India Mobile Handset Backdoor Memo Probably a Fake

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

India Mobile Handset Backdoor Memo Probably a Fake

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @03:18PM from the upon-further-investigation dept.

daveschroeder writes "In the wake of previous coverage alleging that Apple, Nokia, RIM, and others have provided Indian government with backdoors into their mobile handsets — which itself spawned a US investigation and questions about handset security — it turns out the memo which ignited the controversy is probably a fake designed to draw attention to the "Lords of Dharmaraja." According to Reuters, "Military and cyber-security experts in India say the hackers may have created the purported military intelligence memo simply to draw attention to their work, or to taint relations between close allies India and the United States." Apple has already denied providing access to the Indian government."

118 of 151 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Or maybe not... by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-11 15:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not a backdoor if it's "by accident..."
1. Re:Or maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 15:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You can never prove a conspiracy false, because any evidence against it is dismissed as disinformation planted by the conspiracy.
2. Re:Or maybe not... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 15:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  No, that's just what they *want* you to think.
3. Re:Or maybe not... by ajo_arctus · 2012-01-11 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Or is it....? *wink*.
  Oh wait, that wouldn't work. Doh.
4. Re:Or maybe not... by tnk1 · 2012-01-12 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter. As long as you keep speaking in conspiratorial tones, the fact that what you're saying does not logically follow is not a problem. Conspiracy is all about mood and fantasy.
5. Re:Or maybe not... by ihatewinXP · 2012-01-12 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Blackberry's caving in to the Indian government last year (and Pakistani) to open access to their spy agencies was HUGE news and not debated at conspiracy whatsoever in mainstream press.
  Now a year later lumping Nokia and Apple in to the group all of a sudden it is FUD denials and conspiracy..... Child please..... I can read independent news, have a memory longer than 15 minutes, and can combine facts to make logical assumptions.
  News: stop insulting my intelligence
  Slashdot readers: stop jumping to conclusions without at least some of the facts.
  
  --
  ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Bazinga... by fred911 · 2012-01-11 15:24 · Score: 1

n/t

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I'll just be right here... by NiceGeek · 2012-01-11 15:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

patiently waiting for everyone who was Apple-bashing to recant their statements.
1. Re:I'll just be right here... by Jetsurf · 2012-01-11 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Apple bashing? On slashdot? I don't believe it! :P
2. Re:I'll just be right here... by bonch · 2012-01-11 15:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Won't happen. Bashers really believe that Apple just sits around, inventing absolutely nothing, selling overpriced shiny baubles. In their view, all technology is the same, and Apple just makes products whose ideas are all entirely obvious, despite the fact that no one did things that way before. They hate Apple for being popular and widely credited for industry trends.
3. Re:I'll just be right here... by artor3 · 2012-01-11 15:35 · Score: 2
  
  You'll be waiting a long time. Most of them won't even read this story, and will continue to believe that lie for the rest of their lives. They'll even casually bring it up in conversation, causing other people to believe it. "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on."
4. Re:I'll just be right here... by DJRumpy · 2012-01-11 15:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You may be waiting a while as these sorts of things tend to take on a life of their own regardless of the facts presented. The meat of the linked article basically says the docs are questionable but well done. They also throw in a possible link to Anonymous which is a curious twist:
  
  Technology blog Infosec Island said on Wednesday it had seen more data obtained by the Lords of Dharmaraja, including dozens of usernames and passwords for compromised U.S. government network accounts.
  Infosec Island blogger Anthony Freed said the hacker group claimed to have taken the data from servers belonging to India's Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian government's IT organization, among others.
  Officials in India declined to comment on the document's content or authenticity.
  The alleged memo (http://bit.ly/zYze7w), which had a number of inconsistencies, including the letterhead of a military intelligence unit not involved in surveillance, claimed India had been spying on the USCC using know-how provided by Western mobile phone manufacturers.
  While the memo looks dubious, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has not denied the veracity of the email cache, and U.S. authorities are investigating the matter.
  The emails include conversations between U.S. embassy officials in Tripoli, DHL and General Electric about delivering medical equipment to Libya, as well as concerns that GE was helping China improve its jet engine industry.
  "ANONYMOUS"
  It is unclear whether Lords of Dharmaraja got the emails from Indian military intelligence servers, as they claim, but they first mentioned the documents in November, at the same time as they announced they hacked India's embassy server in Paris.
  That breach was confirmed at the time by India's foreign ministry, and some experts believe the cache of U.S. emails was taken from the same source, raising the question of how they ended up there in the first place.
  "An individual could have hacked someone's personal computer and handed it over to the embassy. There are so many means and measures," said Saini, who himself was charged with leaking secrets to Washington in 2006. He proclaims his innocence.
  "There may be cooperation between India and the United States, the United States may have shared them, or India could have done the hack ... or a third country may have handed it to India," said Saini.
  It is also unclear how Symantec's source code ended up with the Lords of Dharmaraja, whose public face goes by the name Yamatough on a Twitter feed.
  Yamatough, whose profile picture shows a Tibetan painting of Dharmaraja, the Hindu god of death and justice, follows many members of the "Anonymous" hacking collective, and Symantec attributes the hack to that group.
5. Re:I'll just be right here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 15:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have to give Apple credit for the Apple II. That was awesome. Hurray for Wozniak.
  Is there any other Apple product of which you can say "no one did things that way before"?
6. Re:I'll just be right here... by bruno.fatia · 2012-01-11 15:57 · Score: 2
  
  It is also unclear how Symantec's source code ended up with the Lords of Dharmaraja, whose public face goes by the name Yamatough on a Twitter feed.
  Yamatough, whose profile picture shows a Tibetan painting of Dharmaraja, the Hindu god of death and justice, follows many members of the "Anonymous" hacking collective, and Symantec attributes the hack to that group.
  I never knew you could follow someone Anonymous.
7. Re:I'll just be right here... by harperska · 2012-01-11 15:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There really is a sort of sublime irony in a poster blatantly ripping off a blog post which defends the idea that certain companies are ripping off Apple.
  http://macjournals.com/blog/2012/01/10/dan-lyons-showing-self-awareness-what-self-awareness/
  Unless, of course, bonch really is Matt Deatherage of MacJournals, in which case, congratulations on quoting yourself.
8. Re:I'll just be right here... by uvajed_ekil · 2012-01-11 16:04 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  We've still got PLENTY of reasons to bash Apple. Don't hold your breath, this was not our hoax.
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
9. Re:I'll just be right here... by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-11 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  The people you are referring to will just say nothing and pretend this submission doesn't exist, because it challenges an anti-Apple mindset that they're emotionally invested in.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
10. Re:I'll just be right here... by gmanterry · 2012-01-11 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'll second that. The Woz was/is a genius. Both as a programmer and as a hardware engineer. I still have Apple IIs and still play with them. The Apple II got me into computers. I gave one to my then 5 year old son in 1980 and now he works in IT and make a six figure salary. I figure the Apple II is directly responsible for the success of both of us.
  
  --
  Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
11. Re:I'll just be right here... by Kenja · 2012-01-11 17:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Apple phones originally looked like this. Not sure what your point is.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
12. Re:I'll just be right here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 17:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  N800, bitchez!
  (Seriously, why does everyone think Android is/was the only competitor to Apple?)
13. Re:I'll just be right here... by ozmanjusri · 2012-01-11 18:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Android phones originally looked like this [imgur.com].
  Ah, it wouldn't be Slashdot without sly misdirection and deceptive practices.
  There are TWO Android prototypes, one the image you've liked to, the other a (still ugly) candybar touchscreen device. Anyone who's used the emulator in the SDK will be familiar with the touchscreen version http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/android-emulator.jpg.
  And since I've seen postings where this has been pointed out to you before, I can only conclude you're deliberately lying to mislead anyone who reads your posts. Most likely to persuade people to believe Google didn't plan on touchscreens from the start.
  What's your motivation for this? Can you explain why it's so important for you to repeatedly lie in a public forum?
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
14. Re:I'll just be right here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 18:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Probably because we already know Apple spies on iOS users?
  If you remember, CarrierIQ is baked into iOS. It can't be uninstalled by users, because it's part of the OS. Even with jailbreaking it involves removing kernel modules.
  Not to mention that if you actually bothered to read your iCloud TOS, you'll discover that Apple reserves the right to continuously monitor and record your current location. They even get access to your email through iCloud.
  Basically, everything that the memo says Apple allowed India to do Apple claims the right to do in their TOS!
  So even if the memo is fake, the ability for Apple to spy on iOS users most certainly is NOT.
15. Re:I'll just be right here... by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-11 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  N800, bitchez!
  (Seriously, why does everyone think Android is/was the only competitor to Apple?)
  They're probably looking at U.S. smartphone market share; Symbian is way down at the bottom and Maemo/Meego/whatever isn't listed. In world smartphone market share, Symbian is slightly ahead of iOS but is well behind err, umm, Android.
16. Re:I'll just be right here... by thsths · 2012-01-11 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why, because Apple said that they didn't do it? Come on, any secret service would attach a clause to the contract that keeps the content of the contract confidential. And that is not even paranoid, that is just a fact of live - think about the way the NSA works, the "secret" illegal wire-tapping, super-injunctions... misinforming the masses is fair game.
17. Re:I'll just be right here... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-11 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  N800, bitchez!
  (Seriously, why does everyone think Android is/was the only competitor to Apple?)
  Funny thing - that's not a phone. It only works on WiFi or Bluetooth-tethering.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
18. Re:I'll just be right here... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-11 21:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Android phones originally looked like this [imgur.com].
  Ah, it wouldn't be Slashdot without sly misdirection and deceptive practices.
  There are TWO Android prototypes, one the image you've liked to, the other a (still ugly) candybar touchscreen device. Anyone who's used the emulator in the SDK will be familiar with the touchscreen version http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/android-emulator.jpg.
  Wow, there actually was an Android touchscreen emulator less than a year after the iPhone was announced? And that the actual prototypes that were shown later all lacked the touchscreen is actually a fluke?
  What was that again about sly misdirection and deceptive practices again?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
19. Re:I'll just be right here... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-11 21:11 · Score: 2
  
  Don't hold your breath, this was not our hoax.
  Yeah, you just A) fell for it, and B) still ignored that the document said all major device makers had installed the backdoor and focused on Apple.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
20. Re:I'll just be right here... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-11 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  A) Yes, considering Symantec and RIM are already known for it, it was plausible, B) All major device makers explicitly named in the document were RIM, Nokia and Apple. With RIM's history of cooperating with governments and Nokia being mostly irrelevant in US, which part of this do you think was news for /.'s largely US auditory? And anyways, comments was mostly about corporation and government bashing, not Apple bashing. Confirmation bias much?
  No, the All major device makers explicitly named in the document were "ALL major device makers" including Android phone makers.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
21. Re:I'll just be right here... by whosdat · 2012-01-11 22:09 · Score: 2
  
  explicit adj. (comparative more explicit, superlative most explicit) Very specific, clear, or detailed.
  Quiz time! Q: Which parts of "major device makers, RIM, Nokia, Apple etc." are explicit by this definition and which are implicit? Q2: Can't you keep your martyrdom complex down after seeing there was no group Apple bashing in the discussion thread?
22. Re:I'll just be right here... by whosdat · 2012-01-11 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, what?
  - "There was no group Apple bashing in there" (it's easy to check, just follow the link in "Related" up there)
  - "You're an Apple hater because you deny Apple bashing"
  You just demonstrate my point on martyrdom.
23. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-11 23:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You might want to point out that that was released *after* the iPhone, but you go kid! On your truth crusade!
24. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-11 23:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  So, turn off those features.
  Switch off location services, don't use iCloud (a claim that can be put to any cloud service, not just Apple's).
  It also doesn't say "continuously monitor" - you're just trying to use weasel words to make it sound worse. What it talks about is occasionally collecting anonymous location data to improve it's location-aware apps.
25. Re:I'll just be right here... by whosdat · 2012-01-12 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, right. I just asked jQuery to count and there's exactly 66 comments out of 580 on that page that contain "Apple". Only tiny part of them are mindlessly anti-Apple - with most of them getting no replies or only "what" replies, with the rest mentioning Apple together with other corporations, mentioning Apple in unrelated contexts, asking why only RIM/Nokia/Apple are in the title and defending Apple. So, all in all it's no more than 11% of all comments, with actual number of hate comments probably somewhere in 2-5% range. But noooo, it's all about Apple, you see. And I'm an Apple hater for seeing the facts and not your preferred "Y'all hate Apple, you applehaters" victim stance.
26. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Since apparently VoIP doesn't count as phone capability to you, I guess I shouldn't mention the WiMax version either.
  Well then would you accept the Treo 180g or Visorphone?
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
27. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  See here:
  http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2616908&cid=38672518
  And if you're not going to pull the "but it doesn't have a cell modem in it so it doesn't count!" argument, then accept the final nail in the coffin.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
28. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 01:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Right, so why did Android phones not look like that till after the iPhone, if it was so obvious and ubiquitous?
  There's no escaping that Android shifted gears to match the iPhone after all that difficult "risk" was gone (since the iPhone took that risk - as was widely being laughed out of the room and predicted to be a giant flop by everyone until it actually started selling [much like the iPad actually]).
  It's not necessarily a bad thing - switching to something the consumer wants is exactly how businesses and products thrive. It's just highly disingenuous to try to downplay Apple's role in moving the smartphone market into the mainstream with a different way of doing things. Note that this doesn't mean that they "invented the touch screen phone" or "were the first to make an mp3 player" as many Apple haters attempt to claim is the point of the argument, just that they spotted a niche and released a product that worked very well in that niche.
  To those who hate on screen keyboards, I'm sure they're annoyed at that, but for everyone else, Apple changed the way people (as in, the public at large, not just the tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people using smartphones at the time) saw the smartphone.
  Those behind Android quickly realised this and followed suit. Those at RIM did not see that, and look where they are now, after trying doggedly to stick to what was working before. Android's move to match what consumers wanted has paid off extremely well for the platform. Those who like Android seem loathe to acknowledge that Apple played a big role in that.
  Your sig is especially hilarious, since without Apple, Android would still be on Blackberry-like devices and wouldn't be able to include things like Webkit. We'd all be stuck with DRM-locked music from online stores and people would laugh at you if you suggested a 10" touchscreen tablet as something the consumer would want to buy.
  They're not perfect by any means, but they're far from the Machiavellian evil empire that people on slashdot who don;t seem to have anything other than a hate of Apple to define themselves seem to think they are.
29. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  Your sig is especially hilarious, since without Apple, Android would still be on Blackberry-like devices and wouldn't be able to include things like Webkit. We'd all be stuck with DRM-locked music from online stores and people would laugh at you if you suggested a 10" touchscreen tablet as something the consumer would want to buy.
  My sig has nothing to do with Android whatsoever. Apple hater != Android fanboy.
  I have no problem with Blackberry-like devices personally, it's a better form factor than the touchscreen-only phone IMO (although the landscape slider gives the best of all worlds, at the cost of a bit of thickness). Without WebKit other phones would just use Mozilla-based browsers, so that's no big loss. Apple may have helped push DRM-free music, but that's basically irrelevant to everybody but US residents, who still can't buy DRM-free music anyways.
  If people laughed at the idea of a tablet I'd have no problem with that either, tablets can be more useful than laptops or phones for a few tasks but it isn't a terribly useful form overall. Tablet-shaped e-readers would find their way onto the market, but tablets wouldn't be seen in computing until convertible laptops become cheap, and even then people would only flip their screens around for reading and use while standing.
  
  They're not perfect by any means, but they're far from the Machiavellian evil empire that people on slashdot [childish ad-hominem removed] seem to think they are.
  No they certainly are a Machiavellian evil empire, worse than Microsoft ever was. Bringing curated computing into the mainstream is the worst thing ever done in the history of computing, they're at least as anti-competitive as MS ever was, they're worse on openness than Microsoft even if it doesn't seem that way because they use openwashing instead of being openly hostile to openness as MS is, and their hyper-aggressive patent bullying is in the news every day. If you hated Microsoft at any point you should hate the shit out of Apple right now.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
30. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  You attacked the original iPhone for not having 3G
  I did? I don't remember doing this and it doesn't seem like a point I'd criticize, but maybe you're memory's better than mine. Feel free to point out where I said this.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
31. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 01:56 · Score: 2
  
  You clearly don;t understand the term Machiavellian, but we'll ignore that.
  You also said:
  
  Apple may have helped push DRM-free music, but that's basically irrelevant to everybody but US residents, who still can't buy DRM-free music anyways.
  But I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that only US residents can buy DRM free music?
  Openwashing is the term of someone just looking to hate. I'm not even going to address those points because they've been done to death hundreds of times. Apple's choice of standards and formats is well documented, and opposition to them is mainly ideological (for example, H.264 is an open standard, but this is apparently not good enough since it's not patent free, so even though it flies in the face of the "curated computing" Apple are being accused of - you can take your H.264 videos out of the ecosystem and onto non-Apple products etc), it's instead twisted into a "Apple deliberately chose it to make it impossible for free software to use H.264" or some nonsense.
  At nearly every turn they've gone for open standards that make it easy to get in and out of the ecosystem - AAC, H.264, .mbox for email, open source calendar and address book server and formats, openly-documented XML formats for their office-like products (spreadsheets, documents, slideshows etc), open standards in networking (fully supporting NFS, SMB alongside their own AFP, but also integrating non-open-but-popular Exchange so that they can interoperate with Microsoft). They've put a lot of time and effort into open source projects that benefit them, but also the wider community at large - and not just projects where they're "forced" to contribute by the licence - as well as releasing projects that they have written as open source.
  Seriously, if you're having trouble getting "out" of the curated computing system (that you demonise but without actually offering any reason for - bringing computing to a wider range of people is surely a good thing - not everyone can be a command line master), then you're simply not looking hard enough.
  You also dodged my point about Android following Apple's lead in the redesign of smartphones by going off on a tangent about how physical keyboard phones are the better design, but I'll let that slide, and you totally missed my point on tablets, but deftly illustrate the wider tech mindset that existed before the iPad was released - namely "haha a tablet! who wants that! you can use a netbook! or a laptop! there are already devices that do what a tablet could do! no one will buy one!" *Apple releases iPad at half the price that analysts were predicting, sells 16 million of them as fast as they can make them in the most successful tech product launch ever* ..... "just you wait for the cheaper, faster Android tablets! They're going to destroy the iPad..... Android tablets are the future!"
  I'm not claiming they're perfect - you'll note I already pointed that out, but a Machiavellian empire? Far from it.
32. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well I don't think my logic is any good against this level of sycophantic apologism (you obviously don't see the inherent danger and evil of curated computing, and think that iOS is "open" because the file formats it uses are roughly as open as MS'). Also you present a false dichotomy of either curated computing or command line mastery, but like I said, not much point arguing if Apple can do no - or "little" wrong to you. They are objectively and fairly obviously the most evil company in computing today and you consider them near-perfect. That's a reality gap I can't bridge.
  I was excited at the idea of a DRM-free music store outside the US, but the only one I can find is iTunes which requires a proprietary client and is only available in a limited number of countries. Still, DRM wouldn't have lasted much longer even without iTunes.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
33. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  You've moved the goalposts again - you said that "DRM free music was irrelevant outside the US" because they [those outside the US] "could not buy DRM-free music anyway", and now you're admitting that they can, but that it requires iTunes. That's not the same argument (and essentially is admitting that your first statement is false, as I pointed out).
  You also seem to forget that the music industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming into selling music online in the first place (by Apple no less, beyond some highly limited attempts at subscription services), and that everyone predicted failure since the attitude was "why will people buy when they can just get it from filesharing sites for free?"
  I didn't present a false dichotomy, I was using a device known as hyperbole - moving to the opposite end of the spectrum from curated computing. Again, you suggest the "inherent dangers and evil" of curated computing but fail to actually point any out. And again, why does it affect you? There is still wide choice in computing environments, and those will continue to exist. The fact that Apple has been able to sell user friendly computers to those who ordinarily wouldn't have bought computers before is not a bad thing (you're also mixing iOS and OS X as if they're the same thing, but whatever). I also never stated that iOS was open. I stated that it (and OS X) use open standards - the distinction is important. It means, for example, that if you want to leave the iOS ecosystem you can do so - you can take all your contacts and calendars and music and data with you (not movies from the store at present - those are still crippled with DRM). You can't take your apps with you, but that's not unique to Apple - you can't take your Windows apps to Mac or vice versa without some form of emulation/VM/etc unless you move to a platform-specific version, and with developers targeting iOS and Android, there's always the possibility of an easy move, just as there is in the reverse direction).
  I also didn't say Apple can do "little" wrong (or that they were "near perfect" - my actual words, were "not perfect by any means" which is a long way from "near perfect" which are the words you are trying to put in my mouth - you're just inferring that I think they can do "little wrong" because I have positive things to say about them. Apple's long and recent history is littered with some pretty awful stuff, but it doesn't mean they have no positive aspects.
  The fact that you seem to think my comments imply that I'm saying Apple is "near perfect" and can "do little wrong" when my actual quotes indicate otherwise goes a long way to the impression Apple haters have for people who are positive about Apple - you simply make up what it is we think and say and then demonise us for it as "rabid fanboys who think Apple is [near] perfect".
  On the back of those comments from you, this statement:
  
  [Apple] are objectively and fairly obviously the most evil company in computing today and you consider them near-perfect. That's a reality gap I can't bridge.
  is just hilarious. I don't think the term "objective" is anywhere close. Again, just to make this absolutely crystal clear, I'll quote myself again: Apple are not perfect by any means. I'll also add that I'm not excusing any of the terrible things they have done, but "objectively and fairly obviously" the "most evil company in computing"... that's just amusingly wide of the mark. For a start, you claim to be analysing from an objective position and opened with a clearly false statement about non-US consumers not being able to buy DRM-free music, but that's just for starters. I'll also add right here as a a preemptive reply, I'm not entirely objective either but I'm not making sweeping claims about Apple here.
34. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't present a false dichotomy, I was using a device known as hyperbole - moving to the opposite end of the spectrum from curated computing. Again, you suggest the "inherent dangers and evil" of curated computing but fail to actually point any out. And again, why does it affect you? There is still wide choice in computing environments, and those will continue to exist.
  If I want an open mobile device (as in, lets me compile and run anything I want on it) today there is NOTING I can buy off the shelf, the device would have to be hacked. You bet your ass it affects me. Curated computing has taken over mobile devices entirely and is creeping it's way into desktop computing. You really don't see a problem with removing all freedom of software choice from the user and having a centralized authority dictate what computers can do? You don't see the problem with a monolithic middleman controlling all software sales on a platform? You don't see how bad this might get when open computing is shrunk down to a niche market making hacker toys for geeks? Then you deserve the world you're creating but the rest of us don't.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
35. Re:I'll just be right here... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-01-12 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  The N810 is a goddamned joke.
  I used to work at Clearwire and I got to play around with one when we got one in for testing and for documenting our support processes. We pushed it pretty hard but the thing just didn't sell.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
36. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  So, where were those "open mobile devices" before the iPhone?
  You are blaming the lack of open devices on the popularity of a single vendor's entry into the market.
  If there's a market for open devices, vendors will sell them.
  There's a lot of Chicken Little sky-is-falling talk about curated computing environments "creeping onto" the desktop while assuming they'll replace what is there currently and there's simply no evidence for that - for example, the presence of the App Store on OS X is a complement to what exists currently, with no evidence that the "freer" side is going away, just that there are now more options for the consumer. The presence of the App Store hasn't removed the non-App Store methods of software distribution, from open source repositories (which the App Store has been accused of copying), from website distribution, boxed software etc. There's nothing stopping someone from using OS X and never even opening the App Store.
  All "curated computing" has done is opened up computers to people who would otherwise find them much more difficult to use. It doesn't mean that the complex, go anywhere, do anything current system has gone away - it just exists alongside.
  Curated systems might not be for you - so simply don't use them, or use a mixed system. Android is a good example of just such a thing - a good mix of a managed environment and an unweeded garden where you are free to do what you like (via sideloading, unofficial markets etc).
  If you think "open computing" is going to shrink down to a niche market then you're simply being alarmist and using that as a justification to rage against the widening of the computer market to include more people.
37. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  You call my attitude "chicken little" but I call yours "frog in hot water."
  Before the iPhone there were PalmOS and Windows Mobile smartphones. Not open source but you could freely compile and run whatever you wanted on them.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
38. Re:I'll just be right here... by kthreadd · 2012-01-12 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's what happens when an iPad and an iPhone decides to make babies.
39. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Right, and after the iPhone there were Android smartphones.
  You can compile and run anything you want on them, assuming you pick up one with an unlocked bootloader (vendor may vary).
  Palm's and Win Mobile's exit from the market was not driven exclusively by the iPhone, although it was certainly related. Either way, the vast number of Android handsets out there fill that "open, run anything, do anything" market for those who don't feel the iOS experience works for them. The presence of the iPhone has actually *increased* the availability of those open platforms - Android as a whole is in far better shape and with far more options and viability than PalmOS and Win Mobile combined as they existed pre-iPhone.
  The market changes, but it's hardly *reducing* the number of open options available.
40. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Rooting an android is not a market-provided option. It's no different than jailbreaking an iOS phone or hacking a PS3, conceptually it's no different than putting a custom-built GNU/Linux distro on an Android phone but it doesn't seem to radical because it's based on the default OS. The options have been reduced, make no mistake.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
41. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Now you're just digging. You can get Android handsets that come unlocked to start with. No need to root them.
  How has this turned around with the supposed "Apple fanboy" who thinks "Apple is near perfect" pointing out the benefits and options available in Android handsets, because you're trying to downplay the strengths in a continued, losing argument designed to make Apple look bad?
  Android offers a huge wealth of open handsets and options, far in excess of what was available before the iPhone (the supposed catalyst for the decline of open and free options in the market). I'm sorry PalmOS went the way of the dodo, but they dug their own graves.
  You were asserting that the iPhone and the increase in curated computing in general has hurt the open computing movement, and those wanting to "run anything, do anything, compile anything", but the evidence simply doesn't back up your assertion - open computing is doing better than ever, especially for those wanting an open mobile platform. This is not even *despite* Apple, it is in part *because* of their iOS ecosystem really pushing smartphones to the forefront of technology, creating a huge splash and a reorganising of the market - a market in which Android has absolutely thrived, and will continue to do so.
42. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  A single OS that allows app sideloading by default on some models doesn't sound "better than ever" to me. Doing anything that the default OS doesn't allow, like tethering, still requires a jailbreak so sideloading on default Android installs isn't very open anyways.
  Before the iPhone came out the only curated OS was Symbian, found on dumb phones and used as such. There were two open OSes that allowed you to install whatever you wanted by default, PalmOS and Windows Mobile. Now there is 1 OS that in some instances will allow you to load arbitrary applets, but is usually a curated OS for all intents and purposes by default, and 2 other fully curated OSes, and we've had two mostly-FOSS open OSes that were technically superior fail in that time as well. No way that's an improvement.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
43. Re:I'll just be right here... by thoromyr · 2012-01-12 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, an anonymous coward spreading lies and misinformation. No wonder you posted anonymously.
  CarrierIQ is *not* "baked" into iOS. Although Apple *used* to use CarrierIQ they stopped doing so *before* the news hit.
  What information is collected is visible to the user and configurable by the user. In iOS 5 (again, *before* the CarrierIQ news hit) it is presented when first setting up the phone. To make it clear what is (or isn't, when disabled) enabled.
  If you had an iPhone and didn't want to store email in iCloud you have two options.
  1. don't setup and use iCloud (it *requires* user action to setup and use an account)
  2. use iCloud (if you otherwise want to), but don't sync your email to it
  As to your last "point" -- Apple has the ability to spy on iOS users because they are providing the device and the operating system. That alone is sufficient to enable the technical ability to spy. Wow. That was really, really insightful. Again, I see why you posted as anonymous coward. Next up, "the ability for [Google|Microsoft|etc.] to spy on [Android|Windows|etc.] users most certainly is NOT [fake]".
  Yeah, you go cowboy
44. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I'll tell all the Android users that they were better off pre-iPhone.
  I can see you're determined to make every conclusion "Apple is bad", to the point of claiming that Android today as a whole is worse than PalmOS and Windows Mobile back before the iPhone was announced. How you can even say that with a straight face is beyond me.
  You heard it here first, folks, PalmOS and Windows Mobile circa 2007 are better than Android circa 2011/2012.
  You're going to have a hard time arguing that open computing, especially on mobile devices, has taken a step backwards purely because there used to be two barely used (by the standards of 2011 Android) players and now there's "just" Android, but sure, if it means you can use it to support your argument that "Apple has diminished choice" then go for it.
  Personally, I think that consumers have excellent choices in smartphones right now.
45. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  The OSes themselves weren't better (at least comparing to rooted Android) but it was a better situation for consumers, they had much more choice.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
46. Re:I'll just be right here... by Yaztromo · 2012-01-12 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  If I want an open mobile device (as in, lets me compile and run anything I want on it) today there is NOTING I can buy off the shelf, the device would have to be hacked.
  Not true at all -- if you have an iOS device, pay Apple the $99 per year, download the development kit, get yourself the necessary signing certificates from Apple, and compile and run anything you want. You can even get the necessary certificate files to install it onto the devices of up to 100 friends.
  Does this require Apple to put your app in their store? No. Their store, their rules. And they don't have to permit other peoples stores either. But you can still compile and install whatever you want -- you just have to compile and install it yourself, without the aid of a pre-compile app downloadable from their store.
  When Carmack released the first version of Wolfenstein 3D for iOS, he simultaneously put the source and project files online for anyone to download, modify, build, and install on their iOS devices. Anyone with an iOS developer account and a signing key and certificate could change the source however they wanted, whether it would be Apple approved or not, and install it onto their own devices. If I wanted to replace the Nazis with giant walking vaginas, and install it onto my iOS devices (and those of my friends) there isn't anything Apple could do about it. They won't put it in their store, but I can still compile and run whatever I want on my devices.
  Of course, like many anti-Apple ./ers here, you may be someone who really has no intention of ever compiling and installing software onto a mobile device yourself, but what you really want to complain about is being locked into their online store. If that's what you want to complain about, feel free -- but you can't complain about not being able to install stuff you've compiled yourself. That is still perfectly permissible (and always will be -- kinda hard to develop software for a platform if you can't compile or install whatever you want onto it).
  Yaz
47. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, they really didn't. Just because they had a choice of two weakly supported systems does not mean they were better off than they are now they have access to all Android has to offer, with much stronger developer support, wider manufacturer support, more third party apps and a larger consumer developer community.
  You backed yourself into a corner trying to assert that Apple made things worse, but it really didn't. I'm sorry reality doesn't have an anti-Apple bias, but the current position Android is in really tells a different story to the one you're desperately trying to paint.
48. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not true at all -- if you have an iOS device, pay Apple the $99 per year, download the development kit, get yourself the necessary signing certificates from Apple, and compile and run anything you want. You can even get the necessary certificate files to install it onto the devices of up to 100 friends.
  As I read this I thought you were going to write a satirical post supporting my points. I think this paragraph says it all.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
49. Re:I'll just be right here... by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  This is just revisionist history. The number of open OSes has gone down, the number of curated OSes has gone up, the number of out-of-the-box open devices has gone down, the out-of-the-box curated devices now utterly dominate the market, the only stats that look better today are *maybe* adoption of open OSes (how many users root and sideload vs. peak number of WinMo and PalmOS users?) and number of apps (a meaningless stat that shouldn't be admired - it glorifies quantity with zero regard to quality).
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
50. Re:I'll just be right here... by jo_ham · 2012-01-12 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, stick to that blind Apple hate, it clear you can't be convinced of reality.
  I'll let you continue thinking that people had it better under PalmOS and Windows Mobile. *eyeroll*
51. Re:I'll just be right here... by Yaztromo · 2012-01-12 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  As I read this I thought you were going to write a satirical post supporting my points. I think this paragraph says it all.
  It refutes your claim pretty directly I'd say.
  Now if you want to complain that you have to pay $99/year for the privilege of installing your own apps, and that you need a series of certificates and keys to sign the apps, more power to you. You'd be right -- Apple forces you to pony up and install a pile of keys and such to install apps onto iOS devices. Complain about it all you'd like.
  But to complain that you can't compile and install stuff onto the devices you own is 100% incorrect. Compile and install whatever you want. Apple's system for doing so may not be free, but it also isn't particularly onerous either.
  To quote again the specific part of your post I have a problem with:
  
  If I want an open mobile device (as in, lets me compile and run anything I want on it) today there is NOTING (sic) I can buy off the shelf, the device would have to be hacked.
  I responded with what I know about iOS development (as I have personal experience with writing iOS apps). However, as you stated that there is NOTHING you can buy off the shelf, I decided to look into Android development. As it turns out, while Android also requires your app to be signed to install it into a device, you are permitted (/required) to generate your own signing keys using the keytool. Once you have that key, you aren't required to share it with anyone, and can install the app you've compiled onto whatever Android device you'd like. No $99/year, and no other restrictions
  So either you're misinformed, or you're purposefully spewing crap. Every current smartphone OS permits you to compile and install your own apps. Some are free, some require a subscription service -- but there is no restriction as to what you can write and install on a device you own.
  Yaz.
52. Re:I'll just be right here... by bonch · 2012-01-12 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  You're not sure what my point is? My point is that Android phones look like what I linked, before the iPhone came out, and then they started looking like the iPhone. Your link is from the 80s and doesn't prove or disprove anything.
53. Re:I'll just be right here... by fatphil · 2012-01-12 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  "I was excited at the idea of a DRM-free music store outside the US, but the only one I can find is iTunes "
  
  Where were you during the *original* mp3.com, before it was bulldozed and reinvented by the MAFIAA? CDBaby has mp3 sales too. And if you're not willing to ask questions, there are a dozen in Russia which let you pay by SMS. There literally is no shortage of such sites.
  
  All of this goes back more than 10 years, way before iTunes was popular.
  
  Get Orf Moi Lorn!!!!!
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
54. Re:I'll just be right here... by Galestar · 2012-01-13 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  The "look" was not the game-changer, it was the integration of multi-touch into a phone that changed the market place. While Apple was the first to use it successfully, they did not invent the technology. There is nothing special about the form of the iPhone - it is just a regular candybar phone with the keyboard removed.
  
  You will have to find something else to attack Android with, that argument has been disproven.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
Meanwhile in the US... by Darkness404 · 2012-01-11 15:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Meanwhile in the US, telecom companies and every other industry is bending over backwards for our police state. I find it rather funny that this accusation gets press but you rarely find mention of people actually wanting to stop warrantless wiretaps. After all, both Microsoft and Skype have quietly complied with allowing eavesdropping by the government. So honestly it wouldn't surprise me one bit that handsets have backdoors given to the US government which are then figured out by other oppressive governments to spy on their citizens.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Doesn't matter by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-01-11 15:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Slashdot community already convicted Apple of this and have moved on.
And yes, I realize it's about Nokia as well as RIM, too - but in the original story discussion very few people paid any attention to those players.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Doesn't matter by Darkness404 · 2012-01-11 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter in the US where the ISPs, cell service providers, heck, even Skype and Microsoft have been bowing down to the government to allow them to continue their war on US citizens. Chances are, Apple has already built in some backdoor for the US government, which is much, much more worrying than Apple building a backdoor for India/China/Russia/etc.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 15:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course you don't have any evidence. It's funny how conspiracy-theorists are just as faith-based as any religion.
3. Re:Doesn't matter by Formalin · 2012-01-11 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Are you forgetting about Room 641A so soon? Don't remember Bush getting flak for illegal wiretaps?
  Those are just the things we know about, surely there are more.
4. Re:Doesn't matter by schnikies79 · 2012-01-11 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe there is more and maybe not; probably more. We don't know either way so it's nothing more than useless speculation.
  
  --
  Gone!
5. Re:Doesn't matter by Darkness404 · 2012-01-11 15:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Lets see here, there's this law in the US called the CALEA called the "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act" which states in part:
  
  Sec. 103. Assistance Capability Requirements. (a) CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.â" Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section and sections 108(a) and 109(b) and (d), a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable ofâ" (1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government; (2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrierâ" A before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government); and B in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains, except that, with regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of title 18, United States Code), such call-identifying information shall not include any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber (except to the extent that the location may be determined from the telephone number); (3) delivering intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they may be transmitted by means of equipment, facilities, or services procured by the government to a location other than the premises of the carrier; and
  Combine that with the PATRIOT act which basically allows the government to screw with US citizens at its leisure, means that the government can basically tap your phone for any reason that it sees fit.
  
  And the (as you would put it since you obviously don't have a clue what is going on in the world) conspiracy theory website The New York Times reported in 2010 about a bill that the US government was considering that takes CALEA further by mandating that all encryption be able to be decrypted by the government (in CALEA encryption was left up to the government to decrypt on its own) https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html
  
  Also, according to Slashdot, quoting US laws are "lame".
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
6. Re:Doesn't matter by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-11 16:12 · Score: 2
  
  10 posts in, and there are already guys like you completely missing the point and going right back to baselessly accusing Apple of things. Slashdot never changes.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
7. Re:Doesn't matter by uvajed_ekil · 2012-01-11 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you don't have any evidence. It's funny how conspiracy-theorists are just as faith-based as any religion.
  Right, because corporate espionage among multi billion dollar corporations, government corruption, greed, and the existence of the CIA, the Mossad, the KGB, and terrorist groups are all just figments of our over-active imaginations. I suggest that most mishaps are not a result of wide-ranging conspiracies (government-perpetrated or otherwise), but such conspiracies do pop up on occasion. And you have to consider that the most successful conspiracies are the few that are never uncovered as such. So don't take anyone who ever cries conspiracy and automatically lump them together with steadfast creationists who ignore huge bodies of evidence.
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
8. Re:Doesn't matter by Darkness404 · 2012-01-11 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  So let me get this right:
  
  Apple (along with many other handset manufacturers) are accused of building back doors in for the Indian government.
  
  Apple denies these claims.
  
  Meanwhile, under the provisions of various US laws and policies your iPhone on a US network can still be wiretapped and information accessed.
  
  So I'm supposed to say good job to Apple for standing up against the Indian government (which is really no concern of mine) while bowing to the slightest pressure of the US police state? Sure if I lived in India or if the Indian government detaining me indefinitely without cause was a legitimate concern I might be praising Apple. But as it stands there is no victory for privacy or liberty. Instead, we must still pressure Apple, RIM, Nokia, and every other business and citizen of the US to stop this encroachment of our rights.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
9. Re:Doesn't matter by artor3 · 2012-01-11 16:30 · Score: 2
  
  Please explain how "the existence of the CIA" means that the United States is at war with its citizens (since that is what you are responding to, after all). Show your work.
10. Re:Doesn't matter by AHuxley · 2012-01-11 17:41 · Score: 2
  
  The Room 641A wiretapping (recall the AT&T San Francisco office and internet traffic been split to the NSA?) went to court, with paper work and the US gov had to offer retroactive immunity to make it all go away in July 2008.
  Then the US gov had to use its state secrets privilege.
  In Dec 2011 the case came back http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/dragnet-surveillance-case/
  All we know is every packet from Asia and within the US that fed a west coast telco office where split and collected.
  The collection point was not near the landing of the Asia link, the split was at point where US domestic and the Asia link could be split. The idea that your US or international cell phone data/voice/VOIP would be left out seems rather strange...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
11. Re:Doesn't matter by subreality · 2012-01-11 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
12. Re:Doesn't matter by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-01-11 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, I realize it's about Nokia as well as RIM, too - but in the original story discussion very few people paid any attention to those players.
  I'm not sure about Nokia, but we already knew that RIM was working with the Indian government on intercepts.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
13. Re:Doesn't matter by dissy · 2012-01-11 19:17 · Score: 2
  
  Meanwhile, under the provisions of various US laws and policies your iPhone on a US network can still be wiretapped and information accessed.
  
  https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
  You said it yourself, the US NETWORK is what is tapped. Apple is not a phone network in the US or anywhere else.
  The wiretaps are done at the phone company. AT&T even admitted such and it was covered on slashdot multiple times. You trolled that thread too so you are well aware of it.
  The US government doesn't need a backdoor in any phones, the data is intercepted and logged at the phone company, and the government has retroactively indemnified them of any wrong doing.
  
  So I'm supposed to say good job to Apple for standing up against the Indian government (which is really no concern of mine) while bowing to the slightest pressure of the US police state?
  No you are supposed to say good job Apple for for not bowing to anything you have claimed. But you're too pissed off at their success to bother with pesky facts and the truth, as normal.
14. Re:Doesn't matter by fatphil · 2012-01-11 21:42 · Score: 2
  
  Well, I can assure you that at the kernel level, Nokia's linux phones have no such back doors in. You don't have to take my word for it, I'm only the gatekeeper who vets every patch that gets included in the kernel, you can freely grab the source and diff it against upstream and check for yourself.
  
  Of course, there would be ways of adding back doors to the phone subsystem which is a separate core running its own OS. But all communication to the modem goes via the AP, so you could easily modify our kernel and sniff all communication between userspace and modem.
  
  Plenty of stuff in userspace is open source too, and again such claims can be easily disproved. Even if you don't have the source, most of the inter process communication is via dbus, all of that can be sniffed trivially.
  
  Were there really to be backdoors in Nokia's linux phones, then it would be trivial to point to the actual source code, or show traces where it happens. The lack of such evidence highlights the emptiness of the claims.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
15. Re:Doesn't matter by daveschroeder · 2012-01-12 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  And, as I said on the Wired piece:
  Traffic metadata (things like email "envelope" information, source and destination IPs, etc.) has long been fair game without a warrant as the digital analogue of a "pen register" under Smith v. Maryland 442 US 735 (1979), and is part of the provision that supports lawful NSA data collection under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and other law, in conjunction with telecommunication operators like AT&T. The content of traffic of US Persons is NOT fair game, without a properly adjudicated warrant.
  The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, allows for foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons without a warrant, no matter where the collection occurs. The longstanding Smith v. Maryland allows for the collection and examination of communications metadata without a warrant. The FISC ruling explicitly finds legal such collection under the now-sunset Protect America Act and the current FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
  In order to determine which traffic content may be collected for foreign intelligence purposes, the traffic metadata must be examined. Even when a target in question is a specific non-US Person of foreign intelligence interest, traffic metadata must first be examined in order to target that person! Because examining traffic metadata was found explicitly legal and Constitutional three decades ago by the United States Supreme Court, doing so in order to target legitimate foreign intelligence collection is a legal application in the digital world.
  The major issues for foreign SIGINT were twofold:
  - A lot of traffic is now digital versus analog, and cannot be targeted by aiming a directional antenna at a particular geographic locale. It is now traveling largely via things like fiber optic cables, intermixed with all manner of other communications. In order to target the collection, it is no longer a case of tapping a single landline telephone, or sitting on a Navy vessel offshore from some area of interest between individuals talking on two-way radios; it's finding that traffic in a sea of global digital communications.
  - Foreign communications of non-US Persons physically outside of the US was increasingly traveling through the US. Previously fair game for foreign intelligence collection throughout the history of such collection in the United States, it suddenly became off-limits without a warrant because it was incidentally routed through locations in the United States. Foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside of the US does not require a warrant, and fundamentally still shouldn't simply because their traffic happens to enter the US.
  This was a case of changing technology necessitating an update to a law. A supermajority of both houses of Congress agreed. Some comments:
  Sen. Dianne Feinstein:
  "This bill, in some respects, improves even on the base bill, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It provides clear protections for U.S. persons both at home and abroad. It ensures that the Government cannot conduct electronic surveillance on an American anywhere in the world without a warrant. No legislation has done that up to this point."
  Then-DNI Mike McConnell:
  "Now here's the other thing that most Americans don't appreciate, haven't been exposed to. When we redid that law, the law now says any U.S. person, any U.S. person, that's targeted for foreign intelligence must be protected by a warrant anywhere on the globe. So we actually have a much more stringent law today protecting Americans and civil liberties."
  "The debate and the dilemma for us is how do you modernize that law for the modern age? And we debated. For two years we debated and we finally came to closure. The good news is when it was finally voted, two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate voted for it and here's what it says today: if it's a U.S. person anywhere in the globe, you must have a warrant."
  Unfortunately, this discussion is so mired in polit
16. Re:Doesn't matter by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you understand how open source works. Not surprised...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
17. Re:Doesn't matter by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you download and verify the source, and then compile it, the only way a backdoor can get into it is if your compiler is made to put a backdoor into the Maemo source as in the old UNIX login backdoor. Is it time to put our tinfoil hats on?
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
18. Re:Doesn't matter by TheLink · 2012-01-12 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Good thing for them US broadband sucks then. If it was really fast the spooks would not be choking on firehoses, but on waterfalls.
  
  Imagine if it was common to transfer Gbps of stuff most of the time. And your aunts were forwarding emailed _videos_ of their cats/grandchildren/whatever and nobody noticed or complained how large the videos were - since transfer rates were high.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
19. Re:Doesn't matter by tlhIngan · 2012-01-12 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I can assure you that at the kernel level, Nokia's linux phones have no such back doors in. You don't have to take my word for it, I'm only the gatekeeper who vets every patch that gets included in the kernel, you can freely grab the source and diff it against upstream and check for yourself.
  Of course, there would be ways of adding back doors to the phone subsystem which is a separate core running its own OS. But all communication to the modem goes via the AP, so you could easily modify our kernel and sniff all communication between userspace and modem.
  Who said a backdoor had to be kernel level?
  And who said that the kernel distributed with Android and/or other Linux based phones was the same as what the "GPL release" gives? Sure there's the GPL, but if you're installing backdoors, you probably don't care. Then there's binary modules and such.
  And finally - a back door doesn't have to be kernel level, as Carrier IQ demonstrated. It can be just an application - many "Remote Access Tools" used by botnets often originated as applications. The kernel part only serves to hide the application process.
  Finally - who's to really say that there isn't one hiding in Android? Either one added by the carriers to the Android code directly (i.e., someone embeds something like Carrier IQ directly into the Android source code), forcing people to seek out alternative ROMs to fix it, or maybe embedded in the millions of lines of Android code.
  The entire stack has to be verified - if we ignore compiler and other hidden ways of inserting bugs, it still means we have to go through the bootloader code, kernel code, and the user land stack code (including the RIL/telephony stacks, but also the application environment).
20. Re:Doesn't matter by fatphil · 2012-01-14 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  > Who said a backdoor had to be kernel level?
  
  Nobody. That's why I explicitly mentioned that all inter-process control messages can be sniffed on the dbus busses, were any back-door to be in userspace. And why I mentioned that if it requires communication with the modem chip, then you can sniff that communication too using your own kernel, just patch the McSAAB driver.
  
  > Finally - who's to really say that there isn't one hiding in Android?
  
  Not me, haven't addressed Android at all. I wonder if you actually read my post, it seems you've paid no attention to any of it. I only made a comment about one of Nokia's platforms, as the finger was still being pointed at Nokia.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
X-Files Episode by Proudrooster · 2012-01-11 15:48 · Score: 4, Funny

This reminds me an X-files episode where you are left not knowing what to believe. Do you believe the convincing evidence or the "official denial" of the convincing evidence. Hmmmmm..... I guess I just won't carry around one of those personal tracking devices until I know the truth.
1. Re:X-Files Episode by bruno.fatia · 2012-01-11 15:58 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe you should get yourself a tinfoil hat while doing so, won't hurt :) I know I do!
2. Re:X-Files Episode by Darkness404 · 2012-01-11 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, Apple might not give a backdoor to the Indian government, but chances are it (or your cell phone service provider) is giving a backdoor to the US government, pursuant to CALEA and other laws. And Skype is mandated to put in backdoors too...
  
  Personally, its a whole lot more worrying for information to be sent to the US government than to the Indian/Chinese/Russian/Iranian/North Korean government.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
3. Re:X-Files Episode by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-11 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  I came upon Slashdot, visited 4chan, and now it seems it's "opposite day" on both. Today on 4chan, pro-Israel propaganda reigned supreme with little opposition to their ridicule of Ron Paul while on Slashdot, the incestuous relationships between telecoms and national intelligence agencies is dismissed as "Conspiracy theory nuttery" and not adequately challenged.
  
  The establishment must be really afraid if they're implementing their real-time internet semantic-shaping in an attempt to pull the rug of sanity out from under us. in response to the trigger of Ron Paul finishing second in New Hampshire. It's like in Metal Gear Solid 2, when the GW AI starts fucking with Raiden's head, then Snake tells Raiden, "Don't believe anything you hear, just shoot the fucking bad guys."
  
  And we all know who the bad guys are.
4. Re:X-Files Episode by onefriedrice · 2012-01-11 17:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sure, Apple might not give a backdoor to the Indian government, but chances are it (or your cell phone service provider) is giving a backdoor to the US government, pursuant to CALEA and other laws. And Skype is mandated to put in backdoors too...
  
  It's cute that you think the US government needs handset manufacturers to include backdoors in order to wiretap. It's much easier to just control the networks. \tinfoil
  
  --
  This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
5. Re:X-Files Episode by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-11 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, it's the internet. Let's hope there's better trolling here tomorrow evening. The toady-trolls here (bonch, DCtech, etc. ) really need a lesson on being offensive.
  
  Jocktroll should be modded up to permanent excellent karma so he can smack some sense into the fuckin' place.
Good news. by Voline · 2012-01-11 16:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

As the submitter of the original story, I'll be relieved if the leaked memo is a fake. It gives me an excuse to put off migrating from Mac OS X to Linux, which was going to be a good deal of work.
But the earlier case of RIM agreeing to provide in-country servers to enable government surveillance in the UAE, India and Saudia Arabia shows the leverage that governments can wield over companies that operate within their territory. Vigilance is warranted.
1. Re:Good news. by Voline · 2012-01-11 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Good point.
2. Re:Good news. by IrrepressibleMonkey · 2012-01-11 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  I just don't have the skills/knowledge/patience to check the source code of my mobile phone's OS. So I'll be relying on a third party in any event.
  Trust no one, right? Damn, now I need to dump my phone...
3. Re:Good news. by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  It gives me an excuse to put off migrating from Mac OS X to Linux, which was going to be a good deal of work.
  
  Unless you've heavily modified the OS itself, difficulty in migrating OSes is a sign that you've either locked yourself in or are about to lock yourself in, and your choice of destination OS rules out the latter.
  You should do it anyway, it'll save you money and time in the future and reduce funding to a tyrant megacorp. You know they're going to wall-in MacOS at some point, there's too much money to be made.
  Apart from gaming, migrating from Windows to Linux was easy for me, even back in the days when I was new to it. I was already using all FOSS apps so I didn't have to change any apps when I switched.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
recant. i recant it all by decora · 2012-01-11 16:07 · Score: 1, Troll

apple does not use foxconn as a supplier.
foxconn doesn't collude with state security to torture people who lose apple prototypes.
foxconn has great relations with its employees and they have great working conditions
apple products dont pollute the environment
apple does not abuse its monopoly nor bully competitors with patent lawsuits
all of apple's IP claims are legitimate and represent true innovation
we have always been at war with eurasia
and also apple never gave backdoor access to the government to its systems. even though under CALEA it is required to for all US products.
1. Re:recant. i recant it all by NiceGeek · 2012-01-11 16:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Find me a computer of any brand that doesn't use Foxconn parts. Take your time :)
2. Re:recant. i recant it all by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-11 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  and also apple never gave backdoor access to the government to its systems. even though under CALEA it is required to for all US products.
  I guess that depends on what "backdoor" access means. CALEA is not exactly some Deep Dark Secret - it is, after all, U.S. Public Law 103-414. At least in theory, mechanisms required by CALEA are supposed to be used only with a court order or other lawful authorization, although I wouldn't treat that as an indication that it can't be, or isn't ever, used illegally. I suspect many other countries impose similar requirements, and, again, there's no guarantee that those countries' spooks never ever use those capabilities for their own purposes.
3. Re:recant. i recant it all by fatphil · 2012-01-11 21:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Pretty sure my Nokia N900 and N9 (consumer version) weren't.
  My N950 (developer edition) wasn't either, but that was from a small run, and might be considered a prototype.
  
  A handy hint for finding counter-examples is looking for companies who still maintain their own manufacturing facilities. A lot of the new kids on the block have never had such facilities, they're clearly more likely to be customers of foxconn and their ilk.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
4. Re:recant. i recant it all by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-12 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  You have an N950!? Ugggh JEALOUSY OVERLOAD x_x
  Yeah my home server has a Foxconn mobo and my work PC (which I didn't buy) has some Foxconn bits in it, but that's it. Gaming PC, laptop and phone are all made in South Korea and Taiwan.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
5. Re:recant. i recant it all by Reverberant · 2012-01-12 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure my Nokia N900 and N9 (consumer version) weren't. My N950 (developer edition) wasn't either
  You say this based on...? Nokia is a Foxconn customer
6. Re:recant. i recant it all by fatphil · 2012-01-14 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Based on the "Made in Finland" labels, and the fact that I know which production line in Finland they came off. I even know the sources of the chips which have nothing printed on them (but there's nothing exciting there). This I know because these particular devices are my ${DAYJOB}.
  
  Presumably Nokia gets the large runs of cheap Symbian phones from foxconn. But that's irrelevant, as the challenge was "Find me a computer", not "Find me a company". I've found 3.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
7. Re:recant. i recant it all by fatphil · 2012-01-14 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I work for Nokia, but I didn't get the N950 because of that - my g/f independently applied for the developer unit, and we are lucky enough to live in a country which was undersubscribed (not strictly true - it was oversubscribed initially, but they had a recall for low level reflashing, and some people didn't want their devices back, and we were at the top of the reserve list). So technically, it's my g/f's N950. Well, technically it's Nokia's, but I'm hoping they forget about it.
  
  As I work for Nokia, and the N9 project is approaching maintenance phase, there has of course been a request by management for feedback on the whole project. Clearly I can't repeat what I actually wrote, but I can assure you I made sure they knew that opinions like yours were common, and that I wasn't exactly happy about that.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
8. Re:recant. i recant it all by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-14 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  If you guys build something with hardware similar to a Droid 4 (but GSM of course) that runs Maemo/MeeGo I'll be first in line to preorder. This N900's gonna need upgrading in a couple of years.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
9. Re:recant. i recant it all by fatphil · 2012-01-14 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  The news stories about Elop pulling the plug weren't exageration. There literally will be nothing left of Maemo/MeeGo 6 months time. I'm hoping that as much gets opened as possible so that the hobbyists can get the most out of what they've bought, and similarly can port as much to other hardware platforms. Unfortunately, for various reasons, some of the core components will never be opened (I presume things like BME, MCE, and DSME, I've not checked the public repo's recently), which will make porting harder, but not impossible.
  
  I'm glad to see that the N900 still has such popularity overseas (it was DAMN popular in Finland). I hope you like the resistive touchscreen on it - I was one of the hackers on the tsc2005 driver, amongst other things ;-)
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
10. Re:recant. i recant it all by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-15 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  It will be a sad day when I have to switch to capacitive touch. You gain multi-touch which isn't terribly useful, and lose accuracy and the ability to use gloved fingers and regular plastic styluses (styli?) on the screen. Ideally I'd prefer resistive touch but it seems like it's being phased out entirely, which makes even less sense considering Apple's patents on various multitouch gestures.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
11. Re:recant. i recant it all by fatphil · 2012-01-15 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a pointer, my g/f's a pointer, you're a pointer. Alas, the rest of the world are swipers.
  
  As an ex-biker, and also as someone living in a cold climate, requiring gloves for several months of the year, usability with gloves is something I do value quite highly. I know it's been mentioned on talk.maemo.org several times, so it's not a completely unwanted feature. But while companies are doing their best to immitate Apple (the N9 has been called the iPhoney and the iClone by some), everyone's swipey all the way from now on.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Android phones are made in the USA, out of hemp, by Brannon · 2012-01-11 16:32 · Score: 4, Funny

with union labor.
They certainly aren't tracking you; because you by Brannon · 2012-01-11 16:34 · Score: 2

don't matter. Now you know the truth.
Wizard's First Rule by Loopy · 2012-01-11 17:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

People will believe something because they want it to be true, or because they're afraid it is true. This holds in spite of evidence to the contrary or the absence of any corroborating data.
Doubly unfortunate is that assertions like this ask the accusee to prove a negative, knowing full well that proving it would necessarily reveal source code and/or trade secrets and/or secret agreements with governments.
1. Re:Wizard's First Rule by Hentes · 2012-01-12 00:20 · Score: 2
  
  This holds in spite of evidence to the contrary or the absence of any corroborating data.
  A simple denial is far from evidence of the contrary.
  
  Doubly unfortunate is that assertions like this ask the accusee to prove a negative, knowing full well that proving it would necessarily reveal source code and/or trade secrets and/or secret agreements with governments.
  And why exactly revealing those is unfortunate?
CALEA by bl968 · 2012-01-11 17:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

What these companies have done is grant the same access the CALEA law gives the US Government to other countries. Other countries have taken this authority and used it for espionage. Thus these companies statements that "We didn't build a back door for India" then is correct. They built it for the U.S. Government.

--
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
1. Re:CALEA by Guy+Harris · 2012-01-11 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  What these companies have done is grant the same access the CALEA law gives the US Government to other countries. Other countries have taken this authority and used it for espionage. Thus these companies statements that "We didn't build a back door for India" then is correct. They built it for the U.S. Government.
  ...which is probably not correct; the EU, for example, has a council resolution concerning requiring capabilities for "lawful interception of communications" and I suspect the Member States have implemented laws for that. I.e., they built it for all countries that require lawful interception capabilities, which probably covers most countries in which they sell mobile phones.
2. Re:CALEA by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-11 21:40 · Score: 2
  
  What these companies have done is grant the same access the CALEA law gives the US Government to other countries. Other countries have taken this authority and used it for espionage. Thus these companies statements that "We didn't build a back door for India" then is correct. They built it for the U.S. Government.
  ...which is probably not correct; the EU, for example, has a council resolution concerning requiring capabilities for "lawful interception of communications" and I suspect the Member States have implemented laws for that. I.e., they built it for all countries that require lawful interception capabilities, which probably covers most countries in which they sell mobile phones.
  What both of you are missing is that all of these laws are about wiretapping at the network level, not at the device level.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
Symantec source hack reveal Indian surveillance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 18:24 · Score: 1

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Did-Symantec-source-code-hack-reveal-Indian-phone-surveillance-1406612.html
Let us not forget that not only did we get source to Symantec revealed, Symantec confessed it had been stolen, but said it was an old version. So we already have confirmation that Indian military DOES get the source to products, however there may be disinformation spread for commercial gain here.
Also be aware that if India got Symantec's code then most likely other nations (e.g. Israel) known for their cyber attacks on foreign countries also likely got the source too.
Also let us not forget CarrierIQ the USA pre-installed surveillance software that can record pretty much everything, if CarrierIQ just send a 'profile' down telling it what to record.
1. Re:Symantec source hack reveal Indian surveillance by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-11 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Did-Symantec-source-code-hack-reveal-Indian-phone-surveillance-1406612.html
  Let us not forget that not only did we get source to Symantec revealed, Symantec confessed it had been stolen, but said it was an old version.
  Ooooh, scary, they got the source code of anti-virus software - what evil things did the Indian military plan to do with AV software?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
2. Re:Symantec source hack reveal Indian surveillance by AHuxley · 2012-01-11 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Re evil things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Sikh_riots
  If you know your history of India the result from the 1970-80's would be a lot.
  The code of AV tools seems to be of interest to many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software) to hide key loggers with vendor cooperation.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
3. Re:Symantec source hack reveal Indian surveillance by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-01-12 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Re evil things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Sikh_riots If you know your history of India the result from the 1970-80's would be a lot. The code of AV tools seems to be of interest to many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software) to hide key loggers with vendor cooperation.
  So did they kill Sikhs with Anti Virus Software or with key loggers? Did you even understand what I wrote?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
Re:Am I missing something? by thsths · 2012-01-11 20:23 · Score: 1

> So the United States and Indian governments are claiming the memo is a fake
It may be a fake, and I think that is quite possible indeed. But does that make it wrong? I am much more sceptical there. Remember how Skype has given access to just about any government?