3 ms·

Most of your points are great, but I just want to point out that it is not true that your phone can be tracked when it is turned off. That's a misconception tha

by NoPiece 13y ago

Most of your points are great, but I just want to point out that it is not true that your phone can be tracked when it is turned off. That's a misconception that is propagated by a few very poorly written articles that misinterpreted some comments in a court case. No power = no tracking.

roc 13y ago
Isn't the point that not all phones are truly off when the user thinks they're off? i.e. if you can ensure there's no power (removed battery) you can be confident there's no tracking. But if you can't ensure it...
- NoPiece 13y ago
  You are conflating a hypothetical with a real claim. it is hypothetically possible, but it isn't actually true. And you can ensure in many ways. Like measuring the power usage when your phone is off. Like looking at the source code of the operating system.
  - cryptoz 13y ago
    Looking at the source code of the OS does not change anything, as you don't know which compiler was used or even if the same source was indeed compiled. Even further, if you compile it yourself you still don't know since at this stage you clearly wouldn't trust even your compiler.
    - NoPiece 13y ago
      I think you guys are getting lost in the hypothetical vs the reality. Is it hypothetically possible, yes. Is there any evidence it is true, no. See my comment below to see how cnet confused a physical bug with some inherent bugging capability of the phone. Even in the hypothetical, don't you think someone would have identified the "bug" by now? It would need to draw power while the phone is off, that would be measurable. It would need software on the phone. Even without the source code, the bug could be found in the OS or firmware. Do you think the FBI is working with ever phone manufacturer to install this and no one ever leaked that info? There isn't one piece of evidence that it is actually true.
  - gcr 13y ago
    The version of Android bundled with several cell phone manufacturers' smartphones isn't open source. In many cases, it's not possible to just check out Google's tree and build it on your Samsung; you still have to fiddle with proprietary hardware modules, etc. That said, i would only trust my cell phone to be off if I took out the battery.
jfoutz 13y ago
You need to actually remove the battery. Apparently software can make the phone "appear" off but not actually be off. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
- NoPiece 13y ago
  That's exactly the bad article that started the misconception. This is a case where you need to let common sense override your trust in journalists. You are probably smarter than them, you know more about tech and phones than them, don't trust them when they write stuff that doesn't make sense. Even if it were true don't you think some hacker woud have verified it by now? Offered a hack to stop it? They haven't because the article is dumb and wrong, and CNet should retract it. I'll cite the source cnet lazily misinterpreted if you give me a minute.
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    Here is the original source, the court memorandum. You can see how grossly irresponsible/lazy/stupid Cnet was. Note that it is VERY clear that the government is asking to install a physical bug into a phone that works when the phone is off. It has nothign to do with the inherent hardware of the phone. http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20061127_0000842.SNY.htm/qx http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.2... Judge Jones granted the application, authorizing continued interception at the four restaurants and the installation of a listening device in Ardito's cellular telephone. The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be.

by NoPiece 13y ago

roc 13y ago

Isn't the point that not all phones are truly off when the user thinks they're off? i.e. if you can ensure there's no power (removed battery) you can be confident there's no tracking. But if you can't ensure it...

NoPiece 13y ago
You are conflating a hypothetical with a real claim. it is hypothetically possible, but it isn't actually true. And you can ensure in many ways. Like measuring the power usage when your phone is off. Like looking at the source code of the operating system.
- cryptoz 13y ago
  Looking at the source code of the OS does not change anything, as you don't know which compiler was used or even if the same source was indeed compiled. Even further, if you compile it yourself you still don't know since at this stage you clearly wouldn't trust even your compiler.
  - NoPiece 13y ago
    I think you guys are getting lost in the hypothetical vs the reality. Is it hypothetically possible, yes. Is there any evidence it is true, no. See my comment below to see how cnet confused a physical bug with some inherent bugging capability of the phone. Even in the hypothetical, don't you think someone would have identified the "bug" by now? It would need to draw power while the phone is off, that would be measurable. It would need software on the phone. Even without the source code, the bug could be found in the OS or firmware. Do you think the FBI is working with ever phone manufacturer to install this and no one ever leaked that info? There isn't one piece of evidence that it is actually true.
- gcr 13y ago
  The version of Android bundled with several cell phone manufacturers' smartphones isn't open source. In many cases, it's not possible to just check out Google's tree and build it on your Samsung; you still have to fiddle with proprietary hardware modules, etc. That said, i would only trust my cell phone to be off if I took out the battery.

jfoutz 13y ago

You need to actually remove the battery. Apparently software can make the phone "appear" off but not actually be off. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

NoPiece 13y ago
That's exactly the bad article that started the misconception. This is a case where you need to let common sense override your trust in journalists. You are probably smarter than them, you know more about tech and phones than them, don't trust them when they write stuff that doesn't make sense. Even if it were true don't you think some hacker woud have verified it by now? Offered a hack to stop it? They haven't because the article is dumb and wrong, and CNet should retract it. I'll cite the source cnet lazily misinterpreted if you give me a minute.
- NoPiece 13y ago
  Here is the original source, the court memorandum. You can see how grossly irresponsible/lazy/stupid Cnet was. Note that it is VERY clear that the government is asking to install a physical bug into a phone that works when the phone is off. It has nothign to do with the inherent hardware of the phone. http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20061127_0000842.SNY.htm/qx http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.2... Judge Jones granted the application, authorizing continued interception at the four restaurants and the installation of a listening device in Ardito's cellular telephone. The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be.