Slashdot Mirror


Carrier IQ Responds To FBI Drama, EFF Wants More Information

New submitter realized writes "Yesterday Carrier IQ released a report (PDF) which tries to answer some questions about how their system operates. Also, after reports of the FBI using Carrier IQ data, the company responded by saying, 'Carrier IQ has never provided any data to the FBI. If approached by a law enforcement agency, we would refer them to the network operators.' Additionally, the EFF just released a report which says they believe keystroke data 'is in fact being inadvertently transmitted to some third parties,' but they would like to study carrier profiles to verify information." Reader Trailrunner7 adds that Carrier IQ's report indicates "under some limited circumstances its software will log the contents of SMS messages sent to a user's phone, but that that the contents of those messages would not be human readable. Instead, they would be in an encoded form that could not be decoded without special software and the carriers don't have access to the contents of the messages either. The company said it has worked on a fix for the bug, which affected devices running the embedded version of the Carrier IQ agent."

96 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. The more you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1. Re:The more you know... by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And we give you more shiny toys...
      All the better to track you my dearie!

      And we give you better airport security...
      All the better to control you my dearie!

      And we give you more in store free membership cards...
      All the better to know your every purchasing move my dearie!

      And we give you more places to report SSNs...
      All for the illusion of importance and identification my dearie

      And we give you traffic and overhead cameras...
      All the better to make sure your driving safe dearie!

      And we give you more more social networks...
      All the better to keep you and our friends close, so we can keep you our enemy closer!

      And we give you internet shaping and monitoring...
      All the better to provide better content delivery my dearie!

      And we give you more child porn laws and content ratings...
      All the better to protect your eyes my dearie!

      And we give you more drug laws and consensual restrictions...
      All the better to keep you safe my dearie!

      And we invade other countries and install governments...
      All the better to ensure your security my dearie!

      And I give you the slow erosion of all that is personal responsibility, hard work, civil liberties, freedoms, independence, free speech, and everything America ever once strived at standing for...
      All the better to own you my dearie!

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:The more you know... by Tooke · · Score: 2

      All the better to make sure your driving safe dearie!

      And we give you apostrophes for clearer communication... Dearie.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
  2. "A fix for the bug"? by T5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fix is to not install spyware on the phones in the first place. How hard is this to understand?

    1. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is well understood, but perceived to be less profitable so is dismissed as an option. Same as it ever was.

    2. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corporations are Psychopaths.

      They don't care about things like decency, privacy, or human dignity.
      They do care about things like making a profit.

      The only (read: ONLY) method to modify the behavior of a corporation is to make a given action non-profitable.

      The government is truly missing a serious opportunity here. It is cash strapped. And corporations need to be brought into line.
      Fuck taxes that the corporations will avoid anyway; add an intensifier for all fines payable by corporate entities.

    3. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      A corporation is NOT a psychopath.

      Corporations are not humans. They are companies.

    4. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by artor3 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not spyware. Carriers want info on how people use their phones so that they can fix bugs and make better phones. It's no different from software that occasionally reports home with usage statistics. Everyone does it, and it's a good thing. The only problem is that a few OEMs and carriers disabled the user's ability to opt out.

      CarrierIQ makes a legal, useful, morally-sound product. Some companies go on to use that product in a legal, useful, but less moral manner. But some asshole of a security researcher figured out (correctly!) that he'd get way more hits on his webpage if he accused them of making a rootkit and keylogger. And now all the innocent, hardworking developers at this small business will be out on the streets, because the rage-a-holics want something to scream about, and the media is more than happy to manufacture controversy if it means good ratings.

      So congrats. You're going to destroy the lives of some innocent people over the tiniest of slights. I'm sure you're very proud.

    5. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations are not humans. They are companies

      .. run by psychopaths.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by Rennt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Legal, useful, and morally-sound? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a paid comment. It IS a rootkit, by definition (does it hide from your process list, can you remove it?). The EFF thinks it HAS been used as a keylogger, even if unintentionally. No matter what the customer agreed this functionality is morally reprehensible. If anything, the carriers deserve some credit for showing restraint in the use of this application, but CarrierIQ itself deserves all the criticism it is getting.

    7. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by Wolfier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not spyware. Carriers want info on how people use their phones so that they can fix bugs and make better phones. It's no different from software that occasionally reports home with usage statistics. Everyone does it, and it's a good thing. The only problem is that a few OEMs and carriers disabled the user's ability to opt out.

      CarrierIQ makes a legal, useful, morally-sound product. Some companies go on to use that product in a legal, useful, but less moral manner. But some asshole of a security researcher figured out (correctly!) that he'd get way more hits on his webpage if he accused them of making a rootkit and keylogger. And now all the innocent, hardworking developers at this small business will be out on the streets, because the rage-a-holics want something to scream about, and the media is more than happy to manufacture controversy if it means good ratings.

      So congrats. You're going to destroy the lives of some innocent people over the tiniest of slights. I'm sure you're very proud.

      Not so fast. I suspect if CarrierIQ didn't attempt to SLAPP the researcher, none of its PR disaster would have happened.
      Don't act as if CarrierIQ is totally in the right, because it is not. The moment they decided to unleash a lawyer first, and then an honest disclosure when necessary, their fate was sealed.

    8. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by houghi · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that a few OEMs and carriers disabled the user's ability to opt out.

      It starts earlier. The standard option should be opt-out. In fact anything and everything should be opt-out by default.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Funny

      Corporations are not humans. They are companies.

      The supreme court (wrongly) disagrees with your statement.

      I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    10. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's no different from software that occasionally reports home with usage statistics.

      The difference here is that I wasn't asked if I wanted to provide usage statistics, didn't even know that such statistics were being created, and the data being collected goes way beyond that which would be useful to any developer. Why would they need to know the content of my SMS messages to make a better app? Why do they need to know who I called and when, not just that a call was made?

      This is just too invasive. If they made it so it reported the most basic, anonymised stats there wouldn't be a problem. What they have done, however, is load devices which potentially contain sensitive personal data with remote monitoring software, with access to communications made on that device. It's too much, and they need to be called out on it.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      Its pretty obvious what's going on, CIQ is essentially an NSA (or other intelligence sponsored) front that can be used for, apparently, an insane amount of intelligence gathering with minimal need to work with different providers and other corporations at the same time. Makes perfect sense from their intelligence perspective to have that extra 'last mile' intelligence capability on individual cell phones. They're also playing it smart by letting CIQ pretend to be 'open' to discussion and pushing a network diagnostics angle to throw off the scent of any nefarious activity. Years ago, I would've assumed my own view on this is conspiracy bullshit, but it makes sense from an intelligence gathering standpoint. Hell of an idea though. Also, if they AREN'T using CIQ for this, that's just outright incompetence on their part, whoever is in charge of doing stuff that improves their creation of a controlled populace police state will probably get demoted or fired.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by pionzypher · · Score: 1

      Found my new sig.

      +1 Insightful

      --
      I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
    13. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's not spyware. Carriers want info on how people use their phones so that they can fix bugs and make better phones. It's no different from software that occasionally reports home with usage statistics.

      Well then why did it have the capability to do anything but report basic network usage statistics, like dropped calls and failed SMSes? It was shown in the debugging output that it had much more detailed capabilities (and is logging more detailed information), and now it's been found that on some phones it may be sending that information to the carriers.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Why would they need to know the content of my SMS messages to make a better app?

      Also. The ISPs are the first hop and can sniff your traffic all day long for content. They have no need for this application to give them detailed information like that. This application has to have been designed so that information can be seen by other people. I'm not saying it is designed to send content to the NSA, FBI, or OEMs because I don't have enough information. It could be argued that snarfing a message would show if a key is bad because none of the characters associated with that key show up in a message. However, I highly doubt that anyone would believe a keystroke recorder is there for that reason. There are several better ways to know if a key is dead. It is just too difficult to believe this software was designed for anything other than giving the people involved the ability to let someone else do the job of spying so they don't have to.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    15. Re:"A fix for the bug"? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      If you are using Android and you are wondering which applications have access to your SMS content, phone ID, location, contact list, and so on, I'd suggest installing something like LBC Privacy Guard or Permissions Denied. If you find Carrier IQ reprehensible, you may wish to expand your horizons a little bit. I'd say the vast majority of applications in the market have permissions that simply aren't needed, more than a few make CIQ seem quite harmless.

  3. No secret decoder ring here! by undeadbill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Instead, they would be in an encoded form that could not be decoded without special software and the carriers don't have access to the contents of the messages either.

    Yeah, first they say they don't sniff your traffic, then they say this, then that, then they pull the "not without our secret magic decoder ring" argument. If they are working with government agencies to use this software (and it may not be the FBI), they wouldn't even have the ability to admit to it- those kinds of agreements require the company to deny everything in perpetuity.

    First thing this new year, I'm migrating my phone over to cyanogenmod. I'd do it now, but I just don't have the time.

    1. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by msauve · · Score: 1

      ""not without our secret magic decoder ring"

      Everything is encoded with ROT-13. What's the problem?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First thing this new year, I'm migrating my phone over to cyanogenmod

      Or, you could use your phone less, and use other devices more. The more dependent we become on our cell phones, the more power the cell phone companies will have over us.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Or the doubly-secure ROT-26!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, first they say they don't sniff your traffic, then they say this, then that, then they pull the "not without our secret magic decoder ring" argument.

      And then there are rather disingenuous "we don't know what the carriers are doing with our software" claims.

      This company has a history of providing statements that are either untruthful or less than complete. Why believe them now?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, you're almost there. The most secure encryption is to simply XOR each byte with itself.

    6. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      So your answer to being beholden to mobile carriers is to remain beholden to ISPs? The same ISP's that run all the mobile services? How is a wireline going to make any difference if the provider is the same?.

      The answer, as always, is to 1) secure your shit. 2) hold carriers to a higher standard. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater

    7. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I hear you! (can you hear me, now?)

      seriously, though, you are right. we should use mobiles as little as possible. but try getting people to drop their data-drug-of-choice.

      just try. try even asking teens to stop 'texting' (I really hate that term, btw).

      consume, consume, consume! and since we don't make things in the US anymore, selling 'data' is a way for americans to make money.

      well, some americans. I mean, some businesses. and by some, I mean less than a handful.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not encryption, that's a hash with infinite collisions;))

    9. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      What I'm more concerned is the choice of words: the stuff is "encoded" and you need "special software".

      I certainly hope this is just a bad choice of words and they meant to say it's encrypted using some decent enough cipher. If it uses public key crypto, then we can assume the messages are sent in a reasonably secure manner. But who has the secret keys, by the way? How they have designed the key infrastructure? Will everyone who has access to the "special software" be able to read every message ever, or is the potential for damage somehow being compartmentalised?

      In short, it's not enough for them to just say "eh, it's encrypted anyways" - we all would love to know if it's encrypted sensibly. Marketers say the protection is super unbreakable, but we need to remember that the same was said of the DVDs, and look at what we found there.

    10. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Not true. I use my cell phone a lot but using the carrier's services is something I don't do much. If you took the SIM out of my phone that would only remove a tiny fraction of the functions I use (although an important fraction). One day I'd like to get a dumb-pipe 3G connection and replace the cellular number with a VoIP system. If everyone could migrate to open VoIP, phone calls would be as free as email, but instead we buy the same services locked-in from Vonage, MagicJack etc. If only people had a little computer skill the world would be so much different.

      That's where the dependence lies, in the lack of technical knowledge, and look which manufacturers are pushing that lifestyle of dependence as a good thing...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You should read the post I made above. It's too bad that in the US mobile devices and telcos are tied so tightly together.

      http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2572888&cid=38368646

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      So your answer to being beholden to mobile carriers is to remain beholden to ISPs? The same ISP's that run all the mobile services? How is a wireline going to make any difference if the provider is the same?

      Did your ISP install a rootkit on your PC?

      The answer, as always, is to 1) secure your shit.

      You mean when the software is being hidden from you, and when you cannot disable it without hacking your own phone? "Secure your shit" in that context means "don't use a cell phone."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    13. Re:No secret decoder ring here! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Did your ISP install a rootkit on your PC?

      No. Neither did my carrier install one on my phone for that matter, but the thing is that these two services are provided by the SAME COMPANY.

      You mean when the software is being hidden from you, and when you cannot disable it without hacking your own phone? "Secure your shit" in that context means "don't use a cell phone."

      No it don't. Secure your shit means do whatever it takes to be confident you know what your phone is doing. If that means "hacking" it (and I think it does) then so be it.

  4. Re:A Little Help Please? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Install gentoo.

  5. Re:A Little Help Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Step 1: Buy an Android phone
    Step 2: Run one of the numerous CIQ detection apps
    Step 3: If found, install an AOSP ROM like CM7

  6. Re:A Little Help Please? by PNutts · · Score: 3, Informative

    Step 1: Buy an Android phone
    Step 2: Run one of the numerous CIQ detection apps
    Step 3: If found, install an AOSP ROM like CM7

    Yes, much simpler than turning off a single option in the iPhone's preferences (after you've turned it on because it's off by default). Or don't turn it off because you can see what it sends in clear text and it doesn't log anything except diagnostic information.

  7. Re:A Little Help Please? by andydread · · Score: 3, Informative

    Install Cyanogen Mod.

  8. Re:A Little Help Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple has said that they are almost done using Carrier IQ for other methods of data collection.
    http://allthingsd.com/20111201/apple-we-stopped-supporting-carrieriq-with-ios-5/

    The quote is:
    “We stopped supporting Carrier IQ with iOS 5 in most of our products and will remove it completely in a future software update. With any diagnostic data sent to Apple, customers must actively opt-in to share this information, and if they do, the data is sent in an anonymous and encrypted form and does not include any personal information. We never recorded keystrokes, messages or any other personal information for diagnostic data and have no plans to ever do so.”

    And for the Fanboys out there I say Other methods since they will still get "diagnostic data sent to them".

  9. Talking through hat/lying through teeth. by bmo · · Score: 3, Funny

    but that that the contents of those messages would not be human readable. Instead, they would be in an encoded form that could not be decoded without special software

    "We encoded it as ROT13, twice."

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Talking through hat/lying through teeth. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Or... "We keep a tally of the number of times you write or receive certain words or phrases, or visit certain websites."

      Doing the aggregation on the client end just saves their servers some CPU... Speaking of, how much battery has this crap eaten in aggregate?

  10. Re:Why? by zman58 · · Score: 2

    You probably gave them your blessings in the user and/or license agreement in one way or another. Not that you would actually understand what you gave up--they would not want that. It's all in the fine print, buried in the legal-eeze. You need a lawyer anymore when you purchase a simple gadget if you really want to understand what it means for you to have it in your possession.

  11. Re:A Little Help Please? by jesseck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That just means they have a replacement that will do the same.

  12. Re:A Little Help Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    True. Here's the strange thing, though. Apple's statement was: "We stopped supporting Carrier IQ with iOS 5 in most of our products, and we're going to remove it completely in a future software update." Not particularly clear. On followup, that was narrowed down to the iPhone 4 with iOS 5 still has carrier IQ (and Verizon doesn't use carrier IQ, so it might be ATT iPhones only). Either way, carrier IQ wasn't doing keystroke logging or any of the other strange shit.

  13. Not too suprised here... by zman58 · · Score: 2

    I would not be surprised if any cell phone, even the dumb ones, could be remotely enabled to log keys and other private information at the drop of a hat with order from proper authority. I could see the big corporations and government interesting lying somewhere along the lines of "The technology is capable of it, why not include the feature for the sake of public "security"? Same goes for any of the cloud connected network devices, such as the Kindle. Remember, when you are in the cloud you are in another parties home, running on their network under their control. Do you trust them with your private information? You better read *all* of the fine print before agreeing to it and using their services. Even then, can you really *trust* them?? What can't they tell or reveal to you because their mouths are zipped with all of the blessings of the US government?
    "Show me the source code, and let me rebuild it" is the only way to be sure. To be sure you, or someone else who you trust, need to be able to inspect it and reconstruct it to confirm that is does what you want it to do and does not do what you don't want it to do.

    Such as in the case of using the GPL. This is why the GPL rules when it comes to privacy and controlling the technology you use. Proprietary solutions, such as found in today's smart phones, are very risky because you have no way of knowing the full extent of what harmful things they can actually do.

    1. Re:Not too suprised here... by thestuckmud · · Score: 2

      "Show me the source code, and let me rebuild it" is the only way to be sure.

      Are you certain? Really?

    2. Re:Not too suprised here... by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Clearly he meant "show me the source code for everything from the assembler to the final application and I'll hand translate the assembler to machine code and then bootstrap the compiler with it, running on my discrete transistor processor that I designed and hand-assembled from individual parts."

    3. Re:Not too suprised here... by zman58 · · Score: 1

      Stuckmud,
      Excerpt from your link above,
      "A program called a compiler is used to create the second from the first, and the compiler is usually trusted to do an honest job."

      You don't have to just trust the compiler because it also is GPL and open to inspection and rebuilding and calling out anything unusual. The *entire* solution is GPL, including the means to build it. So yes, I stand by my original post. If there are NO secrets, then honesty will "generally" prevail. The more secrets you have, as in proprietary solutions that you are not permitted to see or handle, then the more risk of this type of back-door, hidden features behavior. Big business wants to make money and big brother wants to keep tabs on people when he sees fit to do so. The unwary consumer just wants cool new technology with fancy bells and whistles.

      Let everyone, know and build it, and it will stay clean. Under the watchful eyes of many; nefarious back-door privacy or security issues will be called out quickly and corrected. Transparency and sharing knowledge and solutions is the key--the GPL provides one very effective way to address that.

  14. People are way too paranoid... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1, Informative

    First off.. CIQ are not the bad guys here.

    They make software. It does various things, and it can be used for good or evil.

    The carriers are the ones who requested the software to be placed on the handsets. The handset makers are the ones who screwed up, specifically HTC who left debug mode enabled on a production handset. The Samsung handsets do not exhibit the same issues that were shown in the video that the HTC handsets show.

    The whole FBI link, no one really knows for sure, what the deal is, other then they refused a FOIA. That could mean they utilize the data, or they are in fact investigating CIQ itself.

    Honestly, for the purposes that CIQ claim the software is for, I have no real issue with it. However they built far more capability then was needed in the software, and that I do have a major issue with.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    1. Re:People are way too paranoid... by Wolfier · · Score: 2

      First off.. CIQ are not the bad guys here.

      They make software. It does various things, and it can be used for good or evil.

      The carriers are the ones who requested the software to be placed on the handsets. The handset makers are the ones who screwed up, specifically HTC who left debug mode enabled on a production handset. The Samsung handsets do not exhibit the same issues that were shown in the video that the HTC handsets show.

      The whole FBI link, no one really knows for sure, what the deal is, other then they refused a FOIA. That could mean they utilize the data, or they are in fact investigating CIQ itself.

      Honestly, for the purposes that CIQ claim the software is for, I have no real issue with it. However they built far more capability then was needed in the software, and that I do have a major issue with.

      Mostly agreed, except that CIQ made a fatal mistake of trying to silent the researcher with a SLAPP. If they worked WITH him in the first place, I bet none of their current PR disaster would have happened.

    2. Re:People are way too paranoid... by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Agreed, though it comes down to the whole "Do guns kill people?" question. CIQ are no more culpable than Remington or Colt. Personally I am of the opinion people kill people, so blaming CIQ directly is erroneous.

  15. Carriers should make the service heat maps avail by klubar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I read the CIQ pdf, and the part I was most impressed with was the service quality heatmaps. It would be great if the carriers made (or were required to make) this data available. This would make it much easier to evaluate a carrier in your actual area. Instead the carriers just release vague maps that show that nearly the entire US is green. Clearly they have the data.

  16. Re:A Little Help Please? by bruno.fatia · · Score: 1, Troll

    Do you really trust this company that their software will indeed work as informed (sending ONLY if allowed, not logging user habits, etc)? After numerous times saying that their software is harmless to the users and each and everyday being proven wrong by security specialists I wouldn't trust it even with these settings turned off.

  17. Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing that's bothered me about all this:

    Google's street-view car inadvertently logs SSID broadcasts, which are transmitted in the clear. They 'fess up and get washed and hung out to dry. Threats from governments, demands that they turn over the data, investigations galore.

    CarrierIQ sends your text messages and keypresses and location information (including your typed passwords) to various third parties including the FBI and carriers... and nothing. A handful of small entities are "seeking suit" against the company.

    Where's the outrage? You'd think that CarrierIQ only affects geeks.

    1. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by bmo · · Score: 2

      Where's the outrage?

      This. Totally this.

      And you try to explain it and people either think you're wearing tinfoil haberdashery or millinery. It's like when I tried explaining the problems of using baby monitors and wireless telephones back before I gave up wasting my breath.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by artor3 · · Score: 2

      CarrierIQ sends your text messages

      Completely false. It might be accidentally logging received messages, but even those aren't human readable.

      and keypresses (including your typed passwords)

      There's no evidence that this is even true.

      to various third parties

      Only in the form of OS logs for crash reports.

      including the FBI

      Baseless speculation.

      and carriers

      The only true part of the sentence!

      The whole "case" against CIQ is hugely overblown by media sources looking for ratings and people who desperately want something to be outraged over.

    3. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by subreality · · Score: 1

      What we learned from Google is: when you make a mistake, quickly and quietly cover it up. Definitely don't admit that you did something wrong.

      CarrierIQ's got the message and is playing it smart: divert attention by saying THEY don't give information to the FBI, when really the problem is their SOFTWARE collecting information. See? No admission of guilt. Perhaps they also pay the appropriate bribes.

    4. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by Wolfier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Only in the form of OS logs for crash reports

      Neither CarrierIQ or the Carriers have business in knowing what apps I'm using, whether they crash or not (the PDF says it reports context switches between apps, this is an INSANE invasion of my privacy) - except the crapware written by the Carriers themselves, which I need or want none of.

      The whole "case" against CIQ is hugely overblown by media sources looking for ratings and people who desperately want something to be outraged over.

      They were largely responsible for the "case" against themselves - if they worked with the researcher instead of using lawyers to threaten him, there would be no case. They should have been sensitive enough to know that there's a very fine line between what they make and a real spyware - and be aware of the possibility that EFF might join the fray before their lawyer sent that threaten letter.

    5. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by swillden · · Score: 2

      CarrierIQ sends your text messages

      Completely false. It might be accidentally logging received messages, but even those aren't human readable.

      Except to teenagers.

      But then, I think a good argument can be made that teenagers aren't human, so I guess you're right.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      And CIQ *should* be logging SMS and URLs? Sure, these are both completely relevant to network service quality...

      Having the entire thing be opt-in would be less questionable, but still not non-shady - at least not unless the data collected is completely transparent and visible to the consumer it's being collected from.

    7. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      You learned that from Google? You're late to the party, pal! ;)

    8. Re:Google got slammed, but not CarrierIQ? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      They're not the same situations, really. Google's problems with the SSID logging / plaintext data collection weren't known outside of Google. If Google had simply removed the debugging code and deleted the data they had when they discovered the problem, that would have been the end of it right there, problem solved. But they went public instead, which didn't benefit anyone in any way. To this day I don't know what they were thinking.

      CarrierIQ's spyware was caught by an outsider on a consumer device. This could not be an accident. There was no way to cover it up, attempts to do so would bring on the Streissand effect.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  18. The intention doesn't matter by markjhood2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Defenders of Carrier IQ insist that they're not collecting keystrokes, capturing SMS messages, or relaying personal information to the FBI, and that they're just collecting information to improve the quality of the network. The argument is irrelevant. Clearly the software has the capability of performing all these functions even if it isn't currently being used that way, and if the capability is there, it can be abused by third parties. Its existence on a personal device on anything other than an opt-in basis is unacceptable.

    1. Re:The intention doesn't matter by grcumb · · Score: 1

      A knife has the ability to kill someone, that doesn't mean we should ban knives.

      Perhaps, but we should absolutely ban leaving the knife unsheathed in the baby's crib.

      Bear in mind that this software was first discovered because it was writing far too much data into the system log. If I understand the Android system correctly, any application at all could have accessed very detailed personal data simply by parsing the log.

      Intention does matter.

      That's true, and it seems that Carrier IQ actually did act in good faith.

      That does not, however, justify negligence, which seems to be the real problem here.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    2. Re:The intention doesn't matter by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If CIQ is so honorable, why have they made such an effort to embed it so deeply it cannot be turned off or removed from the phone by it's rightful owner short of extreme measures? Why isn't it's presence and operation more obvious? The deep embedding and stealth nature of the app are strong evidence that they know very well that phone owners will object to it. Those are not the actions of the innocent.

      If their intentions were honorable, they would apologize for getting it so very wrong and would have offered up a free detect and disable app for people who do not want CIQ on their phone. They have done no such thing. Instead they have been backing up slowly denying and backtracking all the way.

      You're right that we shouldn't ban knives, but you bet there will be hell to pay if someone is caught sneaking onto a plane with a knife concealed in his rectum. Claims that it was just in case he needed to peel an apple during the flight will not be accepted.

  19. Re:A Little Help Please? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I weep with envy. I'm hoping someone has an app for eradicating this Carrier "Room Temperature" IQ.

  20. Re:A Little Help Please? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've got the iPhone, how do I crib smother this Carrier IQ parasite?

    Next time you drive across a bridge, toss it out the window.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  21. Re:A Little Help Please? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Someone with a need to use Carrier "V.P.Chainey" IQ sure hates folks that disagree. Hate is not a Bestiality Value.

  22. Re:A Little Help Please? by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    I don't think your comment is Flamebait, unless the Mod'er is racist against Nanobots?

  23. Re:A Little Help Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, security researches have shown that on the iPhone it does in fact start up, check the user's option to have it enabled (which is off by default), then exit immediately if it is disabled.

    With the fact that Apple is very open about how it gets turned on, leaves it disabled by default and even makes you accept a new privacy policy to enable it, and all of that has not been disputed by researchers, I will say "Yes, I can trust them"

    Enjoy your spyware riddled Android device.

  24. Carriers don't have access? by ChipMonk · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Carriers don't have access to the contents of the [SMS] messages." Then how the hell do they get them to my phone in a human-readable format?

    1. Re:Carriers don't have access? by BigJro · · Score: 1

      They don't have access to read it from the phone, they have access to see what is sent to and from your phone. The original design of Carrier IQ is a text file that houses information that currently sends network coverage issues to the carrier. The file itself has more capabilities then just that, and the company that blew the whistle on this failed to notice what each text file is using. Instead they focused on the worse case scenario and threw that data out there and got what they wanted, attention. Carrier's don't need a simple text file to spy on people, they have real time software that allows them to see the data as it happens.

    2. Re:Carriers don't have access? by Calos · · Score: 1

      This is actually an interesting question.

      My initial reaction was "that's like asking how your ISP can possibly deliver you a webpage over an encrypted connection if they can't decrypt the webpage themselves?" But I'm not so sure this is a good analogy... unless there's a certificate system, or something built into the cell standards, or key negotiations between phones for every SMS sent... How is this secured? Is it secured at all?

      Maybe I'm just wholly ignorant on the subject...

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  25. Re:A Little Help Please? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    If it's a troubleshooting tool then it would benefit from remote activation. If it's a spy tool then it needs remote activation. Removing the software isn't the same as not having it (currently) running.

  26. Re:A Little Help Please? by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

    When it asks you if you want to send diagnostics. Say no.

    If you were stupid enough to say yes in the past, you can change it in settings -> general -> about -> diagnostics.

  27. Re:A Little Help Please? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Why buy an Android that's not supported by CyanogenMod?

  28. Re:A Little Help Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And by spyware riddled you mean perfectly clean, I suppose. Small typo.

  29. Re:Special software by Arker · · Score: 1

    I see they carefully chose their words, implying that the special software that makes it unreadable makes it ok. However, one may assume they have such software and are able to read everything. In addition, when I hear about unreadable by humans, I assume that it is most likely xor rather than aes.

    I think of microsoft word's various formats when I hear that phrase, personally.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  30. Re:A Little Help Please? by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems to be the point everyone is missing in all this. The carrier doesn't need spyware to spy on you, THEY ALREADY SEE ALL YOUR STUFF IN PLAIN TEXT. It's not like ATT needs a warrant to open up their own network and take a look around. Nor does verizon need federal permission to log, through their data proxy, every address you ever visit, for how long and using what protocols. In point of fact, current federal law requires these companies to store this information, for a very long time.

    What exactly do people think CIQ can tell the carrier that they don't already know? The pathetic answer is, real world network performance diagnostic data. Which is just about the ONLY thing the carrier doesn't already know about your handset.

  31. Re:A Little Help Please? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Step 1: Buy a Nexus phone.
    There is no step two.

    FTFY.

  32. Re:A Little Help Please? by RubberMallet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's nothing to turn off on my Android... CarrierIQ isn't even installed... wasn't installed from the beginning. So.. who has the spyware riddle device now? The iPhone which actually has the software installed, or the Android where it isn't? Hmmmmm

  33. Re:A Little Help Please? by Stalks · · Score: 2

    Actually its easier than this.

    Step 1: Buy an Android Phone

    Don't buy it from a carrier and it doesn't have this crud installed.

  34. Re:Carriers should make the service heat maps avai by jovius · · Score: 1

    The data is there all right. Here are a couple of maps from Finland - I don't actually know how they gather this data, but it's really thorough: http://www.elisa.fi/kuuluvuus/index.php / http://www.dna.fi/yksityisille/puhe/Kuuluvuus/kuuluvuuskartta/Sivut/Default.aspx

    I think that the maps need to be this precise because a lot of people have second homes or cottages somewhere outside the cities, and naturally one would like to use the same operator everywhere.

  35. Re:A Little Help Please? by dissy · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've got the iPhone, how do I crib smother this Carrier IQ parasite?

    Open Settings, go to General, then About, then Diagnostics & Usage
    See where it reads "Help Apple improve its products and services by automatically sending daily diagnostic and usage data, including location information." ?

    It will have "Don't Send" with a check mark. Simply never click "Automatically Send", as that option will enable CarrierIQ.

    There is also a button below to display the raw data it will send, and the word "Never" which is presumably the time it last sent data out.

    If you've upgraded to iOS5, this screen will be missing because they removed the software already.

  36. Re:A Little Help Please? by mamas · · Score: 2

    Most easy example: keystrokes.

    Data, e.g., passwords, sent over https encrypted connections aren't visible by the carrier.

    Yet, if the carrier logs keystrokes, they get to see them. A malicious third party could hijack the data as well.

    Got it?

  37. Re:A Little Help Please? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    no, they have much of the diagnostic data the handset could possibly provide, apart from your exact gps verified location.

    what they don't have certain know about without spying on your handset is stuff like if you're running vpn and tethering. why does it matter? because at&t & etc want you to pay more for your bytes depending on where you move them from.

    (actually they would need permission to go through those logs just for fun, even if it's required for them to store the data it's not like they can take a peek, wiretapping is still wiretapping - even if a shitload of wanabe admins don't want to admit to it, since it makes it harder for them to diagnose who's torrenting. well shit luck, it's still wiretapping and illegal in the western hemisphere)

    also as in regards to sms storing. "special software required to read them" probably means that it's bullshit talk for encrypted, still, it takes space on the device as as noted is totally unnecessary since they already have all the texts. BUT.. this gives access to a different department, ie. the wackos who ordered the customizations and marked the checkboxes when ordering their ciq version. that's the handset customization dweebs.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  38. Re:A Little Help Please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How am I supposed to throw a bridge out the window? A bridge I'm driving on, no less!

  39. Re:Carriers should make the service heat maps avai by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    it's really rather easy to gather. slap some sw on a phone and start driving around.
    slap a logger box on your access point installers van and that's another way. no need to go spying on everyone.

    SO.. ciq is not needed for this at all.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  40. Re:A Little Help Please? by AleX122 · · Score: 1

    You are right about https. However in the original post says: "under some limited circumstances its software will log the contents of SMS messages sent to a user's phone, but that that the contents of those messages would not be human readable. Instead, they would be in an encoded form that could not be decoded without special software and the carriers don't have access to the contents of the messages either." which is totally false. Carriers has access to content of SMS as they are delivered in polain text through their network. So this citation shows that Carrier IQ has no clue how GSM network work or they have something more to hide and do those silly attempts to calm down people with lies.

  41. The if, the why, and the who, are moot by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our client Trevor Eckhart (whose research set off the present firestorm) and his subsequent collaborator Ashkan Soltani have shown that on some phones, dialer keypresses and SMS text are being written to system logs by layer 4 code.

    It doesn't matter the intent of the developers of the software. If it exposes private information by logging plain text information to a place where an application can access it, it is bad. Trevor Eckhart exposed a VERY dangerous effect of a software exposing private information. The developers should fix their shit and shut the fuck up.

    Finally, there is an additional configuration file (called a "Profile") that controls the behavior of layer 2 and determines what information is actually sent from the phone to a carrier or other Carrier IQ client.

    If the user does not have access, or even know there is access, to controlling the "Profile" it is spyware. If it can not be disabled or removed without rooting the phone it is a rootkit.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  42. bugfix: delete CarrierIQ by swschrad · · Score: 1

    if the TLAs want data, let them get a search warrant.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  43. Wire Tapping in Two Party States by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 1

    http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape

    So with wire tapping laws, some states require all parties involved to give concent to the recording. These are 2 party states. All other states are 1 party states, which means only one person involved in the recording has to give concent.

    Now if they are recording incoming information within a 2 party state, the sender of the SMS message has to give concent that the message can be recorded. This is reguardless of the contract of the owner of the phone has. Ultimately, anyone who has ever sent a message to one of these phones in a 2 party state could possible sue.

  44. Re:A Little Help Please? by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

    Unless you just really like its pre-installed single-player game, I think there's a Step 2 where you have to connect it to the telecom network.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  45. Re:A Little Help Please? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Regardless of how many steps you take to connect the phone, it will still not be running CIQ.

  46. Re:A Little Help Please? by bickle · · Score: 1

    Ah, so you must be the proverbial troll living under the bridge.

    Sorry, you can't have my phone.

  47. We know it's sending data... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    But we can't be sure? What the hell does that mean for giant programs like Windows? Or programs that you wouldn't suspect like video drivers (a two company duopoly), msn, IE, Router Firmware?, Microsoft Word, Firefox, Linux, etc.?

    And what are our inklings of the penalties here? Can we penalize this company for doing something ferociousness when they were just following the orders of the FBI to "include a little code", or a court order not to discuss their involvement with law enforcement?

    When programs send "random data" to fill packets we'll never know....

    Perhaps a small country will speak out against this and all the genius tinfoil hats will move there and build paradise.

    I pray for this every day.

  48. the replacement to CIQ by zman58 · · Score: 1

    Very good point. You can count on it. And the replacement is most likely not so easy to detect or understand. Perhaps they can switch it on or off and collect the data as a pool at opportune times when it may not be so easily noticed. As long as they have the source code and you don't, there is no way for you to understand how the device works, for or against your wishes. If you are not permitted to rebuild it, then you will never understand how it truly works. ...I guess the poor unwary consumer will just have to *trust* them as money flows aggressively from their shallow wallet to the deep corporate coffers. heh heh.