Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Burner Phone 101

rebeccawilliams.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 198 posts

Re: Burner Phone 101

#131

Post by wpm »

giggyhack wrote: post #114
schoen wrote: post #39

When I was working at EFF, I started writing (but never finished) a couple of essays along the lines of "the degree of trackability of mobile phones is an unfortunate accident, and we should fix it". It basically comes from routing requirements (especially to receive incoming phone calls) combined with billing requirements (to make people pay for their connectivity) combined with the empirical requirement to see whic…

I absolutely understand the sentiment and the goals that citizens should, by default, not be tracked. However, how do you square that with the proof, time and again, that truly secure and encrypted networks are primarily use by criminals (drug/human traffickers, and plenty of other people) who, through their trade, make the world a shittier place for the rest of us?

It’s quite easy to square: your argument is nonsense through and through, barely deserving an iota of rebuttal. I could justify absolutely appalling invasions of privacy with what you’re saying.

We are not beholden to ruining everything for almost everyone to stop a small fee from doing bad things. It’s not any more complicated than that.

Re: Burner Phone 101

#132

Post by olyjohn »

tenacious_tuna wrote: post #16

> Radios off (GPS/Wi-Fi/Bluetooth) unless needed GPS is a passive technology, no? Downloading GPS assist data obviously isn't, and plenty of phones use wifi scanning as a way to augment GPS position fixes, but this seemed a strange callout. Am I missing something?

They mean turn it off so that apps on your phone can't read your location.

Re: Burner Phone 101

#133

Post by Terr_ »

schoen wrote: post #39

When I was working at EFF, I started writing (but never finished) a couple of essays along the lines of "the degree of trackability of mobile phones is an unfortunate accident, and we should fix it". It basically comes from routing requirements (especially to receive incoming phone calls) combined with billing requirements (to make people pay for their connectivity) combined with the empirical requirement to see whic…

> combined with billing requirements

There's a certain flavor of US libertarian that complains that they should only be taxed for exactly the road-surfaces they personally use in proportion to how much they use them.

In response, I like to point out to them that their dream of "fair billing" can't occur without a nightmare of surveillance, making it easy for the government (or road-owners, and indirectly the government) to track and remember everybody's movements in excruciating detail.

Is that worth it? Perhaps a "sloppy" billing system (e.g. fuel/mileage taxes for roads) is actually an extraordinarily good deal in terms of the privacy we take for granted.

Re: Burner Phone 101

#134

Post by [deleted] »

giggyhack wrote: post #114
schoen wrote: post #39

When I was working at EFF, I started writing (but never finished) a couple of essays along the lines of "the degree of trackability of mobile phones is an unfortunate accident, and we should fix it". It basically comes from routing requirements (especially to receive incoming phone calls) combined with billing requirements (to make people pay for their connectivity) combined with the empirical requirement to see whic…

I absolutely understand the sentiment and the goals that citizens should, by default, not be tracked. However, how do you square that with the proof, time and again, that truly secure and encrypted networks are primarily use by criminals (drug/human traffickers, and plenty of other people) who, through their trade, make the world a shittier place for the rest of us?

[deleted]

Re: Burner Phone 101

#135

Post by Terr_ »

giggyhack wrote: post #114
schoen wrote: post #39

When I was working at EFF, I started writing (but never finished) a couple of essays along the lines of "the degree of trackability of mobile phones is an unfortunate accident, and we should fix it". It basically comes from routing requirements (especially to receive incoming phone calls) combined with billing requirements (to make people pay for their connectivity) combined with the empirical requirement to see whic…

I absolutely understand the sentiment and the goals that citizens should, by default, not be tracked. However, how do you square that with the proof, time and again, that truly secure and encrypted networks are primarily use by criminals (drug/human traffickers, and plenty of other people) who, through their trade, make the world a shittier place for the rest of us?

... They said, on a forum where everyone is posting and reading using connections encrypted by TLS/HTTPS.

I don't see how you've become a criminal just because you don't want somebody in the same coffee shop to see what you're posting or browsing.

Is it fine because it's not "truly" secure? How secure is so secure that it crosses the line and becomes evil?

Re: Burner Phone 101

#136

Post by esseph »

giggyhack wrote: post #114
schoen wrote: post #39

When I was working at EFF, I started writing (but never finished) a couple of essays along the lines of "the degree of trackability of mobile phones is an unfortunate accident, and we should fix it". It basically comes from routing requirements (especially to receive incoming phone calls) combined with billing requirements (to make people pay for their connectivity) combined with the empirical requirement to see whic…

I absolutely understand the sentiment and the goals that citizens should, by default, not be tracked. However, how do you square that with the proof, time and again, that truly secure and encrypted networks are primarily use by criminals (drug/human traffickers, and plenty of other people) who, through their trade, make the world a shittier place for the rest of us?

You ready to drop encryption between you and your bank?

Re: Burner Phone 101

#137

Post by esseph »

Arainach wrote: post #130
tmpfs wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. By your logic me and the majority of people using Signal are criminals. As the other commenter mentioned please provide proof for these hyperbolic claims.

>By your logic me and the majority of people using Signal are criminals False. "The majority of X are Y" does not imply that any particular X is Y. I don't have data for Signal. I use it extensively. Even setting aside that the American legal system makes everyone a criminal several times a day so that the laws can be selectively enforced against anyone who becomes a target, I have no data on whether the majority of…

How long before UK VPN users are criminals?

How long before US states that are enforcing online ID laws will be doing the same?

Re: Burner Phone 101

#138

Post by Terr_ »

It's very hard to fight a big nefarious system. Especially with the democratic backsliding of the last few months in the US, it's starting to seem like a better bang-for-your-buck is to ensure the system shares your values, i.e. politics.

That's not to say technical approaches don't remain important, but even most encryption is still based on the idea that someone can't just cut off your fingers until you reveal something that satisfies them.

Re: Burner Phone 101

#139

Post by 2rsf »

bigiain wrote: post #90
Ccecil wrote: post #24

One thing I didn't see covered is to never have your "real phone" and your "burner phone" on you (or in the same location) at the same time while powered. Easy enough to say "Gee...these 2 phones are always together or nearby when activated" or "this phone shuts off right before this one powers up". Although, I suspect there are a few other ways to determine identity easier. Such as tracking the device identifier and…

Also, never power up or down, or switch in or out of airplane mode on your burner while at home (or work). Cellular network disconnection and connection events are rare and hence notable.

Isn't buying a SIM traceable by itself? if for example the shop has CCTV recordings or the email where you got the eSIM
Post reply on HN