[HN Gopher] The Manual for the Mass Surveillance Tool Cops Use t...
___________________________________________________________________
The Manual for the Mass Surveillance Tool Cops Use to Track Phones
Author : AtomicOrbital
Score : 236 points
Date : 2022-09-02 12:34 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| O__________O wrote:
| Direct link to the PDF of the manual linked to in the article:
|
| https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22273682/fog-data-sci...
|
| Appears the "device IDs" mentioned in the manual are:
|
| - Apple's Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) or
|
| - Android's Advertising Identifier.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our
| governments.
|
| A warrant should be required. A warrant should be a cryptosecure
| signed file from the judge(s). The search tool should validate
| the signatures. The parameters in question should also be signed
| across and be the only allowed inputs.
|
| Also there should be accountability for the reasonable
| expectation aspect of warrants. A realistic threshold should be
| enforced... If an officer or judge starts to dip below the
| threshold they should be seen as incompetent.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > A warrant should be required. A warrant should be a
| cryptosecure signed file from the judge(s). The search tool
| should validate the signatures. The parameters in question
| should also be signed across and be the only allowed inputs.
|
| The issues run deeper. Court orders are widely rubberstamped.
| Circumventing legal processes like this creates a verneer of
| judicial review that's meaningless, because "judicial review"
| should not mean "a judge's eyes have scanned the warrant for
| the signature line he needs to sign on".
|
| As a cherry on top, things like the fruit of the poisonous tree
| doctrine are pretty unique to the US - most countries don't
| have something like it, or only forbid using evidence if the
| manner in which it was gathered was too egregiously illegal,
| but otherwise it doesn't matter if prosecutors obtained
| evidence legally or not. It doesn't take a genius to see how
| that's not exactly conducive for the LE system to stay in their
| legal lane.
| SuperKamiyay wrote:
| > should not mean "a judge's eyes have scanned the warrant
| for the signature line he needs to sign on".
|
| We need CAPCHA for warrants!
| ccooffee wrote:
| I wonder what would change in the criminal legal system if
| all warrant applications must be counter-argued by a
| public-defender-like-role. I suspect the "defender" would
| just end being an always-ignored voice in the room, at
| least based on my understanding of post-patriot-act
| America.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| >The issues run deeper. Court orders are widely
| rubberstamped.
|
| I wrote the following to try and address that. I agree it's a
| big problem. > Also there should be accountability for the
| reasonable expectation aspect of warrants. A realistic
| threshold should be enforced... If an officer or judge starts
| to dip below the threshold they should be seen as
| incompetent.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our
| governments.
|
| Do you even? Who would you vote for for that not to happen? As
| far as I can tell, virtually 100% of both parties everywhere in
| the country support all of this.
| wmf wrote:
| People aren't protesting in the streets.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| and voter turnouts are something like 20-30ish percent last
| I checked...
| codingdave wrote:
| 66.8% in the last USA presidential election. But even so,
| that still isn't enough. People would be amazed how much
| a difference it would make if everyone voted.
| banannaise wrote:
| Well they certainly tried. After a few months of
| politicians giving lip service to their cause, followed by
| about 6-12 months of the cops mercilessly beating the shit
| out of them without consequence, protesting in the streets
| about policing started to look a lot less interesting and
| effective.
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| Those were riots and riddled with with racial issues that
| have nothing to do with this.
| otikik wrote:
| The riots were only two or three bad apples, most
| protesters were decent.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| The real issue is enforcement turning a blind eye to the
| bad apples. It's literally their job to root out and
| bring them to the justice system ...
|
| And part of their job is to reasonably accurately not
| affect innocent people in the process.
| zaroth wrote:
| To be a bit more quantitative, I think the sheer volume
| of property damage coincident to these protests should
| disabuse anyone of the notion that they were mostly
| peaceful.
|
| Guess the amount of attributable property damage, and
| then click [1].
|
| [1] -
| https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/2020-protests-
| changed...
| AlexandrB wrote:
| "Defund the police" had nothing to do with police
| overreach. Interesting. Perhaps the problem is that so
| many are convinced that it's "just" a racial issue, not a
| general police issue.
| banannaise wrote:
| 1. The line between "protest" and "riot" is fuzzy and
| arbitrary at best, and that's without considering that
| police violence against a protest will almost universally
| turn it into a riot because humans are humans.
|
| 2. Are you seriously trying to say that racial issues
| have nothing to do with excessive police surveillance?
| bobsmith432 wrote:
| Those riots had absolutely nothing to do with police
| surveillance.
| zhengyi13 wrote:
| Call it "police malfeasance" then, and put both their
| warrantless dragnets and their racist violence under that
| umbrella.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _put both their warrantless dragnets and their racist
| violence under that umbrella_
|
| Which is a politically worthless coalition if you want to
| actually get something done.
| [deleted]
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > "riot" is fuzzy
|
| I think theft, property damage, violence upon innocent
| bystanders all clearly count as rioting.
|
| The fuzzy part is more like what proportion of the people
| are rioting and how many are protesting and how to
| separate the former from the latter for the sake of
| justice.
| banannaise wrote:
| > I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our
| governments.
|
| The short answer to that is "the police have effectively
| executed a soft coup, and no politician or political process
| can meaningfully oppose them"
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| That implies that the police overthrew the government. The
| police are the government, and the government has not been on
| the side of the people for many years.
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| Found the guy who thinks technical solutions can solve human
| problems!
|
| Let's put warrants on the block chain while we're at it!
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| no surprise he's on HN . /jk
|
| I'm more talking about accountability and auditing (like an
| audit log of actions)
| Razengan wrote:
| > _I do not understand why we accept such low standards from
| our government_
|
| All paths to the dark side start with Fear.
| secabeen wrote:
| Warrants are still required to compel data from companies like
| cell phone companies. This is different. This is a company
| expressly setup to sell data they gather to the police. No
| compulsion is required, they're voluntarily doing it, and the
| users are "voluntarily" giving that data away, via sketchy apps
| that only disclose the location data giveaway buried in a ToS.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| But they should require a warrant to get data on me... We
| need to normalize that entering my data is like entering my
| home. You require a warrant to inspect things that are
| default private.
| bagels wrote:
| I wonder if this data is being used in trial or being used in
| warrant applications given that the data can easily be spoofed by
| providing inaccurate data to these analytics apis?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| You give the legal system way too much credit. When it comes to
| evidence provided by the police, "spoofed data" is considered
| an ultra rare edge case not worth considering unless the
| defense has some excellent evidence to the contrary.
| metadat wrote:
| Is there a direct download link to the manual?
|
| I wish we knew which apps are contributing user location data to
| the Fog Feed. This is an egregious abuse of user trust, just to
| make a buck (or fractions of a penny per user).
|
| Do Apple and / or the Google Play Store have policies about this?
| Are the app developers in breach of ToS?
| O__________O wrote:
| Posted a link here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32691723
| jjwiseman wrote:
| The location tracking industry is getting ready for the real
| possibility of much stricter legislation coming soon. "Warren
| proposes sweeping ban on location and health data sales":
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/15/23169718/roe-wade-elizabe...
| ccooffee wrote:
| The backing legislation, Health and Location Data Protection
| Act of 2022 (S.4408), was forwarded to subcommittee on June 15
| but hasn't seen any action since [0]. That said, I don't know
| how quickly the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
| Transportation moves through things. From skimming the previous
| meeting agendas [1], it appears that they often take months
| before discussing bills. It's possible that they will discuss
| this bill before midterm elections, but I'm doubtful. According
| to the Senate's schedule [2], the Senate has 33 more working
| days before midterms. I don't see enough momentum behind this
| bill to actually get it considered before midterms.
|
| Fingers crossed for 2023, though.
|
| [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-
| bill/440...
|
| [1] https://www.commerce.senate.gov/hearings
|
| [2]
| https://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2021_calend...
| dsq wrote:
| I am curious as to whether the apps that leak data are specific
| to a certain operating system. That is, are they android-only or
| iOS-only.
| 3np wrote:
| Both. In general Android exposes more dimensions compared to
| iOS.
| fsflover wrote:
| More details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261.
| toss1 wrote:
| Seems the buried lede in the article was this:
|
| >>Fog Reveal refers to a company called Venntel as its "data
| partner," but neither company would clarify their relationship
| to the outlet. Motherboard has reported extensively on how
| Venntel sources global advertising data from its parent company
| Gravy Analytics. The data itself comes from apps installed on
| peoples' smartphones; app developers often enter agreements to
| sell their users location information to third parties. Venntel
| then sells its own surveillance product to government agencies,
| including Customs and Border Protection.
|
| Seems this is no particular app, just apps SELLING the location
| data on to aggregators, who then sell it to Fog, who surface it
| in their Reveal product.
|
| So, no need to identify a person or phone and phish them into
| installing your tracker. This is just find your crime, ID the
| phones in the area, and start tracking them based on location
| data sold into the marketplace...
|
| While it's a great capability for the cops, it means that we
| really are at the point where we've all been sold a covert
| device to track our every move.
|
| (And deleting our Google location history is worthless, as
| Google has nothing to do with this.)
| kornhole wrote:
| Possible sources: -Telcos who use cell tower triangulation
| -Apple and Google -A huge list of apps that collect location
| data regardless of OS
| 3np wrote:
| Related ongoing thread:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32690053
|
| EFF post: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/06/what-fog-data-
| science-...
| woodruffw wrote:
| I think you meant this thread[1].
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686750
| 3np wrote:
| Oops. Yes.
| [deleted]
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| The dumbest part about this is that it's only _partial_ dragnet
| surveillance. They're surveilling a biased sample of the
| population that installs sketchy apps on their phones. I'm
| betting there are more Android users in this dataset than the
| general population. In a way, by using Android you're actually
| increasing your chances of false imprisonment.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > I'm betting there are more Android users in this dataset than
| the general population
|
| Is this distinct from the dataset of iCloud users that the NSA
| maintains, or the same one?
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| I guess that depends if the Snowflake sales team has been
| able to touch base with them about their migration to the
| modern data stack.
| dontbesilly123 wrote:
| citizenpaul wrote:
| >Android you're actually increasing your chances of false
| imprisonment.
|
| That used to be true until apple implemented CSAM a black box
| that scans for hashes of straight to federal prison files.
| Without your consent or any way to audit it. No oversight.
|
| Yeah I know its not 100% implemented yet but that is just a
| matter of time.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _until apple implemented CSAM a black box that scans for
| hashes of straight to federal prison files_
|
| Of photos uploaded to iCloud. That's a far cry from
| persistent surveillance.
| erdos4d wrote:
| Wait til they add the hashes of the next set of leaks to
| this. We all know that's coming. The next Snowden is going
| to have it harder.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Correct. The persistent surveillance comes in the form of
| PRISM compliance and covert warrants that we, the general
| public, don't get to see.
|
| You'd have to be _crazy_ to think the most popular American
| phone is free from government surveillance.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _persistent surveillance comes in the form of PRISM
| compliance and covert warrants_
|
| You've moved the goalposts. We're talking about
| warrantless surveillance. FISA courts are flawed. But
| they're subject to investigation, deliberation and reform
| in a way police buying commercial data is not. (The
| warrant process is first and foremost a gate. When it
| fails at that, as it appears to have with FISC, it serves
| as a judicial record.)
| smoldesu wrote:
| The warrant is a pretty bad gate. Apple complies with 90%
| of the requests they get from American law enforcement
| for account access (and a startling 95% of device access
| requests by the CCP (!!!)), so I don't really buy the
| idea that they're valiantly protecting my identity tooth-
| and-nail. Moreover, I agree that these are two different
| arenas, but I don't see what the difference is. Apple
| cares about privacy _sometimes_ , but the fact that they
| don't care about it _all the time_ leads me to not trust
| them.
|
| If we're going to demand user privacy, we need to do it
| properly. Apple has zero accountability, so they have
| zero incentive to not sabotage your privacy.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| The default setting on iOS is to immediately upload every
| new image (photo or screenshot saved to the camera roll) to
| iCloud. Screenshots default to saving to the camera roll
| (and contain quite a bit of auxiliary data, btw). On the
| web, the default and sometimes only way to save an image is
| to add it to the camera roll.
| sashahrzg wrote:
| After listening to some experts speak about this, I don't think
| that's the case. One cited a lot of large apps as sources of
| data, especially free apps that offer a good service. Waze
| keeps getting brought up in this debate as well, though I'm
| unsure if it is used in this context.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Some uses that spring to mind. Stalking. Finding out if your
| significant other is cheating. Finding out who your kid has
| visiting your house. Finding out who visits the local abortion
| clinic for shaming, suing, persecuting, and prosecuting.
|
| Finding out who visits the local gay clubs. Finding out whose
| fucking especially when this is valuable blackmail material.
| Making a list of everyone's religious affiliations because nobody
| has ever misused THAT before.
|
| Keep track of all the abortion clinics and sell lawsuits as a
| service. Plug in your name and let it tell you if there is anyone
| you are eligible to collect 10,000 from. Just check a box to have
| papers sent to your door and theirs and wait while other people
| harvest their money like they already reaped their privacy.
|
| Privacy laws are in need of radical revision and I think I need a
| new phone. Ideally one that isn't tied to my name and makes voip
| calls over an out of country vpn.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| You missed one thing.
|
| Once your location pops up in one of these things you are now a
| "person of interest" which is just a fancy way for the police
| to avoid saying "suspect"
|
| You are now in a position forced to defend yourself from guilt
| rather than them finding something that points to you.
| Everything about police work is motivated towards finding a
| reason to pin guilt on you. Nothing is about exonerating you.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You are absolutely correct and worse the more this tech is
| used to actually solve cases the fewer crooks will carry
| their phones and many crimes aren't pinpointed neatly in
| time.
|
| We will know that sometime between Friday afternoon and
| Saturday morning someone robbed a location and due to
| imperfection of GPS signals your suspects will include dozens
| of people including people who walked by 2 streets over. Over
| time your suspect list will be less and less likely to
| contain the criminal but it will statistically likely contain
| at least a few who got in trouble previously especially
| minorities who can be threatened with 10 to 20 years in jail
| in order to make them accept 6 months -> probation or risk
| facing a jury of mostly white people. You can then
| successfully close tons of cases without finding any actual
| criminals, doing any real work, or even risking court.
|
| And your local businesses get unpaid slave labor rented to
| them cheap. What a goddamn paradise. All we need is some
| cotton that needs picking you know or a soul and a shred of
| decency.
| [deleted]
| mariodiana wrote:
| I'm going to propose something crazy. Government shouldn't be
| allowed to do whatever isn't illegal. Government should not be
| allowed to do _anything_ unless specifically authorized by law.
| With respect to electronic surveillance, the methods need to be
| clearly circumscribed. Anything outside of specific, written
| guidelines enacted into law should be illegal.
| dylan604 wrote:
| So what happens you get a warrant that specifies electronic
| data collection only, yet when you arrive at the location, you
| find they don't use computers at all and have everything you
| need to convict in a handwritten ledger of some sort? Do you
| have to leave the ledger because the warrant specified
| electronic?
| jackson1442 wrote:
| yes, that's how warrants work. if you get a warrant that says
| you may search the kitchen and don't find anything, you don't
| get to go and search the bedroom.
| otikik wrote:
| Of course you do. Why do you think otherwise?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer, nor a criminal to be on
| the receiving end of a search warrant so I have no insights
| into their details. Why do you assume otherwise?
|
| So you're saying that an investigator looking for a
| specific type of evidence cannot find other evidence of the
| same crime? Are they then supposed to go back to a judge to
| say now we need to modify the warrant or get a new warrant?
| Do they leave people around so the new evidence isn't
| removed while the new/updated warrant is obtained? Are
| their time limits on the execution of a warrant?
| Terretta wrote:
| This is mostly a US thing, not really the case in UK, EU,
| or India for instance.
|
| _"Fruit of the poisonous tree" is a legal metaphor used
| to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The
| logic of the terminology is that if the source (the
| "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted,
| then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
| well._
|
| _The doctrine underlying the name was first described in
| Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385
| (1920). The term 's first use was by Justice Felix
| Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939)._
|
| _Such evidence is not generally admissible in court. For
| example, if a police officer conducted an
| unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and
| obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of
| a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most
| likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree
| legal doctrine._
|
| _The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to
| deter police from using illegal means to obtain
| evidence._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
|
| See also "exclusionary rule":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule
| mariodiana wrote:
| Yes.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| This is how it's supposed to work in the US.
| [deleted]
| benlivengood wrote:
| That's pretty much how the U.S. constitution was written.
| Federalism superceded that in spirit in many ways, and states
| followed suit.
| mariodiana wrote:
| Yes. I understand that. For some reason, most of my fellow
| Americans don't.
| TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote:
| Most of your fellow Americans play tribal politics and turn
| a blind eye whenever their preferred party does it.
| advisedwang wrote:
| That's true for the Federal government (although even that
| has loopholes you could drive a truck through, like
| exceptions for national security) but not for states. States
| have general police power and generally can regulate anything
| unless there it is forbidden.
| therealjumbo wrote:
| A state could be a leader and enact that type of provision
| into their state law or state constitution. Good leadership
| is hard to find.
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| No government has willingly given up power
| therealjumbo wrote:
| Yes they have, just not very often and not without a long
| political fight and not without strong political leaders
| to push it forward.
|
| Say what you want about the "system" and the two parties
| and so on, but we the people send our senators and reps
| to Congress, and the same is true at the state level.
| This type of thing would be best done at a state level to
| show people, particularly those in other states that it
| can work well.
| pksebben wrote:
| this view of an average Americans level of agency in our
| political process could most politely be described as
| 'simplified'.
|
| Before you even get in the weeds as to how voting
| actually works, that two party thing you mentioned
| provides, at the ideal best, two people with two sets of
| ideas about how to get things done. IF they don't agree
| on how to manage something (say we get the rare
| politician who's not in favor of further deregulating
| banks), there's no guarantee that one of those two ideas
| will be any good, or aligned with the political zeitgeist
| they're supposed to represent. Much more often, the wedge
| issues they differ on are a fraction of the things
| they'll be making decisions about, and stuff like
| military spending, bank deregulation, and general market
| deregulation are bipartisan supported. So if you don't
| like either of those, you're effectively excluded from
| the political process.
|
| Then, you have all the ways in which the voting process
| is gamed by those in charge of it. Gerimandering is an
| obvious and easy one to spot, but there are other, more
| pernicious methods employed - like restricting voting to
| a single day, not making voting a holiday, purging voter
| rolls prior to the primaries (we'll deal with the
| primaries in a second), restricting felons from voting
| (whilst making things like marijuana possession a felony,
| an easy way to shunt out the underprivileged). There's
| more, for good reading on this topic check out Republic
| Lost by Lawrence Lessig.
|
| We are married to first-past-the-post voting, which is
| demonstrably the worst system but the easiest to game.
|
| The supreme court, which makes many of the most impactful
| political decisions, isn't voted in. And they have life
| terms. So even if you manage to make progress elsewhere,
| they can just decide that things should be different and
| change the way the law works.
|
| The Senate arbitrarily distributes the power to block
| legislation among the least populous states, making it
| easier to manipulate the population into voting for
| people who will do this.
|
| K Street (the lobbyists) literally get paid to 'help'
| draft legislation that favors only those who can afford
| it. Some of our laws are actually for sale.
|
| Then you have the primaries, which are effectively
| controlled by two fairly small cabals of (who exactly? I
| dare you to enumerate the people involved). Each of which
| has it's own set of obtuse rules that's not subject to an
| iota of the scrutiny that actual elections are subject
| to, even though you could make the argument that the
| primaries are the more important election, because they
| decide what the two options will be.
|
| Then there's the news. Rather, there's the institutions
| that claim to be news, but all of which behave more like
| winged propaganda machines, pumping their color and
| fueling anger at (whatever the wedge issues are for the
| other team today). These outlets all have things they
| will not talk about, like the issues with our elections
| or growing income inequality, because these things are
| precisely the things that the power structure, which all
| major news networks benefit from, is founded upon.
|
| One thing both parties agree on completely; there should
| only be two parties. This would strike one as odd if they
| weren't so deeply acclimated to the situation.
| krapp wrote:
| Exactly. For instance, we were all warned that the
| "temporary" measures taken by governments to enforce
| quarantines and travel restrictions during COVID were
| just a pretext for a permanent state of pharmaco-
| military-industrial fascism precisely because governments
| never willingly give up power, and to this day I'm not
| allowed to leave my apartment without government
| permission or else snipers will shoot me dead in the
| street, and not having my vaccine passport on me at all
| times means an instant lifetime vacation in the CDC
| gulags.
|
| Oh wait, no... that never actually happened because
| governments actually willingly give up power all the
| time.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I don't personally remember the government "willingly"
| giving up anything. They had to be dragged kicking and
| screaming to end the TSA Mask Mandate, and only did so
| after they were ordered to terminate it by a judge. The
| same thing happened with the vaccine mandates for private
| employers, and several other measures.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| You can write the law however you want, but it's the people
| holding the guns who decide how those laws are enforced that
| really decide what the laws are. The glorification and
| deification of cops and soldiers as saint-like figures of pure
| virtue makes it that much easier. Ultimately the only real
| constraint on police and military power is mass civil
| disobedience, and technology and weaponry and mass surveillance
| can nullify much of that.
| fsflover wrote:
| Now you need to propose how to implement that in a law.
| krapp wrote:
| It already has been - the Fourth Amendment to the US
| Constitution.
| mikeiz404 wrote:
| From the AP article [1]:
|
| > It relies on advertising identification numbers, which Fog
| officials say are culled from popular cellphone apps such as
| Waze, Starbucks and hundreds of others that target ads based on a
| person's movements and interests, according to police emails.
|
| > ...
|
| > On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission sued a data broker
| called Kochava that, like Fog, provides its clients with
| advertising IDs that authorities say can easily be used to find
| where a mobile device user lives, which violates rules the
| commission enforces. And there are bills before Congress now
| that, if passed, would regulate the industry.
|
| 1: https://apnews.com/article/technology-police-government-
| surv...
| joemazerino wrote:
| Degoogled Android would help this but giving your location data
| up for free is still the caveat.
| advisedwang wrote:
| The article suggests this is not getting data from Google (as
| that requires a warrant) but from other apps that agreed to add
| location tracking SDKs.
| joemazerino wrote:
| I would argue that the average deGoogled device has less apps
| and Google Play app bloat to decrease the surveillance
| surface. Less apps translates to less location data.
| advisedwang wrote:
| It's a question of _which_ bloat!
|
| All the google stuff spying on you goes to Google
| databases, which (at least as far as we know from public
| info and the news story here) requires a warrent.
|
| It's non-Google apps that are sending location data to the
| 3rd party brokers supplying this tool. deGoogling a phone
| has nothing to do with these apps.
| mxuribe wrote:
| I'm sure if the location data (and other related data) for those
| in power and law enforcement leaders were to be made available to
| everyone, in an easy to digest and display method...I'm sure some
| of these data flows would be quickly be made illegal, and quickly
| shut down. ;-)
| ilaksh wrote:
| So now the phone is the biggest security problem I have, but all
| of my data is unlocked with it..
|
| I think I need a smart phone without the actual phone part? But
| sometimes I need remote data.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Serious question - would removing the SIM card do the same
| thing?
| erdos4d wrote:
| I quit carrying my phone out of the house because I knew
| something like this was coming. I really like it, I look at
| scenery and actually think about things now. People around me
| probably think I'm poor as dirt too, so they leave me alone.
| alcover wrote:
| I only have a dumb phone and I also often leave it at home. I
| don't get smart phones.. Why carry an addictive computer on
| yourself ?
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| This is a great idea. I broke my phone in Mexico and it made
| the last few days a much different, amazing experience.
| ganyu wrote:
| When people in the U.S. are arguing about why their govts should
| need a warrant to spy on peoples phones, people in PRC are
| required to install an app that literally spies on them.
|
| Surveillance is really going in its worst way, if there's not a
| worse one.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-02 23:01 UTC)