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

France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

gazettengr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 465 posts

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#211

Post by lost_tourist »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #136
msoad wrote: post #12

[flagged]

I've always hated the phrase 'ACAB', and I say this as someone whose username is Emma Goldman. It's the institution, and its functional role in society, that's the structural problem. There are many well-intentioned, conscientious individuals in the police force. It is somewhat similar to the question of the attribution of moral blame for unjust wars. It is almost universally recognized that unjust wars are the fault…

It's basically a simplification for life for some people. A lot of people don't like to think in nuances. Cops have a dangerous job and now that a large portion of the general citizenry hate them they have even more reason to be jumpy and sometimes aggressive. I think politicians could help a lot by ending programs like civil asset forfeiture, militarization of the police, etc. There is big gap between militant cops in small towns beating heads and what seems to be letting criminals do whatever they like in San Francisco downtown and then the DA letting them go because they did something less than shooting someone. I, for one, choose to live in a place with relatively stable "small town" cops even though they have sort of a bad rap in the neighboring city because they actually do patrol. I'm a brown person who has had zero problems with cops even though I have a lead foot.

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#212

Post by lost_tourist »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #135
msoad wrote: post #12

[flagged]

>ACAB I think my biggest pet peeve with this line of thinking is that it's not a reform slogan and it's not productive. If someone actually thinks that, then where do you go from there.

It's a lazy and petulant acronym. I think it's okay to dislike it.

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#213

Post by internetter »

dunham wrote: post #159
dathinab wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill AFIK only covers the "they are allowed to do it" part but not the "how do they gain the capability to do it" part. But spyware which can do so exists in endless amounts, including from companies focused on selling it to governments. Hence also why in recent years physical microphone switches, or e.g. stuff like (I think it was) Apple laptops "physically" disconnecting the microphone/camera if you close the…

Also, I recall that the green light on the apple camera is controlled by the camera's firmware, making it more difficult to turn on without the light come on. (You'd need to overwrite the camera firmware.)

Why does this even need to be controlled with firmware? Can't it be a simple circuit? (I know nothing about this)

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#214

Post by tiedieconderoga »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #199
tiedieconderoga wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have access to backdoors in the baseband firmwares. The baseband is an opaque binary blob that operates outside of the phone's main OS, and its contents are usually considered a trade secret by the manufacturer since it handles low-level hardware interactions with the main radios/etc. Personally, I would be surprised if those systems weren't compromised by agreement. It's already common to see criminals and…

Do the cameras/microphones need to be controlled by the baseband? Naively they seem like they should be at a slightly higher level than the main radios, and should be controlled exclusively by the OS. I'm guessing from your comment there's some reason that's not the case though?

Tough to say, information about the systems is restricted and hard to come by.

I'm pretty sure they have hooks into audio systems for wireless emergency alerts, but could be wrong.

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#215

Post by olivierduval »

Actually it's not really a big news:

* right now: Law Enforcement need the decision of a judge to do this (when they technically can, either using 0-day or maybe asking for the phone provider to upload a malicious app under their service app)

* after the law: Law Enforcement will be able to do THE SAME without the need for a judge under some specific (but not really restrictive, like national security) conditions

So, all in all, it will just shorten the time needed by Law Enforcement to hack some suspected citizen and it won't require a judge. Is it a shame for the democracy ? Yes, obviously. Is it a change in the way for the State to spy its people ? No, sadly.

Will there be a debate about what individual freedom may be taken of citizen in the name of national/public security ? No, obviously. And sadly.

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#216

Post by stavros »

mdp2021 wrote: post #208
stavros wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A remote eventuality" my ass, I bet that's the primary reason behind the push.

Sometimes, Stavros, it is a painful choice to decide in assessment between malice and the various shades of stupidity - the perspective of the latter can be a tad more difficult to digest. But the last time I read reported unhandable blabbering devoid of awareness and mental competence, attributed to a "minister of the republic", was just minutes ago. When you hear utterings like "it will save lives" - completely ali…

Hm, yeah, you're right. It's a difficult choice because both options are so dire, but I guess they have to be when you have a decision like this.

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#217

Post by haswell »

input_sh wrote: post #25
rythmshifter wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

Absolutely not. It's a profession, every cop out there can just... not be a cop. Comparing that to skin color or someone's ethnicity is absolutely ridiculous.

While it may be a profession, it's also a critical community service. Unlike some professions that come and go, or could theoretically disappear tomorrow, we'll likely need police for the foreseeable future in at least some form.

Binary positions like "every cop out there can just...not be a cop" are a form of false choice fallacy and ignore the reality of what this would actually entail.

"Just don't be a cop" is not a solution to the systemic problems, and introduces a whole new set of problems that I think most would argue are just as bad, and likely far worse.

Ultimately all of this distracts from real policy discussion.

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#218

Post by Loughla »

Infinity315 wrote: post #67
andy_ppp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience with the police has been universally terrible. They think they are above the law and trusting them to do the right thing or “tell the truth and you’ll be fine” is extremely bad advice. Get a lawyer and be very careful around these people is my more nuanced take on them. Edit: I commented before you made your answer more nuanced so I’ve changed mine too.

The vast majority of interactions with police are peaceful and relatively mundane. Your view of police seems to be only informed by videos you see online. The only interactions you see with police online are either extremely wholesome or extremely hostile. The mundane and boring interactions with police don't get seen, because they are boring and not at all noteworthy because it is standard.

I have only had one interaction with police. It ended with them trying to pin the robbery of the store I was working at on me. They had footage of another person running, but couldn't see his face. They couldn't ID his car. The officer on the scene misquoted me and they used that against me. They took me for questioning without telling me I could have a lawyer, and without telling me that my parents should be present (I was under 18). They told me I had to take a polygraph test and tried to use that to bully me into confessing to something I didn't do. I was a child.

If I, a solidly middle-class white guy can have that experience, what is the experience like for marginalized kids?

Now, that is VERY anecdotal, I understand that. But why would I ever open myself up to that kind of liability again?

Re: France passes bill to allow police remotely activate phone camera, microphone

#220

Post by devsda »

freedomben wrote: post #98
briandon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And easily physically removable batteries, which used to be the norm and are still available for some devices (like the Nokia C30). It isn't mere coincidence that device manufacturers have made it impossible to power off mobile phones (short of refusing to charge a device) and impossible to positively disconnect ripe-for-abuse subsystems like the microphone(s) or cameras at the same time that governments and other en…

Are you suggesting widespread conspiracy between governments and tech companies? I'm strongly in favor of physical switches and I detest where technology is nowadays, but it seems pretty likely to me that they removed the physical switches because: 1. It simplifies (cheapens) production costs 2. It eliminates points of failure 3. It reduces user error opportunities 4. It makes it easier to waterproof devices 5. It ma…

There may not be an outright conspiracy, but I will not be surprised if OEMs are discouraged from (re)introducing physical switches on popular and mass market devices.
Post reply on HN