Encrypting Phone Storage and Transmission? (2011 Version)

An anonymous reader writes "Soon I'll be moving to one of the hot, culturally restrictive countries which has recently been in the news ... and which monitors and filters web traffic. ISPs and cellular providers are both owned by the government. Needless to say, I'm concerned about privacy and am even posting to my fellow Slashdotters as an anonymous coward. Which smart phones are the best for a) encrypted storage, and b) encrypted transmission? I'm not worried about encrypting SMSs or traditional voice traffic, but I would like all IP traffic as secure as possible. Setting up a server in my less restrictive home country is an option. What storage encryption and transmission encryption would you recommend for that situation? I'm willing to buy yet another device, if necessary. (No, I won't get a SatPhone.) I currently have a Nokia N900 running Maemo5 and another device running Symbian S60v3. I was hoping to have a secure OS like BackTrack running on the N900, but it looks like the software was never totally ported for the device."

Comments

Solution.

[Zurk]

I have the same problem. I am not in a restrictive country, however my phone lines are tapped on a regular basis since i deal with defendants. its not paranoia -- they really do tap phones of attorneys to get around atty/client and ive seen the records more than once. I use an SSH connection to a tomatousb router (ASUS RT-N16) and forward ports to my N810. you can do the same with your N900. this allows me to do VOIP directly and also share the same connection locally by letting my N810 serve as a local hotspot. All traffic is encrypted with SSH until it reaches my home which is on a dynamic ip anyway. This has worked against local and fed agencies but may not work against NSA/big brother type agencies or against foreign government state departments. You need a fast upload connection (my 25/2 Mbps cable connection works fine). For anything more than the usual calls i meet people in person at the office. meeting in person is covered by priv and works well.

consider steganography over cryptology

[smoothnorman]

I'd be most worried about the: "he's using techniques which we can't crack. so he's really up to no good, and we must therefore have him 'pay us a visit'" (cf the usual: http://xkcd.com/538/). So perhaps you should consider communication that doesn't trivially look like communication that's subversive to the powers-that-are? Just something to mull over; because you see, the birds do fly west on a sunny day.

Re:Traditional VPN?

[MoonBuggy]

I thought the same, but there are a few important supplementary questions (to which I don't know the answers):

• By consistently streaming encrypted information out of the country, will you just make yourself a target for more invasive surveillance measures (and perhaps some rubber hose cryptanalysis)?
• When the ISP themselves are your adversary, you're at an immediate security disadvantage. How far can they go towards cracking your connection when they can monitor everything you transmit, and cross reference it with real-world info about you?
• If your connection is compromised, how much extra risk are you at? Is the sense of security leading you to transmit things that you wouldn't otherwise have committed to writing, and might they cause you trouble?
• Are these encryption measures legal where you're going? Even if so, are the state the type who might see it as a reason throw you in jail on vague espionage charges?

I understand wanting to maintain your privacy as a matter of principal, but ultimately you're the one choosing to go to their country. You don't have to like it, but you do have to live by their rules. From my own experience travelling in some of the more repressive parts of the world, I would say that there's generally a certain amount of leeway given to foreigners that isn't afforded to locals, but you're still safer not giving them an excuse to pay you any extra attention. What I can't tell you (especially without knowing which country you're going to) is what they will or will not consider to be an excuse; honestly I doubt that even a police chief in the country could give you a definitive answer in a lot of places - the strictness of the definition tends to be inversely proportional to the wealth and influence wielded by the person that it is being applied to.

Just bear in mind that while it may be discomforting to know they're reading your emails home, they probably don't care what you're saying. They might well start caring about the fact that they can't see what you're saying.