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

The protester's guide to smartphone security

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–246 of 246 posts

Re: The protester's guide to smartphone security

#241

Post by scarface_74 »

542354234235 wrote: post #236
scarface_74 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any trust in the police or even more so the various 3 letter agencies.

It isn’t about trust, it is about how likely you are to encounter a risk and how big that risk, if encountered, is. Do you own a hazmat suit? A nuclear bunker? Did you install a 5-point harness and wear a helmet when you drive? Could you be tortured for information by the police? Yes. Is that in any way likely at all? No. Taking reasonable precautions against likely actions by law enforcement is better than acting li…

The chance of encountering a police that operates unlawfully - especially since they have qualified immunity is a very big risk. The chance of other police covering for them is close to 100%

Re: The protester's guide to smartphone security

#242

Post by nostradumbasp »

HumanOstrich wrote: post #223
nostradumbasp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turn your phone off, and wrap it in 5 layers of tin foil. Or like you said leave the stupid thing at home.

Hey that should go well with my tin foil hat.

They actually sell those now. Well they use "faraday fabric". So that's another solution, but your phone one your head and put a foil hat on it.

Re: The protester's guide to smartphone security

#243

Post by Xen9 »

gknoy wrote: post #215
thunfischbrot wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you‘re opening the cover, disconnecting antennas might be the way to go instead. Depending on the device, it‘s relatively painless and even reversible.

I believe they mean a cover as in a case that has a folding cover, not as in the external layer of the phone itself. So you effectively turn that otterbox-ish thing into a faraday cage that will enclose your phone. I am not sure how I follow how that isn't completely negated as soon as you go to actually use the phone, though.

Most antennas require desoldering to disable, but mmWave & possibly NFC can be removed without it. Lining the case thoroughly with EMI tape edge-to-edge and adding another layer over any gaps blocks RF signal emission & reception. The screen side doesn't need shielding since antennas aren't directed through it. If you set & use USB-C for charging only and your installation passed PGP & attestation, then the OS disabling wireless components will also eliminate active remote attack surface & reduce passive remote attack surface at least remarkably.

Re: The protester's guide to smartphone security

#245

Post by hulitu »

echoangle wrote: post #93
giantg2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"investing in walkie-talkies that have encryption can be worth it as well" Generally not allowed in many bands in the US. Motorola sells some AES walkies. They're really the only ones I know of, and they're very expensive.

Well the whole point of hiding your tracks is evading law enforcement, why would you care if it’s illegal? Or is it because of the „only do one crime at a time“ thing?

> Well the whole point of hiding your tracks is evading law enforcement, why would you care if it’s illegal?

Because it will make you an easy target.

Re: The protester's guide to smartphone security

#246

Post by bigfatkitten »

Aeolun wrote: post #124
giantg2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"investing in walkie-talkies that have encryption can be worth it as well" Generally not allowed in many bands in the US. Motorola sells some AES walkies. They're really the only ones I know of, and they're very expensive.

I don’t understand under what logic AES encrypted radio communications (walkie-talkie) differ from AES encrypted radio communications (mobile network).

In the US, you can't run anything but analog voice on the bands you can use somewhat freely (CB, GMRS, FRS etc). On the amateur bands, you can run digital voice but you can't apply encoding for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of a communication.

You can do this on land mobile frequencies, but unless you're an organisation, you won't meet the eligibility requirements to be granted a licence by the FCC.

Your only other lawful option is one of the 900MHz FHSS solutions, though I don't think any of these offer robust encryption.

Post reply on HN