351–360 of 465 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/cell-phone-data-from-lori-...
Your "on demand" makes it read like they don't need to get a warrant whereas your link describes a missing-children investigation that had already made the national news, i.e., a situation in which getting a warrant would be very easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "on demand" makes it read like they don't need to get a warrant whereas your link describes a missing-children investigation that had already made the national news, i.e., a situation in which getting a warrant would be very easy.
I've had it used on me personally without a warrant. There are no deep controls on this tech. You just have to know someone who can do a favor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or they just triangulated using his cell phone, it can be very accurate in urban settings
You experienced a type 0 SMS. It can wake the GPS on a modern phone and return a GPS location. Last time I checked cell tower triangulation is accurate to between a few hundred and a few thousand feet. Cellular A-GPS can be good to within a few feet inside houses usually but often its within a few tens of feet in accuracy.
That was about what LTE could do. With 4G, they got it down to 20-50 meters. Now they can do much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the question was "how did the phone company know the location", and GPS may be part of the answer. In the US, E911 requires all phones to be able to report their physical location. Phone companies may use this ability to respond to police location requests. I don't know one way or another, but it seems likely.
Do phone companies have access to that when the phone isn't actively placing a 911 call?
The E911 laws, though, only require that the location information be obtained and forwarded when the call is placed.
So, I don't know. I don't know anything beyond that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what is "our" government? this site is worldwide..
I've (unfortunately) got a habit of accidentally assuming forums are "in the US". I think I would put it down to a couple of things: 1. Most native English speakers are in the US, so the accidental assumption that someone is American is more often than not correct. 2. The internal voice that reads text to me has a generic male American accent.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English...
reminder 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Widespread conspiracy between governments and tech companies has already been proven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
You mean, a conspiracy in the past to allow governments to sample/siphon data has been proven. That's a pretty different thing than having the entire market physically designing their product so that the government can use it to spy on people.
I don't doubt at all that the government would like companies to do that (they've already openly asked for it regarding encryption after all), but jumping to "it's a(nother) conspiracy!" when there are some pretty damn good explanations that are much closer to Occam's Razor seems irrational to me.
I don't think the tech companies deserve our trust, but I also think that if we go around seeing ghosts and conspiracies in every shadow and under every rock, it's not going to mean anything when the *next Prism happens because everyone will see "the boy who cried wolf" or say "those people always think it's a conspiracy."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nexus/Pixel devices literally come out of the box with Verizon background crapware installed that you cannot disable or remove even if you're not a Verizon customer. Google long sold out, friend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it sounds reasonable. It also sounds reasonable to allow police to enter anyone's home at any time - consider all the crime they might prevent if only they didn't have to wait for a warrant! It sounds reasonable to let the police shoot a fleeing suspect, because why are they running if they aren't guilty? It sounds reasonable to let the police look through any computer - how much CP is missed because they have t…
Just as the police aren't allowed to install a bugging device in the house of a suspect without judicial permission, they're not permitted to remotely surveil a suspect's phone without such permission either. So your comparison of this limited additional capability to "allow police to enter anyone's home at any time" is not relevant. And trying to draw a parallel to "let the police shoot a fleeing suspect" is absurd.
It will be abused instantly.