5 ms·

The pocket spy: Will your smartphone rat you out?

11 points by araneae 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago
XKCD gives a nice glimpse of one possible problem http://xkcd.com/596/ http://xkcd.com/596/
- NathanKP 17y ago
  That's a classic. But seriously this article does make me think about netbooks and other portable devices. If a stolen cell phone could yield so much information how about a stolen computer? It seems to me that when you keep so much of your life on an electronic device you are naturally going to be vulnerable in multiple ways.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    I agree with you. Right now, the notebook / netbook would cause a lot more damage, but I think that might be shifting with all these apps we put on our cellphones. We really have no idea how secure the data in each of these apps are, and standard stuff like encrypted file systems are not a user option.
siculars 17y ago
obvious puff piece on being afraid of your cool new tech... clearly all tech should come with a surgeon general's warning proclaiming: "warning: entrusting this device with your personal information may be hazardous to your health" I couldn't really tell but it looked to me like none of these phones were 'locked' with a password that wipes your phone after so and so many incorrect log in attempts. Also, the guys are professional data recovery guys who work with the police and they had physical access to the devices which means they could have bypassed the soft lock entirely. q: what kind of 'wipe' does the iphone and bb do when you hit the lock reset limit? is it like a multi-write to the 'disk', which is obviously ram based and not platter based. does the multi-write work for such devices?
abalashov 17y ago
I do not think this is a "puff piece." I think there is a legitimate concern here that falls - aside from phishing scams and obvious privacy implications - into the province of: * Crooked cops and unscrupulous prosecutors - 1 * Defendant - 0 If even SMS messages can be recovered despite having been deleted, that's a lot of forensic trail nobody should have. Law enforcement investigating a person who is not currently accused of a crime and for whom an arrest warrant is not issued should be entitled to examine communications occurring from the moment they are granted (by a court order) a tap request and it is implemented, NOT communications having occurred prior to that point. This dangerously changes the balance of power.

11 points by araneae 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago

XKCD gives a nice glimpse of one possible problem http://xkcd.com/596/ http://xkcd.com/596/

NathanKP 17y ago
That's a classic. But seriously this article does make me think about netbooks and other portable devices. If a stolen cell phone could yield so much information how about a stolen computer? It seems to me that when you keep so much of your life on an electronic device you are naturally going to be vulnerable in multiple ways.
- protomyth 17y ago
  I agree with you. Right now, the notebook / netbook would cause a lot more damage, but I think that might be shifting with all these apps we put on our cellphones. We really have no idea how secure the data in each of these apps are, and standard stuff like encrypted file systems are not a user option.

siculars 17y ago

obvious puff piece on being afraid of your cool new tech... clearly all tech should come with a surgeon general's warning proclaiming: "warning: entrusting this device with your personal information may be hazardous to your health" I couldn't really tell but it looked to me like none of these phones were 'locked' with a password that wipes your phone after so and so many incorrect log in attempts. Also, the guys are professional data recovery guys who work with the police and they had physical access to the devices which means they could have bypassed the soft lock entirely. q: what kind of 'wipe' does the iphone and bb do when you hit the lock reset limit? is it like a multi-write to the 'disk', which is obviously ram based and not platter based. does the multi-write work for such devices?

abalashov 17y ago

I do not think this is a "puff piece." I think there is a legitimate concern here that falls - aside from phishing scams and obvious privacy implications - into the province of: * Crooked cops and unscrupulous prosecutors - 1 * Defendant - 0 If even SMS messages can be recovered despite having been deleted, that's a lot of forensic trail nobody should have. Law enforcement investigating a person who is not currently accused of a crime and for whom an arrest warrant is not issued should be entitled to examine communications occurring from the moment they are granted (by a court order) a tap request and it is implemented, NOT communications having occurred prior to that point. This dangerously changes the balance of power.