CarrierIQ Tries To Silence Security Researcher

phaedrus5001 sends this quote from a story at Wired: "A data-logging software company is seeking to squash an Android developer's critical research into its software that is secretly installed on millions of phones, but Trevor Eckhart is refusing to publicly apologize for his research and remove the company's training manuals from his website. Though the software is installed on millions of Android, Blackberry and Nokia phones, Carrier IQ was virtually unknown until the 25-year-old Eckhart analyzed its workings, recently revealing that the software secretly chronicles a user's phone experience, from its apps, battery life and texts. Some carriers prevent users who actually find the software from controlling what information is sent." The EFF is hosting PDFs of CarrierIQ's C&D letter, as well as their response on Eckhart's behalf.

Comments

He should remove it.

[Pastor Jake]

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

This man is working to remove software which can be used to identify pedophiles, rapists, and other ungodly characters which are plaguing this nation. He should be brought to justice for undermining our government's attempt to keep our land free and Christian. I propose that we take this software a step further, and have it display a random Bible verse on bootup of the device, in order to spread Christ's message to the unsaved.

God bless,
Jake

Re:He should remove it.

[masternerdguy]

You can't sacrifice privacy for security, it doesn't work that way.

Re:He should remove it.

[Synerg1y]

Yep I keep saying this, if you don't know wtf, then don't use your phone in a manner that compromises self. However, I'm unclear how this is legal, is it part of the smartphone UELA? Wasn't there something that required software vendors on smart phones to obtain user consent on what features are being transmitted since the iphone fiasco? If not there damn well should be, no idea who these fags are besides a now bulls eyed hack target with probably a newb admin.

My advice for Trevor: post your shit on tpb (or similar torrent site) and find some seeders, that way a take down notice doesn't do shit.

Re:He should remove it.

[wierd_w]

Ahh, but therein lies the rub 'brother':

As many christian fundementalists are publicly on record for asserting, the very people that would have access to this technology's data logs are also "secular, heathen, sinners" who "hate god", and "actively disparage and discriminate against true believers."

This tool would enable deadly and repressive government officials to prevent the spread of christianity though this technological outlet, and would function just as sensationally as a tool of religious and ideological censorship as it would as a powerful tool to identify and punish criminals.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, 'brother'.

(My troll-o-meter is pegging a 10, but it could be a poes law false positive. If you be trollin, research your religious fundies more dutifully next time. If you were simply naive about the serious implications of software like this, and honestly felt that a "think of the children!" Argument was in any way grounds for outright debasement of fundemental liberties that everyone enjoys and society is demonstrably better for, my advice would be to always think about what would happen if an evil person had control over that part of the process. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and those that trade freedom for the illusion of safety deserve neither.)

Re:He should remove it.

[marcushnk]

who the hell are you talking to?

ahh the imaginary friends again...

Re:He should remove it.

[Ethanol-fueled]

While you are just trolling, the ultimate goal of the "total information awareness" program is in fact to quantify data used to predict events before they happen. This especially applies to the concept of "pre-crime," where your data would be fed through an algorithm. If your actions are undesireable to the establishment, then you will be followed and arrested with the first excuse they can muster.

And a fact most appropriate to your user ID - Religious lobbying in America has increased 500%. Among the most important issues of religious lobbying groups are:

- The relationship between church and state (pissing on that thing we call the constitution)
- Civil rights and liberties for religious and other minorities(like the gays?)
- Bioethics and life issues, including abortion, capital punishment and end-of-life issues(force people to have kids they don't want and prevent people in constant paint to pass peacefully, generally impede scientific progress)
- Family/marriage issues, including definition of marriage, domestic violence and fatherhood initiatives(great job in the bible belt, with its higher rates of divorce)

So yes, this is all related, because Christians are in charge of America, and Christians believe that everybody else should be subject to the same overbearing parenting that Christians were subject to as children. Big brother is their way of foisting their so-called "morality" upon everybody else, willing or unwilling.

Re:He should remove it.

[ColdWetDog]

who the hell are you talking to?

ahh the imaginary friends again...

-1 is NOT an imaginary number.

Re:He should remove it.

[Runaway1956]

Well, Jake, your name seems to imply that you are a Christian. The Imam will be happy to get this CarrierIQ data, so that he can behead your infidel ass.

Not to mention, "Pastor" seems to imply that you're a Protestant. Just think, if the Pope had this sort of data way back, all you Protestant apostates could have been burned at the stake, along with that wench, Joan of Arc.

And, the atheist movement will also welcome all this information. This will make it easier to find you, for deportation to a reeducation camp.

In short - you're an idiot.

Re:He should remove it.

[shutdown -p now]

I propose that we take this software a step further, and have it display a random Bible verse on bootup of the device

It's a wonderful idea, brother, but I would like to clarify something important first: KJV or NIV?

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

Here thar be trolls.

Dont feed them.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

While you are just trolling, the ultimate goal of the "total information awareness" program is in fact to quantify data used to predict events before they happen. This especially applies to the concept of "pre-crime," where your data would be fed through an algorithm. If your actions are undesireable to the establishment, then you will be followed and arrested with the first excuse they can muster.

Baloney. What would a private company with no visible gov't affiliations care about any of that? Its about marketing, plain and simple-- theres no conspiracy or Minority Report scenario needed to explain this, and Occam's Razor points straight to what they claim to be-- analytics and marketing.

And a fact most appropriate to your user ID - Religious lobbying in America has increased 500%. Among the most important issues of religious lobbying groups are:

Trying to link this to religious groups is such a reach its not even funny. Can you point to a single bit of lobbying that went into this CarrierIQ situation? I thought not.

You completely fail to grasp that "separation of church and state" has NOTHING to do with what your values are and how they are formed. "A pastor voting in line with his religious views" isnt a violation of separation of church and state, its protected speech under the first amendment and in line with everything the constitution stands for.

So yes, this is all related, because Christians are in charge of America, and Christians believe that everybody else should be subject to the same overbearing parenting that Christians were subject to as children.

That calls for a big bold [CITATION NEEDED]. All the religious christians I know-- including myself-- regard a big overbearing government as a pretty bad thing, and understand that big groups of powerful authority figures are rarely a pure win. It MIGHT occur to you that pretty much everywhere protestantism took hold eventually became a democracy, and our founding fathers were at LEAST theist with some of them being more overtly christian.

Im actually more worried about secular states that think they can achieve a utopia here and now, because those are the places that tend to turn into nightmarish totalitarian states.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

His high UID combined with a clearly trollish statement means he might not be the idiot here. Yall are postin in a troll thread.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anarchduke]

but its square root is

Re:He should remove it.

[Qzukk]

What would a private company with no visible gov't affiliations care about any of that?

Why don't you ask Qwest's CEO, I think he gets out of jail sometime this decade for not bending over for Bush's warrantless wiretaps. Oh, sorry, I meant violating his job as CEO to make every penny possible by getting his government contracts cancelled for not bending over for Bush's warrantless wiretaps. Hmm, it doesn't sound much better that way either. How do you spin it so you can claim that these telcom companies have no visible government affiliations?

Re:He should remove it.

[TheGratefulNet]

my maffs must be wrong.

I thought the sqrt(god) = 1/ham_sandwich (for small values of god).

no?

Re:He should remove it.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

*yawn* Boring troll is boring.

What's your thoughts on chiropractic? or HOSTS files?

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

TPB doesn't have it, but try this: http://www.file-upload.net/download-3900843/CIQ_Dump_by_TrevE.zip.torrent.html
Not sure if it works properly though. (Here it downloads OK, but sloowly.)

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

All the religious christians I know-- including myself-- regard a big overbearing government as a pretty bad thing, and understand that big groups of powerful authority figures are rarely a pure win.

Well, in case it's time for you renounce your totalitarianism celestial North Korea who convicts people of thought crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8ORn-wmhliU#t=164s

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

the original Hebrew version, of course.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

Im kind of suprised you are proud of that segment, its about the worst argument or complaint against God Ive ever heard. He follows it up with ridicule and strawmen-- what a thoughtful and pleasant man.

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

what a thoughtful and pleasant man

If you knew the man's good works which include an enormous amount helping the victimized people of the world, I wonder if you would be so quick to disparage him. I suspect the answer would still be yes with the cherry picked version of Christianity you present.

As for the rest of your statement and noting it's lack of specifics, an ungenerous person might assume that is your standard response to views you disagree with. I don't feel particularly generous reading your comment.

Re:He should remove it.

[Aryden]

can you hold a -1 in your hand?

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

can you hold a -1 in your hand?

I'd prefer to keep holding my 10 1/2, thanks (my webcam audience seems to like it).

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Re:He should remove it.

[jamesh]

You can't sacrifice privacy for security, it doesn't work that way.

Christianity is based on the idea that you can sacrifice one man for the salvation of all mankind, so you can see how sacrificing privacy for security might make sense to them ;)

I can never quite tell whether people sprouting religious rhetoric are serious or trolling...

Re:He should remove it.

[jamesh]

My troll-o-meter is pegging a 10, but it could be a poes law false positive.

Yeah I got that too. You can never quite tell... some people really are that crazy. I think the "display a random Bible verse on bootup of the device" is a bit of a giveaway though. A smiley face emoticon at the end of the post would have been nice.

Having an app that displays random bible excerpts each time you turn on your phone would be cool, although they'd have to be brief, eg:
"kill every woman who has slept with a man"
"save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"
"kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women"
The more it can be taken out of context, the better!

Re:He should remove it.

[jamesh]

So yes, this is all related, because Christians are in charge of America, and Christians believe that everybody else should be subject to the same overbearing parenting that Christians were subject to as children. Big brother is their way of foisting their so-called "morality" upon everybody else, willing or unwilling.

Someone has been feeding you crap so you'll hate the Christians and draw your attention away from who the real enemies are.

Re:He should remove it.

[ShakaUVM]

>>if the Pope had this sort of data way back, all you Protestant apostates could have been burned at the stake, along with that wench, Joan of Arc.

Sorry, I hate feeding trolls, but I'm boggling at this statement.

You honestly are accusing the Catholic church of burning one of their patron saints at the stake? The English very explicitly didn't allow Jean D'Arc to appeal to the Pope, as they were running a show trial (threatening the English churchmen with death if they failed to burn her).

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you see the air?

Re:He should remove it.

[mrogers]

Wow, Jacob Appelbaum has really changed since he joined that church...

Re:He should remove it.

[marcello_dl]

> you can sacrifice one man for the salvation of all mankind
Not "you", "a god";
not "one man", "his son", that is himself;

apart this freaking major problem, it was a witty post.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he must be a Godly troll, see http://slashdot.org/~Pastor+Jake for his profile.

He tells us in his bio that he has "..decided to combine God's work with pleasure..."

That must be because he truly hates being "a traveling nondenominational evangelist", otherwise God's work would already be a pleasure.

No, I take it back - that's no troll - that's a raving loony...

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never really understood the premise that killing someone's son will make him like you more.

Re:He should remove it.

[bluefoxlucid]

draw your attention away from who the real enemies are.

Congress?

Re:He should remove it.

[P-niiice]

For christians, government doesn't get big until Liberals start moving toward cleaning up their mess from the last wrecked economy.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I most certainly can. I can write "-1" on a piece of paper and hold it very nicely, thank-you.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

He might be the worlds biggest humanitarian and still be a personally unpleasant person to talk to. The segment you linked was essentially 5 minutes of fallacious ridicule with no rational basis, just that he found various religious ideas silly.

You want to know my problem with his video? He objects to an omnipotent omniscient judge because it reminds him of North Korea, never mind that, rationally speaking, omniscience and omnipotence are requirements for perfect justice; he objects to the trinity basically because he doesnt understand it and he finds it to be a hilarious parallel to Kim Jong Il's dead father being the head of the government. Thats about as far as I got before I realized that life is too short to spend watching athiests make accusations that are neither civil nor grounded in reason, which have all been addressed by apologists over the last 2000 years. The video (at least what I saw) was more reminiscent of a comedy club (always bastions of powerfully logical argument, right?) than of a carefully thought out speech. It reminds me more of the type of reasoning one would find on 4chan than what one would expect from an intellectual.

I really dont get this. I dont think atheists are stupid, but when the brightest of them get into a discussion on religion they seem unable to refrain from sinking into the worst of fallacies, and others seem to applaud them as brilliant for doing so (see the article from several weeks back where Jerry Coyne makes a gigantic ass of himself attacking professor John Haught with several fallacies in what was supposed to be a simple talk on "heres what I believe"). You all realize that this doesnt convince anyone, right? It just makes you look militant and irrational.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

You know what makes you seem really clever? When you make broad (implied all christians), vague (unclear who you mean by christian-- several groups use that name), sweeping generalizations with nothing to ground them in.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez brother, maybe you should move to Yemen, no Christians there to tick you off.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sacrifice privacy for security, it doesn't work that way.

You're obviously not an American.

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

So you understand the trinity huh? And it's a logical thing? Wow, now I'm prepared for revelation. I'm read the bible multiple times and found no mention of the trinity anywhere, ever. Not even the slightest allusion to it. Although I have found gospel and scripture verses which contradict the standard version of it. But then again, there are so many versions to pick from which the truest mark of a logical fallacy.

a hilarious parallel to Kim Jong Il's dead father being the head of the government. Thats about as far as I got before I realized that life is too short to spend watching athiests make accusations that are neither civil nor grounded in reason

So exposing the parallels between actions isn't a valid premise for logic and reason? And because it might offend someone it shouldn't be said? Fascinating how the religious mind works. They truly want the censorship and totalitarianism of their chosen dictator.

BTW it was a debate, not a speech so it was limited in time, scope and detail. It was between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter. The full version is also available on youtube so you could explore the full scope of arguments. I suspect you'd more the like the debate between him and Dinesh D'Souza, a full blown apologist and a bit more adept at the logical gymnastics which come with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-NduvegITQ&feature=BFa&list=PL8399092B6C337E55&lf=results_main

Re:He should remove it.

[RivenAleem]

To truly appreciate the full meaning of the Bible, you must read it in the original Klingon.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

Wow, now I'm prepared for revelation. I'm read the bible multiple times and found no mention of the trinity anywhere, ever. Not even the slightest allusion to it.

It doesnt use that word. The word trinity, as with other words and phrases such as easter, communion (and as the catholic church might assert, transubstantiation) dont actually appear in the bible; they are shorthand for longer concepts that we DO see clearly.

If you look through the new testament, you see very clearly that there are references to roles of a "father", of a "son" in a relationship to the "father", and a "spirit" in a relationship with the other two. All three are considered to be divine, and to be God, and monotheism is affirmed many many times (even by Jesus himself, who calls himself both "the son" whose role is to do the will of "the father", and also identifies himself as one in being with "the father"-- Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father').

The clearest explaination I can give of what it all means is simply that there is a single divine eternal being called God (whose name is Yahweh, by some translations) who has three "persons", or roles, in himself.

As for several versions, there are many translations, if thats what you mean, each with their own minor flaws; no translation of Greek / Hebrew to english will ever be 100% perfect, though the most common ones are 99% in agreement.

So exposing the parallels between actions isn't a valid premise for logic and reason?

No more than Godwinning a conversation does. Its like saying "Hitler brushed his teeth, so if you brush your teeth, you must want to murder Jews." That is what is known as a fallacy (several of them in fact). Parallels are useful in analogies, but as arguments in and of themselves, they are bad arguments. What Kim Jong Il and his father do / did are of no relevance whatsoever to the existence of a deity or his power, station, or knowledge.

. I suspect you'd more the like the debate between him and Dinesh D'Souza, a full blown apologist and a bit more adept at the logical gymnastics which come with it.

Let me get this straight. Youre defending Hitchens' use of fallacy, and then accusing me of logical gymnastics? Just to be clear, you can agree with Hitchens' premise without having to defend his poor argumentation.

Re:He should remove it.

[P-niiice]

Just look for "small government" Christians who had no problem with the size of government under Bush and now complain about big government under Obama. Easy to spot 'em.

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

though the most common ones are 99% in agreement.

Clearly you've never read the bible and in particular the gospels. Even the most conservative of biblical scholars with integrity have to admit they agree on very little of the detail. The only place they are agreement is when they directly plagiarize from one another. Once you let Luke go off freelancing, or John which has virtually nothing in common with rest to can just begin to see the enormous amount of divergence in the text. They don't agree on the details of anything except where they have been plagiarized. Exactly what you'd expect from a man-made myth. John 14:28 clearly demolished your definition of the trinity. Either they are equal or they are not. Which is it? Did you even read the bible quote you offered? It makes no sense, it's complete gibberish and utter white noise.

By making the statement you did, you convict yourself of either one of two things. You are conscious liar, fraud, and charlatan of the lowest intellectual integrity, or you are a simple minded fool regurgitating what you have been fed. As in the wise words of Abraham Lincoln:

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.

So in either case you are a liar. For reference, see http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_biblemisquotejesus/doesbiblemisquote.htm

Let me get this straight. Youre defending Hitchens' use of fallacy, and then accusing me of logical gymnastics?

Um yes. You have not established what fallacy he employs. Godwin's Law, although often appropriate, isn't a fallacy which makes your claim extremely questionable.

.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine. We'll pick some random politician and sacrifice only their privacy for that of mankind.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either they are equal or they are not. Which is it?

Someone is obviously not a programmer. Learn the difference between reference equality and value equality.

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false

A maxim which you are guilty of violating given your assertion of knowing the unknowable.

You have not established what fallacy he employs.

Argumentum ad nauseam, for one.

Re:He should remove it.

[kilfarsnar]

draw your attention away from who the real enemies are.

Congress?

I'd go with the .001%, but there are many to choose from.

Re:He should remove it.

[Enfixed]

Yes... have you been to L.A.? ;)

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

Clearly you've never read the bible and in particular the gospels.

Thats quite an assumption, and you know what they say about those. One might have read about 3 lines down in my post where I reference specific parts of scripture, but then I suppose if the point is to argue more than it is to learn, reading isnt really relevant. I had understood you had asked for an explanation of the trinity, here I come to discover that you really just wanted to debate indefinitely.

Even the most conservative of biblical scholars with integrity have to admit they agree on very little of the detail.

Um, what? Every study bible and commentary I have ever read, when they address that particular point, make it clear that there are maybe 100 or so individual phrases (dare I even say, "individual words") which are unclear in some way. The gospels support each other to a phenomenal degree, especially when you consider that they were written by different people across a large time span. I would be interested to hear who this large body of conservative biblical scholars is who disagree.

...with integrity....

...Unless you are intending to do a No True Scotsman argument? I would sincerely hope not, I grow weary of fallacies.

Im not clear what you mean by plagarizing, either-- you seem to be implying that if Matthew tells of a scenario in John, it is plagarizing, and if it does not, then it is in conflict, and in no case can they be in agreement. Am I hearing that correctly?

Um yes. You have not established what fallacy he employs.

Association fallacy and appeal to ridicule were the two I saw immediately given the short portion of the video I watched. Can you really be so ignorant of fallacies not to recognize appeals to ridicule in someone's comparison between God and Kim Jong Il?

Re:He should remove it.

[AK Marc]

"A pastor voting in line with his religious views" isnt a violation of separation of church and state, its protected speech under the first amendment and in line with everything the constitution stands for.

The problem being when the mob disagrees with the Constitution and votes in people who run on the "I'll piss on the Constitution" platform of spending federal dollars to build Christian memorials (some arguably Jewish because of the shared heritage) - Commandments and crosses on every government building, laws to reflect the "morality" of the voters, even if in direct violation of the Constitution.

Re:He should remove it.

[AK Marc]

Well, Jake, your name seems to imply that you are a Christian.

That's funny. I'm Marc. Father of Adam and Jacob. And we are a family of atheists, though my grandmother would turn in her grave to hear that.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the invisible government affiliations you all should be discussing. Ask yourselves

1 Who would want a database so huge?
2 Who normally works through front organizations?
3 Who instructs their front organizations and cleared contractors to claim their activities are commercial and proprietary?

Re:He should remove it.

[AK Marc]

Aramaic, of course.

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

No True Scotsman

Really? Hilarious. Perhaps you should look up the fallacy and return with something remotely resembling logic instead of a blatant non sequitur.

Association fallacy [wikipedia.org] and appeal to ridicule [wikipedia.org] were the two I saw immediately given the short portion of the video I watched. Can you really be so ignorant of fallacies not to recognize appeals to ridicule in someone's comparison between God and Kim Jong Il?

His logic was a point of Reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps you might want to visit parallels between the including all the "miracles" and duality between father and son. All this without eyewitness.

It's ironic isn't it that we are witnessing an awful attempt at logic defining by someone who defended their initial statement with ad hominem.

Your pathetic attempt at equating this with Godwin's Law is nothing more than attempt at diversion and censorship as

http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/14/hands-off-hitler

Im not clear what you mean by plagarizing, either-- you seem to be implying that if Matthew tells of a scenario in John, it is plagarizing, and if it does not, then it is in conflict, and in no case can they be in agreement. Am I hearing that correctly?

No. Blatant out outright copying. And it's highly unlikely John would resemble much of the other 3 when dealing with the same events. Jesus was a super hero with powers rivaling Batman in John.

I've already given you a source, there are plenty of biblical scholars who do have integrity. If you don't like my source find one you like. Really to satisfy the integrity issue, all you have to do is find someone who follows where the evidence leads, not where their beliefs guide them. Given the audience, I'll define evidence as the term is used in the sciences and judicial system.

To try and make still as simple for you as possible, take any major event in the gospels. Say the anointing of the body after the crucifixion. What happened at that event? They can't all be right so which one is?

Re:He should remove it.

[mcgrew]

I can never quite tell whether people sprouting religious rhetoric are serious or trolling...

You could if you were a Christian. He's trolling. He may be trying to be funny, but he's still trolling. The human sacrifice in the New Testament is one pure, sinless man voluntarily paying for the sins of the rest of us.

Re:He should remove it.

[mcgrew]

Yeah I got that too. You can never quite tell... some people really are that crazy.

There are always subtile, and often not so subtile clues.

I think the "display a random Bible verse on bootup of the device" is a bit of a giveaway though.

Bingo! Now, moderators -- every single one of these comments responding to the fake Christian's troll are offtopic*, including mine, and should be modded as such. I shouldn't have to wade through this garbage to get to what I came for.

*Except the parent comment, it was indeed funny. It would have been even funnier if he'd included citations for chapter and verse, although he probably didn't because they're accurate but out of context. Also, they're from the Old Testament and the Old covenant. Christianity is about forgiveness; the new covenant.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the name of Santa Claus, I object to you trying to highjack the debate for your "man".
In case u haven't got it, USA is a tiny part of the world, americans are less than 5% of the worlds population and people of the world are affected by the carrier iq stuff.

Re:He should remove it.

[jamesh]

I can never quite tell whether people sprouting religious rhetoric are serious or trolling...

You could if you were a Christian. He's trolling. He may be trying to be funny, but he's still trolling. The human sacrifice in the New Testament is one pure, sinless man voluntarily paying for the sins of the rest of us.

Explain the "voluntarily" bit again? He might have resigned himself to his fate and gone willingly, but had he changed his mind he still would have been nailed up there anyway... doesn't sound like the definition of "volunteer" to me.

Re:He should remove it.

[iiiears]

Offtopic: Precrime: "FBI spied On George Carlin."
http://jourlaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/fbi-spied-on-george-carlin.html
Hitler would approved this technology. (Godwin rule now in play.).

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

No True Scotsman

Really? Hilarious. Perhaps you should look up the fallacy and return with something remotely resembling logic instead of a blatant non sequitur.

....

I've already given you a source, there are plenty of biblical scholars who do have integrity.

>implying the scholars I would chose would not fit "with integrity"
Yea, see, this is why this discussion is going nowhere. There is no reason to add a subjective qualifier (like "with integrity") to the description "conservative biblical scholars" unless you mean to disqualify any counter examples I would bring to the table. Doing so (saying "any scholar WITH INTEGRITY wouldnt say that") is a classic example of a No True Scotsman.

Your inability to grasp fallacies, and parent's post remarking on Argumentation Ad Naseum, makes me realize just how bad discussion on the internet can be. You make ridiculous claims (like implying that a scholar who denies biblical inerrancy could be called conservative, when that is basically the definition of liberal christianity), and link to fallacious videos, and then on top of it all accuse me of ridicule for pointing it out.

This is one of the reasons I can only take religious arguments on the internet in small doses-- hard hitting arguments would be fine and welcome, but inevitably these discussions bring out the worst examples of fallacy and irrationality. Call it a victory if you like, I dont really see a point to continuing to go back and forth like this.

To try and make still as simple for you as possible, take any major event in the gospels. Say the anointing of the body after the crucifixion. What happened at that event? They can't all be right so which one is?

Ill make this really simple; dont bother responding, because neither I nor the scriptures can make it any clearer than it already is (that is, lucid):
Jesus was anointed prior to burial, according to John 19:40. Mark 15:46 confirms that Joseph wrapped Jesus in a burial cloth and buried him, as does Matthew 29:59-60. Luke 24:1 adds that on the first day of the week, some women went down with spices to preserve the body.

If you see a conflict in there, youd have to make it plainer, but I dont think I could answer your question, as it already seems pretty clear. I would recommend you look your question up in a commentary or a study bible if you are truly curious, rather than arguing for the sake of arguing as I suspect.

Re:He should remove it.

[sjames]

CarrierIQ is a corporation. If God offers them $100 and Satan offers $101, whose bidding do you suppose CarrierIQ will do?

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

NIH version!

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

Yea, see, this is why this discussion is going nowhere. There is no reason to add a subjective qualifier (like "with integrity") to the description "conservative biblical scholars" unless you mean to disqualify any counter examples I would bring to the table. Doing so (saying "any scholar WITH INTEGRITY wouldnt say that") is a classic example of a No True Scotsman.

For this to be taken anything like truth, you must assume all biblical scholars are in fact just, fair, and go where the evidence leads. Of course this isn't true, and it's plainly obvious why such a qualifier is necessary. Even the most ignorant among the religious know there are charlatans in the game. It does indeed say something about you that you assume the purity of result though.

some women went down with spices to preserve the body.

How many women was that? And what exactly happened during event? Oh yeah, 4 different versions almost entirely incompatible with one another. And that's just the very tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of inconsistencies, convolutions, and impossibilities present in the book. I see you've somehow resolved all these conflicts, but it certainly wasn't through logic. Do yourself the favor of calling it faith and leave the thinking to grown-ups who can be honest even when the answers disagree with desires.

Re:He should remove it.

[mjwx]

> you can sacrifice one man for the salvation of all mankind
Not "you", "a god";
not "one man", "his son", that is himself;

apart this freaking major problem, it was a witty post.

Not to mention that the church tortured and killed many people to absolve them of their sins in the 14 and 15th cenrtry.

I bet you didn't expect the Spanish inquisition.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

At least 3 women were there: Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalen, and Salome. Possibly others unnamed as well. I didnt think it was really that hard to figure out, but I hope that answers ONE of your questions.

In case you still dont get it: just because I say "Joe was at the store" doesnt mean that Bob wasnt there as well.

Re:He should remove it.

[LordLimecat]

By the way, its thanksgiving, Im not going to continue this discussion. Im sorry if I was short, arguing on the internet is rarely a good idea.

Hope you have a pleasant thanksgiving.

Re:He should remove it.

[marcello_dl]

Criticism to a system can be directed to the properties of the system, or to its implementation. In the second case you are right and we can stop believing in math too, because people use numbers to rob you of your belongings (aka finance tricks), or science because of the not so good effects of an atomic bomb. It's ok for me.

If you go back to the system, instead:
Mt 10:14: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet

Now, if you somehow manage to re-translate "listen" into "believe" and "shake the dust off your feet" into "torture them", AND if you find some new scraps of testament where that Jesus guy tortures somebody, setting an example (because the books are not enough when dealing with somebody, real or fictional, that didn't leave one written line of text behind: tradition of those closer to the Jesus guy counts IMHO), you have a point.

If not, I think this applies:
      âoeWatch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheepâ(TM)s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. (...) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
(...) âoeMany will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?â(TM) Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â(TM)

Note that believing or not, is not the problem. Not listening is.
And, proclaiming yourself minister of god doesn't make you one, not even after performing miracles, which the inquisitors didn't even bother with IIRC. So when I hear about "atheists" needing signs, effects of a god in the universe, as prerequisite for belief, (instead of simply saying: whatever you show me can't be tied necessarily to an inaccessible hypothetical creator), I hear potential followers of the first guy who figures out sufficiently advanced methods to deceive them.

There can many things that can make you not believe in each religion, no problem for me, the problem is when a mutilated view is criticized, since it's not a matter of discussion but politics.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that as Christian, you mean the teaching and polygamous followings of the Church of Later Day Saints. One devotee has 128 wives which is quite a large number for one of these responsible Christians who practice sex with 12 yearolds.

Re:He should remove it.

[torgosan]

What? It hasn't yet been posted?

Wait for it...

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:He should remove it.

[Omnifarious]

Criticism to a system can be directed to the properties of the system, or to its implementation. In the second case you are right and we can stop believing in math too, because people use numbers to rob you of your belongings (aka finance tricks), or science because of the not so good effects of an atomic bomb. It's ok for me.

Fine. Christianity teaches us to believe that authority and hierarchy are paramount, so long as it's the 'right' authority. It teaches us that any action sincerely taken in God's name is a good one. It teaches us that moral judgement begins and ends with a book written by people over a thousand years ago.

Unfortunately, anybody could take each of my statements and dissect them and show that they are not universally true. This is because there is such a mish-mash of things people call 'christian' that there is no way to really say what a 'christian' value is or isn't.

But I think most people will recognize something they call 'christian' in my description.

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

Mary the mother of Jesus

Wrong.

Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple

case you still dont get it: just because I say "Joe was at the store" doesnt mean that Bob wasnt there as well.

Perhaps if you're generous and want this to work out, you could overlook this conflict. However once you do read the accounts in detail and notice all the other problems with it like in some versions they entered tomb, in some they didn't, they all see and do different things, arrive at different times, tomb descriptions wildly different, who greeted the women or woman, was the tomb guarded, how long was the body there, etc ad nauseum, then you have to move from a position of apologist to denialist in terms of an evidential approach.

Re:He should remove it.

[Custard Horse]

It is a test of sanity. You passed.

Re:He should remove it.

[Custard Horse]

AND if you find some new scraps of testament

Just append your own writings i.e. the new (improved) testament / new testement v2 / new testament reboot. The original bible was updated in this way after all.

As long as you include the original work you are free to distribute - it is open source in the respect.

Like a lot of open source, the bible is not worth anything - it's the support you pay for.

Re:He should remove it.

[marcello_dl]

the hierarchy bit is taken care of in mt 23
"And do not call anyone on earth âfather,â(TM) for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

the authority bit is philosophically obvious, like "can I change files at will? - sure, if you are root."

The "sincerely taken action" bit does not hold against the disciple who defended jesus by cutting an ear.

Moral judgment and the others I dunno maybe you should quote verses to make your point, just like the other guy satan did in the desert, better than nothing.

Re:He should remove it.

[marcello_dl]

Sure go ahead. You're already taken into account if you're not inspired by $deity, remember? That of course can be a simple trick, "poisoning the well" as they say. But it's there and kinda shows an attention to detail that would be useful with many atheist arguments.

And if you are inspired by $deity, one more saint is not bad at all.

Re:He should remove it.

[Galactic Dominator]

For your viewing pleasure:

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/sessions/lecture13.html

Even this series is too kind IMO, but it still meets my offering of integrity.

Re:He should remove it.

[mcgrew]

Explain the "voluntarily" bit again?

Matthew 17:20.

Re:He should remove it.

[desdinova 216]

no on ever does.

Re:He should remove it.

[Maritz]

Didn't even kill him, really. Died Friday evening, stayed dead Saturday, back on his feet and full of beans on Sunday morning. So not even three days, barely two.

Re:He should remove it.

[Maritz]

I'd have more time for Christians who throw the old book away, never seem to see any though. I guess there's a lot of raw material in there to be cherry picked depending upon whatever opinion needs to be supported. By the way it's 'subtle' not 'subtile' (not trying to be a dick, just saying) ;)

Re:He should remove it.

[Maritz]

The differences in the nativity/birth stories are even more jarring.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Criticism to a system can be directed to the properties of the system, or to its implementation

Or both. I love it when the pseudo-intellectuals come out to play on Slashdot.

Re:He should remove it.

[mcgrew]

There's a lot of wisdom in the old book, and poetry. Psalms, Solomon, Proverbs, etc. But even some Christian preachers forget that Jesus brought a new covenant. And like Monday, I need more coffee and don't have spell check.

Re:He should remove it.

[sgt scrub]

Dey wair tech clothez of sheepz but dey is wolvz insied. Bad wolvz. --ceiling cat

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

i must maintain complete control of my domain and all devices in it in order to protect my rights from people like you. i assume you have excellent intentions, but you are very short sighted in your excecution and planning. i wish to teach my children to act as wolves, not sheep. on the other hand i could just dox you, get your phone # and then pull all data on your personal behavior habbits and routine based on how where and when you use your phone. I hope you trust CarrierIQ can handle thier security or i could easily invite myself to christmas dinner this year.
kinda scary , eh? why don't you just mosey over to Trevor's site and put a dollar in the plate of someone who works for your own freedom to have a point of view that makes an enemy or two.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

This man is working to remove software which can be used to identify pedophiles, rapists, and other ungodly characters which are plaguing this nation. He should be brought to justice for undermining our government's attempt to keep our land free and Christian. I propose that we take this software a step further, and have it display a random Bible verse on bootup of the device, in order to spread Christ's message to the unsaved.

God bless,
Jake

You're an idiot to even think we would want bible versus popping up on our phone when it boots up. You need to get a grip on reality Jake the bible thumper. This is a blatant invasion of privacy! How would like it if we all watched you have your way with your wife, if you're married? I didn't think so! I think this guy needs to keep up the good work.

Re:He should remove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

My Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

This man is working to remove software which can be used to identify pedophiles, rapists, and other ungodly characters which are plaguing this nation. He should be brought to justice for undermining our government's attempt to keep our land free and Christian. I propose that we take this software a step further, and have it display a random Bible verse on bootup of the device, in order to spread Christ's message to the unsaved.

God bless,
Jake

You best be trollin'

Carrier IQ's PA on the matter

[RetailResTech]

Looks like CarrierIQ is trying to save face in their PA http://www.carrieriq.com/Media_Alert_User_Experience_Matters_11_16_11.pdf I wonder, I'm not entering a contract with CarrierIQ, are they collecting this data to their own servers then sending the data to the carriers or are the carriers collecting the data?

Re:Carrier IQ's PA on the matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way someone tracking my personal information to give me a better 'user experience' really would seem to impress me would be to know exactly how I like a BJ.

I *GET* the information I *PURSUE*. I don't need anyone, let alone businesses, or corporations, trying to offer me things. That's for the passive... As an active and informed adult, I get what I look for.

Re:Carrier IQ's PA on the matter

[Runaway1956]

That is also my attitude. I want something - let's say a new car. I research cars, of the type that I want. Which one has the most power? I mean, real horsepower, not "which one has the most hyped up powerful phrase in the television commercials". That information is available, with a quick google search. And, if I want a new shirt, I research the shirts. (alright, I don't really - I have spent a lifetime researching work shirts, and I just go buy a Carhartt shirt) Ditto for everything else I need or want. Google search finds whatever I need to know. Armed with FACTS, I then go find examples of the product to put my fingers on, before making a final decision.

Re:Carrier IQ's PA on the matter

[Anonymous Coward]

With the facts provided by your google research, with your search results tailor by google based on their analsys of your browsing behaviour...

Re:Carrier IQ's PA on the matter

[Aryden]

it provides tailored results based on information that you willingly provide. Pretty damn big difference compared to a software that no one told you was collecting your data and sharing it.

Re:Carrier IQ's PA on the matter

[L4t3r4lu5]

Following the great tradition of replying to the first post to get more hits, but...

The first link in the linked EFF letter (the analysis of CarrierIQ software) is missing the second hyphen in /logs-and-services/. Posting the working link here

CarierIQ Protocol?

[Guppy]

the software secretly chronicles a user's phone experience, from its apps, battery life and texts.

Let's hope someone succeeds in reverse engineering and implementing a copy of the CarrierIQ protocol, as I wish it to be known that my favorite App is the "Nude Crocheting Pocket Guide", and my current battery life is "Purple".

I will also be happy to forward my texts (which I shall not utter here) to the phone company as well, as soon as an international SMS character set for the language of Morder is approved.

Re:CarierIQ Protocol?

[LordLimecat]

Knowing the protocol isnt enough; one does not simply text into Mordor.

Re:CarierIQ Protocol?

[BenJCarter]

Three tablets for the Executive-kings under the sky,
Seven smart phones for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of silicone,
Nine voice phones for Mortal Men still doomed to work,
One App for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Servers are built.
One App to rule them all, One App to find them,
One App to phreak them all and through the internet pwn them
In the Land of Mordor where the hackers lie.

Re:CarierIQ Protocol?

[Aryden]

Romania? China?

Re:CarierIQ Protocol?

[rdebath]

Shouldn't be too long before the Mordor script "Tengwar" is formally accepted into unicode ...

But you still can't utter it here because slashcode is just a pile of ç, ÐоÐно, okay then U+7caa!
At least I can still call it cachu.

Re:CarierIQ Protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done!
A cookie for you, LOL.

Re:CarierIQ Protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Silicone? Dwarf-lords with giant inflatable tits!

Re:CarierIQ Protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seven smart phones for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of silicone,

Silicone? Really? What, are the dwarf-lords tired of dwarf-sized boobs?

This is why I do not use Android

[bigredradio]

Thank goodness I use an iPhone. Apple would never track me....urr...crap! Nevermind.

Re:This is why I do not use Android

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

yes, because completely anonymous crowd sourced location data is just like having the carrier snoop on your every text and call.

Re:This is why I do not use Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough there's a job posting on CarrierIQ's website seeking a senior software engineer with 1+ years coding experience on the iPhone.

Re:This is why I do not use Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness I use an iPhone. Apple would never track me....urr...crap! Nevermind.

That's OK. Apple's carrier AT&T is looking out for your privacy.

Re:This is why I do not use Android

[Kalriath]

Er, the carrier doesn't need an app on your phone to snoop on your every text and call...

Tinker Tailor

[Anonymous Coward]

Soldier Android

Why blame CIQ?

[artor3]

Their software serves a legitimate purpose. It reports usage metrics so that phone makers can make phones that better serve people's needs. This is a Good Thing.

The problem is that you should be allowed to opt out. Some people don't like participating in these programs, and that should be their choice. By default, CIQ's software lets the user opt out. The problem here is that some companies are blocking that option or making it extremely difficult. They are the ones who should be criticized here.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[saihung]

Did you read any of the linked documents? The criticism against CarrierIQ is not necessarily about what they're making, but that they are trying to shut this man up for telling the truth about their products under the guise of copyright claims. That deserves criticism, and lots of it.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[artor3]

Sure, but that's just their (improper) reaction to the initial wave of criticism. This guy decided to beat up on them for no good reason, and they fought back using dirty and immoral means. Neither side comes out smelling like roses here, and in the meantime we're all forgetting about the groups that are actually responsible for the whole thing.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what was he supposed to do? Take down his research? Pretend like it never happened? I'm serious, what would you have him do?

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Beat up on them for no good reason? They're a spyware manufacturer. Sounds like a perfectly valid reason to me.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[miserere nobis]

This is like saying that a person who follows and videotapes everything you do, from your bedroom moments to your PIN-entering moments, serves a legitimate purpose by being able to report usage metrics on how well your shoes meet your needs in getting you from place to place, and that the existence of the Nike Stalker Program therefore, because it can help bring about better footwear, is a Good Thing. Highly misplaced acceptance. While I would be happy to see my shoe companies take an active interest in how comfortable or uncomfortable I am while wearing their products for certain types of activities, subjecting me to complete surveillance in order to carry this out is inappropriate, morally wrong, personally unacceptable, and falls very much into the Bad Thing category.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but that's just their (improper) reaction to the initial wave of criticism. This guy decided to beat up on them for no good reason,

You sound like a real tool right now. The guy is a security researcher and he pointed the finger at some nefarious software. What was he supposed to do? Just go, "Aww, shucks, I know y'all didn't really mean to do all this stuff so I'm a let this one slide.". I mean, WTF man? I you scared their feelings are going to get hurt or something?

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[the simurgh]

no no no your wrong. it should be these people go to prison unless they prove we opt in. the fact is people say we should have the option of "opting out". THE TRUTH IS WE SHOULD BE KEPT OUT UNLESS WE OPT IN.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[artor3]

At the start? Ease back on the rhetoric (calling it a rootkit, for example), and assign the blame where it's due. Odds are CIQ wouldn't have even cared if he hadn't set out to attack them.

Now? I don't know. The C&D letter is way too demanding to simply submit to. He picked a fight and he's got one. It's a shame he picked the wrong target.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Nursie]

Wait, he shines the light of day on a key logger, data recorder and total invasion of privacy, customised for carriers so there are no opt-outs, and he's beating up on them for no reason?

Jesus....

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[jamesh]

Their software serves a legitimate purpose. It reports usage metrics so that phone makers can make phones that better serve people's needs. This is a Good Thing.

The problem is that you should be allowed to opt out. Some people don't like participating in these programs, and that should be their choice. By default, CIQ's software lets the user opt out. The problem here is that some companies are blocking that option or making it extremely difficult. They are the ones who should be criticized here.

The other problem is that you can't opt-out of something if you don't know it's there...

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"The problem is that you should be allowed to opt out. "

Actually, it should be opt-in.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Sounds like he picked the right target to me.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a handset OEM. The requirement to install CIQ on a handset is a mandatory requirement that has come in over the past year or two - the last phone we did just missed having to have it implemented. It is the carriers who get the logging information and we have to do the porting. I agree that users should absolutely have the ability to opt-out of this kind of snooping, but so far there's no requirement for such a setting. I *do* expect to see it very soon though if the carriers know what's good for them. Pressure to drop preloaded craplets worked with Sprint and to a certain extent AT&T, so I expect those to be first with an amended set of requirements, if indeed they don't drop CIQ like a stone for all the bad press they've caused.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[pla]

Ease back on the rhetoric (calling it a rootkit, for example), and assign the blame where it's due.

So what would you call deliberately hidden software running as root, without your knowledge or consent?

Spyware by any other name would smell as bad.


It's a shame he picked the wrong target.

At some point, you have to hold the guys "just doing their job" accountable for their actions. Yes, their customers (the cell carriers) bear the brunt of the bad karma here, but no one sells thumb-screws to 4th-world dictators "for novelty purposes only".

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[b4dc0d3r]

I read the original story, and kinda forgot about it. But after this, my carrier is getting a call. And if they don't tell me how to turn it off, they're getting another.

And since they know who I'm calling, and can kinda predict these things, I'm going to keep calling. Predict this, cos it's coming. There is no excuse for censorship when it's running on MY GODDAM PHONE. It's mine, and if I don't know what it's doing, it's going straight up your ass. Did you predict that? Hope you brought lube. Unless you prefer a phone up your ass without. Predict it, live it, love it, take it.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in this case its more like blaming the camera creator for making a device which can record you, instead of Nike for using the camera to record you.

Or in other words, this company makes a software (with opt out options) which carriers purchased, and either disable or obscure the ability to opt-out.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you work on one of these immoral products that are solely used for nefarious purposes but try to whitewash your actions because "you only sell a tool"?

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! When are the Nike Stalkers launching!?

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[gl4ss]

it was interesting research, very interesting research actually.

either security research OR marketing company research. besides, carrierIQ is just working as mercs in this so they should take the heat. the software isn't that hard to even make! WHAT IS HARD IS TO GET CARRIERS TO INCLUDE IT ON THEIR SW!

I don't think that in the meantime we're forgetting that carriers are bundling it without mentioning it to their customers(why does that matter? well fuck, the customer pays for the data transfers.. the carriers are selling a service to the customers and then burning through their data for their own purposes which don't really matter that much, this is _NOT_ the way to improve their network at all it provides very little actual data they wouldn't get otherwise that would legimately benefit them. snooping on http urls etc doesn't help them provide a better service.. ).

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[gl4ss]

Except in this case its more like blaming the camera creator for making a device which can record you, instead of Nike for using the camera to record you.

Or in other words, this company makes a software (with opt out options) which carriers purchased, and either disable or obscure the ability to opt-out.

look, there is _nothing_ really great about the sw. it's just a stupid logger that logs everything it can and sends it over. the whole BUSINESS MODEL is to get the carriers to pay for customisations and hosting for it.

you and me buddy, and 4 months, and we could have the same thing. the really hard part is to get some carrier to agree to install it and to pay for it.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[miserere nobis]

No, it's not, more like blaming a stalker services company for packaging their stalking services and selling them to Nike. Your response is like excusing them because they offer to Nike-- but not to you-- the option that their stalkers could stand in plain view rather than hiding in the bushes when stalking customers and look the other way when asked nicely. The whole idea is inappropriate to begin with, and only more so when the opt-out option is taken away. And opt-out? Since when should a total activity surveillance program be opt-out, rather than opt-in? The only appropriate use for this type of software is for cell phone manufacturers and providers to use themselves for development, diagnostics, and testing. It should not be included on customer phones at all. Maybe reasonable would be some cut-down version that allows a customer, when actively dealing with customer service, to purposefully boot the phone into a diagnostics mode to help determine the cause of trouble, but that is completely unlike what we're dealing with here.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[iceaxe]

I wholly agree with you, but please learn to communicate more effectively. We'll get more traction that way. I promise.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[AK Marc]

So what would you call deliberately hidden software running as root, without your knowledge or consent?

In this case, "the operating system". It's no different than RDP on Windows. Is remote desktop a rootkit, or part of the OS? An integrated rootkit that can't be obtained separately is part of the OS (perhaps a "feature" would be the correct word, but rootkit is obviously not, as 'kit' implies the loaded-later part).

So, I'd call deliberately hidden software running as root "a feature of the operating system" as it was integrated and provided as such. But that's not as inaccurate and inflammatory as "OMG WTF BBQ, rootkits everywhere!!!!111!!!!!oneone!!!"

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Coren22]

CIQ is not part of Android. It is installed by the phone manufacturers as part of their load at the request of the Cell carriers, but it is not a standard part of Android. Root Kit is a valid description.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Coren22]

Some people might find it kinky to have their bedroom moments video taped by a stranger....

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Coren22]

I sell drills specifically designed to drill into bank vaults. I can't be held responsible for its use... /sarcasm

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[AK Marc]

It is a standard part of "Verizon's Android" and every phone maker has "custom" loads. Tweaking drivers, locking bootlaoders, etc. At that point, integrating a "root kit" makes it an OS feature.

Next you'll be telling me that Dell "roots" all their computers by shipping them with Symantec pre-loaded.

Re:Why blame CIQ?

[Coren22]

You don't consider Symantec to be a root kit? I consider it an insidious virus that is damn near impossible to eradicate...yep, a root kit :)

Note: it's CarrierIQ not CarrierHighIQ.

[Kaz Kylheku]

:)

Most importantly...

[Tasha26]

how do i remove that spyware?

Re:Most importantly...

[TheyTookOurJobs]

Root your phone and load a custom rom, that will take care of a few problems. CIQ, Bloatware, and you can freely tether your internet.

Re:Most importantly...

[Bohiti]

To be real specific, it would depend on the custom ROM. All of the Cyanogenmod builds should be free of CIQ, but if the ROM is based off stock, it all depends on how savvy the ROM-cooker is at removing CIQ, or whether it's even been updated since this information began spreading. ROMs based on stock builds from 6 months ago will still have CIQ.

Re:Most importantly...

[Anonymous Coward]

RIght. Cyanogenmod. That'll be safe:

Ever see an app called CyanogenMod Statistics?

Ever distribute a ROM with a key that anybody could use to put software on the phone to run as root:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/06/16/2127255/new-android-malware-attacks-custom-roms

Re:Most importantly...

[Calos]

The stats are strictly opt-in (at least they were the last time I used it) and the security vulnerability was fixed at the time the article you linked to was published... your hyperbolic description of the vulnerability aside.

No, I'm not claiming third party/Cyanogenmod are perfect. But most are at least open and try.

Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see them track me on my landline! They'll never know where I am!

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

[knock][knock][knock]

Sir, we need to talk to you about something. Please resist.

Streisand effect?

[sdavid]

They'd better watch out for the Streisand Effect.

Re:Streisand effect?

[mrogers]

Looks like someone already created a torrent.

Re:Streisand effect?

[Enfixed]

Too late.. its already here on Slashdot. ;)

If they can see how crappy my battery life is

[sandytaru]

... then maybe I have hope of getting a fix, or at the very least, a more efficient battery on my next phone.

does this really matter?

[miserere nobis]

I don't know how even on Slashdot there are some people who tend to argue "what do I care, if I'm not doing anything bad with my phone?" Let's get rid of that before it gets started here. I have a Samsung, Android, Sprint phone. That means I apparently have a logger installed that can track every key I press, every message I send, every web site I visit. That means that Sprint, Sprint employees, and whosoever Sprint or its employees should share this information with, whether that be government, advertisers, companies or individuals with malicious or invasive intent, whether this is shared on purpose or by accident or security breach, has access to such things as:

• * All my bank accounts
• * My email accounts
• * All my associates, how often I call them, and what I say to them via text message
• * The password to my KeePass database and every password stored therein

• Phones are not just text messaging and dialing devices anymore. A keylogger on my phone is equally offensive as a keylogger on my home PC, and has the potential for just as great a compromise of my life's privacy and security. I have no control over the security with which Sprint or anyone else transmits or stores my personal information, and even more importantly, they have no right to have it in the first place. Besides the fact that the FBI has a well-known history of tracking the lives of many private citizens with politically motivated intent, I certainly do not care for the idea of private corporations and whoever works for them having all of my passwords and knowing where all my accounts are. There is no reasonable argument for why I should think this is okay. I do not have to be doing anything illegal for me to reasonably object to my mobile phone company having, or storing (with who knows what security), a back door into every single piece of my life. Somebody whose involvement in my life is supposed to be merely providing me with telephone service does not need and has no right to expect the master key to my whole digital, financial, social, and business life.

  I will be contacting Sprint and asking them for a means to permanently remove this software from my phone. If they are unwilling (which they probably will be, but they need to actively hear a complaint from me and everyone else so they understand the offensiveness of their actions), I will have to go down the "root it and fix it myself" path. I hope the rest of you with affected phones will do the same.

Re:does this really matter?

[ad454]

A removal tool is definitely needed! In fact, Android needs to have a better way to prevent background data on Apps when they are not in use.

Maybe I should just root my Samsung Nexus S 4G and only use ROM's from non-commerical sources, such as from xda-developers.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for explaining why open is not always good.

Re:does this really matter?

[TheGratefulNet]

my work-around: I don't have carrier-paid data plans and I have 'texting' (god, I really hate that word, I really do) disabled as well.

my phone does wifi when I'm at home or at trusted places. other than that, its a cellphone (remember those?) and its there in case I need to make or take calls. then again, I'm in airplane mode at all times unless I'm actually expecting a call.

finally, the phone is bought unlocked (nexus one) and has no ties whatsoever to any carrier. with a pay-as-you-go plan, there's no chance of funnybusiness and I refuse to get a data plan for quite a lot of reasons, privacy being the paramount one.

I'm convinced that its simply not in my best interest to buy a phone FROM a carrier or even one associated with a carrier. I'll buy my own phone, thank you. if you can afford to USE a phone, you should be able to BUY the farking thing! the scam of getting a subsidized one is really screwing over a lot of people (contracts, spying, etc). but again, you chose to subsidize it. maybe next time you'll realize there ain't no free lunch.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

just because you have no carrier data plan doesnt mean that it isnt sending data to the carrier. if the carrier is willing to bear the cost of the data, no reason that they cannot transmit data for their own purposes.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

On my work phone are items that are covered I part by. HIPPA +HITEC Act, PCI-DSS and more. Are these folks cOmplying with those laws? If they get breached I get to notify thousands of people who's data may be compromisd??

NothIng could go wrOng.....

Re:does this really matter?

[ThePeices]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but he did not explain why open is not always good.

You made an incorrect assumption.

Re:does this really matter?

[TheGratefulNet]

here's now I know: the phone was never 'programmed' by anyone but me (ie, no user/pass/host/access was entered).

surely, you must admit that if there's no login credentials, there's ZERO chance of WAN connections being made. there's not even a way to 'dial out' on data if you've never configured a data access UI page on your phone.

100% sure that no data gets out except for wifi.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand the article this only tracks:

key presses on the dialing pad. So they can see what phone number you called, but not what you type in general.
When a text is received, not the content of the text

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

On my work phone are items that are covered I part by. HIPPA +HITEC Act, PCI-DSS and more. Are these folks cOmplying with those laws? If they get breached I get to notify thousands of people who's data may be compromisd??

Well, then you should get a phone from a company that takes security seriously: blackberry. Certified & audited by NATO, and many others:

http://us.blackberry.com/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp

Re:does this really matter?

[SmurfButcher Bob]

So in other words, they're intercepting my voicemail passwords and pins.

Hey, wasn't that in the news the other day?

Re:does this really matter?

[exomondo]

As I understand the article this only tracks:

key presses on the dialing pad. So they can see what phone number you called, but not what you type in general. When a text is received, not the content of the text

FTFA:
“We’re not looking at texts. We’re counting things. How many texts did you send and how many failed. That’s the level of metrics that are being gathered,” he said.

He answered “probably yes” when asked whether the company could read the text messages if it wanted.

Re:does this really matter?

[miserere nobis]

Nope. Read the original published findings. Can log basically every event on your phone, including every keypress.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you enjoy your roms based on stock leaks that include CIQ. Hope cyanogen makes a version for your phone.

Re:does this really matter?

[Aryden]

data can be and used to be, transmitted over your phone's standard connection. It doesn't need wifi to transmit data.

Re:does this really matter?

[Aryden]

hilarious if the carriers and ciq got hit with hippa compliance fines. What is it, $100,000 per incident now?

Re:does this really matter?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Well you enjoy your roms based on stock leaks that include CIQ. Hope cyanogen makes a version for your phone.

Cyanogen is a Samsung employee now. I'm not saying Cyanogenmod is linked in any way with Samsung, just pointing out facts.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

They hide the option to turn off data, but this is the best way ive found to prevent background data: Install Data Enabler widget. Just toggle it on when you need it.

Re:does this really matter?

[gl4ss]

*key presses on the dialing pad. So they can see what phone number you called, but not what you type in general.
When a text is received, not the content of the text*

WTF MAN? why would they log what numbers you dial WHEN THEY ALEIRJADSAJFIDOSAFJADSOFJSA s ... sorry. when they already have that information, because they're the fucking phone company _connecting_ you to the number you just dialed. think about it for a second. ..and they have the text, of course, since they delivered it. which is why this is all so very very stupid for them to even do on users phone end. it's just a neat logging hack someone managed to sell to one carrier and then to other carriers probably based on "the others are using it too".

what they probably _really_ want to do with this is to check if you're using a wifi hotspot program or not. because they'd really like to triple charge you for your data.

Re:does this really matter?

[Calos]

Your username is annoyingly l33t-speak. I'm not saying your post adds nothing to the discussion, just pointing out facts.

Re:does this really matter?

[decsnake]

something that I haven't seen mentioned here yet: the carriers have a terrible track record of releasing any data they have collected on you to assorted Government Agencies, often without a warrant.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF MAN? why would they log what numbers you dial WHEN THEY ALEIRJADSAJFIDOSAFJADSOFJSA s ... sorry. when they already have that information, because they're the fucking phone company _connecting_ you to the number you just dialed. think about it for a second. ..and they have the text, of course, since they delivered it. which is why this is all so very very stupid for them to even do on users phone end. it's just a neat logging hack someone managed to sell to one carrier and then to other carriers probably based on "the others are using it too".

Because that kind of monitoring is against the law, it amounts to an illegal wiretap. BUT it they get it from a third party app I'm guessing that this in not covered somehow under the wiretapping laws.

Re:does this really matter?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Three things.

Firstly, your statement that my name is "annoyingly" l33t-speak is an expression of opinion, not fact.
Secondly, you don't think that the main contributor to a custom ROM package being an employee of one of the companies involved in this story is at least interesting, at worst a conflict of interest?
Thirdly, and this is related to the second point, Cyanogenmod 7.1 on the Desire HD does not have any of the CarrierIQ components. To check your own ROM, go to this xda-developers post and download the Logging Test App. Requires root permissions to check for CIQ logging, amongst others (Google, HTC).

Re:does this really matter?

[Calos]

Firstly, your statement that my name is "annoyingly" l33t-speak is an expression of opinion, not fact.

Haha, I suppose.

Secondly, you don't think that the main contributor to a custom ROM package being an employee of one of the companies involved in this story is at least interesting, at worst a conflict of interest?

No, not if you understand what that person's involvement is and how Cyanogenmod works. Cyanogen was hired to improve the compatibility of Cyanogenmod on Samsung phones. Cyanogenmod's source is open, and is built from AOSP, which contains nothing from CIQ. The level of awareness of this issue among the people most likely to develop for Android and Cyanogenmod means it is very unlikely that CIQ could be slipped in, and even if it did, that it would not be quickly caught.

It's at most a conspiracy theory, and you'd have to do some mental contortions to convince yourself that the data collected by CIQ matters to Samsung (it seems to be something the carriers demand, not something the manufacturers care about), that Samsung is worried that the uptake in Cyanogenmod users is enough to damage their data gathering abilities (given the relatively small number of devices Cyanogenmod supports and the tiny number of people who use it relative to the population, this just isn't the case), that Samsung would be willing to risk its name and reputation to appease the carriers, that Samsung's response would be to try to infiltrate Cyanogenmod rather than just locking down their devices more, and that Cyanogen would throw his reputation and community under the bus for Samsung (especially since he's being employed to further Cyanogenmod on Samsung devices - if it was found that CIQ was being baked into Cyanogenmod, users would leave, Samsung would have no reason to pay him to get a ROM no one has any interest in using to work on their phones, and would eliminate his position).

So no, there's little interesting about your point, beyond the first glance. In fact, there's an awful lot against it.

This was the reason I replied to your post; any post I see that says "random fact tangentially related to story, just sayin'" irks me to no end. Just sayin'? Just pointing out facts? Why? What's interesting about them? How are they related? What purpose did you have in posting? Was there any idea that you were trying to explain, some connection you thought maybe others didn't see? Did you think about it at all beyond first appearances? It's lazy, it's a waste of space, there's no apparent thought, and it's fodder for conspiracy theorists and fanboys.

Thirdly, and this is related to the second point, Cyanogenmod 7.1 on the Desire HD does not have any of the CarrierIQ components. To check your own ROM, go to this xda-developers post [xda-developers.com] and download the Logging Test App. Requires root permissions to check for CIQ logging, amongst others (Google, HTC).

Good info about the logging test app... but I don't see how it relates to the second point (not your presentation of it anyway) but it does help my argument as to why Samsung wouldn't try to do what you're implying they might be.

Re:does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that he just said he did not configure the phone to make it work.
3g data connections is not just some magic voodoo thing that just works.
One need APN settings of the specific provider entered inside the phone.

Now, unless the data is camouflaged and is going through the voice pipe or hidden ACK packets, which is HIGHLY unlikely, I really don't see how THE DATA MENTIONED IN TFA can be transmitted.

Re:does this really matter?

[L4t3r4lu5]

My third point refutes my second. You did read my sig, right? It's food for thought, not an accusation. If I see a possible connection / conflict, I comment on it. Should more information come to light, I provide it. In a way, I publish my own Socratic arguments with myself purely in the interest of getting other people discussing the article, much as we are now.

FWIW, Cyanogenmod is compiled from the open source Android repositories, not a dumped and stripped carrier ROM. CarrierIQ has never touched Cyanogenmod as it's not in vanilla Android. Do feel free to test your own ROMs, though.

Re:does this really matter?

[Calos]

No, it wasn't food for thought, there was no thought there. It was a fact, tangentially related to the story, with no thought other than "just sayin'." The thinking should pre-empt the posting. The posting should be an explanation of the thoughts.

No matter how you romanticize what you're doing, it's nothing a machine couldn't, and with similar results: not even being relevant much of the time. You're adding nothing to the discussion of the article, and the root of what I'm getting at has nothing to do with the article. I guess by the phrase Socratic arguments, you're getting at the Socratic method? I don't see it. You aren't arguing anything here. Facts are not debatable. At most, you implied something by the fact, but neglected to name it, nor any reason for it.

The Socratic method cannot reasonably be applied to every situation, because infinite situations may arise or be hypothesized, and trying to debate them through this method is impractically time-consuming. It also demands the time of others to debate with you, when they could often reasonably come to a conclusion without your involvement.

In other words, most of the time, what you have to post isn't worth posting unless you have some reason (reason as in logic, not as in cause) to substantiate it.

But, for the first time ever, I'm going to figure out how to ignore/block someone on slashdot. Why? Your comments are inane and useless, and because as is obvious from your FWIW about AOSP, you don't even read the discussions you try to start.

Re:does this really matter?

[KZigurs]

Wrooong :)

SIM card you entered? It contains a data provisioning profile that phone is programmed to accept. Might be picked up, might be not (btw modern smartphones are horrible at supporting ages old standards like remote management).

Can send and receive texts? Cool, so can your prepaid simcard - except it uses texts as a data channel (and since it sends them to itself you are not charged and they will never show up in any tracking data - you know, it's "Service" thing that is too burdensome to record or log).

Note: Think of your simcard as an approx 486DX equivalent with approx 2-4MB ram and around 128MB flash. And it's all outside your control :)

Re:does this really matter?

[Kalriath]

The APN can be written into the SIM. And, often is. It's not magic voodoo, but a carrier can (and in some cases will) make it "just work".

Re:does this really matter?

[DMUTPeregrine]

Android does have a good way to stop unwanted apps from sending out data. It's called iptables. There are some nice GUI frontends, like DroidWall if you don't like putting in terminal commands to a phone.

Re:does this really matter?

[mjwx]

Well you enjoy your roms based on stock leaks that include CIQ. Hope cyanogen makes a version for your phone.

Cyanogen is a Samsung employee now. I'm not saying Cyanogenmod is linked in any way with Samsung, just pointing out facts.

No, you're implying that somone's professional life would force them to introduce something they dont like into their personal project.

A few things you need to consider,
1) Cyanogen worked for someone before Samsung.
2) Cyanogen is Open Source, so if something untoward was done chances are someone else would notice.
3) Cyanogen is not the only one working on CyanogenMod.
4) Samsung didn't put CarrierIQ on their phones, the carriers did.

Re:does this really matter?

[mjwx]

FTFA:
“We’re not looking at texts. We’re counting things. How many texts did you send and how many failed. That’s the level of metrics that are being gathered,” he said.

Of course we're not looking at whole texts, we're just counting things, like the individual characters.

Hackers site in scopes..

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wanted access root to all those phones I would, hypothetically (lol), target this shitty corp with everything I had..

Cease & Desist fail???

[OzPeter]

Is it me, or is the first point in the "Agreement" that CarrierIQ wants Eckhart to sign actually imply that CarrierIQ is performing the illegal copying???
 
 

I _______, agree to immediately
 
Cease and desist your unlawful copying of the Training Manuals

Supported TrevE

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Samsung Nexus S and bought the app just to show my support. It one thing to gather user metrics but to do so without allowing an opt out option is just not right. You go TrevE!

Time to lobby carriers and manufacturers?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the noise about the C&D letters, isn't this the time to start writing and phoning up carriers and manufacturers and ask them to disclose their use of this technology? People have a right to expect a certain amount of privacy when using the devices they purchase, and if CarrierIQ is embedded in the handsets sold to customers it's reasonable that this is disclosed (at a minimum), that customers can disable the function to protet their privacy (better) or preferably be able to purchase handsets which don't have this - or similar - technology embedded (ideal).

If people are unable to make an informed choice on the use of CarrierIQ on their handset, then there is a real potential that the manufacturers or carriers are libel for any consequences. At a minimum, you could potentially blame it for increased data costs, let alone the conseuqnces of data loss from it (credit card PIN numbers?).

And of course, once the malware writers become aware of it and leverage its capabilities for their own purposes, can the carriers and manufacturers avoid being responsible for contributing to this?

cost

[currently_awake]

They are inflicting a financial cost (bandwidth charge) upon you without consent. It's like buying a car and having them keep a set of keys so they can take it for joyrides (using your gas).

Re:cost

[Renevith]

CarrierIQ bandwidth is not counted against your cap. At least it's not supposed to be, although we know how good the telcos are at billing you properly.

Does rooting and CM7 get rid of it?

[EmagGeek]

This is the only question I have right now. It's only a minor process to root my phone and install CyanogenMod on it.

Someone I was speaking with today was theorizing that there is actually a hypervisor layer running on smart phones, so even if you do root it, you're still not really getting raw access to the hardware - you're just rooting one VM, and this spyware runs in the hypervisor. I don't know how true this is, but I figure someone here knows.

Re:Does rooting and CM7 get rid of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypervisors aren't that stealthy, and can be made to reveal themselves quite easily once you perform a trapped instruction. Aside from the massive research cost in coming up with some kind of truly stealthy hypervisor, it would also significantly increase unit costs. So no, there's no hypervisor.

Re:Does rooting and CM7 get rid of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypervisors aren't your real concern. Even if you root and install Cyanogen you don't get a new set of radio firmware (look at the build process and see what "proprietary" files are extracted and stuck back in their rom.) Good luck guessing if that RIL or GPS or sensor driver houses anything that might slip info into the Google checkin system.

meeting in CarrierIQ's legal department

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill> DAMMIT! The scary letter didnt work!
Jeff> What?! But the scary letter always works!
Bill> It would seem we are dealing with someone truly insidious, someone who knows their rights.
Bill> It's time for... plan B. We sue them into the ground!
Jeff> But we don't have a case.
Bill> DAMMIT, JEFF! How many times do I have to tell you? We're lawyers, ethics dont apply to us!

Goog eye!

[Zero__Kelvin]

At first I couldn't see what you were saying, but then I hunted down the Cease and Desist and laughed my ass off. They obviously meant it to read: I _______ agree to cease and desist my illegal copying .... As written it asks him to pledge to (magically?) cease & desist CarrierIG's illegal copying. ROTFLMAO

With lawyers like that and the EFF on his side, I don't think he has much to worry about.

CarrierIQ training material

[Anonymous Coward]

For the lazy (link taken from Eckhart's lawyer's response): the CarrierIQ training material, which Eckhard uploaded is still available here. Apparently this "copyrighted" material was freely available on their website, now they've pulled it.

California-Based

[Khyber]

This makes them an easy target for a MASSIVE class-action suit. California has some strict consumer protection and privacy laws.

You might want to send something like this to them

[Tuxedo Jack]

Ms. Woods,

I possess and use an HTC EVO 3D smartphone in line with my daily duties for my employer and various clients. This phone contains your employer's software (CarrierIQ for Sprint), which was bundled with the device and zero disclosure that it was installed or of its capabilities.

My device contains HIPPA-protected data (specifically relating to EMR software and the data contained therein) as well as PCI-DSS related information for my company's various clients. As such, it is protected by all manner of privacy laws, the breach of which results in severe penalties under United States law.

After reading Trevor Eckhart's research and doing some of my own, I am curious as to specifically what data your organization is capturing on Sprint's behalf, as well as to what extent they have customized their build of your software, and what its capabilities with their modifications are.

If the software, either in its original form or modified, does indeed capture data from a phone, including the ability to take screenshots or access the contents of e-mail accounts or SMS messages, this could potentially be in violation of all manner of privacy acts, depending on what data is being harvested and whether your client has the option to turn such collection on or not.

Please note that, among other techniques, I will be disassembling the binaries that I possess on my device and will be comparing it against the original ROM image that HTC has issued for this device in order to differentiate what, if any, changes are pushed out through over-the-air updates in order to determine the capabilities of the software as best I can.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never accepted any license agreements or restrictions regarding the software on my device, and as such, I am not bound to refrain from analyzing the software as I see fit, nor from having the results peer-reviewed and published once completed.

If your department is unable to answer my questions, please relay this to someone else inside your organization as you see fit.

I remain,

INSERT_NAME_HERE

an opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

seems like a business opportunity is available for people to download a solution that deals with spyware, malware, etc -- an out-going agent that inspects packets and if they don't pass the criteria -- counter measures are taken

What CarrierIQ & Carriers are doing....

[tantaliz3]

should be very, very illegal. Why isn't this being investigated?

Hmmmm.... Anon bait?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a good target for Anon...

RTFP!

[Virtucon]

Read the F*ing Find Print people! Your wireless carrier can do whatever they want with devices provisioned on their network. You therefore cannot be "surprised" when a third party comes along and offers them "services" to track customer usage patterns.

From AT&T Wireless Terms and Conditions

You acknowledge that every business or personal decision, to some degree or another, represents an assumption of risk, and that neither AT&T nor its content and service providers or suppliers, in providing information, applications or other content or services, or access to information, applications, or other content underwrites, can underwrite, or assumes your risk in any manner whatsoever.

.... and ....

From 3.1 "My Device"

You are responsible for all phones and other devices containing a SIM assigned to your account ("Devices"). Your Device must be compatible with, and not interfere with, our Services and must comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. We may periodically program your Device remotely with system settings for roaming service, to direct your Device to use network services most appropriate for your typical usage, and other features that cannot be changed manually.

Devices purchased for use on AT&T's system are designed for use exclusively on AT&T's system ("Equipment"). You agree that you won't make any modifications to the Equipment or programming to enable the Equipment to operate on any other system. AT&T may, at its sole and absolute discretion, modify the programming to enable the operation of the Equipment on other systems.

Re:RTFP!

[quixote9]

Actually, no. EULAs, TOS, whatever, which contravene actual laws, are invalid. You couldn't, for instance, bury a clause in a sale contract stipulating that by signing the buyer had agreed to be your slave. Or, you could, but it wouldn't hold up in court.

And that's the problem. Very few of us have the money, energy, or time to fight all the bullshit contracts we have to sign. So they haven't (yet) been thrown out of court. That doesn't change the fact that they're garbage.

Re:RTFP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. EULAs, TOS, whatever, which contravene actual laws, are invalid. You couldn't, for instance, bury a clause in a sale contract stipulating that by signing the buyer had agreed to be your slave. Or, you could, but it wouldn't hold up in court.

That's why you have to wait for SOPA to be passed

Consumer compensation

[failedlogic]

I was hoping someone can convince CarrierIQ to pay the millions of smartphone users that have the software installed on their phone.

If I were to find this software on my phone, might it generally be a violation of the Terms so I can opt out of the contract?

Re:Consumer compensation

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were to find this software on my phone, might it generally be a violation of the Terms so I can opt out of the contract?

If the lawyers for your carrier did there job properly, then permission for this would be in the fine print of your contract. So, probably not. But read the contract yourself if you really want to know.

Re:You might want to send something like this to t

[maevius]

Although I would like this to work, I'm familiar with PCI-DSS and I'm pretty sure that it's your fault for keeping this data on a cell phone which is not PCI-DSS compliant and not the carrier's/CarrierIQ's

Running Cronos ROM avoids this giant PITA

[griffo]

All hail the independent Android ROM developers, who avoid this PITA!

Thank you thank you thank you !!!!!!!!!!

For me, the Cronos ROM has extended the useful life of my Hero greatly!

EFF

[thephydes]

I admit to being an ignoramus about exactly what (who) EFF is (are), but my respect for it (them) grows daily.

Re:EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.eff.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation

Re:EFF

[richlv]

they're cool. check out barlow speaking at eG8 : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/barlow/

he's like the only person there who isn't a greedy fucking bastard... spot how they all are surprised and if i recall correctly, it was the host who went like "oh, usually everybody agrees here on these things..."

CIQ

[P-niiice]

My understanding is that CIQ calls are all up in your phones grill, but it's not *enabled* and not logging anything. I hope to hell that's true. Still, you get a huge performance and battery boost by installing a CIQ-free rom. Be informed, be free citizen.

Note to self (and readers), must donate to the EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to self (and readers), must donate to the EFF.

Blackberry's as well?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I use a Blackberry, and I am concerned about this software, yet I cannot find any evidence of the validity of the claims, from any sources other than the original research.

Can anyone verify that CIQ does indeed exist on Blackberrys, and if so, how to remove it?

Wiretap?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no expert, but doesn't that count as a wiretap, as it's intercepting SMS messages? Personally, I'd like to see someone be found guilty on [number of texts ever sent that CarrierIQ had access to] counts of wiretap.

Something that needs to happen in America is a higher level of accountability for those running corporations. If a corporation does something illegal, they get in trouble, sued, whatever. No big deal. What SHOULD happen is the quack who made the decision goes to prison. They shouldn't be allowed to do illegal things and hide behind the protection of an incorporation.

Re:You might want to send something like this to t

[Vokkyt]

I would assume that this falls under FERPA/HIPPA regulations as well, and for those, it is on behalf of the user to be aware of potential breaches. Companies certainly can market towards consumers who work in fields that require specific privacy rules to be followed, but that is at the Companies' discretion.

Basically, unless you were sold the device being told specifically that it was safe for use in your line of work and PCI-DSS/HIPPA/FERPA/whatev, I doubt there is any grounds for complaint based on that.

Obligatory IANAL.

There is no doubt this is a rootkit

[sgt scrub]

This looks like it would be a very useful tool for debugging. Being able to see things in real time and plain text is very helpful. That being said, so are ssldump, strace, and gdb. However, I don't install any of these utilities unless I need to do some debugging. An application that can not be uninstalled, can not be turned off, and actively divulges private information is nothing less than a spyware rootkit.

Re:Plug your nose and blow real hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Jake,
SAY WHAT!!!??? Okay, let's try this...plug your nose and blow real hard...this should remove your head from your ass. Granted with any electrical device there comes accountability, to which; I don’t argue with. However, just to say that Big Brother is tracking your every move isn’t going to stop crime. How about we put bar codes and implant tracking devices in everyone? After that, like Clockwork Orange, forcing your eyes open with mechanical devices making you watch Oral Roberts until you’ve learned all the scriptures.

I like my privacy. I really enjoy my rights are a United States citizen. But I refuse to let a government black bag me because I may worship differently, accept different types of life styles without prejudice, or raise my children to grow as independent free thinking people.

Remember to blow real hard.

Seven