for pasting into nearly any app or web page. It does smart things like clear the clipboard after a delay, etc.

    You can combine it with Dropbox for unified password management on all platforms; just use a 1.x database if you have a Mac, because KeepassX doesn't "do" v2.x databases, for some reason.

    1. Re:Use Keepass for your passwords by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, keepassdroid is great, by far one of the most useful apps on my phone. They are working on 2.0 database support though, it's read only now.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  28. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by miltonw · · Score: 0

    *sigh* This whole "you can read the unlock swipe pattern" really needs to be put to rest. That requires that. 1) You clean your screen before unlocking it. 2) You unlock your phone. 3) You immediately hand your phone to a hacker with specialized equipment. I think I can avoid doing that.

  29. Paying with your phone was deemed a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because...? Anyone?

    A clear case of forgetting to include security in your considerations from the start, forcing it to be bolted-on later.

  30. Hmmm. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    Looks to me as if that system is best suited to card-skimming operations. The convenience seems to fall entirely on one side of the transaction.

  31. Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it's not going to protect you from professional fraudsters. 'Don't think that having an initial password set on your phone can stop people from getting in there,' says Nikki Junker, a victim advisor at the Identity Theft Resource Center. 'It's a very low level of protection -- you can even find 30-second videos on how to crack smartphone passwords on YouTube.'"

    Complete BS.

    Blackberries offer real security. The flash memory can be encrypted with solid AES. They can be set to wipe after a certain number of bad login attempts. They can be locked or wiped remotely. They can be set to wipe after a certain period of time off the network. There is a background process which continuously overwrites unused RAM to make sure decrypted data in memory is kept to a minimum.

    And most importantly, you can enforce all of these settings from the Blackberry Enterprise Server so that you can protect idiot users from their own stupidity.

    The blackberry platform has been tested, audited & certified by many security organizations. Iphone & Android have been certified by... nobody.

    If you want real security, the choice is clear.

    1. Re:Lies. by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Blackberry is great except if you live in a country where the government has been granted access to your device or a country where the government has access but has not disclosed it... oh wait... I guess it isn't that secure after all.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the asterisk.

      *Security valid, assuming you don't care about countries like China, UAE, India, Pakistan, and others who threaten to ban RIM from their land having access to the BIS servers.

    3. Re:Lies. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, but in those countries it doesn't matter what phone you have.

  32. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    The risk appears to only be for Android phones, because the swipe-to-unlock leaves smudges that can be visually decoded to tell the thief the "password". I can't see how this security vulnerability affects iPhones with their tap-based passcode. And yes, I have a passcode on my phone. It takes about a day for the annoyance factor to dissipate, and IMHO you're nuts not to have one. Simon

    OK, I don't have an iPhone, so what is a tap-based passcode? Just typing digits on a 10-key style screen interface or something like that? I've got a smartphone,but not an iPhone, and have been reluctant to keep anything too valuable (or personal) on it for lack of password protection, and I've resisted using password protection because of how annoying I imagine it to be. Am I totally wrong about how big a hassle it is?

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  33. I knew it by Nihn · · Score: 2

    I'm not dumb enough to place any form of important info into ANY device connected to a network. Privacy can not be maintained when so many people have access to the servers and software directly connected to your smart phone or computer. I remember when phones made phone calls...and that was it. No ring tones, no aps, just a basic fully functioning device use to communicate with others. Now people are shocked that the "smart" phone is considered a prize to thieves. It's a key to the bank you use and you keep it under your door mat...what did you think was gonna happen. If people want security then use the brain you were given to memorize said info...and don't say some people can't. Information of utmost importance can be retained and locked away behind lies and deception and can not be stolen without the owners participation. (see social engineering) Phones makes no judgment on who is holding it and will open itself to whoever wants in. So the reality of the matter is people who are foolish enough to place personal info into a network deserve being ripped off. Jump into a fire, you will get burned. Simples.

    1. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my day, the damn kids kept off my lawn. Lawn was for looking at and NOT playing on. Get off my lawn I yell! But they do not listen. Stupid kids.

  34. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

    I'd also like to know which devices can be cracked in 30 seconds. With iPhone 4's full device encryption, I don't see how the key can be cracked in under 10 tries before it would wipe itself. But, I'd like to know.

    Couldn't they just dump the memory of the device in its encrypted state and crack it at their leisure?

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  35. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, I thought it was people, not guns, that were dangerous

    True, but since the 13th amendment passed you're not allowed to own any people, only guns.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  36. Droid != Android by drb226 · · Score: 1

    ...with 30% of phone subscribers owning iPhones, BlackBerries, and Androids...

    FTFY. Droids are only a subset of Androids

    1. Re:Droid != Android by NoEvidenZ · · Score: 1

      Nothing annoys me more than someone who uses the term "Droid" to refer to Android based phones. I think this topic requires an article itself.

    2. Re:Droid != Android by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Nothing annoys me more than someone who uses the term "Droid" to refer to Android based phones.

      I think this topic requires an article itself.

      Well, you've got a journal, so feel free to write that article.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  37. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember how not so long ago any new SIM card came with its PIN. Lately though, out of the box, they often don't require any authorization (a PIN can be still set up of course, but...)

    That's a completely different problem. The smartphone has a lot of useful information stored on it, and you want to protect the contents of the smartphone from the bad guys.

    Protecting the SIM with a PIN stops bad guys from putting the SIM into a different phone and making phone calls/SMS/data that you get the bill for.

  38. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    Which is cool, for those phones that are allowed to be able to upgrade to that version...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  39. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2

    Generally speaking, guns almost never kill people.... bullets, on the other hand, are another matter.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  40. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Not really completely different. Quite symptomatic.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  41. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, actually, it doesn't.

    My wife has an Android phone (I bought her an HTC Hero when it first came out) which clearly has the swipe marks on the front of the phone, when held up to the light. I know what her swipe is, so I can tell what to look for, but they're definitely there and I have to assume that evil-bad-people can figure out which ones they are. They're pretty prominent.

    In my wife's case, I think it's the lotion she puts on her hands. It sticks to the surface way beyond the usual time, and she generally taps rather than swipes to use the other functionality. The swipes stay put.

    This is a definite Android vulnerability. I looked into getting the later version of the OS, but it seems I cannot upgrade this phone. Just Fscking great, that. The chances of getting my wife to change her hand-lotion are somewhat smaller than Satan skating to work one day, so I guess the Valentines day gift will be a new iPhone. At least Apple *cares* enough to do something about problems...

  42. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    The iPhone unlock is a 4-digit PIN. I think you can use more digits, but 4 is enough, given that you only get 5 tries.

    As I said, I found it annoying at first, but after a day or so, I don't really notice it. You don't need to unlock the phone to answer calls, so it's about 2 seconds to unlock then use the phone. Well worth it IMHO.

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  43. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If your car is the most dangerous thing you own you should probably think about visiting an optometrist.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

    err, the grass is greener on the other side buddy. Here you are saying you want to get an iphone and here I am saying I'm going to get an android (well, the dual core one when it comes out at least... assuming it doesn't have any gating issues)

    TBH unless you need an ipod touch there isn't a lot of good reason to get an iphone at this stage. I have to turn my phone off and back on at work sometimes because of its inability to get any data throughput despite having a connection. Granted, the iphone 4 for verizon might not have this issue, but another issue is that my hard drive died and now I can't update the firmware without doing a sync and I can't sync without worrying that everything that isn't considered "a purchase" that I absolutely must remember to transfer pior to syncing else it will get wiped from the phone.

    Finally, the iphone requires you have X gigs of hard drive available where X is the size of your phone. My wife's sister had a low end computer where 14.5 gigs of space is a premium and guess who was the culprit who devoured all that without telling her?

    Your wife could just wipe her pinky on her shirt then swipe with her pinky

  45. Thermite security by argontechnologies · · Score: 1

    If you miss the password three times on my phone, the thermite security feature is triggered, slagging both the phone and the hand holding it. That's why I never drink and text anymore.....

  46. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iPhone and iPod touch can have either a 4 digit PIN password OR a full alphanumeric password (not sure maximum length). You can also set a number of behaviors around these passwords. For example you can set it to wipe the device after 10 incorrect passwords and you can customize the delay before a password is asked for after putting the device on standby. You can have the device ask for the password any time it is woken from sleep or you can set a time delay. For me I've found 15 minutes is a good balance between not having to enter my password all the time and security if I lose the device.

  47. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by syousef · · Score: 1

    You don't own a car? That is probably the "most dangerous" class of item that people own.

    Are you married? *ducks for cover from the feminists*

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  48. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I thought it was people, not guns, that were dangerous. Thanks for clarifying that.

    Most people aren't dangerous until you put a machine like a gun or vehicle under their control

  49. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by noidentity · · Score: 1

    When someone has access to your hardware, the only thing that will protect you is strong encryption. Having the CPU prevent access to your data is like sticking a post-it on a stack of money saying "you may not take this".

  50. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    That'll work.

    Until someone wipes your phone maliciously.

  51. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    I own an android tablet and I can ascertain that yes, they show.

    The thing is, you need to do it in one swipe - and you're going to do it pretty commonly. So there'll be a long continious smudge where you left it unlocked. It'll 'overwrite' previous smudges, and chances are you're not doing long swipes on other things. Unless you have swype or something.

  52. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try owning a car in NJ. Y'know, when car insurance is 6000/year.

    Yeah, I'll stick to working from home, and my knife. NJT does suck, however. Unfortunately, I wasn't raised by rich white parents like the rest of NJ, so driving isn't a privilege I'll ever experience. I'm only 31, though. I have time, I guess.

  53. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by JockTroll · · Score: 0

    Most people aren't dangerous until you give them some kind of power - which happens to be a fundamental aspect of democracy: people must have access to power. The trick is discipline, which is also fundamental to democracy. Without discipline (which only comes from responsability and learning) there is no "people", only mob. Of course, only jocks can understand this. The rest can only wallow in their sense of helplessness and self-defeatism while we beat them up and shit on their faces.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  54. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sine I downloaded the machinegun app.

  55. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tap based passcode, easily decipherable from finger smudges as evidenced by all my friend's iphones. If you don't want your passcode cracked, wipe the grease off your phone after every use.

  56. Re:Own by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Nah. Now Owning people is called Work.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  57. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The SIM's PIN is only required when you turn the phone on. Completely useless in today's age, where no-one ever turns their phone off (you can't receive phone calls if you turn it off).

    You can use a phone for 6 months without ever entering that PIN.

  58. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    No, that's risk. The car is enormously dangerous whether you can see well or not. If you intend to use it to harm, having good eyesight makes it *more* dangerous. It is indeed the most dangerous thing most people own, with the possible exception of a gun (if they own one).

  59. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir, are clearly not a lobbiest for the Banking industry.

  60. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by MSojka · · Score: 1

    I believe you mean "risky" not "dangerous." The most dangerous item I own is probably a knife.

    Funny. I consider my brain to be more dangerous than all of the other things I own combined, by several orders of magniture.

  61. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Actually the danger from cars is over-rated. A gun can kill far more people more quickly, even if you drove into a crowd you'd be very unlikely to kill as many people as you could with a gun.

    Cars are also a lot more clumsy, and once off a road are prone to being stopped very quickly by any number of things.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  62. To avoid smudge, make the keys move randomly by TimFreeman · · Score: 2

    If the keys moved around randomly on the screen at the beginning of typing the password and after typing each character, the positions of smudges on the screen would not give any information about the password. (Yes, this does have an obviously funny reply. Not sure how to upstage it from here. Go ahead and say it, then.)

    1. Re:To avoid smudge, make the keys move randomly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeebus, only people who already type by searching each key will like that. Just choose a length-n password with n distinct keys. The smudges will divulge the set of keys but not the key permutation. Choose n such that n! is large enough.

    2. Re:To avoid smudge, make the keys move randomly by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      I worked for a police department where one of the entry keypads did this. You pressed a button and the keypad numbers showed up in random places. It wasn't exactly a nice area of town so I guess they decided the extra security was necessary for that division.

    3. Re:To avoid smudge, make the keys move randomly by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      they're mostly talking about gestures, not typing in a pin, at least from my reading of the article. now if there was a set of gestures, and the phone displayed a shape and wanted you to complete a randomly selected (or user-chosen) upon setup gesture, that would increase the complexity of the cracking process. so instead of My Password Gesture, there would be 4-5 shapes (noises? videos?) with a corresponding gesture. not infallible, but would take it to the next level.

    4. Re:To avoid smudge, make the keys move randomly by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      There are a number of MMOs that use PIN security mechanisms identical to this to defeat keyloggers. No reason why touchscreen devices can't easily implement it. It's not difficult or annoying after the first couple uses.

  63. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by lennier · · Score: 2

    You, sir, are clearly not a lobbiest for the Banking industry.

    No, but he's lobbier than most.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  64. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

    What's "financial details"?
    If you have a phone that stores e-mail, and you've ever had your bank/paypal/credit card/amazon/etc send you a "I've forgotten my password" email.... then that info is fairly easy to access. Even finding out answers to your typical "security questions" would be fairly trivial.

    I would be surprised if your average smartphone user has thought this through.

  65. I use a Palm Pre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha, losers, in yer face!

  66. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by RogerWilco · · Score: 2

    I think you underestimate what one can do with a car.

    See for example the Queensday attack in the Netherlands almost 2 years ago:
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,622342,00.html

    5 people dead at an event with about the highest level of security that you could find in the Netherlands at the time.

    --
    RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  67. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    But a phone is dangerous. You can use it for coordinating terrorist attacks, or even to remotely trigger a bomb. You can use it to contact a professional killer. Oh, and there's of course that dangerous mobile phone radiation ... :-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  68. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Seth024 · · Score: 1

    Yes the iPhone 4 has full device encryption but Android phones don't. A thief can root a phone and read all unencrypted data from it when connecting it to a computer. example: http://www.androidcentral.com/android-passwords-rooted-clear-text
    There are a number of open issues about it on the google android site; ex. https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=10809

  69. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by w_dragon · · Score: 1

    It's funny, I didn't bother with a password on my smartphone until I had a 2-year-old. I didn't bother using keylock until said toddler learned he could dial 911 without entering the password. It turns out kids are a great motivator to lock down your systems.

  70. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by mcbiondi · · Score: 1

    Ten seconds of Google and I found this (http://blog.crackpassword.com/tag/iphone). They feel the weakness is in the iphone backup, where they can use a PC to do a brute force attack to break the encryption.

    I think more googling would probably provide even more results.

  71. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Centurix · · Score: 1

    My Chimpanzee owns both drivers and firearms licences. I've seen him drive with a hunting knife between his teeth while making bank transfers on his smartphone. I aggregate my dangerous possessions.

    --
    Task Mangler
  72. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by turbidostato · · Score: 2

    "Generally speaking, guns almost never kill people.... bullets, on the other hand, are another matter."

    Bullets? Nah... It's not bullets what's dangerous, it's the speed they come with.

  73. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Android makes it easy. You don't have to enter a password to pick up a call. It is irritating though when it times out and you are trying to use it. Though the benefit to a quick time out is that you don't accidentally press any buttons with your phone to your ear. Maybe a feature exists to which you can change it so it only times out when a call is sent otherwise slower timeouts occur. If you want to lock it then you have to press off (pressing off does already lock it). Now the down side I guess to Android is that it makes it easy to break the password. I imagine that if it is really that important to you then you should be changing the password frequently enough that this does not wear your phone where an attacker could detect it and therefore get easy access. Though I seriously doubt the protection of any device including the iPhone. Even with encryption you probably wouldn't have a hard time gaining access due to the design of these devices. They run on flash and I'd bet the password when it is entered gets stored to disk. Any forensics investigator could probably get in without a problem with or without the iPhones encryption features. At the end of the day you shouldn't be storing sensitive data on your phone.

  74. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Fjandr · · Score: 2

    It's not even the speed. It's the inertial delta of the bullet and [part of] the person.

  75. CNN reports ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this even on here?

  76. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    You don't have to reload a station wagon on a crowded sidewalk...

    Sssh! If Carolyn McCarthy finds that out she'll be introducing legislation to limit all new automobiles to 1 gallon gas tanks.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  77. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you could of course not give the phone to the child. crazy, i know.

  78. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be surprised when the relevant statistics show that percentage wise, a lot more people get accidentally hurt by cars than by shotguns.

    The wording of that is interestingly chosen, and also completely correct (at least if you replace "shogun" with "firearm"). There are roughly only 10% more vehicles per capita in the US than there are firearms per capita in the US. From 1999 to 2007, the overall death rate by firearm in the US was 10.33 per 100,000. During the same period, the overall death rate by motor vehicle was 14.76 per 100,000. 10% more vehicles, 43% more fatalities. If you remove the number of deaths (both categories) of 18-19 year olds who died as a result of being willfully and knowingly involved in violent criminal activity, and all those who committed suicide, the difference is even more starkly apparent.

    Cars, like smartphones, are convenient. People overlook the negatives of those things that provide them with an opportunity to use the bare minimum effort to complete a given task more often than not.

  79. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    There are countries I can think of where firearms are likely more dangerous than vehicles, but the US is not one of them.

    From 1999 to 2007, the total motorized vehicle death rate was 14.76 per 100,000. The firearm death rate during the same period was 10.33 per 100,000. That said, I'm not sure it matters much. Each side will frame the numbers in ways that support their bias, and will argue endlessly over which comparison is "more accurate." In the end, the only quantifiable "fact" is that one kills people more often in relation to how many of them exist. Whether that is of import to any argument is another matter entirely.

    The numbers are obtainable from the CDC NCIPC if anyone cares to verify them.

  80. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by sznupi · · Score: 1

    With smartphones of today - or even so called "feature phones", when used as an audio player for example - people run out of juice quite often.

    (and you think I don't know how SIM's PIN work if going through enough of them to notice some pattern?)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  81. Totally wrong (just saying) by RichiH · · Score: 1

    Greece fell once, people where complaining all the time. The fifty year thing sure sounds good, but it's total bollocks.

    The one thing I learned from reading stuff from all ages is that the past was _always_ better, youth is _always_ going downwards and apocalypse is _always_ just around the corner.

    Just saying.

  82. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    You don't own a car? That is probably the "most dangerous" class of item that people own.

    I thought most people died in household accidents, making your own house your most dangerous enemy.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  83. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Drethon · · Score: 1

    So when was the last time one of your guns stood up and attacked you?

  84. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, shoguns have been responsible for millions of deaths in Japan.

  85. Re:And how many people actually protect their phon by ctrimm · · Score: 1

    Uh huh... that'll work until your kid/friend/parent decides to try and get into your phone by guessing your password over and over.

  86. Re:I do not think that word means what you think i by ruthless+reader · · Score: 1

    The most dangerous item I own is an app that can mimic the sound of an ak47. Now I just need to find an amp