Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Your Own Mini-Stalker 109

kashif.ahsan writes "A ComputerWorld article discusses the inherent privacy dangers of carrying around our ubiquitous technological assistants. They're like miniature stalkers, right there in your pocket. 'Camera phones contain all the necessary ingredients for completely invasive stalking: a microphone, camera, personal data on the user, location information, a chat and call history — you name it. And victims carry them everywhere they go. All that's missing is the software that lets stalkers take control ... new software, called snoopware, does just that.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Your Own Mini-Stalker

Comments Filter:
  • by SamP2 ( 1097897 ) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:49AM (#19936099)
    So let's get this straight...

    - I'm already being spied on by close-circuit cameras planted everywhere short of the public toilet (may be wrong on that one as well)
    - Government agencies and their friendly associates already have records of my name, sex, DOB, address, occupation, salary, and other "general statistics"
    - Corporate spyware already records my keystrokes, browsing habits, shopping history, porn preferences, dubious sources of owned MP3s, financial credentials, political views, and probably things I don't even know about

    And now you are trying to tell me I need to be scared of my 4x3 inch PDA? Right, because OBVIOUSLY that's the only thing threatening my privacy!
  • One minor point... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekyMD ( 812672 ) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:07AM (#19936149)
    I can barely get my camera to sync with my computer with a wire, as it is I just yank the SD. Good luck getting software to make it wireless now.

    If someone is willing to violate my personal space and physically take my stuff, I might suggest stalking my filing cabinet instead.
    It never moves and has way more juicy data than my latest vacation photos and lunch planning.

  • FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:07AM (#19936151)
    victims? stalkers?

    Given that all of these appliances are carried voluntarily and have an off switch, this story has no merit at all.

    At best it's the basis for a (rather bad and technically unsound) horror story. At worst it helps spread fear and paranoia - as if we didn't have enough real problems to worry about.

  • by 19thNervousBreakdown ( 768619 ) <davec-slashdot&lepertheory,net> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:21AM (#19936195) Homepage

    Nah, it's possible. All you need, and this is really easy--trust me--all your need is to write an application that can run on any weird-endian processor, hundreds of different micro-oses, or in the case of java-supporting phones, break out of the java sandbox, or on brew phones just get yourself the developer certificate from qualcomm and then get the carrier to distribute your app to their customers.

    This is going to be huge.

    ...

    Well, there's always BlackBerry and Windows Mobile.

  • by sporkme ( 983186 ) * on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:26AM (#19936221) Homepage
    There seems to be this ridiculous notion out there that you and everything about you is some kind of giant secret. Case in point, has anyone gone shopping for car insurance lately? Honestly, the password to your email account is the least of your concerns when compared to the way that credit scoring rapes you on something like that.

    If I have:
    A) No speeding tickets
    B) No DUI convictions
    C) No accidents
    D) An eviction five years ago
    E) A big student loan

    then I will have higher insurance rates than an 18-year-old with no credit whatsoever. ZOMG the insurance company is in my credits powning my billz!

    Furthermore, has anyone paid taxes lately? We carefully pen or key all of our vitals, all of our earnings and where we earned them, all of our expenditures and where we spent them, our political affiliations, our medical conditions, our contact info, our religion, our blood types, et cetera. Then what? We can but choose between the creepy old letter carrier, Chester, and the creepy old internet. Who gets all this juicy data next, we can only imagine. I promise, it is not good.

    Here's a tasty one for you... Homeland security. Had to get that phrase in there for all the conspiracy types on Google. Tracking your library card? To hell with that lame crap... to hear them tell it they are in your fone processin your data anyway.

    Speaking of Google... well... Google. Sign in to be mined^W Googled^w convenienced.

    There are a Segan Billion Billion data leaks out there, and you and your data don't exactly get to choose where to leak.

    So when I see these articles about **DIGITAL DEVICES CONTAIN DATA AND THEY CAN SEE MEEE ZOMG** I tend to seriously consider going back to lighting my farts, just to cover the evidence. Plus, it is truly entertaining when compared to sweating about the spy in my pocket. Fsck my own mini-stalker, where do I get a mini-hooker [wikipedia.org]?

    Why bother being paranoid? They're going to get you anyway.
  • by SamP2 ( 1097897 ) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:57AM (#19936297)
    >18-year-old

    Way to contribute to the very same problem you are complaining of being treated with (prejudice and irrelevant facts being taken into account).

    It's sick to see governments repeatedly marginalize young drivers' rights by blanket higher premiums, harder process to get a car, tougher fines for exactly the same offences, and restrictions which don't apply to older drivers. And I'm not talking about "novice" vs "veteran", I'm talking about real age being taken into account (and even if you are above the legal age of majority you still may be considered "young" for these purposes).

    Look, just because there are SOME asshole teens who zip by your street in their pimped out Civic doing 160mph with music so loud you see the windshields vibrating, doesn't mean ALL young drives drive this way, and there should not be a blanket prejudice towards all younger drivers.

    Seeing you whine for suffering the consequences of people with big loans being put in the same category as bad drivers for insurance purposes, while implying young drivers should get higher premiums just because they are young, is hypocritical at best.
  • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:51AM (#19936429)
    I love Google so much. Look for "blackberry snoopware" and see references like this.

    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=785 [com.com]

    Given the Blackberry popularity among the "power tie" crowd and among their account managers, if I were a stock investor interested in gaining some nsider information, or a reporter willing to bend some laws, I'd be sitting at the booth at Infoworld or the Republican national convention monitoring as much data as possible.
  • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 ) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:59AM (#19936687) Journal
    You're carrying a microphone that is made in order to transmit voice wirelessly, you probably have it on in your pocket, at voice reach during all of your private conversation and you rely on a non-disclosed, neither third-party-approved proprietary software running on proprietary hardware to prevent it from spying on you.

    Of course threats to privacy are multiple, but this issue has a very serious potential. It is good to educate people about this fact.
  • Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @06:52AM (#19936887) Homepage
    So they received an SMS from someone they didn't know. Clicked on it and it said that it wanted to install something. They said yes.

    It's very likely the app didn't have a legit certificate so the phone said 'this application is untrusted. continue anyway?' and they said yes.

    The app then installed itself.. now it has to send data to the internet. because it doesn't have a proper certificate every time it starts up it'll say 'allow access to the internet?' and each time they're *still* clicking 'yes'!!!

    (examples taken from symbian.. messages on Windows mobile are probably different)

    This isn't snoopware it's bloody stupidware.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21, 2007 @07:07AM (#19936925)
    Whether you are more likely to have a accident because you are a worse driver or because you drive more often is irrelevant, either way the insurance company will have to pay up. Sure it sucks if you fall into a higher risk group even though you yourself may be a better driver and not likely to have an accident, but it is just the way insurance works.

    Insurance premiums are based on how much the insurance company is likely to pay out, that means higher premiums for groups that are likely to cost them more. Of course the insurance companies will want the premiums to be as high as possible so they can make more profits, but if they go too far above their costs there will be another insurance company that will charge lower premiums to get those customers.

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...