4 ms·

Old, old news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-gchq-smartphone-app-angry-birds-personal-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-g

Old, old news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-gchq-smartphone-app-angry-birds-personal-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-gchq-smartp...

epistasis 11y ago
Yes, but it certainly bears repeating, until it is also widely known.
- cheepin 11y ago
  Personally, I did not remember this capability until I saw this article, and I've followed the whole deal a lot closer than my circle of friends. People either don't know or don't care and don't know that they should care. In the presidential debates and primary campaigns, how many times did you see someone say that this is a major issue? I can definitely point to presidential hopefuls making the opposite point, however.
corin_ 11y ago
Have only skimmed your link, don't have time to read right now, but at a glance it seems to be entirely about passively spying on data being communicated, whereas this new claim is that they can actively take control of your phone remotely, which is pretty different. Forgive me if more time reading would have made this comment irrelevant. Will be coming back to this thread later and reading more.
- jgrahamc 11y ago
  Why bother composing a response like that without reading the article I posted?
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    I read your article in full. It is mostly about the broad collection of data passively (e.g. from smartphone apps, or other leaky sources). It has two slides at the bottom hinting at phone plants, but that isn't really what the article is about and it doesn't spend a lot of time talking about them. I'd agree with the above poster, your article is mostly irrelevant if otherwise interesting. I will say a lot has been said about phone plants previously, but your article isn't about that really.
  - sigmar 11y ago
    He already told you the reason, he doesn't have time to read it right now. Did you read the link you posted? Because I read it, and his skimming is 100% accurate. The article talks about Angry Birds, Facebook, google maps, and other social apps leaking personal data by transmitting it over the internet and being intercepted. Completely different from the new BBC article.
acaloiar 11y ago
I believe the salient claim here is the exploitability of smartphones via SMS, a la Stagefright. The Guardian article makes no such claim.

Old, old news: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-gchq-smartphone-app-angry-birds-personal-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/nsa-gchq-smartp...

epistasis 11y ago

Yes, but it certainly bears repeating, until it is also widely known.

cheepin 11y ago
Personally, I did not remember this capability until I saw this article, and I've followed the whole deal a lot closer than my circle of friends. People either don't know or don't care and don't know that they should care. In the presidential debates and primary campaigns, how many times did you see someone say that this is a major issue? I can definitely point to presidential hopefuls making the opposite point, however.

corin_ 11y ago

Have only skimmed your link, don't have time to read right now, but at a glance it seems to be entirely about passively spying on data being communicated, whereas this new claim is that they can actively take control of your phone remotely, which is pretty different. Forgive me if more time reading would have made this comment irrelevant. Will be coming back to this thread later and reading more.

jgrahamc 11y ago
Why bother composing a response like that without reading the article I posted?
- Someone1234 11y ago
  I read your article in full. It is mostly about the broad collection of data passively (e.g. from smartphone apps, or other leaky sources). It has two slides at the bottom hinting at phone plants, but that isn't really what the article is about and it doesn't spend a lot of time talking about them. I'd agree with the above poster, your article is mostly irrelevant if otherwise interesting. I will say a lot has been said about phone plants previously, but your article isn't about that really.
- sigmar 11y ago
  He already told you the reason, he doesn't have time to read it right now. Did you read the link you posted? Because I read it, and his skimming is 100% accurate. The article talks about Angry Birds, Facebook, google maps, and other social apps leaking personal data by transmitting it over the internet and being intercepted. Completely different from the new BBC article.

acaloiar 11y ago

I believe the salient claim here is the exploitability of smartphones via SMS, a la Stagefright. The Guardian article makes no such claim.