8 ms·

Why one of cybersecurity’s thought leaders uses a pager instead of a smart phone

118 points by doctorshady 12y ago

josho 12y ago
I wonder if we are experiencing the typical adoption curve of security. That is, a technology arrives, we rush to adopt. Then over time we become aware of the consequences of this new technology (eg. loss of privacy) and legislation/policy steps in to correct that gap. This time however I am not convinced that the US will ever be ready to correct the situation (I am more bullish on Europe). It strikes me that the organizations (companies and government departments) gain to much by their new incursions into privacy and data. While these same organizations are also some of the most powerful, so they have the influence to ensure that corrections from legislation and policy remain only superficial.
- doctorshady 12y ago
  I dunno, some of the "solutions" have historically been a little ridiculous. Remember how AMPS networks could be listened to with off the shelf scanners? The solution was to make it illegal to sell scanners that could listen to the 800 MHz band.
- chrisfosterelli 12y ago
  I don't think legislation/policy is the solution. We have seen time and time again that when the government steps in they create ineffective and ridiculous boundaries that do little in practice. Problems like these need to be solved with technology, user friendly and default encryption would go a long way in most of these cases.
  - josho 12y ago
    This is beyond a technology problem. For example, even with encryption everywhere we leak metadata about ourselves. Recent discussions here and elsewhere have shown the value of metadata. Further, at some point data needs to be decrypted for it to be used, so we still need to wrestle with who has the final say over what is allowed with that data, and what are the consequences when the data isn't handled correctly. Currently, most of the rules are governed by companies and consumers have little say over their own information. We've only started to see abuses of this today (e.g. Target as the article references), but the potential for abuse is only growing as we see companies discover new value of their databases.
    - chrisfosterelli 12y ago
      The usefulness of encryption almost always depends on who holds the keys. Yes, it has to be decrypted at some point, but when it's only the user then it's much less of a problem. I see what you're saying though -- it's not an easy problem to solve. Maybe some combination of legislation, technology, and user awareness is the solution, but I fail to come up with any scenarios where sole government regulation has ever helped.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        In tech? Maybe you're right. In society in general? That's a crazy statement. I think we just need to wait for the technology-illiterate politicians to die out. It's a known problem that consensus based progress is constrained by the human lifespan.
        chrisfosterelli 12y ago
        Yes, sorry I should have clarified I was referring specifically to legislature surrounding tech. I agree, many of the people who make legislation for tech barely understand how to use a computer in the first place and rely on crappy metaphors and explanations from other people. A more technology-literate set of politicians would help hugely.
  - acdha 12y ago
    > We have seen time and time again that when the government steps in they create ineffective and ridiculous boundaries that do little in practice. Right now, there's no cost for having weak security. What you're talking about is the technocratic approach, which is often what industry lobbies heavily for – get the government to bless whatever you were going to do anyway and make it complicated to increase the barrier to entry for new companies. This is what we have in many cases coupled with laws which shield companies from the consequences of their mistakes (e.g. try suing a credit agency for spreading incorrect data about you). It's not a given that it has to work this way – the other approach which many people in the security industry have called for is changing the laws to shift liability to the companies. That mandates the desirable outcome but allows companies to pick a level of risk which they (and their insurers) are comfortable with – which provides nice incentives to do things like not collect sensitive data if possible – and use whatever technology is appropriate to meet those needs. > Problems like these need to be solved with technology, user friendly and default encryption This is a common misunderstanding. Solving these problems – and ensuring that they stay solved in the future – ultimately costs money. Companies will not spend that unless they have both a requirement and a reasonable expectation that there will be noticeable consequences for not meeting it. Without enforcement, you'll get things like those meaningless Verisign / McAfee banners on webpages which signals that they consider security as a marketing exercise. Since the average person is utterly unable to compare different products in this manner and it's a difficult, ongoing job even for the skilled security practitioner, there has to be some outside pressure to make information available. Once you have that, the technology will follow.
    - chrisfosterelli 12y ago
      That all sounds good in theory, but in practice I would argue you can't simply create effective laws like that. I agree that companies will not spend on security unless they have a reason too -- but how exactly can you effectively legislate that? Helping people make informed choices with where they put their business is a much better solution, in my opinion. You say that there is no cost for having weak security, but that is not because there is no legislation, it's in spite of it. Legislation written by people who don't understand the technology they are regulating is not helping.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > I don't think legislation/policy is the solution. We have seen time and time again that when the government steps in they create ineffective and ridiculous boundaries that do little in practice. I haven't seen that, though I know it's an idea that is commonly repeated. My drinking water, buildings, roads, car safety, airline safety, etc. are pretty good. MHO is that the 2008 financial crisis [EDIT: largely] was due to a lack of regulation. Government isn't perfect, but no institution or company is. Certainly private business is not, and at least I get a vote in how government does things. I don't see a technological solution to these problems and I think a legal one is the best idea.
avn2109 12y ago
Geer is a pretty salient guy. There are several gems buried deep in the text here: >> "For me, trust is the availability of effective recourse." That's a tidy little definition, and quite pithy. And this next one might apply to engineering in general (he brought it up in the context of "fast/good/cheap---pick 2"). >> "I think security engineering are [sic] about tolerable failure modes -- are about what the tolerable levels of failure are."
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Yeah, this was far better than the linkbait title suggests. I very nearly passed because the title smells of obvious bullshit, but it's a substantial interview.
- contingencies 12y ago
  Thanks for pointing those out. Added to my hacky color fortune clone (also converts to standard fortune format): https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
- shit_parade 12y ago
  >> " For me the default of "the data doesn't exist" seems more natural to me than trusting everyone to not abuse it." I disagree, the data exists, this is fundamental, we are not going towards data impoverishment, we are necessarily living in an environment rich with data. I rather have accurate data by far.
  - UVB-76 12y ago
    > I disagree, the data exists, this is fundamental, we are not going towards data impoverishment, we are necessarily living in an environment rich with data. I rather have accurate data by far. It may be an inexorable trend, but for the time being, individuals and organizations generally have a choice about the amount of data they collect.
falcolas 12y ago
The discussion about "What is Public" was absolutely fascinating, and a bit frightening, to think about. > Technology is changing what is public by changing what is observable, and that's what I'm getting at. And I don't know the answer, but I do know that if we don't answer it, things will continue. We already see the excesses of things like this from the paparazzi and the effect it has on a celebrity's privacy; what happens when the long range lenses are compact and cheap enough to fit in phones, and easily combined with the technology to see through walls?
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  That's immaterial, frankly. The fact is that there's a growing ocean of data out there, collected intentionally, unintentionally, and as a side-effect of other activities. More and more the difference between "public" and "not public" in the future will be a matter of processing, not of existence. Imagine the maximal capability if computing were infinite and free. Every piece of data that was vaguely public (and remember that things like purchasing history is not necessarily always private) could be cataloged and collated together. Imagine if every picture you've ever been in could be pulled up by anyone on a whim, and then fleshed out with metadata as appropriate. Everything from that selfie you posted to facebook when you were 12 to your car in the background of someone else's picture on the street just last week. We will lose a lot of privacy just through things like this. Strangers will be able to track our lives and our histories just through the careful application of computing power. As computers get more powerful that capability will merely increase. It'll be possible to guess fairly accurately whether you are single or in a relationship, how much money you make a year, and so on just by observing things like a handful of pictures and collection of various other metadata, much of which is already out there. Think about that in the context of someone who suddenly becomes famous, for example, such as a movie star or a candidate for elected office. If all it takes is pressing a single button to collect an enormous amount of information on someone's history. Now imagine all that data in the hands of people as callous and malicious as political opposition groups or tabloid reporters.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    "It'll be possible to guess fairly accurately whether you are single or in a relationship, how much money you make a year" Well, you could probably get a decent guess just by looking at the house and garage. Some things have always been easy to guess accurately, but one novel problem is that we need more and more effort to be anonymous, online and offline. Double lives may be desirable for some, and it's just getting harder. Now you can at least withdraw a wad of cash, leave all your cards and electronics at home and be reasonably anonymous. In the near future you would probably need face paint to avoid image recognition and even further on you would need to subject yourself to an electro-magnetic pulse to get rid of nano-robots you can't wash away.
peterwwillis 12y ago
Well that's pretty embarrassing. Looks like Dan did a Black Hat presentation with two dryer lint traps stuck to his face. [http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2014/08/14666596867_cdd3efb92c_k.jpg http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2014/08...] It's kind of ridiculous to think of paging devices as secure or private in any way. The main reason one might have to use one over a cell phone is they are passive devices, unless you use a two-way feature. But everything goes over the wire unencrypted and broadcast for between 10 minutes and four hours. An example is the famous 9/11 pager logs: http://911.wikileaks.org/ http://911.wikileaks.org/
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >But everything goes over the wire unencrypted and broadcast for between 10 minutes and four hours. 'Everything' in transit to or from a pager is different than 'everything' in transit to or from, or at rest within, in addition to the current location of a smartphone. Not to mention the ability to change the code executing on them in order to use any sensors that you please.
cordite 12y ago
This totally reminded me of the book Rainbow's End, where most things are essentially black boxes, made out of other black boxes. Turtles all the way down.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  As was emphasized toward the end of that book, the apostrophe isn't actually present in the title. The title is actually a statement about rainbows, and about life.
  - cordite 12y ago
    I never noticed. I read it in 3 solid chunks within 2 days.
listic 12y ago
English is not my native language, but this is one of the few times I need help understanding the interview. Could you please explain what he means by: "I testified actually twice -- once at the FCC, once in a congressional committee -- that if you required location tracking, I was going to give one up. ... I said I would give it up, and went ahead and did it."
- xenophonf 12y ago
  If FCC and Congress required location tracking, the guy was going to give up his mobile phone. He stated this in his testimony. FCC/Congress required location tracking. Greer gave up his mobile phone as a result.
  - listic 12y ago
    "Gave up" as "stop using"? Did FCC and Congress require Greer to personally track himself? (Why?) Also, I find it wonderful that in USA you still have an option to use a pager. Many countries don't have it anymore, because all paging companies went out of business already.
    - nightpool 12y ago
      E911 location tracking is required on 95% of mobile phones in North America as of 2005. There are apparently similar rules in the EU, but Wikipedia isn't very forthcoming. (but yes, "gave up" as in "stopped using")
    - MaulingMonkey 12y ago
      > "Gave up" as "stop using"? Yes. > Did FCC and Congress require Greer to personally track himself? (Why?) I believe this is in the context of tracking cellphone users in general. This is used to support "Enhanced 9-1-1": When someone dials the emergency services, they can have a rough idea of where the caller is, even if the caller doesn't know where they are. Of course, there are plenty of more nefarious uses one can imagine as well.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
shit_parade 12y ago
this guy sounds like an apologist.
shit_parade 12y ago
"And I don't go visit other people's apartments at random -- I could but I don't." LOL
shit_parade 12y ago
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy. “” Max Ehrmann, "Desiderata"
listic 12y ago
'GPS built into cars, ... Do you care about that? As I'm sure you know, the most common reaction is "I live a good life, I have nothing to hide."' Doesn't GPS lack reverse channel by design (i.e. receive-only)? I thought GPS is safe, as all it can do is receive satellite data and has now way to disclose your location.
- codezero 12y ago
  Many modern cars combine the onboard GPS with so called "value added" services that uplink data over wireless networks whether you subscribe to the service or not: OnStar, and several custom manufacturer networks. In particular, Tesla vehicles do this. I know my Volkswagen does as well.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Note the EU soon to be mandated "eCall" system, where your car is supposed to phone the emergency services with your location in the event of a crash.
owenversteeg 12y ago
Well, here's why I don't have a smartphone. I (a programmer) spend 10 hours or so on my computer per day. Not having a smartphone prevents me from being always one step away from a computer. This lets me "disconnect" from everything else.
- jsmeaton 12y ago
  I left my phone in a cab 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for them to post it back to me. It's been extremely liberating being disconnected - I haven't missed it nearly as much as I thought I would. I also spend about half the time I used to in the toilet ;)
  - vijayr 12y ago
    I went to a camp for 4 weeks - no internet, tv, phone, books or newspapers. It was surprising how quickly I (and others) adjusted, and did not miss any of those. It was liberating to do physical work, and sit down and talk to people face to face. I guess we need all this noise because a)most of us don't do anything meaningful with our time and b)most people can't be alone with their thoughts/sit still for 5 mins. They need a "fix" (internet, tv etc) and c)true/deep friendships and relationships are less common, compared to 30-40 years ago (how many people even know the names of their neighbors, or recognize them?)
AlyssaRowan 12y ago
I'm aware that GCHQ has a geolocation project for pagers, specifically, so... yeah.
- doctorshady 12y ago
  How would that be possible? The communication protocol is entirely one way. Even if it weren't, most paging sites are just a single, relatively high wattage transmitter, unlike cell services.
  - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
    Specific details are hard to come by, I have no RF expertise myself, and I have no idea how deployed, operational or effective such a project may be, but it has definitely been an area of interest. A source vaguely intimated it might have something to do with retro-reflection from receivers' local oscillators when illuminated by much higher-strength signals than designed for. They mentioned equipment provided by GCHQ to the Security Service (MI5) for operational triangulation of short-wave radio receivers in the 1980s-1990s (I can see why that might have been relevant to their interests then...) and/or pagers in the 1990s-early 2000s. Does that help?
    - doctorshady 12y ago
      I'm afraid I'm not much of an RF person either, but that's interesting.

118 points by doctorshady 12y ago

josho 12y ago

I wonder if we are experiencing the typical adoption curve of security. That is, a technology arrives, we rush to adopt. Then over time we become aware of the consequences of this new technology (eg. loss of privacy) and legislation/policy steps in to correct that gap. This time however I am not convinced that the US will ever be ready to correct the situation (I am more bullish on Europe). It strikes me that the organizations (companies and government departments) gain to much by their new incursions into privacy and data. While these same organizations are also some of the most powerful, so they have the influence to ensure that corrections from legislation and policy remain only superficial.

doctorshady 12y ago
I dunno, some of the "solutions" have historically been a little ridiculous. Remember how AMPS networks could be listened to with off the shelf scanners? The solution was to make it illegal to sell scanners that could listen to the 800 MHz band.
chrisfosterelli 12y ago
I don't think legislation/policy is the solution. We have seen time and time again that when the government steps in they create ineffective and ridiculous boundaries that do little in practice. Problems like these need to be solved with technology, user friendly and default encryption would go a long way in most of these cases.
- josho 12y ago
  This is beyond a technology problem. For example, even with encryption everywhere we leak metadata about ourselves. Recent discussions here and elsewhere have shown the value of metadata. Further, at some point data needs to be decrypted for it to be used, so we still need to wrestle with who has the final say over what is allowed with that data, and what are the consequences when the data isn't handled correctly. Currently, most of the rules are governed by companies and consumers have little say over their own information. We've only started to see abuses of this today (e.g. Target as the article references), but the potential for abuse is only growing as we see companies discover new value of their databases.
  - chrisfosterelli 12y ago
    The usefulness of encryption almost always depends on who holds the keys. Yes, it has to be decrypted at some point, but when it's only the user then it's much less of a problem. I see what you're saying though -- it's not an easy problem to solve. Maybe some combination of legislation, technology, and user awareness is the solution, but I fail to come up with any scenarios where sole government regulation has ever helped.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      In tech? Maybe you're right. In society in general? That's a crazy statement. I think we just need to wait for the technology-illiterate politicians to die out. It's a known problem that consensus based progress is constrained by the human lifespan.
      - chrisfosterelli 12y ago
        Yes, sorry I should have clarified I was referring specifically to legislature surrounding tech. I agree, many of the people who make legislation for tech barely understand how to use a computer in the first place and rely on crappy metaphors and explanations from other people. A more technology-literate set of politicians would help hugely.
- acdha 12y ago
  > We have seen time and time again that when the government steps in they create ineffective and ridiculous boundaries that do little in practice. Right now, there's no cost for having weak security. What you're talking about is the technocratic approach, which is often what industry lobbies heavily for – get the government to bless whatever you were going to do anyway and make it complicated to increase the barrier to entry for new companies. This is what we have in many cases coupled with laws which shield companies from the consequences of their mistakes (e.g. try suing a credit agency for spreading incorrect data about you). It's not a given that it has to work this way – the other approach which many people in the security industry have called for is changing the laws to shift liability to the companies. That mandates the desirable outcome but allows companies to pick a level of risk which they (and their insurers) are comfortable with – which provides nice incentives to do things like not collect sensitive data if possible – and use whatever technology is appropriate to meet those needs. > Problems like these need to be solved with technology, user friendly and default encryption This is a common misunderstanding. Solving these problems – and ensuring that they stay solved in the future – ultimately costs money. Companies will not spend that unless they have both a requirement and a reasonable expectation that there will be noticeable consequences for not meeting it. Without enforcement, you'll get things like those meaningless Verisign / McAfee banners on webpages which signals that they consider security as a marketing exercise. Since the average person is utterly unable to compare different products in this manner and it's a difficult, ongoing job even for the skilled security practitioner, there has to be some outside pressure to make information available. Once you have that, the technology will follow.
  - chrisfosterelli 12y ago
    That all sounds good in theory, but in practice I would argue you can't simply create effective laws like that. I agree that companies will not spend on security unless they have a reason too -- but how exactly can you effectively legislate that? Helping people make informed choices with where they put their business is a much better solution, in my opinion. You say that there is no cost for having weak security, but that is not because there is no legislation, it's in spite of it. Legislation written by people who don't understand the technology they are regulating is not helping.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > I don't think legislation/policy is the solution. We have seen time and time again that when the government steps in they create ineffective and ridiculous boundaries that do little in practice. I haven't seen that, though I know it's an idea that is commonly repeated. My drinking water, buildings, roads, car safety, airline safety, etc. are pretty good. MHO is that the 2008 financial crisis [EDIT: largely] was due to a lack of regulation. Government isn't perfect, but no institution or company is. Certainly private business is not, and at least I get a vote in how government does things. I don't see a technological solution to these problems and I think a legal one is the best idea.

avn2109 12y ago

Geer is a pretty salient guy. There are several gems buried deep in the text here: >> "For me, trust is the availability of effective recourse." That's a tidy little definition, and quite pithy. And this next one might apply to engineering in general (he brought it up in the context of "fast/good/cheap---pick 2"). >> "I think security engineering are [sic] about tolerable failure modes -- are about what the tolerable levels of failure are."

tedunangst 12y ago
Yeah, this was far better than the linkbait title suggests. I very nearly passed because the title smells of obvious bullshit, but it's a substantial interview.
contingencies 12y ago
Thanks for pointing those out. Added to my hacky color fortune clone (also converts to standard fortune format): https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
shit_parade 12y ago
>> " For me the default of "the data doesn't exist" seems more natural to me than trusting everyone to not abuse it." I disagree, the data exists, this is fundamental, we are not going towards data impoverishment, we are necessarily living in an environment rich with data. I rather have accurate data by far.
- UVB-76 12y ago
  > I disagree, the data exists, this is fundamental, we are not going towards data impoverishment, we are necessarily living in an environment rich with data. I rather have accurate data by far. It may be an inexorable trend, but for the time being, individuals and organizations generally have a choice about the amount of data they collect.

falcolas 12y ago

The discussion about "What is Public" was absolutely fascinating, and a bit frightening, to think about. > Technology is changing what is public by changing what is observable, and that's what I'm getting at. And I don't know the answer, but I do know that if we don't answer it, things will continue. We already see the excesses of things like this from the paparazzi and the effect it has on a celebrity's privacy; what happens when the long range lenses are compact and cheap enough to fit in phones, and easily combined with the technology to see through walls?

InclinedPlane 12y ago
That's immaterial, frankly. The fact is that there's a growing ocean of data out there, collected intentionally, unintentionally, and as a side-effect of other activities. More and more the difference between "public" and "not public" in the future will be a matter of processing, not of existence. Imagine the maximal capability if computing were infinite and free. Every piece of data that was vaguely public (and remember that things like purchasing history is not necessarily always private) could be cataloged and collated together. Imagine if every picture you've ever been in could be pulled up by anyone on a whim, and then fleshed out with metadata as appropriate. Everything from that selfie you posted to facebook when you were 12 to your car in the background of someone else's picture on the street just last week. We will lose a lot of privacy just through things like this. Strangers will be able to track our lives and our histories just through the careful application of computing power. As computers get more powerful that capability will merely increase. It'll be possible to guess fairly accurately whether you are single or in a relationship, how much money you make a year, and so on just by observing things like a handful of pictures and collection of various other metadata, much of which is already out there. Think about that in the context of someone who suddenly becomes famous, for example, such as a movie star or a candidate for elected office. If all it takes is pressing a single button to collect an enormous amount of information on someone's history. Now imagine all that data in the hands of people as callous and malicious as political opposition groups or tabloid reporters.
- tormeh 12y ago
  "It'll be possible to guess fairly accurately whether you are single or in a relationship, how much money you make a year" Well, you could probably get a decent guess just by looking at the house and garage. Some things have always been easy to guess accurately, but one novel problem is that we need more and more effort to be anonymous, online and offline. Double lives may be desirable for some, and it's just getting harder. Now you can at least withdraw a wad of cash, leave all your cards and electronics at home and be reasonably anonymous. In the near future you would probably need face paint to avoid image recognition and even further on you would need to subject yourself to an electro-magnetic pulse to get rid of nano-robots you can't wash away.

peterwwillis 12y ago

Well that's pretty embarrassing. Looks like Dan did a Black Hat presentation with two dryer lint traps stuck to his face. [http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2014/08/14666596867_cdd3efb92c_k.jpg http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2014/08...] It's kind of ridiculous to think of paging devices as secure or private in any way. The main reason one might have to use one over a cell phone is they are passive devices, unless you use a two-way feature. But everything goes over the wire unencrypted and broadcast for between 10 minutes and four hours. An example is the famous 9/11 pager logs: http://911.wikileaks.org/ http://911.wikileaks.org/

pessimizer 12y ago
>But everything goes over the wire unencrypted and broadcast for between 10 minutes and four hours. 'Everything' in transit to or from a pager is different than 'everything' in transit to or from, or at rest within, in addition to the current location of a smartphone. Not to mention the ability to change the code executing on them in order to use any sensors that you please.

cordite 12y ago

This totally reminded me of the book Rainbow's End, where most things are essentially black boxes, made out of other black boxes. Turtles all the way down.

jessaustin 12y ago
As was emphasized toward the end of that book, the apostrophe isn't actually present in the title. The title is actually a statement about rainbows, and about life.
- cordite 12y ago
  I never noticed. I read it in 3 solid chunks within 2 days.

listic 12y ago

English is not my native language, but this is one of the few times I need help understanding the interview. Could you please explain what he means by: "I testified actually twice -- once at the FCC, once in a congressional committee -- that if you required location tracking, I was going to give one up. ... I said I would give it up, and went ahead and did it."

xenophonf 12y ago
If FCC and Congress required location tracking, the guy was going to give up his mobile phone. He stated this in his testimony. FCC/Congress required location tracking. Greer gave up his mobile phone as a result.
- listic 12y ago
  "Gave up" as "stop using"? Did FCC and Congress require Greer to personally track himself? (Why?) Also, I find it wonderful that in USA you still have an option to use a pager. Many countries don't have it anymore, because all paging companies went out of business already.
  - nightpool 12y ago
    E911 location tracking is required on 95% of mobile phones in North America as of 2005. There are apparently similar rules in the EU, but Wikipedia isn't very forthcoming. (but yes, "gave up" as in "stopped using")
  - MaulingMonkey 12y ago
    > "Gave up" as "stop using"? Yes. > Did FCC and Congress require Greer to personally track himself? (Why?) I believe this is in the context of tracking cellphone users in general. This is used to support "Enhanced 9-1-1": When someone dials the emergency services, they can have a rough idea of where the caller is, even if the caller doesn't know where they are. Of course, there are plenty of more nefarious uses one can imagine as well.
- ghshephard 12y ago

shit_parade 12y ago

this guy sounds like an apologist.

shit_parade 12y ago

"And I don't go visit other people's apartments at random -- I could but I don't." LOL

shit_parade 12y ago

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy. “” Max Ehrmann, "Desiderata"

listic 12y ago

'GPS built into cars, ... Do you care about that? As I'm sure you know, the most common reaction is "I live a good life, I have nothing to hide."' Doesn't GPS lack reverse channel by design (i.e. receive-only)? I thought GPS is safe, as all it can do is receive satellite data and has now way to disclose your location.

codezero 12y ago
Many modern cars combine the onboard GPS with so called "value added" services that uplink data over wireless networks whether you subscribe to the service or not: OnStar, and several custom manufacturer networks. In particular, Tesla vehicles do this. I know my Volkswagen does as well.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Note the EU soon to be mandated "eCall" system, where your car is supposed to phone the emergency services with your location in the event of a crash.

owenversteeg 12y ago

Well, here's why I don't have a smartphone. I (a programmer) spend 10 hours or so on my computer per day. Not having a smartphone prevents me from being always one step away from a computer. This lets me "disconnect" from everything else.

jsmeaton 12y ago
I left my phone in a cab 2 weeks ago and I'm still waiting for them to post it back to me. It's been extremely liberating being disconnected - I haven't missed it nearly as much as I thought I would. I also spend about half the time I used to in the toilet ;)
- vijayr 12y ago
  I went to a camp for 4 weeks - no internet, tv, phone, books or newspapers. It was surprising how quickly I (and others) adjusted, and did not miss any of those. It was liberating to do physical work, and sit down and talk to people face to face. I guess we need all this noise because a)most of us don't do anything meaningful with our time and b)most people can't be alone with their thoughts/sit still for 5 mins. They need a "fix" (internet, tv etc) and c)true/deep friendships and relationships are less common, compared to 30-40 years ago (how many people even know the names of their neighbors, or recognize them?)

AlyssaRowan 12y ago

I'm aware that GCHQ has a geolocation project for pagers, specifically, so... yeah.

doctorshady 12y ago
How would that be possible? The communication protocol is entirely one way. Even if it weren't, most paging sites are just a single, relatively high wattage transmitter, unlike cell services.
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  Specific details are hard to come by, I have no RF expertise myself, and I have no idea how deployed, operational or effective such a project may be, but it has definitely been an area of interest. A source vaguely intimated it might have something to do with retro-reflection from receivers' local oscillators when illuminated by much higher-strength signals than designed for. They mentioned equipment provided by GCHQ to the Security Service (MI5) for operational triangulation of short-wave radio receivers in the 1980s-1990s (I can see why that might have been relevant to their interests then...) and/or pagers in the 1990s-early 2000s. Does that help?
  - doctorshady 12y ago
    I'm afraid I'm not much of an RF person either, but that's interesting.