How To Tell If Your Cell Phone Is Bugged 338
Lauren Weinstein writes to point us to his essay on the realities of using an idle cell phone as a bug, as a recent story indicated the FBI may have done in a Mafia case. From the essay: "There is no magic in cell phones. From a transmitting standpoint, they are either on or off... It is also true that some phones can be remotely programmed by the carrier to mask or otherwise change their display and other behaviors in ways that could be used to fool the unwary user. However, this level of remote programmability is another feature that is not universal... But remember — no magic! When cell phones are transmitting — even as bugs — certain things are going to happen every time that the alert phone user can often notice."
Bip! (Score:0, Insightful)
Yeah. You're being bugged.
No content (Score:5, Insightful)
Bug Detector (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry FBI for killing your wiretap program.
First Privacy, Then Those Other Freedoms... (Score:4, Insightful)
This has always stood as one of those easily reinterpreted components of the constitution -- just look at the way the US Supreme Court enjoys reinterpreting [erowid.org] it. And, to some degree, I do see why this should be interpreted in a somewhat fluid way. There are terrorists/freedom fighters out there, and governments should be capable of protecting their citizens-- that is what they're ultimately designed to do.
However, the egregious trampling of our right to privacy, as outlined in the US constitution, starts moving us very quickly in the direction of fascism [wikipedia.org]. And people tend to use the term fascism lightly, but you have to ask yourself how a state can move from one type of government to another? History has shown that this happens everywhere -- just [wikipedia.org] look [wikipedia.org] at [wikipedia.org] history [wikipedia.org]
So, why would I take a break from my ultimate presentation on latency markers in tuberculosis? Well, I feel strongly that you (the person reading this, not just the general "you") should take it upon yourself to encourage those people that you vote for to stand up and strengthen the first levee against tyranny -- our right to privacy. The FBI may, at this point, consider using your cell phone to track you as a legitimate means to and end, but when the FBI cycles through it's current leadership/membership then we can only hope that these means lead to good ends.
And the hope that people mean well is not something I am willing to risk.
What about recording to internal memory? (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of memory and processors in some modern phones makes this a possibility...
What about bugging computers? (Score:2, Insightful)
All current laptops have microphones and some have built in cameras. Desktops also usually have microphones and often have cameras. Many have continuous internet access. Computers are ubiquitous and they are often left on. It is not hard to imagine infecting a vulnerable computer with a small program to send back continuous audio and an occasional picture. With reasonable bit rates and good encoding, it would not use much bandwidth.
Does anyone else worry about such things? Has this been done already? If it has, would you know about it? (pull foil hat on tighter)
Is there any evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, it seems, all this craze comes from some over-paranoid tinhats and has no grounding in reality.
Re:Old, old news (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that anyone can live in Britain today and not commit any crimes. You've never driven over 70mph on a motorway? You've never put recyclable waste in your dustbin?
There are so many laws in Britain today that you're pretty much a criminal the instant you get out of bed; in fact, you're probably a criminal if you stay in bed all day too. The real problem is _too many laws_, not too many criminals; if the cops stopped chasing people for bullshit crimes with high-tech gadgetry they could get all the real criminals off the streets.
Re:Not a bug (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a bug, it's the future
Not entirely reliable advice (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, not being able to make a call when a call is in progress. In time division multiplexing, you're taking one or two timeslots out of eight or sixteen. However, it's pretty clear that if we have modified the phone ostensible behavior enough to use it as a bug, it could also take more than one half channel at a time.
Checking the warmth of the phone is good idea, but not perfect either. The assumption is that the phone is transmitting your words live. What if the phone recorded your conversations at a reduced bit rate, say 3kb/sec, using voice activiation. It could the be stored and dribbled out intermittently, particularly when close to a cell tower. This would reduce telltale power effects. This might not be enough to monitor your every waking moment, but it could be used to monitor snatches of your conversation, particularly as part of a surveillance program.
Even if the phone doesn't transmit your speech, it could use the signally channel to record that you are talking, combined with the GPS or wi-fi snooping, over time the network of people you talk to could be recontructed.
It's a bit paranoid to worry about these things, unless you think the government has a compelling reason to snoop on you. But if you do have such a reason, then you shouldn't make too many assumptions about what they could do with a phone, particularly a "smart" phone which might have megabytes of storage. A simpler phone with a removable battery would be a good choice.
Re:Cipher indicator (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
The real answer to 'who are they'- Bill Collectors (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that's sorta funny (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, no offense meant, but it's sorta funny to hear that coming from the _USA_.
What you have over there is some vague principle, that, as you say, is constantly being reinterpreted to mean, "yeah, well, it says we can't search your papers, but your computer's files are still fair game" or "yeah, well, once you gave that info to someone else, or it passed through someone else's servers/wires/whatever, then you have no more claim to privacy" or other such.
What we have in the EU, on the other hand, are very precise laws saying what can you do with other people's data (very little without their consent), what you _can't_ do with it, and what kind of data you're not even supposed to be collecting at all. And not just for government agencies. Your bank or phone company also can't just sell your information to everyone for an extra buck, for example.
So maybe, dunno, maybe you could include _that_ idea in your body of laws?
Re:Now that's sorta funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely not.
1. It's un-American (anything those Europeans do is by default).
2. It could hurt the economy.
3. It most definitely helps the terrorists.
4. Since when did the US ever take advice from backwater countries in the middle of nowhere ?
I don't think you've been paying attention... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm wrong, just being paranoid, but I'd say it's utterly foolish to assume you have any privacy by default these days. If you're not taking active measures to ensure privacy, you don't have it.
- Brain.
Re:I'll try to record the conversations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:er, tin-foil hat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Old, old news (Score:4, Insightful)
That's it, you win the doublespeak award this week and it's not even Tuesday yet. Your extremely light two sentences about Belgium announcing "mobile control" whatever that is, doesn't defend the above quote in the least. It's also a logical fallacy. People are not innocent only because they are being watched, they can be innocent just because they ARE, they don't need to be monitored to force them into that state. Others may (or may not) check their behavior knowing they are under surveillance, but being watched is certainly not a prerequisite for obeying the law.
The reason 'they' - the state - monitor you is to catch you doing something wrong, anything. Maybe it wasn't even illegal last week, but it is this week and now you're guilty. With the huge numbers of laws on the books everyone is almost guaranteed to be guilty of something at some point, the only problem has been catching everyone in the act of breaking some law. With ubiquitous surveillance, monitoring algorithms, etc. the state now, more than any other time in history, can keep a dirty file on everyone. The state can only punish criminals, but if everyone is a criminal then the state has achieved another level of control and can selectively enforce prosecution at will to manipulate, coherce, and consolidate more power. That particular 'power' may even be something as minor as increasing traffic ticket revenue, but the result is the same.
Re:Cells are never off..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On Star (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one would not mind being killed by a drunk driver if it saved our right* to privacy and freedom of speech. No officer needs to hear what I'm saying to see that I'm swerving or chugging from a tall silver can at every stoplight.
*: The word "right" in this context is used to convey that it is ethically and morally right that we should have privacy and freedom of speech, not that we have a guaranteed Right as established by government and upheld/squashed by the courts.
Re:I'll try to record the conversations (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Start a pre-paid phone company.
2. With each new activation, call the new user 10 to 12 times making each call last at least 5 minutes.
3. User is forced to buy more minutes for the phone.
4. Profit!
Layne
Re:The real answer to 'who are they'- Bill Collect (Score:2, Insightful)