Do current smart phones support this? I can't imagine Apple being too keen on allowing this sort of thing. No idea about Android
Apple only care about privacy in their speech... They are good politicians.
France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
101–110 of 123 posts
Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#102Nice, we now have "telescreens"?
We are past 1984... They are being a bit more subtle about it.
Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#103Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked in law enforcement, seeing sentiment like this is just so depressing. On one side it's people saying things like this, while on the other side a large part is complaining about law enforcement not doing enough to combat cyber crime. These things go hand in hand. If criminals can have limitless access to new technologies, but LE gets no new ways of finding criminals using new technologies, we might as we…
The general sentiment is that law enforcement is able to work well enough without being given the right to infringe on any citizens privacy unchecked (and by that I mean without a court order or minimal oversight). In this case, it's with a court order, but the real issue is that it mandates having backdoors, something pretty much everyone with a lick of understanding of what it entails is strongly against.
> the real issue is that it mandates having backdoors
I'm seeing this response in many replies to mine and I feel like this is because people don't understand how laws like this actually work. Especially because people in the US like to apply their mistrust of LE to European LE.
The Netherlands already has a law in place allowing police to hack citizens in case of specific crimes, comparable to this law in France. This does not require companies to create back doors, but allows LE to remotely enter devices of suspects if deemed necessary. This needs to be confirmed by a judge and therefore isn't applied very often, only in specific cases where there's no other option.
Fighting cyber crime without these laws becomes nearly impossible, because often a perpetrator is very good at covering their tracks and offensive hacking is a necessity to find a perpetrator. HN then has the tendency to say "for now", implying that this will soon be applied to petty thieves and the general populace, but this law doesn't allow that, has many safeguards and therefore that doesn't happen.
Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#105Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens aren't being criminalised ... > setting up means for spying on 100% of the people These means have existed since for ever. Phone taps have been around for as long as phones have existed, way before they became smart. Letters can be opened, everything can be intercepted. Even "pizzino".
Before "everything digital" it was logistically barely possible to spy on 100%. At times of GDR a mayor of the Stasi had resources to maybe wire-tap 50 people. Letters can only be opened for X amount of people. Now they have the possibilities to do 100%. That's a big difference.
> it was logistically barely possible to spy on 100%
It still is. LE barely has enough capacity to fight every criminal, let alone watch 100% of everything everyone does online. And if you look at how tough a time social media are having at content moderation it seems like tools to automate this well don't exist yet. Just look at stories like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/10/15/n...
Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
The french population is indeed concerned by the increasing of the pension age, but not concerned at all with the price paid by their own children for not increasing it. So I wouldn't call the concerns of the population necessarily legitimate, as present and pressing as they might be.
People online assume too much with the french pension reform Government reports forecasted a possible deficit that was in the ranges of €10bn in 10+ years, which is tiny, along with other predictions that put it lower and even predicted profits. Uncertainty's equal across any of them Many alternatives were brought up by either the opposition and various economists; reducing pensions, increasing dues, pointing out new…
Money is also fungible, the French could priotize the pensions and defund something else to pay for it if that is the will of the people.
Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
The french population is indeed concerned by the increasing of the pension age, but not concerned at all with the price paid by their own children for not increasing it. So I wouldn't call the concerns of the population necessarily legitimate, as present and pressing as they might be.
There is a lot more immediate causes for the drop of living standards in France than the pension reform. Virtue signaling at the expense of the french people, nepotism corruption and Macron selling off critical infrastructure among them.
However I don't see the people going on the streets for those points you mentioned here, but only for the increased age of retirement. What safety will they have that, if the pension age stays as such (and they defeated Macron yay), the nepotism and corruption and all that will not continue? Going on the street is a great weapon and I admire it, but in this particular case I think it's going after the wrong end of the problem (which you seem to recognize as well).
Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked in law enforcement, seeing sentiment like this is just so depressing. On one side it's people saying things like this, while on the other side a large part is complaining about law enforcement not doing enough to combat cyber crime. These things go hand in hand. If criminals can have limitless access to new technologies, but LE gets no new ways of finding criminals using new technologies, we might as we…
1) LE has repeatedly shown that new policing powers will be used illegally, and without repercussion for their misuse. When the abuses are curbed and punished, perhaps they can be trusted with new shiny things. 2) between geolocation tracking, sting rays, ALPRs, phone/internet/email/web history providers subpoenas, doorbell cameras, face recognition, FISA/national security mass surveillance, drones, etc. one is suppo…
You're applying US logic to European LE. Having worked in European LE I can tell you the following:
> geolocation tracking
Only real available ways are hardly useful and easy to avoid.
> sting rays
Really only useful if you already know something will happen or where (about) a suspect is.
> phone/internet/email/web history providers subpoenas
Take lots of time and are often barely useful for European LE due to the international character of the internet and many more reasons.
> doorbell cameras
Contrary to popular belief hardly any more useful than old school security cams and very often much less useful.
> face recognition
Mostly illegal for LE use in Europe: https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/edpb-guidelines_...
> national security mass surveillance
In most of Europe this does not (legally) exist and therefore will never be admissible in court.
> drones
Barely useful for catching criminals.
So no, LE, especially in Europe, does not have an incredible wealth of privacy intruding tools that can be applied willy nilly. But I live in a country where a cop needs to report removing their gun from their holster and every bullet is accounted for. It's a very different world from the US.
A law like this, in my country, would only be used in special circumstances for big time criminals, because the amount of work to actually apply it and the paperwork before that can actually happen is too big to apply in other cases. Maybe that's why I have less distrust towards laws like this, because I've seen how hard it is to actually apply them.
Re: France legalizes remote camera and microphone activation in smartphones
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The french population is indeed concerned by the increasing of the pension age, but not concerned at all with the price paid by their own children for not increasing it. So I wouldn't call the concerns of the population necessarily legitimate, as present and pressing as they might be.
People online assume too much with the french pension reform Government reports forecasted a possible deficit that was in the ranges of €10bn in 10+ years, which is tiny, along with other predictions that put it lower and even predicted profits. Uncertainty's equal across any of them Many alternatives were brought up by either the opposition and various economists; reducing pensions, increasing dues, pointing out new…
You are right that I'm not French, I'm Swiss and we have 5 years longer until pension. I would love to have solutions which can keep it as low as in France, but I must wonder, how come no other country in the world (except Greece, which defaulted) was able to apply them already?
I'll take only one idea from above: I imagine the same people would go on the same streets if their pensions would be reduced, and by the way, even today you can retire earlier with a reduced pension - so I totally miss this point. Same for increasing dues - one can simply put more money aside any time.