7 ms·

I value the privacy so I don't own or use cellphone.

by ezoe 8y ago

wu-ikkyu 8y ago
How did you post this comment?
- Mikushi 8y ago
  Computers, ever heard of them ?
  - tehwebguy 8y ago
    Parent’s point was probably that the connection used is still traceable
    - roblabla 8y ago
      Your phone is always on you. Your computer, less so.
    - sandov 8y ago
      Except that: 1) If you do it from home, the govt already knows where you live, or you can use proxies, or Tor, or a VPN. 2) If you don't do it from home, you are practically anonymous if you change your mac address and use someone else's wireless network, which are ubiquitous today in airports, restaurants, etc.
      - caf 8y ago
        Another thing that is ubiquitous today in airports, restaurants etc. is CCTV.
        greggarious 8y ago
        > Another thing that is ubiquitous today in airports, restaurants etc. is CCTV. Which is not retained indefinitely. If you're not committing a crime, that footage will be gone in 30-90 days.
        larkeith 8y ago
        It's technically infeasible to locate someone via CCTV unless you have an accurate location already, for precisely this reason - there's a massive surfeit of data to search through, and current facial-recognition software is incapable of the task.
        caf 8y ago
        Sure, but the case here was "we have the IP address, we want to know who was behind it", which is certainly feasible.
  - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
    Haha never :) For someone so paranoid about privacy as to not even own a "dumb" phone, I was curious what type of computer/internet setup they would be using to work around all the privacy traps such as broswer fingerprinting, traffic analysis, deep OS and hardware exploits, linguistic analysis, etc. etc.
    - larkeith 8y ago
      You could probably become effectively impossible to track by getting a Librem laptop (no Intel ME [1], hardware kill-switches), running some variant of Linux, using Tor or a secure VPN, and disabling Javascript (there's probably other ways to reduce fingerprinting, I'm no expert). While it wouldn't erase every hint of your presence, it takes a correlation of data to track someone; disparate trackable info is insufficient. [1] https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/ https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disab...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ymse 8y ago
I lost my phone somewhat recently. It's been great: I read more books, and get a lot less distractions throughout the day. The privacy implication is a huge bonus. The main drawback have been that people rarely label apartment doorbells anymore, so if you don't know which button to press you're in trouble. Another is getting hold of old friends if you don't know their email address (I don't have Facebook either). Overall, I'm fairly content with the situation, and am seriously considering not getting a new one. Another benefit is that I'm more likely to bring my laptop if I go somewhere, and thus when I do connect to the internet and have time to kill, I often get work done instead of mindlessly browsing HN/reddit or playing games.
- Aloha 8y ago
  You must not be looking for work, or for that matter have a job. My phone is indispensable for the kind of work that I do, I literally couldn't do my job without it.
  - l_t 8y ago
    I don't see a strong reason for a software developer to need a phone: - Async communication (slack/email) can be checked at your computer. - Voice calls are usually done with your computer anyway. - If you are on call, an old-fashioned pager can be used. Frankly, although I do have a smartphone, I wouldn't want a job where I was required to use it, or one where I was expected to be available at all times unless on call.
    - MaulingMonkey 8y ago
      Ditto. ~9 months into my current software developer gig and the only time I used it for work was when the company internet was down, and the data service was bad enough that I barely even used it for that. The idea that they anyone "must not [...] for that matter have a job" if they don't miss their phone is bogus.
    - kimdotcom 8y ago
      If email works fine, why have Slack? Does Slack have better uptime than email? Does the office have redundant ISPs?
greggarious 8y ago
> I value the privacy so I don't own or use cellphone. This is a little extreme, but I've started turning off my phone or putting it in airplane mode when not expecting a call. In addition to not being as distracted, I've had a marked decrease in spam calls - I think they tend to mark phones that repeatedly send them straight to VM as "cold".
- pests 8y ago
  The phone being off or it being on airplane is no longer enough. It is known that complete operating systems run on every chip on that phone of which you don't have knowledge of or access to. To think a software security solution provided by an OS, a pretty high-level abstraction when considering hardware, of the ability to turn off the radio is insane in these days and ages. Furthermore with permanent batteries (or with a backup battery hidden inside) being off to the user doesn't mean anything either.
  - greggarious 8y ago
    I'd love to read a source that describes this in more detail. Assuming such an exploit exists, I don't think I'd be targeted with it. It's my understanding three letter agencies tend to hoard that sort of thing, not blast them at random privacy aficionados.
    - bbrian 8y ago
      I remember reading an article years ago: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool (2006). > the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdr...
      - greggarious 8y ago
        Thanks, that seems to apply to older phones. I would hope that the FBI would not override airplane mode on a smart phone... what if they did so while a suspect was actually on a plane? A warrant doesn't give police the right to endanger others IIRC...
packet_nerd 8y ago
I really wish I could do this 100%. I leave it off most of the time, but I have to be on-call for my day job every few weeks and can't really not have a phone then and still keep my job. It's a shame that phones are so closed and proprietary. I looked into changing a phone's IMEI number, and turns out that's illegal in most places and a serious no-no. How can there even be a law like that??
make3 8y ago
the probability of this affecting you if you're not a criminal is probably lower to that of you dying everytime you take your car to go anywhere. It's a really big sacrifice in expected utility.
- KMag 8y ago
  Instead of "criminal", I think you mean "intentionally engaged in an illegal enterprise". From the context, I doubt you mean to restrict the statement to those already convicted of crimes. Beyond that, it's very tough to know if you're currently committing any crimes (or any non-criminal illegal activity), as we don't even know how many laws we have.[0] I agree that the vast majority of those that will have trouble are intentionally engaged in illegal activity. But, at any given time, there must be both fair fair number of people who are unintentionally committing illegal acts and those who are falsely believed by law enforcement to be committing illegal acts. There is an argument to be made that everyone should be more careful about privacy, thereby increasing the cost (and opportunity cost) of invasive investigations and forcing law enforcement to be more selective about the degree of certainty they have before employing more invasive investigation techniques. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

I value the privacy so I don't own or use cellphone.

by ezoe 8y ago

I value the privacy so I don't own or use cellphone.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

How did you post this comment?

Mikushi 8y ago
Computers, ever heard of them ?
- tehwebguy 8y ago
  Parent’s point was probably that the connection used is still traceable
  - roblabla 8y ago
    Your phone is always on you. Your computer, less so.
  - sandov 8y ago
    Except that: 1) If you do it from home, the govt already knows where you live, or you can use proxies, or Tor, or a VPN. 2) If you don't do it from home, you are practically anonymous if you change your mac address and use someone else's wireless network, which are ubiquitous today in airports, restaurants, etc.
    - caf 8y ago
      Another thing that is ubiquitous today in airports, restaurants etc. is CCTV.
      - greggarious 8y ago
        > Another thing that is ubiquitous today in airports, restaurants etc. is CCTV. Which is not retained indefinitely. If you're not committing a crime, that footage will be gone in 30-90 days.
      - larkeith 8y ago
        It's technically infeasible to locate someone via CCTV unless you have an accurate location already, for precisely this reason - there's a massive surfeit of data to search through, and current facial-recognition software is incapable of the task.
        caf 8y ago
        Sure, but the case here was "we have the IP address, we want to know who was behind it", which is certainly feasible.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  Haha never :) For someone so paranoid about privacy as to not even own a "dumb" phone, I was curious what type of computer/internet setup they would be using to work around all the privacy traps such as broswer fingerprinting, traffic analysis, deep OS and hardware exploits, linguistic analysis, etc. etc.
  - larkeith 8y ago
    You could probably become effectively impossible to track by getting a Librem laptop (no Intel ME [1], hardware kill-switches), running some variant of Linux, using Tor or a secure VPN, and disabling Javascript (there's probably other ways to reduce fingerprinting, I'm no expert). While it wouldn't erase every hint of your presence, it takes a correlation of data to track someone; disparate trackable info is insufficient. [1] https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/ https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disab...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

ymse 8y ago

I lost my phone somewhat recently. It's been great: I read more books, and get a lot less distractions throughout the day. The privacy implication is a huge bonus. The main drawback have been that people rarely label apartment doorbells anymore, so if you don't know which button to press you're in trouble. Another is getting hold of old friends if you don't know their email address (I don't have Facebook either). Overall, I'm fairly content with the situation, and am seriously considering not getting a new one. Another benefit is that I'm more likely to bring my laptop if I go somewhere, and thus when I do connect to the internet and have time to kill, I often get work done instead of mindlessly browsing HN/reddit or playing games.

Aloha 8y ago
You must not be looking for work, or for that matter have a job. My phone is indispensable for the kind of work that I do, I literally couldn't do my job without it.
- l_t 8y ago
  I don't see a strong reason for a software developer to need a phone: - Async communication (slack/email) can be checked at your computer. - Voice calls are usually done with your computer anyway. - If you are on call, an old-fashioned pager can be used. Frankly, although I do have a smartphone, I wouldn't want a job where I was required to use it, or one where I was expected to be available at all times unless on call.
  - MaulingMonkey 8y ago
    Ditto. ~9 months into my current software developer gig and the only time I used it for work was when the company internet was down, and the data service was bad enough that I barely even used it for that. The idea that they anyone "must not [...] for that matter have a job" if they don't miss their phone is bogus.
  - kimdotcom 8y ago
    If email works fine, why have Slack? Does Slack have better uptime than email? Does the office have redundant ISPs?

greggarious 8y ago

> I value the privacy so I don't own or use cellphone. This is a little extreme, but I've started turning off my phone or putting it in airplane mode when not expecting a call. In addition to not being as distracted, I've had a marked decrease in spam calls - I think they tend to mark phones that repeatedly send them straight to VM as "cold".

pests 8y ago
The phone being off or it being on airplane is no longer enough. It is known that complete operating systems run on every chip on that phone of which you don't have knowledge of or access to. To think a software security solution provided by an OS, a pretty high-level abstraction when considering hardware, of the ability to turn off the radio is insane in these days and ages. Furthermore with permanent batteries (or with a backup battery hidden inside) being off to the user doesn't mean anything either.
- greggarious 8y ago
  I'd love to read a source that describes this in more detail. Assuming such an exploit exists, I don't think I'd be targeted with it. It's my understanding three letter agencies tend to hoard that sort of thing, not blast them at random privacy aficionados.
  - bbrian 8y ago
    I remember reading an article years ago: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool (2006). > the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/ https://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdr...
    - greggarious 8y ago
      Thanks, that seems to apply to older phones. I would hope that the FBI would not override airplane mode on a smart phone... what if they did so while a suspect was actually on a plane? A warrant doesn't give police the right to endanger others IIRC...

packet_nerd 8y ago

I really wish I could do this 100%. I leave it off most of the time, but I have to be on-call for my day job every few weeks and can't really not have a phone then and still keep my job. It's a shame that phones are so closed and proprietary. I looked into changing a phone's IMEI number, and turns out that's illegal in most places and a serious no-no. How can there even be a law like that??

make3 8y ago

the probability of this affecting you if you're not a criminal is probably lower to that of you dying everytime you take your car to go anywhere. It's a really big sacrifice in expected utility.

KMag 8y ago
Instead of "criminal", I think you mean "intentionally engaged in an illegal enterprise". From the context, I doubt you mean to restrict the statement to those already convicted of crimes. Beyond that, it's very tough to know if you're currently committing any crimes (or any non-criminal illegal activity), as we don't even know how many laws we have.[0] I agree that the vast majority of those that will have trouble are intentionally engaged in illegal activity. But, at any given time, there must be both fair fair number of people who are unintentionally committing illegal acts and those who are falsely believed by law enforcement to be committing illegal acts. There is an argument to be made that everyone should be more careful about privacy, thereby increasing the cost (and opportunity cost) of invasive investigations and forcing law enforcement to be more selective about the degree of certainty they have before employing more invasive investigation techniques. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE