5 ms·

I don't understand. I hold your opinion in high regard, because your views are almost always well-researched and supported; if not with evidence, then usually w

I don't understand. I hold your opinion in high regard, because your views are almost always well-researched and supported; if not with evidence, then usually with experience. For what it's worth, I strive to express my views with the same quality and clarity as your expressions. So your reply is somewhat disconcerting, because it seems to indicate that you think the claims are bogus. And if you think so, then you have good reason to feel that way, since almost all of your views are, well, reasonable. (An aside: would you please write something articulating your deep hatred for Soylent? It was shocking to discover you felt that way, and that I didn't see anything wrong with Soylent, so I've been silently hoping to someday see a writeup from you in order that I may find reasons to change my own view.) In short, I accepted long ago that there's roughly zero chance of going through life without unintentionally believing in crazy things. Everyone does, at some point. Therefore the most important thing is to keep my eyes open for evidence of my own crazy beliefs, so that I can constantly reevaluate them. So your reply seems to be strong evidence that someone I respect thinks I'm being a bit bogus regarding cell phone tracking. If that's the case, then I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject so that I can revise my own.

seiji 13y ago
Off = powered down = no broadcasting or receiving. Now, in most devices these days you can't be sure "Off" is actually "Off." I bet many Android phones lie about "turning off" and just go into a low-power-with-quick-reboot sleep mode. If you successfully redefine Off to be Maybe Off, nobody can argue with you because you changed the terms of reality.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  To be clear, the claim is the following: There is reason to believe phones have been remotely hacked by law enforcement using carrier credentials to leave the cellular radio running and registering with the cell network even after the off button has been pushed and the phone appears to be off. Starting point for further reading: http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/gps/articles/51103.aspx http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/gps/articles/51103.aspx The claim isn't my own; it's Trevor's, the founder of Anybots, and one of the best electronics hackers in the world. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6087399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6087399 He seems to have a pretty good grasp of reality, and he's more intimately familiar with the electronics than most of us. I also presented some circumstantial evidence indicating that law enforcement does in fact use this capability in practice, the last time this came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722519 If there's fault with this, then I'd like to understand why.
  - seiji 13y ago
    The "off != off" is a good point, but that's still redefining Off a bit. The "capability in practice" you link to is slightly questionable because we have A Dumb Bad Guy claiming they turned their phone off. We don't know the entire story. Regardless of everything here: you are right that phones are out of our control at this point. If you don't want to be found, don't keep anything capable of emitting RF around you (including, but not limited to: phones, laptops, tablets, anything with RFID/NFC embedded, toll collecting car passes, tires with embedded RF transmitters for authentication or tire pressure checks, bluetooth headsets, bluetooth speakers, wifi/bluetooth digital scales, bluetooth hearing aids, ...).
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    There is at least fault with presenting all that assertion and speculation as "Law enforcement absolutely has that capability". The first bit that approaches being evidence is the CNet article linked from the link, and it says Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit (p1) and (p2) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." That phrase could refer to software or hardware. So the absolute proof is a court document that doesn't provide any details about the mechanism used to compromise a dumb phone in 2003.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    You're slipping. You started with even when it's powered off and now you're at appears to be off.
nate_meurer 13y ago
I think Thomas is referring us to the discussion pursuant to that tweet, rather than just the tweet itself. Correct me if I'm wrong :) That discussion goes into the definitions of "off" as they apply here, and Matt Blaze acknowledges (circuitously) that what we think of as "off" could conceivably leave the radio powered.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  My iPad is sitting on the table across the room. Everybody I know, if asked, would say it's off. But it still receives push notifications. Crazy, right?
tptacek 13y ago
I don't have an opinion. I haven't researched this topic. I'm just pointing out that Blaze seems skeptical about the idea that phones can be monitored when powered off. Blaze clearly has researched the topic. I don't have a deep-seated hatred of Soylent, but it is clearly not my favorite YC startup. It's aesthetically incompatible with me, but I think there are valid scientific concerns about the approach as well.

seiji 13y ago

Off = powered down = no broadcasting or receiving. Now, in most devices these days you can't be sure "Off" is actually "Off." I bet many Android phones lie about "turning off" and just go into a low-power-with-quick-reboot sleep mode. If you successfully redefine Off to be Maybe Off, nobody can argue with you because you changed the terms of reality.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
To be clear, the claim is the following: There is reason to believe phones have been remotely hacked by law enforcement using carrier credentials to leave the cellular radio running and registering with the cell network even after the off button has been pushed and the phone appears to be off. Starting point for further reading: http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/gps/articles/51103.aspx http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/gps/articles/51103.aspx The claim isn't my own; it's Trevor's, the founder of Anybots, and one of the best electronics hackers in the world. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6087399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6087399 He seems to have a pretty good grasp of reality, and he's more intimately familiar with the electronics than most of us. I also presented some circumstantial evidence indicating that law enforcement does in fact use this capability in practice, the last time this came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722519 If there's fault with this, then I'd like to understand why.
- seiji 13y ago
  The "off != off" is a good point, but that's still redefining Off a bit. The "capability in practice" you link to is slightly questionable because we have A Dumb Bad Guy claiming they turned their phone off. We don't know the entire story. Regardless of everything here: you are right that phones are out of our control at this point. If you don't want to be found, don't keep anything capable of emitting RF around you (including, but not limited to: phones, laptops, tablets, anything with RFID/NFC embedded, toll collecting car passes, tires with embedded RF transmitters for authentication or tire pressure checks, bluetooth headsets, bluetooth speakers, wifi/bluetooth digital scales, bluetooth hearing aids, ...).
- maxerickson 13y ago
  There is at least fault with presenting all that assertion and speculation as "Law enforcement absolutely has that capability". The first bit that approaches being evidence is the CNet article linked from the link, and it says Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit (p1) and (p2) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." That phrase could refer to software or hardware. So the absolute proof is a court document that doesn't provide any details about the mechanism used to compromise a dumb phone in 2003.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  You're slipping. You started with even when it's powered off and now you're at appears to be off.

nate_meurer 13y ago

I think Thomas is referring us to the discussion pursuant to that tweet, rather than just the tweet itself. Correct me if I'm wrong :) That discussion goes into the definitions of "off" as they apply here, and Matt Blaze acknowledges (circuitously) that what we think of as "off" could conceivably leave the radio powered.

tedunangst 13y ago
My iPad is sitting on the table across the room. Everybody I know, if asked, would say it's off. But it still receives push notifications. Crazy, right?

tptacek 13y ago

I don't have an opinion. I haven't researched this topic. I'm just pointing out that Blaze seems skeptical about the idea that phones can be monitored when powered off. Blaze clearly has researched the topic. I don't have a deep-seated hatred of Soylent, but it is clearly not my favorite YC startup. It's aesthetically incompatible with me, but I think there are valid scientific concerns about the approach as well.