Slashdot Mirror


Leave Your Cellphone At Home, Says Jacob Appelbaum

An anonymous reader writes "N+1 has an interview with Jacob Appelbaum (who is part of the Tor project) titled 'Leave Your Cellphone at Home.'" Jacob has a lot to say about privacy, data security, and surveillance. He ought to know. Among other things, he's had his email seized, been relieved of his phone, been the subject of a National Security Letter (video) and generally had his travel disrupted.

306 comments

  1. Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There, fixed that for ya. Amazing how they managed to get darned near 100% of the population to agree to carry around a tracking device with nary a peep. All it took was to be very careful to NOT talk about the tracking ability, keep news accounts of the police using the cell data off the front page and make the tracker shiny and useful enough. Do those things and not only will everyone carry one they will pay an average of $50/mo for the privledge. Land of the Free indeed.

    Won't be long now before they decide they have the hook set deep enough they can start making more overt use of the location/activity data without many people ditching their tracker.

    The carriers WILL start renting out access to track data for advertising purposes. They know where and when you are. They will be able to link that beyond your phone. Won't take much computation to get that localized enough to have a good idea which PC you use and then tie it to doubleclick and google's cookies. Then they know EVERYTHING. Combine a tracking cookie to hard billing quality identification data and the possibilities are truly limitless. Sure they COULD do that with Amazon but there is too great a chance of a user revolt. But people won't/can't give up their iShiny.

    What law enforcement will do with the data is so obvious and so dark there isn't much point in hammering it again really. Especially combined with security cameras everywhere. Who cares if the image quality isn't good enough for a positive id or you were wearing a hoodie. It gives a time/location and the tracker gives them who was at that spot in spacetime.

    Bust a drug dealer and you have probable cause to grab a trace on everyone who came in contact with that person for the last month. Crunch the numbers enough and lots of patterns emerge. Not quite precrime but close enough. You show up as having been in the room with a number of dealers and that will be your ass. Or be around a few people who later get busted for burgulary and how soon until that is cause for a search warrant on your place? Being able to effortlessly work backwards from a bust and turn up clues like that will change the law enforcement game entirely.

    And now you see why AT&T yanked all their payphones and for some reason simply refuses to compete in the landline business, even with billions and billions in sunk costs for all that wire going everywhere. Eliminate hardlines and everyone MUST buy a cell. It is already sorta odd to encounter someone who doesn't carry one, eventually it will be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Wouldn't suprise me if they become the preferred physical identifier, i.e. 'your papers.'

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by EnergyScholar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why was this last comment modded down, and by whom? It seems like a pretty good comment to me. Who, besides a forum spy, would want to keep the above comment out of sight?

    2. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The poster you replied to is infamous for his extreme- to ultimate-right political views, and I suspect that -1 is his default score. In other words, a broken watch is right twice a day.

    3. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by masternerdguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      holy tinfoil

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    4. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are half right. Most people assume I'm a bible humping right winger, but in reality I'm an agnostic anti-idiotarian Libertarian. And this crap annoys my Libertarian tendencies. If I didn't need one for work I wouldn't carry a mobile device. But yea the hivemind has started demonstrating their tolerance and diversity bigtime on my ass of late. I just say "bring it bitches." because nothing says "I can't win an argument" like organizing a movement to silence the few of us around here who don't toe the Party line.

      The lamers downmodding don't bother me, do wish the admins would lay off though and put my account back to normal. Since pissing one of them off a few months ago karma goes down far faster than it goes up. One downmod is usually enough to kill the posting bonus now. Still manage to average three replies per post though so it hasn't silenced me. Never saw that sort of heavy editorial hand back when Cmdr. Taco ran things so it is a bad sign of things to come.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by jonfr · · Score: 1

      The problem is not technology. But governments how are happy to abuse it against it's citizens and others how travel across countries borders (U.S in this case. But this applies on a lot wider scale today). If you want to carry an mobile phone. Get the dumbest quad-band phone you can find. Or just use smart phone as dumb phone with nothing special in it (wipe it clean before crossing the border. Keep the backup encrypted on Google drive or Dropbox).

      There are options are out there. One of them is to have no mobile phone at all. But that limits one choices today in terms of connectivity.

    6. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> holy tinfoil

      Tinfoil is a plot by the Hypotenuse Society to control the emotions of individuals through space worm infestation.

    7. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly so.

      Welcome to the fascist United Snakes of Amerika, Inkorporated, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the international bankster cabal. "1984" and "Brave New World" were supposed to be dire warnings of a possible alternative future, not an operations manual for the Powers That Be.

      We are tracked by our cell phones, our automobiles (OnStar) & license plate cameras, the public cloud of face recognition video surveillance cameras, UAV drones equipped with FLIR & Hellfire missiles, cancer-inducing naked body scanners, lamp-posts with microphones tied to Fusion center-based voice recognition computers, our home computers hacked by the Police State to remotely turn on embedded cameras and which monitor every keystroke, and even SmartMeters that monitor every home appliance. Next on their agenda -- the end of cash, and universal RFID "chipping".

      The old Soviet Block Stasi & KGB would be very envious of "our" national security surveillance police state grid.
      "Your papers, please."
      You will submit to public strip searches & full body cavity searches by the army of TSA pedophiles that only change their gloves when they wear them out or tear a hole in them.

    8. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's a lojack?

    9. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      It's like a cell phone for your car that doesn't work quite as well. Oh, and doesn't make phone calls or send SMS.

    10. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by CubicleZombie · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you intend to commit a crime, leave your phone somewhere that will support your alibi. If you're going to frame someone, take theirs.

      --
      :wq
    11. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Meanwhile I have good karma with a default score of 2 for being a complete tool.

      Hey, I posted at +3 (Karma + subscriber) unbroken for pretty much the entire time the current slashdot model existed until a couple of months ago when I pissed off an admin or they totally redesigned the moderation system. Since there hasn't been widespread complaining I assume it is just me that is getting the special treatment. Mods can't really hurt you unless you are a totally usless user who never says anything worthwhile. The downmods get cancelled out by upmods on the good stuff and it all works out.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    12. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      holy tinfoil

      You get a tinfoil hat for free with your 4-digit slashdot uids.

    13. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just because you are okay with leaving the bathroom door open when in use, does not mean everyone else is okay with it as well.

    14. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's not tinfoil.
      the only thing keeping government tracking you with your cellular data is the government.

      but don't americans really understand that? don't you watch your own movies - aren't there high profile murder cases where cellid data is used? there's been several in Finland - the only thing keeping the abuse off is having few good cops. impossible to say what the secret("protection") police is up to though, but in general they don't fuck around with population in Finland(nobody really knows what the fuck they're up to - though general consensus is that they're just taking their pay and doing fuck all nothing which is good I suppose, well that and following russkies and americans and again doing fuck all nothing even if they fly illegal prisoners through the airports).

      eliminating landlines by at&t though is just cost savings.. no need for technicians that much. besides haven't I read a bunch of complaints about how you have to get landline to get dsl in some regions?

      it was kind of fishy though in nyc to have to show ID to buy a prepaid phone card(fyi around here I can go and buy a prepaid internet stick from a kiosk and pay with cash and torrent all week long). it's stupid because terrorist could just as well buy a prepaid phonecard overseas - or with a fake id.

      anyhow, you could just turn the damn thing off and not leave it at home, if they got a self-contained-self-powered bugging device implanted they're so deep in your ass already they might have put it in your appendix.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Any mobile phone can be tracked, you don't need GPS capability. I turn off hte GPS but at times it is suprisingly accurate about knowing where I am with out it. The difference with smart phones is that this info is on the phone, with a dumb phone someone would have to query the carrier's data.

    16. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by mrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nothing says "I can't win an argument" like organizing a movement to silence the few of us around here who don't toe the Party line.

      Hear, hear. We might be on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum, but democracy is dead if we allow that to mean we can't have a civilized conversation with each other about the issues. Kudos to you for putting your beliefs out there for examination and peer review, and shame on the people who are trying to silence you instead of responding to your cogent and valuable posts.

    17. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If you're neither and are worried about tracking, just turn the phone off when not in use. You really don't need it on all the time. And turn off GPS for sure, that's just a waste of battery.

    18. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There, fixed that for ya. Amazing how they managed to get darned near 100% of the population to agree to carry around a tracking device with nary a peep. All it took was to be very careful to NOT talk about the tracking ability, keep news accounts of the police using the cell data off the front page and make the tracker shiny and useful enough. Do those things and not only will everyone carry one they will pay an average of $50/mo for the privledge. Land of the Free indeed.

      Key words: useful enough! Access to the internet (or more importantly the various comms applications overlaid on it) wherever you go is highly valued, and all simple approaches inherently permit somebody to track you easily. We could certainly do a lot better than we do, particularly in the realm of government tracking, but the service providers will still have objectionable levels of knowledge, and human nature being the suckfest it is, you know that knowledge will regularly be abused...

      The only obvious solution involves eradicating the payment structure (which requires trackability -- you have to identify each terminal to know whether it's paid-up or not) -- and replacing the for-profit infrastructure with a mesh network requiring widescale cooperation without excessive free-riding. Unfortunately, that's the one type of interaction large groups of people suck at.

    19. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by idontgno · · Score: 1

      GPS doesn't tell The Man where you are. GPS tells YOU where you are.

      If you want The Man to not be able to track you, turn off mobile voice and data. Cell tower triangulation is where it's at.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    20. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that Darinbob isn't Jason Bourne and if someone wants to find him it won't be too hard.

    21. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Krojack · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing you say that about everyone that doesn't agree with your point of view.

      "A person who believes in the doctrine of free will" (by definition) isn't anything like the "right" or "conservative". It's what it says, people who like free will. A Libertarian is also someone who can think more for them self unlike the far "left" and far "right" brainwashed groups lead around on a leash by the media.

    22. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew a guy who got his door kicked in by the cops for a burglary at a fast food restaurant. He had been there earlier in the day and used a credit card but was falsely accused (and was never arrested and received no apology for their mistake). So you don't need your cell phone at all. Pay with a credit card and your location is known. Pay with cash and you're suspect. Drive by a license plate scanner and your location is known. Your patterns are simple to figure out if you're suspected of anything. Most people don't cover their tracks anyway. Unless you think you can live "off the grid" completely. Even Kaczynski had to use a library card. Good luck if you think you can't be tracked without a cell phone on you.

      Welcome to totalitarianism. Do you have your party card on you?

    23. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There, fixed that for ya. Amazing how they managed to get darned near 100% of the population to agree to carry around a tracking device with nary a peep. All it took was to be very careful to NOT talk about the tracking ability, keep news accounts of the police using the cell data off the front page and make the tracker shiny and useful enough. Do those things and not only will everyone carry one they will pay an average of $50/mo for the privledge. Land of the Free indeed.

       

      On top of that, if you don't have one of these devices, you are considered a "suspicious person" or a "social deviant" in need of further scrutiny. After all, you may just shoot up a high school or a movie theatre. Think of the children!

    24. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can see why you'd think so. Unless you cared about government intrusion in your sex life (libertarians don't like that), in your choice of recreational drugs (libertarians don't like that), having our heritage as a "christian nation" shoved down your throat (libertarians don't like that) or about fiscal hypocrisy (libertarians don't simultaneously demand "fiscal responsibility", massive tax cuts, and spending expansion on military (both deployment in the sandbox & development of new toys).

      But hey, they both disagree with your particular vision of government's role in society, so they must be the same.

      It may interest you to know that conservatives equate libertarians (outside their own "tea party" enclave) as similarly being a particularly wacky subset of liberals, on the basis of the conservative vs. libertarian differences I listed above, and disregarding the conservative vs. libertarian similarities you based your statement on. The absurd symmetry of this, and the fact that the two parties both have no way of dealing with opposition but equating it to "the enemy" and hoping people don't look closer, leaves me at a loss of whether to laugh or cry...

    25. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the Libertarians.

    26. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you say that about everyone that doesn't agree with your point of view.

      "A person who believes in the doctrine of free will" (by definition) isn't anything like the "right" or "conservative". It's what it says, people who like free will. A Libertarian is also someone who can think more for them self unlike the far "left" and far "right" brainwashed groups lead around on a leash by the media.

      I'm guessing you say that about everyone that doesn't agree with your point of view.

    27. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The experiment has ended. The result is failure. Several millenia of genetic selection cannot be undone in 200 short years.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    28. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      You are half right. Most people assume I'm a bible humping right winger, but in reality I'm an agnostic anti-idiotarian Libertarian.

      To a lot of folks, Libertarian means conservative -- no taxes, little government, no regulations at all. Most folks (and I don't know why) confuse "conservative" with "Christian". Perhaps because the conservative atheists who pretend to be Christian (Rick Perry comes to mind) scream so loudly about their imaginary faith. They make real Christians cringe.

      I broke the screen off my phone three months ago and it's been like a landline ever since, sitting on my end table. The only thing I miss is the clock and calendar and camera.

    29. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy tinfoil

      Holy persona

    30. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one day, you will wish you had listened to your elders.

    31. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by downhole · · Score: 2

      Nice theory. Let's take a look at some practical examples, though. In all of the rebellions in the Arab Spring, involving actual totalitarian government being overthrown by force, my understanding is that cell phones have proved far more useful to the rebels for coordinating their activities than to the Government for tracking people.

      There are potential dangers from tracking and such, but I think they can be mostly mitigated with good tactics, and that the overall benefits outweigh the risks in most cases.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    32. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OW OW OW!

      Please someone help me loosen this tinfoil HAT!

    33. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      Who watches the watchers?

      Turns out it's the secret police. They don't exactly keep that part a secret either.

    34. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Better take out the battery too! "Off" does not mean there is no power or infrequent connectivity.

    35. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      holy tinfoil

      masternerdguy: Want to have some fun? Reply to this post with your IMEI (enter *#06# on your phone; doesn't matter what brand you have). I'll bet I can change your mind about the "tinfoil" comment.

    36. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I was unaware of any movement to silence people by name, and despite my tendency to disagree with Libertarians on matters economic, I think you're spot-on here. Depending on the phone/frequency, I think you might find that a "tinfoil" (aluminized mylar) pouch might do a good job of thwarting your tracking device, though I understand that this causes phones to drain their batteries extra fast.

    37. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by DizTorDed · · Score: 0

      Brilliant insight! The comment, "Wouldn't suprise me if they become the preferred physical identifier, i.e. 'your papers.'", is already coming to light. With the near field communication payment system, we will be identifying ourselves using our phone. How long till the police scan our phone in the same manner.... not long enough.

    38. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by anagama · · Score: 1

      In all of the rebellions in the Arab Spring, involving actual totalitarian government being overthrown by force, my understanding is that cell phones have proved far more useful to the rebels for coordinating their activities than to the Government for tracking people.

      And you don't think the Feds are using this as a learning opportunity? The type where they work toward mitigating the effectiveness of citizen usage and maximize government capability.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    39. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      It's rated +5 at the moment. Ah, obviously the forum spies are using reverse psychology! Woooooooo!

    40. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For me it depends on why they disagree. Christopher Hitchens was a card carrying socialist, which I am definitely not (for the most part), but I had a lot of respect for the guy and enjoyed hearing his POV on things. On the other hand if someone starts parroting some Party line bullshit at me simply because they are circling the wagons against a new idea, they can get bent.

    41. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      The Libertarians have to stop with the open border stuff, though. Yes, immigration policy needs to be reworked from top to bottom, but wide open borders is way into woo-land. They also need to recognize that getting to a smaller more focused government is not going to happen overnight.

    42. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since pissing one of them off a few months ago karma goes down far faster than it goes up.

      Welcome to the club.. Took over 50 big ones (from excellent to bad karma) in less than 15 minutes for joining the chorus on the interface screw ups.I decided to abandon the account for the time being to leave the comment page up as an illustration of employee abuse of their privileges and until I can whip up a pithy journal in response.

      CT

    43. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't suprise me if they become the preferred physical identifier, i.e. 'your papers.'

      well.. there's an app for that!

      sorry. I mean.. why show me your papers. Just ping them on bluetooth and it will tell you your identity.

    44. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      "And now you see why AT&T yanked all their payphones and for some reason simply refuses to compete in the landline business, even with billions and billions in sunk costs for all that wire going everywhere. Eliminate hardlines and everyone MUST buy a cell. It is already sorta odd to encounter someone who doesn't carry one, eventually it will be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Wouldn't suprise me if they become the preferred physical identifier, i.e. 'your papers.'"

      Normally I'm very skeptical about business motives, but the apparent death of the landline, I think, has little to do with any nefariousness on AT&T's part.

      An Illustration: In 1997 I visited Europe for an extended period of time. In that time I found that different countries treat wireless different. In France, I noticed almost no one had landlines in their homes. And this was 1997! When I asked, I was told "Wireless is simply cheaper than a land line, so we got rid of landlines." A story I heard at more than one dinner table. Italy still had lots of landlines that I saw in use by people in their homes.

      I'm shocked, actually, that AT&T didn't see it coming (or chose to ignore it.) The landline will die in time, and it has nothing to do with conspiracies. Wasn't AT&T themselves, a couple of years ago, bemoaning the dramatic drop in landline revenue? I remember thinking at the time "Duh, didn't you see it happen in Europe 10 years ago? Your MBAs failed to see the impending death of POTS within the next 20 years?"

      I still have a landline -- For DSL. I don't use the landline for voice. I mean, I have a phone, but it's in a drawer somewhere -- I use it for troubleshooting. Landlines were made unusable by telemarketers, surveytakers, etc. I've not made a landline call in over 10 years.

      My days as an AT&T landline customer are soon to be at an end, I plan on switching to cable for internet sometime soon. Ma Bell, that old hag, will only get my $ for wireless -- where i"m at their DSL is horridly slow, and no hope for faster service.. so to hell with them.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    45. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Better take out the battery too!

      Oh yeah.. try that with your iPhone.

      I say put the phone in your microwave with all your RFID chips, and run it for a minute or so.. That'll stop 'em!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    46. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hmm, it should mean that. If it does not I'd contact customer support and complain.

    47. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all of the rebellions in the Arab Spring, involving actual totalitarian government being overthrown by force, my understanding is that cell phones have proved far more useful to the rebels for coordinating their activities than to the Government for tracking people.

      And you don't think the Feds are using this as a learning opportunity? The type where they work toward mitigating the effectiveness of citizen usage and maximize government capability.

      Yes, the Feds did use it as a learning experience. They built a bunch of base-stations-in-a-suitcase and figured out how to smuggle them past and operate them in the presence of totalitarian regimes.

    48. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      See, that's why unlocked bootloader and open source Android are so important.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    49. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Tinfoil! Batman!
      That phone is wraped in tinfoil!

    50. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you know?

    51. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, the thing is, cellphones were NOT intended as tracking devices. They were, and still are, mobile phones. If it were possible to handle millions of connections concurrently by satellite and if that option was as affordable to as cell towers, both to the phone company and the users, then cell towers wouldn't have been created to begin with. It was not the purpose of the makers of this technology to have it abused this way, and I can't blame users for not realizing it either.

      I dunno who came up with the idea of permanently storing your location in a database. Was it the marketing department or the police department? I dunno. But I certainly don't think it the motive of the telecommunication engineers.

    52. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by EnergyScholar · · Score: 0

      I also annoyed some [unknown identity] Slashdot admins, and they 'switched' me, too. My crime was posting The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies as a possible front page article. Someone REALLY did not like that article, as they INSTANTLY removed it from sight, on two different occasions.

      Any organization performing COINTELPRO operations would HATE that article, and would do their best to censor it.
      *Puts on tinfoil hat* Gee, do you think it's possible that forum spies have infiltrated Slashdot admin?
      Hint: It's now possible to buy turnkey solutions to manipulate online forums, with a full ecosystem of pre-made false accounts already in place. I have personal experience with private consulting firms that do just this. The article I linked to above provides details on how this is done, which is why it is HEAVILY CENSORED content. If you don't believe that, try to get that article in front of many eyeballs, and watch how quickly you get blocked from doing so.

    53. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Coriolis · · Score: 1

      It's not like hard lines are secure. The FBI can tap your calls from their desks. With a warrant, obviously, cough cough. How much do you wish to inconvenience yourself to protect yourself from theoretical monitoring? How many technologies are you going to allow your fear to block you from using? People use these phones willingly because they find value in them. If you don't use something you desire because you're afraid of what your government would do to you, then aren't you oppressed? Aren't you actually allowing them to oppress you, complicit in your own subjugation?

      --
      Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
    54. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Soulskill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your submissions weren't 'removed' at all, you just apparently don't know where to look for them. You can see see them on your user page.

    55. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by lgw · · Score: 1

      The Libertarians have to stop with the open border stuff, though.

      Why so? If you assume that a given open-borders libertarian is also a no-free-stuff-from-government libertarian there doesn't seem to be a problem. Combining open borders with lots of governement hand-outs can't ever work, but libertarias aren't exactly supportive of the latter.

      IMO, the only thing that should be required to get a work visa in the US is a criminal background check and an address where you can be found, and all that should be necessary for a green card is a history of holding down a job. Is that "open border stuff" or did you mean something more extreme?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    56. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Soulskill · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's nothing abnormal about your account. Your posting bonus is easy to kill because your karma is hovering right around zero, and because you seem to generate a lot of moderations. The comment to which I'm replying has, at this moment, 20 mods to it (and none from the editors; we don't really care what you say, as long as it's not spam or links to shock sites). The parent comment has even more.

    57. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      holy tinfoil

      No tinfoil required.

      In Canada, we had this thing called "lawful access" which allowed the police to initiate a search and seizure without a warrant. Including tracking a person without a warrant if there were exigent circumstances. This was struck down by the supreme court. But that's not tinfoil is it?

      Hell, have you even bothered to look at some of the app updates recently for say google maps? Or some of the QR readers? That's just giving away info. Here let's take an example of the latest google map update that was pushed through:
      Disable keylock on the phone
      Disable phone from sleeping
      Broadcast location
      Directly call numbers
      Records audio
      Manage accounts lists
      Read phone identifier information, including phone number and serial #
      Allow NCF and full internet access
      Discover all known accounts, google accounts on phone, and view all configured accounts

      And there's another 8 or so things I didn't bother to list.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    58. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, it should mean that. If it does not I'd contact customer support and complain.

      Contacting Support: "Hi, Samsung. I've heard the NSA can listen to my cell phone even if it is off, and I have to remove the battery if I don't want it to do anything."

      Samsung: "Is there a problem?"

      Contacting Support:"Yes, I think when the phone is "off" it should be totally off!"

      Samsung: "If there's a problem with your service, contact your provider. Otherwise call your Senator? We only deal with warranty issues"

    59. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by water-and-sewer · · Score: 2

      No, it cuts both ways. When I wrote and researched my book, The Dictator's Handbook, it was clear governments are able to make easy use of this data. There are numerous examples: governments planting trojans, tracking journalists, hacking email, sending out spear phish attacks, and worse. Rioters in Syria and Iran are frequently amazed when they are put in jail and their own email is read to them during the legal proceedings. Twitter is no better, and rogue governments create fake Facebook log-in pages to trap log-in credentials. Join us on the forum at http://dictatorshandbook.net/ for more, and you're welcome to read using NNTP protocol for increased anonymity.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    60. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much conspiracy theories here.

      I dropped the landline. Didn't replace it with a cellphone - but with IP telephony. No wireless tracking that way.

      As for carriers selling tracking data - not if you disallow it. Around here, the law require that the position data is kept secret. The police can obviously have a look, but nobody else. You can have such laws too - if you like.

      You will never be suspicious for not carrying a phone. People forget them everywhere, have them stolen - or fail to pay the bills. And the rich pride themselves on NOT being 'reachable' all the time. I.e. they can 'afford' to no be available, by having a secretary handle the incoming calls . . .

    61. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by jmorris42 · · Score: 2

      Ok, then the moderation rules seem to have changed from what they were in past years. After making a plummet from excellent to terrible in a single afternoon things changed; or the plummet was because things had changed. Now if I have excellent karma it seems one downmod drops it to good and it doesn't take many more to get to negative, while it takes a lot of +5 comments to get it back up again. Perhaps I have simply become a lightning rod and am attracting the dedicated attention of a few downmodders but looking at the posting history doesn't support that explantion. At the end of a day more posts can be modded up than down and karma status can be worse than the morning, which was why I formed the theory that I had been placed into a status where downmods were counting off more than upmods were.

      But as long as it is still a halfway fair fight I'll stay in the fight and help 'yall generate the all important page views. :)

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    62. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I don't think that's a fair characterization. Libertarians genuinely believe that their ideology is best for society. They also have some very different ideas from conservatives on social issues. I think where Libertarian ideals fall down is on non-local issues, or issues involving large groups of people.

      Pollution is the classic problem. If I get sick drinking some polluted water downstream, the libertarian answer is to sue the guy upstream. The "guy" upstream could be hundreds, thousands, or millions of people dumping raw sewage and garbage into the river. How the heck am I supposed to prove whose shit made me sick?

      I find that Libertarians also get mixed up when discussing corporations and intellectual property (IP). Both things exist only in law and depend on a strong government (note I said "strong" and not "large"). Both corporations and IP represent huge intrusions of the government upon the "free market". I'm always taken a bit aback when they talk about deregulation but in the same breath seem to ignore the elephants in the room.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    63. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      No, it cuts both ways. When I wrote and researched my book, The Dictator's Handbook, it was clear governments are able to make easy use of this data.

      An updated version of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'? Goodness me.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    64. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You don't need a cell phone, just a busy body. My cousin got a ride to the store with one his son's friends. Someone thought the truck looked like one used in a robbery. They were arrested on suspension of burglary. My cousin is disabled with a heart condition and unemployed. He couldn't make bail ($50,000) and spent two months in jail before the charges were dropped. Be careful who you're seen with

    65. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by bbelt16ag · · Score: 1

      yeah thats whats i would do..

      --
      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
    66. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I believe people make that link because libertarians tend to pray to God to fix them from whatever ailment some corporation gave them through poisoning the environment [even with those pesky regulations].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    67. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What law enforcement will do with the data is so obvious and so dark ...

      What's needed is an GPS-based applet that says one is on a different street. Of course, the selected street needs to change as one's cell tower connection changes.

      While private end-to-end encryption is a good idea (tm), no-one is rushing to get their personal device encryption key. Currently encryption limits who one can talk to, or in the case of HTTPS and others, allows man-in-the-middle attacks. Lastly the security provided by a hand-held device can be broken by a super-computer in minutes. So a rotating queue of encryption keys is needed for further security. Ultimately, anything sent from a hand-held device will be secure for about a day which limits the topics, those under surveillance can discuss. One good use of encryption (until the state police get their own super-computer) is, the police can't copy everything and then trawl my plain-text for a reason to arrest me.

    68. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until a couple of months ago when I pissed off an admin or they totally redesigned the moderation system

      Well, you certainly aren't shy. I can believe that you are an Objectivist or somesuch.

    69. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are very trusting of the man sir. So you know exactly what data goes across the encrypted chatter do you?

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but would not under normal circumstances a cell only "register" with one tower at a time? That being the case, would not the records only store that one tower for retrospective recall? That being the case, you don't have triangulation anymore. You have a radius only.

      I expect it would be different if you were actively being watched.

    70. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Inda · · Score: 1

      No shit. One bad comment against him and I didn't get to mod for 12 months.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    71. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phone data only goes one way, ie it can only prove guilt. There has been court cases where phone data was thrown out because they disproved crime.

    72. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it not so that triangulation can't be applied "after the fact" because your phone is only registered with one cell tower at a time and thus only one tower will be saved in the retained records? That being the case, you have a radius not a triangle.

      Probably different when looking at an active call.

    73. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it not so a cell phone will only be *registered* with one cell tower at a time, so "after the fact" the retained records will only contain this one cell tower and thus you can't triangulate? With one tower it's a radius not triangulation.

    74. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I have simply become a lightning rod and am attracting the dedicated attention of a few downmodders but looking at the posting history doesn't support that explantion.

      I don't know about other mods, but your homophobic comments are what pissed me off. So whenever I get modpoints, I make sure to check what comments you've made first and downmod any fuckheaded ones.

      Unfortunately you make a lot of good comments, too. So I only get to downmod a percentage of them.

    75. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but would not under normal circumstances a cell only "register" with one tower at a time? That being the case, would not the records only store that one tower for retrospective recall? That being the case, you don't have triangulation anymore. You have a radius only.

      You are wrong(ish). CDMA and UMTS do soft-handovers, which means your phone may be talking to several base stations at once. GSM does hard-handovers, which means your phone is talking to only one base station at once. However, I note that many GSM phones are aware of all the nearby base stations rather than just the one they are connected to (and this can usually be queried by software) and I've not read the standards deeply enough to know if that data gets fed back to the base station(s).

      In any case, whilst the base stations will know what sector you're in, that isn't very accurate for triangulation. More accurate is trilateration, and I believe you can get down to a pretty accurate location by trilaterating the signals from multiple towers.

    76. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice theory. Let's take a look at some practical examples, though. In all of the rebellions in the Arab Spring, involving actual totalitarian government being overthrown by force, my understanding is that cell phones have proved far more useful to the rebels for coordinating their activities than to the Government for tracking people.

      They could track them, but it was like looking on the scanner screen in "Alien" movie - you can see they are everywhere. This leads us to an important conclusion:

      surveillance gets irrelevant, once your opponents become the overwhelming majority

      which emphasizes the importance of timed, early extinguishing of dissenters, and selective surveillance, to enable "search and destroy", or "scare into desist", is of utmost importance. The problem with most governments and most RPOs (traditionally three-lettered Rule Protecting Organizations) is that they fail to recognize the turning points, and keep operating in "low dissent" mode well past the change of wind, when they should turn into playing innocent and stop annoying the masses. I guess they just can't accept the new, less pleasant reality of diminishing control when it happens. Then they turn violent, then all-out Arab Spring ... springs out.

    77. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      No, just anyone who's worldview is based upon wanting to do whatever they want whenever they want with no one telling them what to do (like some 9 year old who's just graduated to big-boy pants), regardless of the impact on society or what have you. You know, the type that wants the invisible hand of the market to build roads or to keep airplanes from hitting each other.

      Seriously, every libertarian I've met has got some "I'm not allowed to do X" reason, or that *gasp* someone wants them to pay taxes for services they receive.

    78. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Best for society if society = themselves. What's a thing that most believe that doesn't happen to be a direct benefit to them, like "people shouldn't have to pay taxes?"

    79. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've read any Libertarian literature or even had a serious discussion with a thoughtful Libertarian. They think that government is not an efficient way to help the unfortunate - that does not mean they oppose helping the unfortunate.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    80. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open borders is an ideal. If the whole world had libertarian governments, there would be no need for borders. Also, it's the only way to ensure that people can actually follow the "if you don't like it, leave" mantra.

    81. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by downhole · · Score: 1

      It's a weapon for the dictator's regime, no doubt, but like all weapons, it's not as effective as the people selling it would have you think. I haven't seen anything to make me think that it's a game changer in the war between state and rebel. If you're a rebel, it's something you'll have to watch out for and take measures against, just like any number of other things. Stuff like leaving the phone behind, switching phones at convenient times, doing things with/on it to make whoever is watching think your plan is something else and maybe lead the security forces into an ambush, etc. And some poor bastards will miss something or mess it up and get screwed... and some of them will deserve it.

      Things might change if anybody ever gets the whole large-scale automated data mining that they're always talking about really working well, but that's something to worry about later.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    82. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by Xamataca · · Score: 1

      Libertarian related to conservative or right?. Maybe in USA... Anarchists are libertarians too...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

      --
      ***Game Over***Insert Coin***
    83. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by rhalstead · · Score: 1

      Hang in there. The left that proposes tolerance is anything but, what with their work to silence any dissent to their way of thinking.

    84. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      ...which is code for "I don't want to help the unfortunate if I don't feel like it (and I don't)."

    85. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's really not. Believe it or not, some people give to charity - and not only because the government lets you write it off. Others volunteer at shelters, adopt children, pick up litter, and otherwise make the world a better place. Some of these people are strongly anti-government.

      Now personally, I think there is a place for government to serve as a charity as well. That is, I disagree with Libertarians on this issue. That said, I'm not going to demonize them just because I disagree with them.

      Does it take more generosity to write a check yourself or to force other people to write checks?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    86. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I don't think people's survival should be related to whether or not other people feel like giving or not. It makes sense to fund these things by taxes proportional to income. If you benefit from a society, you have a duty to assist it. Obviously a person who is making $130k can afford that way more than someone making $30k (even though apparently are not convinced to give: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=1).

    87. Re:Leave you phone^W lojack at home. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Except I'm only talking about stuff that has actually been said.

  2. And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If todays phones are nothing more than tracking devices for the government and anybody with the right tools to know where we are at all times, then why are we paying for this?

    I mean facebook is free and collects tons of information, yet we pay to use our phones and it collects our information the same way...

    1. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you pay for it, you think you have gotton value.

      if they gave it away for free, you'd think it was worthless.

      perceived value.

      just like sms is seen as having value when its just spare bytes that are always there on every packet, no matter what! costing nothing but they convince you that you need YET ANOTHER form of email and they gave it a cute next, texting.

      what a nice scam to be in on. if you're the unethical type, that is.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There could come a time very soon when NOT carrying a cellphone will be viewed as evidence of criminal activity in-and-of itself. Much like not carrying an ID can get you thrown in jail today, tomorrow's cops may well toss you into the clinker for not carrying a cellphone (i.e. tracking device).

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    3. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by T+Murphy · · Score: 2

      The worst is when I go to the store, and they make me pay for stuff! They're tracking my purchases, so why can't I just get the stuff for free?

    4. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst is when I go to the store, and they make me pay for stuff! They're tracking my purchases, so why can't I just get the stuff for free?

      Jesus Harold Christ on a pogo stick! Is it painful to be that stupid?

    5. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Whooosh?

    6. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      Obviously the device is more to you than just a government tracker.

      After all, you wouldn't possess the phone if you thought it to be nothing but a tracker - unless you actually wanted the government to track you, I suppose.

    7. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is texting a scam or unethical? That's market economics in action. Nobody's forced to do anything at all.

    8. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Bad point, since in the case of Facebook it is free and it is in fact worthless.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by Golddess · · Score: 1

      how is texting a scam [...] Nobody's forced to do anything at all.

      "Hello to you good sir. I am a prince in Nigeria and..."

      Just because you enter into an agreement willingly, doesn't mean the thing you entered into wasn't a scam. Of course, that's beside the point of whether or not texting counts as a scam.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    10. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      YET ANOTHER form of email and they gave it a cute next, texting.

      Not saying you don't touch an issue. You do. But SMS and Email differ significantly. SMS gets to your phone anywhere you are almost instantly and you only need a GSM. Email requires you to log on to a server using an IP-based protocol. SMS and Email share characteristics but differ sufficiently to be regarded as different products/services/techniques. You appreciate this best when you travel to forain countries. Somehow roaming GSM is available at reasonable prices by the data option almost never is.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    11. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMS does have value. Just because it costs the networks next to nothing to carry doesn't stop it being of value to the user. Admittedly it is of less value today when most people have internet on their phones, but that was rare 10 years ago.

    12. Re:And to think I'm paying for this "convenience" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't know where you are, only where your phone is. You can use that.

      Serious crims carry a pocket full of sim cards.

  3. So . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He sounds like a threat to someone.

    1. Re:So . . . by killmenow · · Score: 2

      We're all threats to someone.

    2. Re:So . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're all threats to someone.

      No. No we are not.

    3. Re:So . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By posting as an AC, and yes i am aware of the irony, you are indeed a threat to someone.

    4. Re:So . . . by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Okie dokie, Maurice.

    5. Re:So . . . by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      He sounds like a threat to someone.

      ...and yet Tor still recieves funding from DoD.

      But hey, you hang out with hornets, you get stung.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  4. Not just your phone! by Antipater · · Score: 5, Funny

    This isn't just with phones. Did you know that law enforcement agencies can see what you're doing when you're on the internet?? You should stop using the internet. But it's probably too late, anyway, because they've probably infected your computer with a program that monitors your every keystroke!

    And that's not all! Did you know there're identifying numbers on your car, too? Law enforcement can track you and indict you simply because of a number on the backside of your car! You should probably just leave your car at home.

    And don't even get me started about how unsecure your fingertips are.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
    1. Re:Not just your phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As usual, the key here is never attract their interest.

    2. Re:Not just your phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't just with phones. Did you know that law enforcement agencies can see what you're doing when you're on the internet?? You should stop using the internet. But it's probably too late, anyway, because they've probably infected your computer with a program that monitors your every keystroke!

      And that's not all! Did you know there're identifying numbers on your car, too? Law enforcement can track you and indict you simply because of a number on the backside of your car! You should probably just leave your car at home.

      And don't even get me started about how unsecure your fingertips are.

      Sarcasm fail.

      Data doesn't have an inalienable right to be collected. Just because it exists does not grant a human or human operated computer to collect and use it.

    3. Re:Not just your phone! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      And that's not all! Did you know there're identifying numbers on your car, too? Law enforcement can track you and indict you simply because of a number on the backside of your car! You should probably just leave your car at home.

      Apparently so.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Not just your phone! by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Law enforcement can track you and indict you simply because of a number on the backside of your car! You should probably just leave your car at home.

      Yea, that is becoming a major nightmare. Until pervasive cameras it didn't matter much. The could put an APB on a plate number and still not have a very high success rate on the cops finding it. Now with cameras in every intersection that changes. They can get a big chunk of the same info collection that way that cell phone tracking gives them but it isn't quite as good. All tracking cars does is show where the car went, the camers may or may not give a good enough image to prove who was in it. And more than one person can be in a car at the same time. If you have phone data the cars don't add a lot.

      Of course they require a lot less legal issues to make use of images already sitting on traffic and homeland security machines so they are starting there. Later they can supplement it with the cell tracks and the merged dataset will be very complete in the picture of where a person goes and what they are doing.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Not just your phone! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      As usual, the key here is never attract their interest.

      I think that that is the message.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    6. Re:Not just your phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does information want to be free or not? Or is it just whatever information YOU say should be free "wants" to be free? This is getting really confusing. And who are you again? Why are you the one deciding exactly what information should or shouldn't be free?

    7. Re:Not just your phone! by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

      And even if you leave your phone and car at home... law enforcement agents can still see what you're doing with their eyes! Better just board up all your windows and stay inside, get rid of the phone and internet, and have no contact with the outside world - because someone might SEE it.

    8. Re:Not just your phone! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Freedom through obscurity is... Oh wait- what?

    9. Re:Not just your phone! by jmorris42 · · Score: 0

      > see who accesses those shiny Tor gateways too.

      Yup. People always seem to forget the utility of traffic analysis. Use Tor, encrypt everything, doesn't matter. Just using Tor is going to put you on the short list of people who bear additional attention. Either an paranoid, anarchist or pedo. Odds are more than one of those three. And while the libertarian side of me screams the coldly rational side does have to admit to the reality that it is also true. If I were a cop I'd be making that exact assumption and be right far more often than I was wrong. Playing those odds would lead to a high arrest rate and a promotion.

      So how do we fix that problem. Hell, we can't even get more than a percent to even sign email yet with only a little effort from the few developers we could be encrypting most email by default. Default and entirely transparent are the keys to a more secure Internet. Wouldn't even matter a lot if the key management for those 'normals' wasn't perfect. Just getting to a point where most email traffic flowed from server to server unreadable would help. But yes my above observation about traffic analysis would still apply. That could be tackled once we had enough encrypted traffic we could hide things in the stream.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    10. Re:Not just your phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. To avoid the ire of the authorities just keep your head down, shut up, and don't rock the boat. Democracy works best when the common man knows his place.

    11. Re:Not just your phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really sure how your rant pertains to the GP, but it really is simple: Anyone who anthropomorphizes information and attempts to use that as an argument is an idiot that can be ignored without any loss of value.

    12. Re:Not just your phone! by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Easy way around that:

      Go mudding. Coat the entire lower 2' of your car in mud (including the license plate) and the cameras can't track you by license number.

      I used to do this in my youth when my tag expired - worked like a charm.

      Granted, if you drive a dinky sedan, you might bring some buddies along to push you out of the mud once you get stuck :) A 6-pack of beer can usually hire you a guy with a tow chain.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    13. Re:Not just your phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We really should end it all, but were to dumb and one day when you are hunted down like a dog because one party or the other won. it will be too late.
      One thing you can have faith in that is the evil nature of people.

    14. Re:Not just your phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I boarded up all the windows on my car! That's how I ro-- (*CRAAASSSSHHH!!!BOOOM!!!*)

      [Texted from my iPwn]

  5. Leave it at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't the whole point of a cell phone to take it with you? If you're going to buy one to leave at home, just get a land line.

    1. Re:Leave it at home? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You could just leave the SIM card at home and take the phone with you. The wi-fi capability is all you need to maintain communications with the outside world in most urban environments, and doing encrypted, TORed VOIP over a wifi connection shouldn't identify you like the SIM would.

    2. Re:Leave it at home? by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 3, Funny

      I use CDMA you insensitive clod!!!

    3. Re:Leave it at home? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      You could just leave the SIM card at home and take the phone with you. The wi-fi capability is all you need to maintain communications with the outside world in most urban environments, and doing encrypted, TORed VOIP over a wifi connection shouldn't identify you like the SIM would.

      That works only if you know how to spoof your device's MAC address. Otherwise, you are just as uniquely identified as your SIM.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    4. Re:Leave it at home? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole point of a cell phone to take it with you? If you're going to buy one to leave at home, just get a land line.

      Problem is the mobile devices have shot right past "only in necessary situations" to "what the heck, everything, all the time, everywhere" to the point of addiction (gotta text someone on /. called me an addict!), can't put the thing down while driving, interrupt conferences or work taking personal calls, etc.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Leave it at home? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Why does that matter?
      Do you think they are monitoring the access point?

      MAC addresses don't get sent beyond the broadcast domain.

    6. Re:Leave it at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know... given enough devices there are duplicate mac addresses. that was part of the reason that some make it so easy to change them.

    7. Re:Leave it at home? by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not unless someone is doing something they shouldn't. Each device is assigned a unique 48bit MAC address at time of manufacture. Each one.

      You buy a 24 bit prefix from IEEE (I think) and are then supposed to do your own accounting on the lower 24 bits to be sure you don't duplicate one. If you have ever looked up a MAC to see who made the device, that is how it works. The owner of the prefix is a published record.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    8. Re:Leave it at home? by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Unless you want to, I don't know, make a phone call?

    9. Re:Leave it at home? by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      MAC addresses don't get sent beyond the broadcast domain.

      You sure?

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    10. Re:Leave it at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just what they want you to believe.

      The truth is the IMSI is in the phone's firmware, not in the SIM. If the cellular radio is on, it still connects to the local towers and registers. How else do you think a SIM-less phone can make E911 calls?

    11. Re:Leave it at home? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The truth is the IMSI is in the phone's firmware, not in the SIM. If the cellular radio is on, it still connects to the local towers and registers.

      At least on my phone (Nokia N900), I can disable the cellular radio entirely with a call to rmmod, while maintaining wi-fi capability.

    12. Re:Leave it at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The N900 and OpenMoko are probably the only two you can do that with. Most modern cell phones have one chipset that handles all radio -- cellular, wifi & bluetooth. Remove the module, it goes silent. Most are still black-box, binary blobs, unfortunately.

      Besides, the NSA is on to you. They just remotely activate the FM transmitter in your N900 via a BlueSnarf and they've got you and all your Slavonic crypto linguistic friends!

    13. Re:Leave it at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the SIM card removed from an Android device that I carry and use as a Wifi PDA like device; but it will still allow me to dial 911, so the logical conclusion is that it's still connected to the tower.

    14. Re:Leave it at home? by jmorris42 · · Score: 2

      > You sure?

      Don't know about the guy you were replying to but of course I'm sure. And if you knew anything about how this tech you depend upon daily actually worked you would be sure as well. There isn't a spot in an IP frame for the MAC, only in the lower level ethernet frames. If you aren't on the same subnet you don't see the mac address. If a wireless access point has node isolation turned on the different clients attached don't even see them. Of course DHCP servers do log them so if the access point isn't purely a consumer device that forgets that sort of thing as fast as the lease expires there is some trackability. If 'they' want to really go digging for it.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    15. Re:Leave it at home? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      So is the N900. Removing the module only breaks the link between the bigger CPU running Linux and the smaller master controller running the radio. Airline mode is the only sure way to silence one while leaving it powered up. Airline mode will typically turn off the local oscilator to prevent it from leaking any RF so it won't even be receiving, meaning the men in black can't send it a secret signal to switch back on. Remember, the FAA is serious about no meaning no when it comes to RF emissions on planes.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    16. Re:Leave it at home? by mea_culpa · · Score: 2

      Why does that matter?
      Do you think they are monitoring the access point?

      MAC addresses don't get sent beyond the broadcast domain.

      Why wouldn't they?
      I doubt that open access points at random residences are being monitored but I'd bet every Starbucks, McDonalds, and airport that offers free wifi are being monitored and MAC addresses being stored. Most of these are run by monolithic organizations, one of the largest being one that allowed three letter government agencies to snoop on their customers.
      Firewall logs typically show DHCP negotiation along with requesting MAC addresses.

    17. Re:Leave it at home? by sdoca · · Score: 1

      Not sure how serious the OP question was, but I understood from the article (yes, I read it), is that you should leave your phone at home, and on, when you're going somewhere you don't want to be tracked. Leaving it on, versus turning it off or taking out the SIM, would be a red flag that you don't want to be tracked and therefore they'll step up surveillance on you.

    18. Re:Leave it at home? by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      Yes, but in this case, "enough devices" is something like 281,474,980,000,000 network interfaces, unless my math is off. That's something like 46,000 network interfaces for every man, woman and child on the planet.

      Even counting every network interface in every cellphone, laptop, desktop, server, router and switch that I have ever owned, administrated or even *touched*, I don't think I'm anywhere near my share of network interfaces. While I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people whose network interface count is higher than mine, I still suspect it's safe to say that if I'm not anywhere near that count (as a network admin), then there's no way the average number of network devices in use is anywhere even remotely near that number.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    19. Re:Leave it at home? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Remember, the FAA is serious about no meaning no when it comes to RF emissions on planes.

      I wonder if that has anything to do with the recent /. story about the FAA re-examining the usage of portable electronic devices in flight...? Nah, couldn't be.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:Leave it at home? by w_dragon · · Score: 2

      While removing the SIM gets rid of the IMEI it certainly doesn't make it so that your phone is unable to connect to a cell network. 911 calls continue to work, even if your phone has no SIM. There are several other identifiers in a cell phone that the network can use for routing and tracking purposes, if they want to.

    21. Re:Leave it at home? by Antipater · · Score: 1

      Remember, the FAA is serious about no meaning no when it comes to RF emissions on planes.

      I wonder if that has anything to do with the recent /. story about the FAA re-examining the usage of portable electronic devices in flight...? Nah, couldn't be.

      Seeing as they specifically excluded cellphones from that re-examination, no.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    22. Re:Leave it at home? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Ah. I didn't realize that. Thanks for educating me :)

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    23. Re:Leave it at home? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You could just leave the SIM card at home and take the phone with you. The wi-fi capability is all you need to maintain communications with the outside world in most urban environments, and doing encrypted, TORed VOIP over a wifi connection shouldn't identify you like the SIM would.

      TORed VoIP not only shouldn't identify you to the authorities triangulating tower signals, it also likely won't identify...ou...to...to...the...the...ecipien...call.

      Unless you know some blazingly fast, low latency, UDP TOR exit nodes local to the area the person is attempting to connect to with their VoIP software.

    24. Re:Leave it at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA, cell phones must be able to make 911 emergency calls without a SIM - BY LAW. That means even if you don't have a SIM installed, your phone is still connecting to towers and providing the same data as without the SIM.

      Every device as a hardware IEMI number. That is more unique than the SIM. It is like a MAC on a network card that can't be spoofed.

      Further, remote activation of microphones and cameras can happen by government request, though I've never heard of this from police.

      With all that said, when I carried a smart phone, I didn't use a data connection, but this was mostly due to the price, not because of any belief in more privacy.

      These days, I carry a 1995-ish V195 flip phone. It does everything a phone should and nothing more. Perfect. Best of all, It need charging once a week.

    25. Re:Leave it at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful there... I don't need my MAC all over every DHCP server's logs that are kept for two years.

      Yeah, my netbook fakes its MAC addresses all the time, and I could probably do it if I jailbroke the android phone -- but at least by default, that's a big long trail I might be leaving all over linksys logs.

      Also, keep in mind that phones without a SIM (MSISDN/IMSI), may still have function--perhaps a cell developer can comment further -- but at least in the US, GSM phones w/o a SIM are still supposed to be able to dial 911.

      This means they can connect to a tower, be identified enough to complete a call, and presumably enough to work for E911 purposes, including activating their GPS or providing triangulation based location to a 911 center -- this was essentially a requirement by law as of 2005 on any new phone.

      So... I wouldn't trust a phone even without a SIM, although it may perhaps be some form of greater barrier.

      Mobile developers are welcome to comment further.

    26. Re:Leave it at home? by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Several problems with assuming a dumb AP saves you. First off, who can be sure "last known SIM card ID" isn't cached by your phone and transmitted to your carrier sometimes even when only connected with WiFi? Geo-locating by IP address can be shockingly accurate or useful, especially if you enough other data to match it against. If you and your buddies who are suspected of being involved in something together all go off the cell grid around the same time, and then all get IP addresses from the same block somewhere, that's more evidence of something going with you all--even if they can't figure out exactly where you met that specific time from that particular IP address.

      Second, the article was framed in the context of a protest that the police might be monitoring. If they are willing to bring in a IMSI catcher as suggested in the article to such things, a honeypot access point that logs all DHCP requests can easily come on for the ride. Assuming that DHCP logs of wi-fi APs are transitory is true in most cases; the situations the author is most worried about are exactly the sort of cases where that will not be true though.

      And if you think your phone might be rooted as part of routine monitoring on a suspicious individual, which the author clearly is, there's all kinds of backdoors that will make removing your SIM not good enough too. If I were writing such a thing, I'd consider situations where the phone was running without a SIM card as suspicious, log all IP addresses obtained during that period, and upload them to a server periodically--at the time if IP connectivity is available, later when the phone was reconnected if not. Then we're back to geo-locating or cross-checking data issues again. It's the potential of the rooted phone situation that inspires "leave your cellphone at home" levels of paranoia as being appropriate for protesters.

    27. Re:Leave it at home? by greg1104 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're assuming perfect distribution of MAC-48 AKA EUI-48 addresses among manufacturers and their products, which is far away from true. 1/2 of the 48 bits here are assigned to a manufacturer. 24 bits there make about 16M unique addresses available to each manufactured device. The flip side to that is that every manufactured device gobbles up 16M addresses, whether they use them all or not. Every time someone releases a new device assigned its own NIC address, another 16M addresses die, even if they only sell 1 of them.

      That means the important part then is that there are only ~16M Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) blocks, the other 24 bits here. Those are getting consumed at some rate, bigger manufacturers will need more than one of them, and therefore want to ask for a larger block of them. The IEEE is already aiming to reclaim them after 100 years and otherwise tightening standards for keeping companies from getting more OUI "space" than they need. As they state there, "The total number of EUI-48 identifiers available, while large, is NOT inexhaustible.". It's similar to the situation with IPv4 addresses, where the capacity looked practically infinite at first, but waste forced the size of the average block allocations down hard over time to keep from running out. Now you have to use 95% of the addresses you've already got before you can get more OUIs.

      MAC addresses have started to move from 48 bits to 64 in order to make this problem go away, because then you're at a "atoms in the universe" scale. I believe that's going about as well as the IPv6 migration. We're a long time from the 48 bits running out, but it's not as impossible as you might think just from computing against 2^48.

    28. Re:Leave it at home? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, and I (obviously) hadn't considered that :)

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  6. Solution by ADRA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Problem
    "And don't even get me started about how unsecure your fingertips are."

    Solution:
    Hot irons

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Solution by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      Nope.

      Scarred fingerprints set off even more alarm bells than normal ones. Plus the scar pattern is often uniquely identifiable. Better to be safe and chop the whole finger off.

      --
      -
    2. Re:Solution by Nationless · · Score: 1

      Although tracking you by your stump-prints might be even easier! Better to be safe and chop the whole limb off.

    3. Re:Solution by steelfood · · Score: 1

      A really sharp knife or a pair of bolt cutters.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:Solution by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Scarred fingerprints set off even more alarm bells than normal ones. Plus the scar pattern is often uniquely identifiable. Better to be safe and chop the whole finger off.

      Why can't you just re-scar them every year or so? Or burn them with an iron that has a fingerprint impression?

      Hmmmmmmmmmm?

    5. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has some shitty downsides, but some of the chemotherapy they use for some cancers causes your fingerprints to come off-- you end up with perfectly smooth fingertips without the little ridges that form the finger prints.

      Unfortunately, speaking from experience here.

      Well, if the current gig doesn't work out, I guess I'm a natural for a life of crime.

    6. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      Scarred fingerprints set off even more alarm bells than normal ones. Plus the scar pattern is often uniquely identifiable. Better to be safe and chop the whole finger off.

      asdghbsdcidejweiop12debjk (I did. Someone else typed that bit. That too. And that)

    7. Re:Solution by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Better solution:
      Someone else's fingertips and a few drops of superglue.

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  7. Can anyone read the site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The font they use is atrocious, I can't read the article at all.

    1. Re:Can anyone read the site? by QilessQi · · Score: 2

      Try Readability:

      http://readability.com/

      Also available as a browser plug-in.

  8. A Coincedence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I starting reading this article, and five minutes later my Google Mail connection goes out with Temporary Error (500). I understand I can't come to any conclusions without reproducibility, so please post below if you experience something similar.

  9. I carry it with me by ackthpt · · Score: 0

    Got a mobile phone for one reason, to be able to communicate when necessary in a hurry. I don't gab, I don't purchase, I don't bank, I don't web surf, I don't do anything to compromise any data by my phone. I generally have the ringer off to preserve battery (it's a stupid phone which will run the battery down notifying me the battery is getting low), but it's a basic phone for one use and that use only. I'll keep taking it with me.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:I carry it with me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your location can be tracked even without using data. And some (many? most?) phones now can have their mic activated remotely. Even if you think you have nothing to hide, the powers that be could still try to use your phone to indirectly wiretap your poker buddy because he went to an Occupy/Tea Party protest. Or your corporate competitor might figure out how to do the same thing.

    2. Re:I carry it with me by Jon_Hanson · · Score: 1

      Please site your source for the "mic can be remotely activated on a cell phone." I believe this to be an urban legend and have never seen proof of this.

  10. Get that 40% off from ATT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. AT&T ditched their pay phones because they didn't make any money.

    2 . hardlines - they WANT you to keep them! Really! Case in point: when I called to drop my hardline ATT immediately, without asking, cut roughly 40% off of my bill to keep me on ($95 [with internet] down to $60). Reason given by customer retention person - "We DON'T want you to give up your landline!".

    Sunk costs indeed.

    After hearing that they could have reduced my bill at anytime, I told them that I was not interested. Cancel immediately. Thank you.

    Firm and cold stops all salespeople in their tracks - no emotion is the key.

    1. Re:Get that 40% off from ATT!!!! by f3rret · · Score: 2

      1. AT&T ditched their pay phones because they didn't make any money.

      2 . hardlines - they WANT you to keep them! Really! Case in point: when I called to drop my hardline ATT immediately, without asking, cut roughly 40% off of my bill to keep me on ($95 [with internet] down to $60). Reason given by customer retention person - "We DON'T want you to give up your landline!".

      Sunk costs indeed.

      After hearing that they could have reduced my bill at anytime, I told them that I was not interested. Cancel immediately. Thank you.

      Firm and cold stops all salespeople in their tracks - no emotion is the key.

      Well no company that relies more or less entirely on subscription fees will never want you to cancel one of their subscriptions. Doesn't mean they wont stop marketing them as heavily though-

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  11. Agreed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having recently had a work issued cell phone and a work issued computer confiscated at the border, I completely agree.

    1. Re:Agreed. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Why would they confiscate your phone and computer at the border? Was this the US border?

  12. Take your phone, turn it off by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    Keep your phone on you, powered down. Or powered up in airplane mode (cell, gps, wifi turned off) if the phone has it. (Advantage is that "airplane mode" is usually instant on.)

    This is assuming that you're carrying a phone that can be powered down. If not, I agree; leave it at home. Or get a different phone.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't just turn it off. Remove the battery. Oh wait!

    2. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      Keep your phone on you, powered down. Or powered up in airplane mode (cell, gps, wifi turned off) if the phone has it.

      That would make cell-phones nearly useless. Nobody could reach you quickly. Imagine if everyone you wanted to reach quickly also did this.

    3. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep your phone on you, powered down.

      And when they will need to tap it, they will activate it...

    4. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You need to be available 24/7 because you are waiting for that new kidney. Right?
      Call and leave a message. Conversation should be done in person or over a land line. My friends that want to chat over a cell phone irritate me. The poor sound quality from iPhones is annoying.

    5. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? It appears the world, and more than enough people, survived until the age of cellphone ubiquity. Turning off ones cellphone will not destroy the universe.

    6. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody could reach you quickly

      You make this sound like a bad thing. Its *my* phone *I* pay the bills on it. I answer when I feel like it. Is it annoying to others? You bet. But you know what is more annoying? "Why didnt you answer your phone when *I* called?" I'm sorry do you pay for it again? I'm busy and the phone is not my life.

    7. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor sound quality from cellphones is annoying.

      Fixed that for you.

    8. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by trev.norris · · Score: 1

      I hear and read glimpses that the government can enable a tracker inside your phone, even when you have it off. How likely is it that the government can track you even if you phone is in airplane mode?

    9. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Um, mine does not work like that...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a wonderful world you just imagined. Check your messages when you want, and never have your chain yanked by a ringing phone. Yes, we should all move to this mode of cell-phone use.

    11. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Leave a message. (Remember those?) Check your messages at appropriate times. You're still better connected than the time before cell phones.

      My conversations with my teenage daughter are almost entirely via text. She's more comfortable with that than with phone calls, as you can check for and respond to texts when you're not doing something else (like driving), whereas phone calls are more immediate -- they don't work unless both parties are in an environment where they're able to give the conversation their full attention. Moreover, texts and emails are (except for tone, which is difficult to express in text) less vague even in circumstances where voices are difficult to understand.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many people have a real, legitimate need to be contacted instantaneously at all hours of the day? My guess is it's somewhere between zero and none.

    13. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Correct!

      And so, you use your cell phone to send messages in TEXT rather than talk to them directly. It's less prone to misunderstanding, and is more easily queued and accessed from the queue.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    14. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I don't carry a cell phone anymore because it'd be completely useless to me for at least 95% of the time. If I did resume carrying one though I think I'd like to devise a faraday cage type case for it to reside in while not in use.

    15. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      wait what. My phone has a removable battery.

    16. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      wait what. My phone has a removable battery.

      GP was referring to Apple.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      My wife doesn't like cell phones and doesn't want to carry one. I insist she does anyway, powered down because she can't remember to charge it.

      It's already paid off a couple years ago when she had an accident, and twice in the last 18 months when she had car trouble.

      So yeah, I'm still in favor of carrying it when you can, keep it off when appropriate.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    18. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I hear and read glimpses that the government can enable a tracker inside your phone, even when you have it off. How likely is it that the government can track you even if you phone is in airplane mode?

      Good question. I think it depends on what one means by "off". The feature would have to be built into the phone -- that "airplane mode" still included the ability to periodically ping cell towers. I'm thinking that (a) it's unlikely that the FAA would allow such a feature, and (b) even if they were somehow bought off (being a government agency and all) and assuming such a feature was actually designed into the phones, some hardware geek would have discovered it by now.

      You wouldn't even be able to have the phone on "receive only" (not pinging the cell tower, but passively awaiting a signal from our overlords) and be undetectable -- there is always some kind of emission from a radio, usually the local oscillator used to mix down the signal.

      Now, *I've* heard rumors that it's impossible to turn an i-phone completely off other than let the battery be completely exhausted. But I suspect it's an urban legend.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    19. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much good will it do to you - doesn't anybody know these n00b days, that since day one cell phones have had a remote power on feature, as long (obviously) as the battery is inside. Try this: power off your cell phone, put it next to a sensitive radio receiver and wait for a couple of minutes. And n00b be surprised, when you hear your "powered off" cellphone chatting with base station. It's called a control channel, which helps your cell phone roam to the nearest base station. And it *can* be monitored. And it's two-way. Go google CCC (Computer Chaos Club), and you'll learn of much more innovative and scary remote hacks that can be done to your cell fones.
      Oh yeah, and it's not only the govts that can do these things. Think Murdoch and spying on certain royalties.

    20. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by trev.norris · · Score: 1

      Awesome. That gives me a little stronger sense of security when I put my phone in airplane mode.

    21. Re:Take your phone, turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I often carry a switched-off phone. I can see no need for people to be able to instantly contact me at all hours of the day or night. Much of the time when I am not at home, it would be highly inconvenient for me to answer a call, and the nagging awareness of a missed call indication on the phone would be frustrating and distracting. By switching the phone off completely, I can avoid all this hassle and deal with communications at a time that suits me.

      Furthermore, if I receive a voice or text message, I have time to consider my position before responding. If I have to formulate a response on the spot, it tends to be of lower quality and takes longer to communicate because I have to think it through in real time.

      Indeed, this is actually one of the benefits of a cellular telephone over a fixed-line one. You don't see many landline handsets with an "off" switch.

      I'm not convinced that switching off a cell phone prevents tracking. I often find that my old Nokia phone has switched itself on when I'm not looking, even though to manually switch it on requires a fiddly button press and entry of a PIN. I think that may be more down to its age and decrepit state than some government conspiracy, but it would certainly throw a spanner in the works of any tracking avoidance intentions.

  13. Blessings on Jacob and Julian by sgt_doom · · Score: 2

    And please let us not forget one of the overriding stories against free speech and transparency:

    http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf

    http://www.whale.to/b/gelbspan_b.html

    And blessings on Jacob for everything he's done and is still doing.

  14. a much better idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Or, put your phone in a RF-blocking container like a Faraday mesh sleeve (not expensive) and then if you do want to use it, pull it out and use it. That's obviously superior to leaving it at home. You could just pull the battery too.

    1. Re:a much better idea by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      Kinda makes it hard to get any incoming calls, messages, etc...

    2. Re:a much better idea by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Why go to all those troubles when the off button would work just as well?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:a much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because phones aren't actually off. They just look like they are off.

    4. Re:a much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, put your phone in a RF-blocking container like a Faraday mesh sleeve (not expensive) and then if you do want to use it, pull it out and use it. That's obviously superior to leaving it at home. You could just pull the battery too.

      Is this real or sarcasm? Do you have a source where I can buy one?

    5. Re:a much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I don't know of any modern phone that doesn't completely turn off with the power button. Obviously, there is an IC either monitoring or awaiting a hardware interrupt on the power button, but those are running a ridiculously small duty-cycle, i.e. it just samples the state of the power button once every second.

    6. Re:a much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, no, see, it transmits your GPS coordinates to a monitoring station while "off" all the time and magically does this without draining any battery power or emitting detectable RF.

    7. Re:a much better idea by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Have you seen how long it takes for a modern phone to turn on? You may as well leave it home. (I think my iPhone takes several times longer than my desktop to cold boot).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:a much better idea by RubberDuckie · · Score: 2

      He's right, you can get one here. Of course I've probably placed myself on some government agency watch list by posting this.

    9. Re:a much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much point to it other than to know if you are being watched.

      If you leave your phone on, it'll devour your battery life as it tries in vain to find a tower to connect to. Cell phones are designed like this. If its off or in airplane mode, this should pose no issue whatsoever. However if it is off or in airplane mode and still eating through the battery life... ...you might wanna watch what you say and who you call.

    10. Re:a much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, you can make your own -- dissect some old yellow ethernet cable (10BASE5) and sandwich the braid in the middle of your garden-variety duct-tape wallet or bag construction. Or use aluminum foil. Or what the fuckever you like -- cell phones all have wavelengths of at least 10cm, so it's not like you've gotta close every last gap flawlessly, just make sure the whole thing is electrically continuous with no big loops.

      Second, yes, you can buy them all over. But if you're too lame to make one, and too lame to ask the fucking google where to buy, I'm having a hard time seeing why any of us should help you.

    11. Re:a much better idea by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Or, put your phone in a RF-blocking container like a Faraday mesh sleeve (not expensive) and then if you do want to use it, pull it out and use it. That's obviously superior to leaving it at home. You could just pull the battery too.

      Or you could get an iPhone and just hold it by the antenna.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:a much better idea by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Why go to all those troubles when the off button would work just as well?

      It's a fashion accessory issue. Faraday envelopes can double as hats just in case. And with a powered-on phone inside a faraday envelope, you wouldn't need to wear a watch anymore -- completely covered in tin foil.

  15. What about ... by aliquis · · Score: 3

    Put your device into wifi mode, only use open access points and communicate over tor?

    More people should leave their access points open for the greater good. Or have one open and one closed for their personal use.

    Too bad that's not the case =p

    1. Re:What about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but what if I don't want your torrent downloads coming from my IP?

  16. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whew, thanks! If it wasn't for your sarcastic dismissal of the police state, I'd STILL be thinking I live in one, and I'd STILL assume that government is untrustworthy by default. I'm a changed man, thanks to you!

    Sometimes it almost seems like the complacent have more hatred for the paranoid than the authorities who conduct the actual oppression. Here's some food for thought: the usual difference between a complacent and a paranoid is that the paranoid has first-hand experience.

    1. Re:Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, thats deep.

  17. Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who thinks leaving a cell phone at home, powered off, or in airplane mode is an option obviously doesn't have a wife.

    1. Re:Yeah right. by iONiUM · · Score: 1

      Or.. anyone, at all. Many of the suggestions on Slashdot about avoiding privacy invasions would only be possible if you were a hermit, living in the basement, and having no contact with society.

    2. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, Slashdotters

    3. Re:Yeah right. by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot.

    4. Re:Yeah right. by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that for all of human history up until the late 1990's most of the world lived perfectly happy, fulfilled lives without a cell phone, right? You really don't need to be connected to everyone else all of the time. Try silencing the damned thing once in a while and connect with the meatsacks around you at the moment.

      > living in the basement, and having no contact with society.

      Just the opposite, depending on all this tech too much is what makes you a virtual hermit with no real contact with humans.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it's more sad that so many people think it's impossible to live without a cellphone 24/7.

      ubiquitous cellphones have only been a thing for less than a decade. unless you're 15 years old, i'm sure you can remember a time when you accomplished living without one.

      i personally carry a prepaid cellphone for emergency use, but it's disabled until i need to use it. yeah, no one can call me when i'm out doing things, THE HORROR.

    6. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that as soon as they became widely available, people were willing to pay hundreds of dollars per month for the ability to talk to people on demand rather than play phone tag with landlines? There's a reason this is a wildly successful market and it ain't just the advertising.

      People lived full lives without flush toilets for most of human history, too, but I sure don't want to go back to that. Thanks anyway.

    7. Re:Yeah right. by downhole · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that, if you are a hermit with no contact with society, then Government agencies are very unlikely to care where you are or what you're up to anyways, since nobody else does. The people they want to know all about are the ones who are actively influencing opinion against whatever the Government is trying to do.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    8. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's a huge difference between the improved health benefits gained by upgrading to flush toilets and the simple convenience of cellphones.

      thanks for playing.

    9. Re:Yeah right. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      You do realize that for all of human history up until the late 1990's most of the world lived perfectly happy, fulfilled lives without a cell phone, right? You really don't need to be connected to everyone else all of the time. Try silencing the damned thing once in a while and connect with the meatsacks around you at the moment.

      Amazingly enough, people get very angry when you suggest that - try separating a kid from their cellphone, and you'll get angry calls from their parents about that very aspect ("but what if i need to call my kid?!!?!"). Or suggest that movie theatres block cellphone signals ("doctors need to be alerted!").

      It's as if as a society we've forgotten about the old ways of such. Emergency workers have pagers (which because they're VHF just above aviation bad, goes *really* deep into buildings). And you could always call the school/house/restaurant/other place and have them pass the call onwards in an emergency.

      It's almost as if cellphones got popular and everyone said "screw the old methods" and abandoned it.

    10. Re:Yeah right. by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Did you know that in Victorian Cambridge and London (that I know about for sure) there were several mail collections and deliveries PER DAY, and if even a typical 4 hour turnaround wasn't fast enough there were messenger boys. Australian businessmen paid for underwater cable to allow the late Victorian equivalent of high frequency trading in the futures market of the day (wool, for instance). The Roman Empire depended on a network of staged horses and fast riders, so that in an emergency a message could get from Londinium to Aquae Sulis in a couple of days, when a cart would take a week. People have always wanted to communicate as fast as technology would allow, and there have always been people who would pay a premium for it.

      Now it has been democratised. Indian peasants can use a mobile phone to find the market offering the best price for their produce. Nepalese herders can decide the best time to bring their goats to market. For a lot of people who don't live in the US, the cellular phone is literally transforming their lives. You can only take the attitude you do because you live in a rich society and are insulated from the factors that have held most people in the world back economically. One of those factors is lack of access to fast, reliable communications.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    11. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , then Government agencies are very unlikely to care where you are or what you're up to anyways

      That depends on how much fertilizer you purchase.

    12. Re:Yeah right. by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      I actually remember taking my cell phone with me every time I left home and wasn't looked after. I was under 10 years old, and this was well over a decade ago.

      I also remember a time where my entire class - of 12 year olds - all had cell phones. And this, again, was well over a decade ago.

      Ubiquitous cell phones have been a thing for about two decades by now. You mean 25. It's 2012. You didn't forget again, did you, grandpa? Grandpa?

    13. Re:Yeah right. by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Yes, absolutely. It pisses me off that no one still has a horse and carriage.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    14. Re:Yeah right. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      flush toilets: improves sanitation and hygiene, reduces disease, lengthens human lifespan

      cellphones: does none of the above, contributes to brain cancer, increases traffic accident deaths, decreases human lifespan

      Comparing cellphones to flush toilets doesn't work. Facebook would be a better comparison.

    15. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a lot of people who don't live in the US, the cellular phone is literally transforming their lives. You can only take the attitude you do because you live in a rich society and are insulated from the factors that have held most people in the world back economically. One of those factors is lack of access to fast, reliable communications.

      AT&T, Verizon, T-mobile, Sprint... no wonder cellular phones are transforming the lives of a lot of people who don't live in the US

    16. Re:Yeah right. by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      ... if you are a hermit with no contact with society, then Government agencies are very unlikely to care where you are or what you're up to anyways...

      Randy Weaver would certainly disagree.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    17. Re:Yeah right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thinks leaving a cell phone at home, powered off, or in airplane mode is an option obviously doesn't have a wife.

      Obviously the wife should also be left at home, powered off or in "non transmitting" (airplane) mode, until needed.

      (Posting AC because I don't want to take the risk of my wife getting wind of this post, in which case I'd be out of the home, in airplane mode (literaly), possibly even powered off, faster than you can say "cellphone".

  18. Re:Out-of-touch fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha! he posts as anon coward.

    (oh, wait...)

  19. Re:Out-of-touch fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah just too lazy to register.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Yottabytes by lcampagn · · Score: 1

    "Bamford projects that its processing-capacity may aspire to yottabytes, or 10^24 bytes"

    Let's do some math here.. a 100,000 square-foot room with (let's be generous) 10 meter ceilings has a volume of 9.3e13 mm^3.
    At 1YB, the average data density in the room would be 10 GB/mm^3, with no room left for racks, walking space, ventilation, etc.
    Let's just guess that, optimistically, we can occupy about 1/10th of the total space with storage devices. Then the peak data density is 100GB/mm^3.

    So a storage device with a volume of 2000 cm^3 (roughly the size of a standard hard drive) would have to hold 200 PB each. That exceeds our current capabilities by something like 10,000.

    1. Re:Yottabytes by shippers · · Score: 2

      I can only imagine it's referring to throughput, rather than storage, i.e. the data comes in, gets analysed and is then discarded. Even so, that would require units of time in there, like yottabytes per second or something. I don't know... any excuse to talk in terms of yottas and sound impressive I suppose.

    2. Re:Yottabytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a storage device with a volume of 2000 cm^3 (roughly the size of a standard hard drive)

      That 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew is for drinking, not data storage.

      Seagate said on Monday that it has become the first HDD manufacturer to achieve the milestone storage density of 1 terabit per square inch.

      http://www.tomshardware.com/news/seagate-terabit-milestone-areal-density-HDD,15054.html

      4 platters per drive, inner spindle diameter 1.5 inches, outter diameter 3 inches. Area: 28 square inches per platter per side, or 8 * 28 * 1Tb / 8 = 28TB per drive, 10^12 bytes, then. So we need 10^12 disks. If a disk takes up, roughly, 3.5 x 8 x 1 inch, 28 cubic inches (why does 28 keep coming up??), we reach this in about 35 billion cubic inches, 20 million cubic feet, or 100 000 square feet stacked about 20 stories.

      But not 200PB per drive. How many hard drives in a 2 liter bottle? About 8-12. Divide 200PB by that. Maybe 15PB each.

      Just think about the query time and processing to comb that database..

  23. Driving while black by tepples · · Score: 2

    How should one never attract the interest of law enforcement while, for example, law enforcement officers continue to practice unofficial racial profiling?

    1. Re:Driving while black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be very, very white. Short hair helps too.

    2. Re:Driving while black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By being white, obviously.

    3. Re:Driving while black by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      No, very very anything attracts attention.

    4. Re:Driving while black by snspdaarf · · Score: 2

      Now, read this in an Elmer Fudd voice

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  24. Ten Years of Being Cell Phone Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been ten years since I owned and used a cell phone. At times its awkward when you're being asked for contact information, but I really don't care. Occasionally it makes life a bit more difficult as one has to plan and can't exactly be spontaneous. But pressure keeps building to get one.

    I see it also as sort of a zen thing. No electronic leash or Pavlov bell sort of thing. Just peace and serenity. If you want to contact me, send an email and I'lll respond at some later point.

    1. Re:Ten Years of Being Cell Phone Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No electronic leash

      email

      So, you're just using an older and slower form, your not leash free there buddy.

    2. Re:Ten Years of Being Cell Phone Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No electronic leash

      email

      So, you're just using an older and slower form, your not leash free there buddy.

      Ah, but no one cares WHEN if EVER you answer their email versus the phone/cell phone where an immediate response is
      expected

  25. No open access points in range by tepples · · Score: 1

    The wi-fi capability is all you need to maintain communications with the outside world in most urban environments

    But not for seeking roadside assistance, in my experience (Fort Wayne, Indiana). And even once at the destination, there are still lots of places where Wi-Fi is explicitly for employees only.

  26. Pandering to the base, I see by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    ...would only be possible if you were a hermit, living in the basement, and having no contact with society.

    All the time we get "Why the hell is this posted on slashdot?" Here, it seems, is an article aimed directly at the core demographic.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Pandering to the base, I see by iONiUM · · Score: 1

      Yea, because the core demographic is going to not take their cellphone travelling....

      The warning might be correct, but the solution is not reasonably possible for most "normal" people.

  27. ENTRAPMENT by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    You are just trying to trick into leaving an easily trackable trace of my blood rich in succelent DNA everywhere I go... granted not very far with me spurting blood from where once my fingers were but still, police could track me to my corpse!!!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:ENTRAPMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, we didn't see him officer..... BUT HE HAD NO FINGER TIPS AT THE LAST DIGIT!!!!!!

      Officer: Oh well out of 6 billion people, we actually have this guy on record and know exactly who he is.

      Yeah you're uber secure doing somthing so terribly unique and permanent.

  28. Re:Blessings on Jacob and Julian MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're using the internet, this is the material you must read!

  29. Re:Blessings on Jacob and Julian MOD UP by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but... a PDF? C'mooooooon.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  30. Fuck you, Says Average Person. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    The whole point of a cell phone is to, oh, i don't know, be a cell phone?
    If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Fuck you, Says Average Person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of a cell phone is to, oh, i don't know, be a cell phone?

      If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

      The whole point of a cell phone is to, oh, i don't know, be a cell phone?

      If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

      In Canada we get unlimited data, talk (nation wide), text for $25.00 a month.

      That's cheaper than a land line.

    2. Re:Fuck you, Says Average Person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of a cell phone is to, oh, i don't know, be a cell phone?

      If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

      The whole point of a cell phone is to, oh, i don't know, be a cell phone?

      If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

      In Canada we get unlimited data, talk (nation wide), text for $25.00 a month.

      That's cheaper than a land line.

      And here in Texas, the land line without all the crap (no voicemail, 3 way calling, no long distance) is $15 for service +$7 for taxes/fees versus $45 for the cell phone + $12 in taxes/fees

    3. Re:Fuck you, Says Average Person. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

      Brb, moving to Canada.

      --
      What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    4. Re:Fuck you, Says Average Person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of a cell phone is to, oh, i don't know, be a cell phone?

      If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

      The whole point of a cell phone is to, oh, i don't know, be a cell phone?

      If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

      In Canada we get unlimited data, talk (nation wide), text for $25.00 a month.

      That's cheaper than a land line.

      Which carrier?

    5. Re:Fuck you, Says Average Person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're only going to use it at home, get a land line. They're cheaper.

      In what possible way is a landline cheaper?

  31. Shut Up, Be HAPPY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
    America is now under martial law.
    All constitutional rights have been suspended.
    Stay in your homes.
    Do not attempt to contact loved ones, insurance agents or attorneys.
    Shut up.
    Do not attempt to think or depression may occur.
    Stay in your homes.
    Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
    Anyone caught outside the gates of their subdivision sectors after curfew
    will be shot.
    Remain calm, do not panic.
    Your neighborhood watch officer will be by to collect urine samples in
    the morning.
    Anyone caught interfering with the collection of urine examples will be
    shot.
    Stay in your homes, remain calm.
    The number one enemy of progress is questions.
    National security is more important than individual will.
    All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.
    No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission.
    Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor.
    Shut up, be happy.
    Obey all orders without question.
    The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory.
    Be happy.
    At last everything is done for you.

    1. Re:Shut Up, Be HAPPY by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 1

      Thank you Jello Biafra.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
  32. It's one of those things.. by fa2k · · Score: 1

    Just like with credit cards, it's inherent in the system that phones have to be tracked, so that calls and data can be routed to the right tower. Mobile phones provide a lot of benefit, and there is no credible alternative, so people will use them.

  33. Ted Kaczynski tried that by swb · · Score: 1

    ...and it didn't work out so well for him in the long run.

    1. Re:Ted Kaczynski tried that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it didn't work out so well for him ...

      He was caught precisely because of his messages. Demanding publication only caused someone to recognize his manifesto.

  34. Funny, this by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    There's a black guy I know who drives in a normal, non-showoff manner without weaving in and out of traffic or doing U-turns when leaving the kerb. He has a clean driver license. Yes, he drives a BMW. No, he does not get stopped by the police. I wonder why that is?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Funny, this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'cause he is apparently well-off enough to be able to afford a lawyer.

      It's not so much 'DWB' (although that's part of it) a lot more of it is 'DWP' - Driving while [obviously] poor.

      AC

    2. Re:Funny, this by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      Maybe he gets stopped, but doesn't tell you about it because he knows you would not believe him.

  35. Re:Out-of-touch fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I watch you have sex then?

    I've got 30 seconds to kill.

  36. So let's say the worst is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that all everyone fears about government monitoring is true.

    - They (the government) actively track your mobile device, and watch what you do online and other transmitted means
    - They see where you've been, and where you are now via GPS / cell tower triangulation
    - The read through your emails, text messages, all other personal information.

    What then?

    For the average person on the street; not someone who's involved with anything high profile that has the name "hacker" in it, or "wikileaks" or some other thing that may be construed as a potential legal issue (regardless of whether or not you agree with the legality of such activities. It's the state that matters most in terms of caring about laws... If they care about it, then you'd better too) what are the possible outcomes?

    Gestapo showing up to your door to haul you off to prison for mouthing your anti-government rants online or to your friends? Let's just say you were doing something you -knew- was illegal and was actively caught and recorded by "the system" (again, regardless of whether or not you think such an action is legal or not is irrelevant). Assuming it wasn't large scale enough to be noticed by a large group of people (ie. wikileaks) or infringes upon another person (ie. theft), do you really think the cops are going to come storming to your door? No. Even assuming what you did was blatantly illegal and was perfectly recorded for posterity, you have probably a near zero chance of a cop showing up at your door.

    Why? Nobody cares. There aren't enough cops. There aren't enough FBI, NSA, CIA, whatever acronym you want to give. There aren't enough black helicopters and MiB. There are bigger fish to fry then you out there. A lot bigger fish. Fish that actually are trying to do harm to other people, either through direct theft, or indirectly. Wikileaks could very well put real people in danger. Ever think of that? Do you want to be the guy working in the consulate in some tinpot country when its found out you ratted on your boss' murdering of its citizens to another nation?

    Face it, even if 'they' (for whatever value of 'they' you wish to give) had perfect information on you, for 99.9% of the people out there, it wouldn't matter. Police, gov't officials, etc. They're all just people too, and frankly, they have as little interest in finding issues with people who don't need issues found then you do.

    If you think otherwise, I would suggest you go hang out at a police station, get to know your local policemen, CIA folk, etc. Find out what law enforcement and "snooping" is really like, who actually does it, and why. Sadly, you'll probably find that the world just doesn't give a damn enough about you for you to worry about encrypting all your communication from "them."

  37. Yeah, Be An Obedient Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..of the Soviet Republic of America|Russia|England|........

  38. A Bullet Into the Camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..should do the trick. And no, I am not an anarchist, I am not a commie, but I am really pissed off.

  39. So you are "sure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed TOR is not 100% watertight, but it does indeed require the capabilities of national intelligence to de-anonymize TOR reliably. Are they "law enforcement" ? I would call them "military".

  40. Flight Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post opens a new angle on the current push to remove the need for Flight Mode.

    I've been tin-foil oriented since first meeting relational databases with good old dBase. It's not a heavy paranoia, just a practiced caution about leaving minimum data trails. Having a pre-paid phone that turns off, and defaults to Flight Mode has been one aspect of the lifestyle. Looks like that option is one more that's about to be cut off.

  41. On the day by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1
    That you don't want to live with the products of a top down production system, spying to this degree won't be necessary to make sure that everyone only uses their allotment in the permitted ways. As long as you want the products of capital culture, and capital society, and the materials that run them, you are going to be enslaved to the people who you gave permission to control them.

    Everything else, is begging for a collar that does not chafe as much.

  42. Inconvenienced by fear of the state? No. by ArgonautThief · · Score: 1

    Why on earth should I inconvenience myself and leave my means of communication for work and personal requirements at home because I am afraid of the government tracking me? I really don't care if they want to do that and I only feel sorry for the loss of time and resources spent tracking others for no reason and with no benefit whatsoever to national security. Blatant abuse of these capabilities by the authorities might change my opinion but for the moment, it is a non-issue and more like a nagging annoyance than anything else. It's like terrorism, the terrorists only win when YOU are terrorised and inconvenienced.

    --
    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
  43. So, what he f*ck are you doing? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 0

    If you are doing something to become a target of investigation, then yes, leave your cellphone at home.

    However a very large percentage of people generally can go about their day without being accosted by lawyers, cops, and surveillance in general.

    Bottom line is you have to be living some kind of "lifestyle" to warrant surveillance or investigation. Obviously volunteering with wikiLeaks is one of those lifestyle choices that would involve the general annoyances associated with criminal investigation.

    The better advice would be stop volunteering for wikiLeaks and enjoy your cellphone wherever you are.

    I find it ridiculous when people operate on the fringe of the law and assume they are entitled to anonymity and privacy and then offer advice that doesn't apply to the rest of us.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:So, what he f*ck are you doing? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Will Smith. He was just buying some lingerie for his wife like any normal person when weird shit happened and the Feds came after him.

    2. Re:So, what he f*ck are you doing? by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1

      Bottom line is you have to be living some kind of "lifestyle" to warrant surveillance or investigation.

      True, a lifestyle like those of Patrick Henry, John Hancock, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela -- not to omit Jesus Christ, a noted political radical who was executed for sedition. Even those who feel entirely satisfied living in their little constrained boxes benefit from the rare people willing to suffer inconvenience and worse indignities. It's depressing that this isn't obvious to everyone.

  44. Two points ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    1) You are correct in that Joe Sixpack probably has little to fear. Not nothing, but not much*. If you are likely to be 'up to' something, you know who you are. And you are in the minority.

    2) The something that you might be 'up to' does not necessarily have to be criminal or terrorist. Local LE, the FBI (and very probably the CIA, NSA and othet TLAs) are perfectly willing to sell information about VIPs to competitors or investors wishing to get inside information on business deals.

    If I'm going to the movies or the store, I'll bring my cell phone with me. No problem if you want to know what show I'm watching. But if I'm going to meet with some start up business about venture capital funding, the phone stays home. And the cars stay home. I don't need the local busybodies knowing what I'm up to or who I'm speaking to. And local/federal LE agencies are well known for their people moonlighting and feeding their pals intelligence on who's up to what.

    * All you Joe Sixpacks need to worry about your insurance company counting the number of times you visit the liquor store in the event they want to jack up your rates.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  45. The 'off' button does not turn your phone OFF by EnergyScholar · · Score: 2

    Gosh, I thought most people understood this by now. Phones in the OFF state still 'wake up' every now and then and phone home to the cell towers. Which allows your movements to be tracked. 'Off' is NOT really OFF. The only way to make a phone truly OFF is to pull out the battery.

  46. no way of knowing by Chirs · · Score: 1

    The phone could theoretically be set up with a back door to periodically wake up and ping the tower.

    1. Re:no way of knowing by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Theoretically anything could do this. Theoretically your automobile could have a hidden tracker device put there by the manufacturer, or your bicycle, or those running shoes that have the flashing LEDs, or the smartchips on credit cards... Maybe that tattoo has an RFID antenna in it...

    2. Re:no way of knowing by nullchar · · Score: 1

      http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html

      Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

      A simple sleep function in an "off" phone to wake up and ping the tower to see if there's some command waiting is pretty low-power, especially if it only does it once an hour or even less frequently.

      Supposedly this dude tested it, but only for half an hour. Would be fun to re-do this experiment on modern "smart" phones over a week-long period:

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2770534/replies?c=37

  47. Answer: Wikileaks by EnergyScholar · · Score: 1

    Jacob gets hassled because he has the gonads to publicly associate with, and represent, Wikileaks. He mostly gets harassed at the US border.

    1. Re:Answer: Wikileaks by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      And border patrol agents are actually looking out for him? Not denying it, but it's pretty disturbing if they have apparatus in place to grab people like this at the border (i.e., non-fugitives) and then have lowly peons harass them just because some politicians don't like them.

  48. you realize of course that there were reasons? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    SMS was available long before email on a phone. It required development to route all the messages (of course that has long since been recouped and now it's a profit center).

    These days if you have a smartphone with a data plan there is very little need for SMS--unless you need to message someone like my dad who doesn't have a smartphone but does have ulimited SMS.

  49. I can only think of one time when that's true by Chirs · · Score: 1

    and it's if the wife is in labour. Any other time it should be possible for messages to wait until it is convenient to check them.

    We did manage to make do for hundreds of thousands of years without being on-call at all times.

  50. my mom's a midwife and wishes she had a pager by Chirs · · Score: 1

    The pager she used to have would go weeks on a set of batteries. Now it's an iphone and she needs to constantly check whether someone called while she was away from the phone, and it needs charging almost every day. (This sounds silly, but when you can be on duty for 30hrs straight a phone that needs charging after 24hrs can be a real problem.)

  51. Not such a good idea... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall that cell phones work harder to establish a connection with a local tower when they're out of range and it wears down the battery faster-- I've noticed this effect myself. Best turn it off and save the battery charge instead of shielding it.

  52. depends where you live by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Around here cell phone are still not ubiquitous in elementary schools. Popular certainly, but not *everywhere*.

  53. actually, they're not by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Around here a basic landline runs at least $25/month. I can get a really basic cell plan for $15.

  54. Hey I've seen him on "TV" by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    He's on the Julian Assange show which may just be on Youtube. Cool show.

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  55. soft or hard style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you're a political activist then by all means leave your cell phone at home. If you're not who cares?

    There's more than one way to skin a cat, but if you go head to head with the government they will mess with you. You could always be subversive is much subtler arguably more effective ways, but not everyone is here to employ soft methods.

    Especially when you're a guy like Jake...

  56. Anyone Else Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else ever suspect that Applebaum is part of Anonymous or AntiSec? Some of his rants online sound a whole lot like some of the rants from Anonymous on pastebin. And he is known to be pretty much a radical politically. Just sayin'.

    1. Re:Anyone Else Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't surprise me, but then again he may look down on them.

  57. I agree... by clong83 · · Score: 1

    But for an entirely different reason. I simply like not having it around sometimes. It forces me to have a distinct plan when I leave the house. I must know exactly where I am going, who I am meeting, what I am buying from the store, etc. Minor issues, for sure, but the psychological impact is important. I immediately feel "off the grid" somewhat, and it provides a nice freedom. Never had an "emergency" that was so important it didn't wait till I got back.

    Security/privacy is a real issue, but I don't see how taking it to the store/not taking it to the store makes any real difference. So they know you went to the store/movies? I'm not really okay with that, but stop and think about it for a moment. Whether or not you took it with you, they could probably gather most of the same info from your texts and phone calls anyhow. So unless you never use your cell phone to make any plans, and never take it with you anywhere, they can pretty well figure out what you are up to. If you are that paranoid, you should be primarily communicating by carrier pigeon. As a corollary, if you use your cell phone to make plans to do something illegal, you're an idiot.

  58. Too extreme by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 2

    That's too extreme. Just leave all your microwave-transmitting information devices inside the microwave oven, which wil probably be the "deadest" spot inside your house. If your microwave is safe enough to bake a potato, it won't leak enough microwaves for you or the FBI to use YOUR cellphone.

    Incidentally, texting or calling a cellphone placed inside a hopefully inactive microwave oven is a crude way to test for possible leaks in the oven's protective coating.

  59. Or, better yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get involved in leaking government secrets in the first place.

    Seriously. The last airline trip that I went on, I forgot that I had a loaded pistol magazine in one compartment of my backpack. Other than some questions and paperwork, it resulted in nothing.

    This guy didn't get picked out at random. He got picked out because he has been tied up with an organization that involved itself in illegal activity. Work for a criminal organization, the government comes after you. Imagine that!

  60. I've got a better idea by Zorque · · Score: 1

    How about I stop pretending I'm important in any way, take my cellphone with my like a normal person, and live a life free of fear and paranoia?

  61. Take out the battery or wrap it in foil by moonwatcher2001 · · Score: 1

    They can't track a phone with no battery. If you can't remove the battery wrap it in foil - they can't track a phone that has no signal.

  62. Not So, Tracking ability was hyped early on by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    We must read different journals. Well before it was implemented, the tracking ability was hyped as a safety issue for 911 calls as well as fire and police. They claimed they would be able to track a phone to not only geographic coordinates, but to the floor as well in an apartment building. They neglected to say that anyone with access or the equipment (Like divorce lawyers, police, government, terrorists...etc) can track a particular phone in real time. People don't realize that as long as the phone is on it is transmitting to the towers as well as listening. You can turn the things off which I do in the car or plane, or pull the battery if you are paranoid. Remember that most of the population is completely clueless about anything technical. When cell phones came out most though of them as just another telephone, not a radio transceiver than anyone with a receiver that covered those frequencies could hear. Instead of encryption, the FCC made it illegal to sell receivers that covered those frequencies (cellular blocked) once again protecting ignorance.