131–140 of 210 posts
Oh, and never mind compromising the people involved.
The privacy issue in smartphones isn't the freaking application processor running Android. Sure, that ones terrible enough. But the actual problem is the baseband processor running completely non-free software, with an enormous attack surface and access to all the interesting periphery (GPS, microphone). There is not just opportunity to compromise your privacy, Qualcomm and others actively implement such features at…
A site peddling a product that is supposedly about user control and privacy that won't even load without javascript... The irony is almost too much.
The privacy issue in smartphones isn't the freaking application processor running Android. Sure, that ones terrible enough. But the actual problem is the baseband processor running completely non-free software, with an enormous attack surface and access to all the interesting periphery (GPS, microphone). There is not just opportunity to compromise your privacy, Qualcomm and others actively implement such features at…
Came here to say this exactly. The world needs an open-source baseband processor/firmware.
The privacy issue in smartphones isn't the freaking application processor running Android. Sure, that ones terrible enough. But the actual problem is the baseband processor running completely non-free software, with an enormous attack surface and access to all the interesting periphery (GPS, microphone). There is not just opportunity to compromise your privacy, Qualcomm and others actively implement such features at…
Came here to say this exactly. The world needs an open-source baseband processor/firmware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully support the initiative for an open baseband. I would love to live in a world where this can happen. But we don't live in that world. The carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive use of their frequency bands. And their hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue depend upon smooth operation of all devices on the network using those bands. They will use whatever means to protect this. OK, so let's talk…
I don't understand. If I come to a carrier and say "Here's a codebase for your baseband. It's OSS, well tested, secure, and supported. Buy support from me." why won't they go for it. Surely, an OSS solution is cheaper for them than developing an in-house crap solution that I'm sure it is now. Also, is there any harm in just open sourcing their baseband code? It seems to me that it's worthless without the license to u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully support the initiative for an open baseband. I would love to live in a world where this can happen. But we don't live in that world. The carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive use of their frequency bands. And their hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue depend upon smooth operation of all devices on the network using those bands. They will use whatever means to protect this. OK, so let's talk…
I don't understand. If I come to a carrier and say "Here's a codebase for your baseband. It's OSS, well tested, secure, and supported. Buy support from me." why won't they go for it. Surely, an OSS solution is cheaper for them than developing an in-house crap solution that I'm sure it is now. Also, is there any harm in just open sourcing their baseband code? It seems to me that it's worthless without the license to u…
The carriers don't want baseband code, they just want finished products to sell.
It's OSS, well tested, secure, and supported. Buy support from me." why won't they go for it. Surely, an OSS solution is cheaper for them than developing an in-house crap solution that I'm sure it is now.
OK, assuming you get a current-generation baseband chip for free (it actually costs a ton of money to develop) with full documentation, you're still talking hundreds of millions to develop that software. GSM (a 2G technology) is complicated. UMTS / HSPA (one of the 3G techs) is an order of magnitude more complex. LTE (4G) is another order of magnitude more complex than 3G. The baseband code, plus all the testing code, plus all the testing required by the FCC, standards bodies and the carriers is a ton of money.
It costs millions to take an existing chipset (which has already been approved), an existing baseband codebase (which has also already been approved for use with that chipset) and put that into a modem and get that approved.
The chip vendors have their own baseband code now, and they are all in fierce competition with each other. They aren't going to just use your code, and they aren't going to let you use their chips either.
How does this protect me from my carrier? No matter which phone I use they still need to record who I call for "billing purposes" and know which cell is closest to route my calls.
1) Buy prepaid card with data plan. 2) Access Internet (and VOIP) only via VPN or better yet TOR. 3) Only give out your VOIP number. No one must know your direct number, it’s only for emergencies. This severs all the important connections to make any use of that data, assuming you don’t have any leaks.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIP_Trunking
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pstn
Edit: A quick search gave me this[2] by Plivo. Does any one know of any other options?
[2] http://plivo.com/blog/sip-trunking-to-replace-my-landline-ph...
The privacy issue in smartphones isn't the freaking application processor running Android. Sure, that ones terrible enough. But the actual problem is the baseband processor running completely non-free software, with an enormous attack surface and access to all the interesting periphery (GPS, microphone). There is not just opportunity to compromise your privacy, Qualcomm and others actively implement such features at…