Time for phones to have a solid-state switch for microphones and cameras.
France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
111–120 of 465 posts
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#112reminder that fdroid offers apps that will monopolize the microphone so it cannot be used by other programs (pilfershush for example.) electrical tape on your camera should take care of the rest, and developer mode lets you feed the system bogus GPS data at will.
All good ideas for general opsec, however the last one is moot if you're connecting to cell networks - tower connection and triangulation data is not local to your phone and is already relatively easy for police to access with a warrant.
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#113I regret getting a pixel, and not a fairphone with a removable battery With the current level of oversight on the police (police of police is a meme by now), and the level of cybersecurity at the government, everyone's phones will be activated within a few months. At least some government agent will have fun watching what ppl visit on the internet during their spare time, and can enable the camera to watch what they'…
A Pixel phone probably gives you the best chance of resisting this sort of attack. The most vulnerable phones are the older, cheaper phones that run outdated versions of Android. Pixel phones are generally the first to get security updates, and so the quickest to get patches when spyware companies start using new bugs.
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#114Just stop carrying your phone. Problem solved.
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#115Hmm, is it a new thing or last month's bill? Without any source nor reference in TFA it's hard to tell.
https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2023/06/08/l-activati...
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying all cops are anything is exactly the same thing as saying all blacks are thieves, all Jews are greedy, or any of the other blanket statements that can never apply to any large group of people. It’s disgusting.
No it’s not the same. One of them is an institution conceived through organisation of people, laws, traditions and customs, the existence and membership of which is a choice. The other categories are associations made by accident of birth. I don’t have a horse in the race but it is important to understand that those situations are not the same. When people say stuff like ACAB they are free to criticise the existence…
They cannot be serious saying that now law enforcement is better than a bad one.
The latter you can at least try to change by joining and being a good guideline on how to be.
I know that sounds idealistic... but what are the alternatives? - A "new" police? What should make this better on second try? - No Police? I cannot imagine what would happen with people - A police that plays within the rules? Now i extend my argument on law people involved. They also have many bad actors and again the only chance i see is to be a good actor.
I'd be delighted to hear alternatives.
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying all cops are anything is exactly the same thing as saying all blacks are thieves, all Jews are greedy, or any of the other blanket statements that can never apply to any large group of people. It’s disgusting.
The police (in the US) have a long history of protecting their own, and punishing anybody who does speak up, even in the face of what would otherwise be compelling evidence of illegal behavior. ACAB might be a bit hyperbolic, but the sentiment (that policing in the US is fundamentally broken) isn’t off base.
Not getting that sentiment from a slogan that says all cops are bastards. If “policing is fundamentally broken” is the statement then use that
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#118Civil rights are a favor that can be revoked at any time. Ultimately, there are too few who stand up for them.
Today I read an article by Bernard-Henri Lévy, a liberal intellectual. He downplays police violence, order must be restored, how is not so important.
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it’s not the same. One of them is an institution conceived through organisation of people, laws, traditions and customs, the existence and membership of which is a choice. The other categories are associations made by accident of birth. I don’t have a horse in the race but it is important to understand that those situations are not the same. When people say stuff like ACAB they are free to criticise the existence…
> The other categories are associations made by accident of birth. Just because someone says you are a Christian because you were baptized or whatever doesn't make it so. Religion is just as much a choice as an occupation.
> Religion is just as much a choice as an occupation.
That is a bit tricky.
Religion is definitely a choice if you're enough willing to make a choice, but most people just keep their parent's religion. People just believe what they were taught as children.
I'm atheist from atheist country so I don't necessarily get it, but it seems to be that way - see ratios of Muslim and Christians in Saudi Arabia versus Europe, for example.
Then there's more tricky cases where religion and ethnicity are heavily correlated or tied in even stronger way (e.g. Jews).
Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone
#120> But lawmakers agreed to the bill late Wednesday as Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti insisted the bill would affect only “dozens of cases a year.” Technically he is not lying or naive, because any number, including large numbers like 66 million, can be expressed in units of dozens.
Linguistically dozens of cases is vague less then 200 and definitively less then 1000, because then it would be hundreds of cases.
Through there is no legal requirement for the statement to be true in any form or way. Even if they would have explicitly said less then 50 cases, it's not a constraint in the law, so it's meaningless.
Through see my other comment for why even if that statement is fully true in a linguistic sense it still is very bad.