5 ms·

Richard from Privacy International pointed me at these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW It's a faraday cage for you

by simonvc 11y ago

Richard from Privacy International pointed me at these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW It's a faraday cage for you phone. Pop it in and you disappear instantly.

sveiss 11y ago
I'd have thought simply switching the phone off would be easier? Much better on your battery life too, if the phone turns the transmit power up to try and reach a base station.
- alex_duf 11y ago
  I wouldn't feel safe until the battery is removed (which unfortunately isn't possible on most phones anymore) The baseband still has access to your battery when your phone is off.
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    > The baseband still has access to your battery when your phone is off. Citation needed? Because the definition of off, for most phones, is exactly that.
    - kawsper 11y ago
      Snowden didn't want to be in a room with a phone, no matter the state of the phone.
    - tombrossman 11y ago
      Good point, asking for a citation. It's an extraordinary claim and so requires something to back it up. A quick search turns up this quote from a 2013 Washington Post story "By September 2004, a new NSA technique enabled the agency to find cellphones even when they were turned off. JSOC troops called this “The Find,” and it gave them thousands of new targets, including members of a burgeoning al-Qaeda-sponsored insurgency in Iraq, according to members of the unit." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-growth-fueled-by-need-to-target-terrorists/2013/07/21/24c93cf4-f0b1-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-g...
      - nabla9 11y ago
        That WaPo news has been debunked: http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/07/no-nsa-cant-track-phones-even-when-off.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/07/no-nsa-cant-track-phones-e... There is NSA method called 'implant', but it requires installation of software (possibly in the firmware). It's not so easy and it can't be used in large scale.
        tombrossman 11y ago
        Reading the blog post, it definitely does not 'debunk' the Washington Post report. All it does is take issue with Snowden's blanket claim that all mobiles are vulnerable (which is a good point and is one I'm inclined to agree with).
        nabla9 11y ago
        Let's not confuse mass surveillance and targeted surveillance of small number of people. They are two different things. Snowden is right when he says that every phone is vulnerable for targeted surveillance. For people like him, every phone is dangerous even when they are closed. Mass surveillance is different. NSA can't just pick random person and remotely track their phone when it's turned off.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - mryan 11y ago
      This was one of the things revealed by the Snowden leaks. 'Dreamy Smurf handles power management, which according to The Guardian includes "an ability to stealthily activate a phone that is apparently turned off"' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARRIOR_PRIDE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARRIOR_PRIDE
    - grey-area 11y ago
      http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-program.html http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-pro...
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      This capability has been known for many years. From 2006: >"The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added. Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.... I believe (but cannot cite) that this capability became mainstream when E911 & GPS was mandated. This stuff is a big reason why BlackBerry was so critical to regulated industries and public company execs. PIN messaging on legacy BlackBerry was secure between devices on the same BES, and there wasn't a direct linkage to the user's identity, which made it easy to lower the value of metadata collection. The fact that BlackBerry designed around this early on leads me to suspect (as an outside observer with an imagination) that mass metadata collection was known by folks in industry back in the 90s.
      - gherkin0 11y ago
        > The fact that BlackBerry designed around this early on leads me to suspect (as an outside observer with an imagination) that mass metadata collection was known by folks in industry back in the 90s. Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that it was just over-designed for 90s-era threats in a way that hardened it to some more recent threats?
        Spooky23 11y ago
        It is definitely a simpler explanation. Consider however that none of their US based competitors managed to do address those threats in a meaningful way.
      - Perixoog 11y ago
        Maybe referring to a "short message type 0" https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/issues/69 https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/iss...
  - sveiss 11y ago
    If your phone is lying to you about being switched off, then it's already compromised (and you're probably under some highly targeted surveillance already). If I had any evidence this had happened to me, I'd get rid of the phone instead of trusting it under any circumstances. For the example of a protest march, if you're a participant or even a bystander walking home wanting to avoid being caught up in a surveillance dragnet, turning your phone off should be sufficient. You'd probably want to take stronger measures if you were involved in organising the protest, though.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Any number of phones over the years have/had functionality separate from the main OS (and in some cases backed with a small secondary battery) to trigger the phone to wake up to play alarms etc.. Given that the baseband code is totally closed and has total control over the phone, if the physical capability is there all it takes is a suitable vulnerability. I would not trust that any modern smartphone is fully off without yanking the battery.
      - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
        >without yanking the battery // Are you sure they don't have a backup battery or similar that can continue broadcasting your location after you pull the battery. That would be an ideal countermeasure as pulling the battery would be a great indication you may be about to do something "naughty" and you'd likely do such things shortly after too ...
      - Nadya 11y ago
        >I would not trust that any modern smartphone is fully off without yanking the battery. That is not enough. Use a faraday cage. Modern phones have two batteries [0]. [0] http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone6.htm http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone6.htm
    - noir_lord 11y ago
      > stronger measures if you were involved in organising the protest, though. Burner phones bought in cash from one of the little independent shops we have all over (here in the UK anyway) with pre-paid sims - not a new idea I saw it cropping up in fiction 20 or more years ago but still effective, used for a day or two and then dumped. Isn't it tragic that the way you have to protect yourself from the state when organising a legal protest is pretty much the same way you would do it if you where a drug dealer or a terrorist (at least a reasonably smart one).
- mattkevan 11y ago
  If your phone doesn't have a removable battery, how do you know if it's really off?
  - kencausey 11y ago
    Not entirely relevant but note that if a power switch does not have a mechanical difference between the off and on state then there must be an active component that at the very least must monitor the power button to detect presses. I don't really know, but it seems likely that in a smart phone the SOC is used to monitor the power button and it is therefore only ever in a very low power state (sans battery removal). That doesn't of course mean that any radio components are receiving power.
    - tonyedgecombe 11y ago
      I think you could do that in a passive way as well, where the act of pressing the button powers up a circuit that holds the power on.
  - Chris2048 11y ago
    low power devices now exist that can live of small traces of power. Even with the battery removed, how can you be sure it's still not listening?...
    - sleepybrett 11y ago
      This is why you should never take phones into any kind of sensitive meeting or at least put it into a faraday bag.
mseebach 11y ago
Does it work? I bought an RFID-blocking wallet for my passport a while ago, but when I put my work access badge in it, I could open doors just fine.
- hammock 11y ago
  Here's a different one with a few more reviews http://www.amazon.com/Mengshen%C2%AE-3-Pack-Blocker-Shielding-MS-PX01/dp/B00QIEX04K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452877795&sr=8-1&keywords=cell+phone+rf+bag http://www.amazon.com/Mengshen%C2%AE-3-Pack-Blocker-Shieldin...
nabla9 11y ago
Government officials have data mining algorithms that detect patterns in cellphone disappearances. Big city with millions of people. Two or more cellphones disappear when they approach the same part of the city. When this happens few times, you might get flagged.
- rwmj 11y ago
  Good luck separating the signal from the noise of people disappearing into the Tube / buildings / running out of battery.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
knodi123 11y ago
wouldn't that make your phone get hot and then blaze through the battery as it desperately boosts power in order to reach a base station?
hackuser 11y ago
> Richard from Privacy International pointed me at these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW It's a faraday cage for you phone. Pop it in and you disappear instantly. That's not a great solution if I want people to be able to call me.

by simonvc 11y ago

sveiss 11y ago

I'd have thought simply switching the phone off would be easier? Much better on your battery life too, if the phone turns the transmit power up to try and reach a base station.

alex_duf 11y ago
I wouldn't feel safe until the battery is removed (which unfortunately isn't possible on most phones anymore) The baseband still has access to your battery when your phone is off.
- raverbashing 11y ago
  > The baseband still has access to your battery when your phone is off. Citation needed? Because the definition of off, for most phones, is exactly that.
  - kawsper 11y ago
    Snowden didn't want to be in a room with a phone, no matter the state of the phone.
  - tombrossman 11y ago
    Good point, asking for a citation. It's an extraordinary claim and so requires something to back it up. A quick search turns up this quote from a 2013 Washington Post story "By September 2004, a new NSA technique enabled the agency to find cellphones even when they were turned off. JSOC troops called this “The Find,” and it gave them thousands of new targets, including members of a burgeoning al-Qaeda-sponsored insurgency in Iraq, according to members of the unit." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-growth-fueled-by-need-to-target-terrorists/2013/07/21/24c93cf4-f0b1-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-g...
    - nabla9 11y ago
      That WaPo news has been debunked: http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/07/no-nsa-cant-track-phones-even-when-off.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/07/no-nsa-cant-track-phones-e... There is NSA method called 'implant', but it requires installation of software (possibly in the firmware). It's not so easy and it can't be used in large scale.
      - tombrossman 11y ago
        Reading the blog post, it definitely does not 'debunk' the Washington Post report. All it does is take issue with Snowden's blanket claim that all mobiles are vulnerable (which is a good point and is one I'm inclined to agree with).
        nabla9 11y ago
        Let's not confuse mass surveillance and targeted surveillance of small number of people. They are two different things. Snowden is right when he says that every phone is vulnerable for targeted surveillance. For people like him, every phone is dangerous even when they are closed. Mass surveillance is different. NSA can't just pick random person and remotely track their phone when it's turned off.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mryan 11y ago
    This was one of the things revealed by the Snowden leaks. 'Dreamy Smurf handles power management, which according to The Guardian includes "an ability to stealthily activate a phone that is apparently turned off"' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARRIOR_PRIDE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WARRIOR_PRIDE
  - grey-area 11y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-program.html http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-pro...
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    This capability has been known for many years. From 2006: >"The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added. Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.... I believe (but cannot cite) that this capability became mainstream when E911 & GPS was mandated. This stuff is a big reason why BlackBerry was so critical to regulated industries and public company execs. PIN messaging on legacy BlackBerry was secure between devices on the same BES, and there wasn't a direct linkage to the user's identity, which made it easy to lower the value of metadata collection. The fact that BlackBerry designed around this early on leads me to suspect (as an outside observer with an imagination) that mass metadata collection was known by folks in industry back in the 90s.
    - gherkin0 11y ago
      > The fact that BlackBerry designed around this early on leads me to suspect (as an outside observer with an imagination) that mass metadata collection was known by folks in industry back in the 90s. Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that it was just over-designed for 90s-era threats in a way that hardened it to some more recent threats?
      - Spooky23 11y ago
        It is definitely a simpler explanation. Consider however that none of their US based competitors managed to do address those threats in a meaningful way.
    - Perixoog 11y ago
      Maybe referring to a "short message type 0" https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/issues/69 https://github.com/SecUpwN/Android-IMSI-Catcher-Detector/iss...
- sveiss 11y ago
  If your phone is lying to you about being switched off, then it's already compromised (and you're probably under some highly targeted surveillance already). If I had any evidence this had happened to me, I'd get rid of the phone instead of trusting it under any circumstances. For the example of a protest march, if you're a participant or even a bystander walking home wanting to avoid being caught up in a surveillance dragnet, turning your phone off should be sufficient. You'd probably want to take stronger measures if you were involved in organising the protest, though.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Any number of phones over the years have/had functionality separate from the main OS (and in some cases backed with a small secondary battery) to trigger the phone to wake up to play alarms etc.. Given that the baseband code is totally closed and has total control over the phone, if the physical capability is there all it takes is a suitable vulnerability. I would not trust that any modern smartphone is fully off without yanking the battery.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      >without yanking the battery // Are you sure they don't have a backup battery or similar that can continue broadcasting your location after you pull the battery. That would be an ideal countermeasure as pulling the battery would be a great indication you may be about to do something "naughty" and you'd likely do such things shortly after too ...
    - Nadya 11y ago
      >I would not trust that any modern smartphone is fully off without yanking the battery. That is not enough. Use a faraday cage. Modern phones have two batteries [0]. [0] http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone6.htm http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone6.htm
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    > stronger measures if you were involved in organising the protest, though. Burner phones bought in cash from one of the little independent shops we have all over (here in the UK anyway) with pre-paid sims - not a new idea I saw it cropping up in fiction 20 or more years ago but still effective, used for a day or two and then dumped. Isn't it tragic that the way you have to protect yourself from the state when organising a legal protest is pretty much the same way you would do it if you where a drug dealer or a terrorist (at least a reasonably smart one).
mattkevan 11y ago
If your phone doesn't have a removable battery, how do you know if it's really off?
- kencausey 11y ago
  Not entirely relevant but note that if a power switch does not have a mechanical difference between the off and on state then there must be an active component that at the very least must monitor the power button to detect presses. I don't really know, but it seems likely that in a smart phone the SOC is used to monitor the power button and it is therefore only ever in a very low power state (sans battery removal). That doesn't of course mean that any radio components are receiving power.
  - tonyedgecombe 11y ago
    I think you could do that in a passive way as well, where the act of pressing the button powers up a circuit that holds the power on.
- Chris2048 11y ago
  low power devices now exist that can live of small traces of power. Even with the battery removed, how can you be sure it's still not listening?...
  - sleepybrett 11y ago
    This is why you should never take phones into any kind of sensitive meeting or at least put it into a faraday bag.

mseebach 11y ago

Does it work? I bought an RFID-blocking wallet for my passport a while ago, but when I put my work access badge in it, I could open doors just fine.

hammock 11y ago
Here's a different one with a few more reviews http://www.amazon.com/Mengshen%C2%AE-3-Pack-Blocker-Shielding-MS-PX01/dp/B00QIEX04K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452877795&sr=8-1&keywords=cell+phone+rf+bag http://www.amazon.com/Mengshen%C2%AE-3-Pack-Blocker-Shieldin...

nabla9 11y ago

Government officials have data mining algorithms that detect patterns in cellphone disappearances. Big city with millions of people. Two or more cellphones disappear when they approach the same part of the city. When this happens few times, you might get flagged.

rwmj 11y ago
Good luck separating the signal from the noise of people disappearing into the Tube / buildings / running out of battery.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

knodi123 11y ago

wouldn't that make your phone get hot and then blaze through the battery as it desperately boosts power in order to reach a base station?

hackuser 11y ago

> Richard from Privacy International pointed me at these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RRL4XLW It's a faraday cage for you phone. Pop it in and you disappear instantly. That's not a great solution if I want people to be able to call me.