5 ms·

The only things in my pocket are my wallet and keys. My phone[1] could probably be used for remote surveillance, but without a warrant, that's a crime. Note: i

by pdkl95 7y ago

The only things in my pocket are my wallet and keys. My phone[1] could probably be used for remote surveillance, but without a warrant, that's a crime. Note: intent and expectations matter. A cellphone by itself (without any type of "voice assistant" app or feature) is only intended to record audio when it's being used to make a call. Yes, malicious actors or buggy software could enable the microphone, but that's not the expected behavior of the device. Kyllo v United States is all about what the public understands and expects about a technology. [1] https://www.cdw.com/product/att-trimline-210-corded-phone/3043715 https://www.cdw.com/product/att-trimline-210-corded-phone/30...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
capableweb 7y ago
> The only things in my pocket are my wallet and keys. My phone[1] could probably be used for remote surveillance, but without a warrant, that's a crime. Sure, a bit naive, but I digress. Even if it's illegal, it would be better if it was simply not possible in the first place. It's optionally having that functionality, rather than building solutions considering privacy in the first place. > without any type of "voice assistant" app I don't think you can uninstall Siri or Google Assistant on neither iPhone or Android, so that point is kind of null. Only with root or custom roms you'll be able to do that.
- nikofeyn 7y ago
  you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature.
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    me neither but i have no way of verifying if this is the truth or not without installing a vpn with a firewall and analysing the logs
  - capableweb 7y ago
    > you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature. I wouldn't trust that whatever people who sit in power doesn't have a way of overriding that.
    - anticensor 7y ago
      Those toggles are not inert, it does loudly throw errors if I revoke any permission of Google Play Services
daveFNbuck 7y ago
Cellphones with voice assistants are already in general public use, even if you don't have one. So if general public use is enough to justify warrantless surveillance, we're already there.
- masklinn 7y ago
  A cellphone doesn't necessarily have the voice assistant enabled, and works just fine without it. An Echo, Homepod or Google Home without the voice assistant is basically useless (I don't know whether you can even disabled the VA).
Klinky 7y ago
You're trusting that the microphone is not listening, which is about on par with trusting any device that claims to only store stuff in a local buffer, except when commanded to talk to the cloud. I think to your point, there is possibly more legal protection around wiretaps than voice assistants. However, how many apps have access to the microphone? Are these apps covered by the same protections as making a phone call using POTS? Edit: I see you've linked that your phone is an old-school landline, which doesn't really help people understand the legalities around smartphones, which many feel are a requirement to daily life.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > You're trusting that the microphone is not listening The point of the original comment is mostly that devices like echos are expected to always be listening, and this has legal implication.
  - Klinky 7y ago
    Can the police right now go to Amazon and demand to listen to anyone's Alexa in real-time? Can the NSA go to any landline provider, and demand a secret list of a person's entire call history(or they may already have this already)? The biggest profile case where Alexa audio recordings got turned over was during a murder trial after a judge's orders. I am not entirely clear that the ramifications of Kyllo v. United States are as dire as OP is stating for Alexa-like devices. How exactly do the police freely gain access to a "in general public use" Alexa-like device that is secured through something like an Amazon account and secured WPA password-protected WiFi network? Amazon would have to turn over credentials or the police would have to hack your account or WiFi somehow...
    - cosmodisk 7y ago
      Police- maybe some court decision is required. NSA- I very much doubt so.
      - rhizome 7y ago
NOGDP 7y ago
> My phone[1] could probably be used for remote surveillance, but without a warrant, that's a crime. That's a neat phone, but we already know pretty much all phone communications are intercepted and recorded. This is why I do all of my communications over IPoAC[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  That's all fine and well, but you're still susceptible to a stool pigeon attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3xU0fnjUcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3xU0fnjUcg

by pdkl95 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

capableweb 7y ago

> The only things in my pocket are my wallet and keys. My phone[1] could probably be used for remote surveillance, but without a warrant, that's a crime. Sure, a bit naive, but I digress. Even if it's illegal, it would be better if it was simply not possible in the first place. It's optionally having that functionality, rather than building solutions considering privacy in the first place. > without any type of "voice assistant" app I don't think you can uninstall Siri or Google Assistant on neither iPhone or Android, so that point is kind of null. Only with root or custom roms you'll be able to do that.

nikofeyn 7y ago
you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  me neither but i have no way of verifying if this is the truth or not without installing a vpn with a firewall and analysing the logs
- capableweb 7y ago
  > you have to give explicit permissions for those things. google assistant doesn't work on my phone because i never gave it permission to enable that feature. I wouldn't trust that whatever people who sit in power doesn't have a way of overriding that.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Those toggles are not inert, it does loudly throw errors if I revoke any permission of Google Play Services

daveFNbuck 7y ago

Cellphones with voice assistants are already in general public use, even if you don't have one. So if general public use is enough to justify warrantless surveillance, we're already there.

masklinn 7y ago
A cellphone doesn't necessarily have the voice assistant enabled, and works just fine without it. An Echo, Homepod or Google Home without the voice assistant is basically useless (I don't know whether you can even disabled the VA).

Klinky 7y ago

You're trusting that the microphone is not listening, which is about on par with trusting any device that claims to only store stuff in a local buffer, except when commanded to talk to the cloud. I think to your point, there is possibly more legal protection around wiretaps than voice assistants. However, how many apps have access to the microphone? Are these apps covered by the same protections as making a phone call using POTS? Edit: I see you've linked that your phone is an old-school landline, which doesn't really help people understand the legalities around smartphones, which many feel are a requirement to daily life.

masklinn 7y ago
> You're trusting that the microphone is not listening The point of the original comment is mostly that devices like echos are expected to always be listening, and this has legal implication.
- Klinky 7y ago
  Can the police right now go to Amazon and demand to listen to anyone's Alexa in real-time? Can the NSA go to any landline provider, and demand a secret list of a person's entire call history(or they may already have this already)? The biggest profile case where Alexa audio recordings got turned over was during a murder trial after a judge's orders. I am not entirely clear that the ramifications of Kyllo v. United States are as dire as OP is stating for Alexa-like devices. How exactly do the police freely gain access to a "in general public use" Alexa-like device that is secured through something like an Amazon account and secured WPA password-protected WiFi network? Amazon would have to turn over credentials or the police would have to hack your account or WiFi somehow...
  - cosmodisk 7y ago
    Police- maybe some court decision is required. NSA- I very much doubt so.
    - rhizome 7y ago

NOGDP 7y ago

> My phone[1] could probably be used for remote surveillance, but without a warrant, that's a crime. That's a neat phone, but we already know pretty much all phone communications are intercepted and recorded. This is why I do all of my communications over IPoAC[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers

DonHopkins 7y ago
That's all fine and well, but you're still susceptible to a stool pigeon attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3xU0fnjUcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3xU0fnjUcg