Android Dev Demonstrates CarrierIQ Phone Logging Software On Video 322
Token_Internet_Girl writes with a followup to last week's news about Android developer Trevor Eckhart, who was researching software from CarrierIQ, installed on millions of cellphones, that secretly logged a variety of user information — from button presses to text message contents to browsing data. CarrierIQ tried to silence Eckhart, but later backtracked. Now, Eckhart has posted a video demonstration of CarrierIQ's logging software. From the article:
"The company denies its software logs keystrokes. Eckhart’s 17-minute video clearly undercuts that claim. ... The video shows the software logging Eckhart's online search of 'hello world.' That's despite Eckhart using the HTTPS version of Google, which is supposed to hide searches from those who would want to spy by intercepting the traffic between a user and Google. ...the video shows the software logging each number as Eckhart fingers the dialer. 'Every button you press in the dialer before you call,' he says on the video, 'it already gets sent off to the IQ application.'"
Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an asymmetry in the system as it works right now. Which private customers have the will, time, and money to sue companies that illegally wiretap their customers? Isn't there anything that can be done against this? (Of, I'm talking about action against CarrierIQ but about action against the carriers that use their software.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a judge found the activity to be unlawful, which I suspect is where the core of the issue rests, then whether or not there was a contractual agreement is irrelevant. I see no reason for a carrier's data collection policy to include keylogging everything a customer does outside of extenuating circumstance (suspected terrorist or something).
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:4, Informative)
I should add, that the moment I heard that Google was releasing a smartphone OS aka Android, my first thought was "Nice. Now google can spy on everyone when they are away from their computer and follow their movements in the physical world."
It should be noted that CarrierIQ is not Google and is not related to Google. This is a third party which makes a rootkit/spyware app that carriers have installed on handsets that they sell (it is not part of a vanilla Android install).
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what device do you use?
I'm curious to know why Apple is never implicated in such privacy and tracking discussions considering how they lock you down to their own software and services. IIRC, they were involved in a GPS tracking furore a few months ago which came to naught. CarrierIQ doesn't develop for the iOS. But if carriers want all phones to return "diagnostic" information, presumably the iPhone is also doing so.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious to know why Apple is never implicated in such privacy and tracking discussions considering how they lock you down to their own software and services.
It's pretty simple: because Apple doesn't do this. They had something that tracked recent position so a phone could home in on its current position on request faster, but when it was brought to light how long that cache was retained Apple fixed that bug. iOS now only keeps that information briefly.
Android is only "free" because it gets Google (an advertising company) information and opportunities to sell to advertisers. If you actually want to just buy the phone and use it as your own device, perhaps iro
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:4, Informative)
Can you point out exactly what you think Google does that Apple does not? From Apple's Q&A on Location Data [apple.com].
1) Apple gathers "crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data". To do this, your iPhone sends your location along with your Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data (SSIDs, signal strength) to Apple. They do say that the request is anonymised so they have no way of figuring out who you are based on the request, but clearly they could just correlate the geo-tagged request with non-geo requests coming from your phone and figure out who you are.
2) Apple has an advertising system (iAds) that uses your location to send you targetted ads. Obviously this involves Apple knowing what your location is.
3) Apple provides application crash logs to third party developers. They say the logs are anonymous, but an app developer could easily include enough information to identify you (a username, IP address etc.).
4) Apple tracks you when you travel. They say it is anonymous, but again they could clearly figure out who you if they wanted to. ("Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data to build a crowd-sourced traffic database.")
Apple's profit motive is not in the collecting of user information like Google's is, it's in the selling of devices.
iAds: [apple.com] "The iAd mobile advertising network is a significant revenue stream for developers and a powerful way for brands to reach millions of iOS users." This is different to Google how?
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious to know why Apple is never implicated in such privacy and tracking discussions.
CarrierIQ was discovered because it is a third party program - and so it shows up in the Android debugger. Much of Android is open source, so even if it did not, people could write their own debuggers to expose it.
Apple develops the hardware, the OS, and the debugger - and it is all closed source. If they wanted to build complete tracking into the kernel, and not have it show up in the debugger at all, they could. So - how do you know that they didn't? Just because nobody has exposed it yet, does not mean that it does not exist.
Two quibbles (Score:3)
Most of iOS is open source [apple.com].
There could easily be something like CarrierIQ in the closed parts of iOS. However, it would not be useful to Apple unless it phoned home somehow, and that network activity is detectable whether or not the platform source is open.
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, a third party had to make this spy app for the carriers because Google was not spying enough on users for their taste. And your conclusion is that Google is evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Insightful)
"like apple, they could have owned the phone companies. they had the hot product and they could have dictated 'do not be evil to our customers!' to the phone companies."
No, they were a newcomer in the market. In the portable device industry, they didn't have the clout that Apple had thanks to iTunes + iPod. As a result, Apple is still the only company that can successfully tell a North American carrier to fuck themselves.
And anyway - yes Google allowed it. The whole point of Android is its openness - unfortunately, on some devices, the carrier abuses that openness. Don't like it, go buy a Nexus.
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. This is why I will never get an Android device or use Google+. They want to spy, and they spy everything. On top of that, other companies will start to feel that it's ok to do. If the practice can continue without interruption, we will all lose privacy. It's funny how everyone always fights losing privacy to the government. Google, Carrier IQ and the companies are just middle hands for that!
But why single out Google? All smart phones are going to do crap like this so the only way to escape it is to only use products that are completely open and unlocked.
Bear in mind that this thread is not actually about anything Google can change, it is about some extra software that carriers (ie - AT&T, etc) are adding to android after google are done with it. There is very little you can do to avoid this as all the carriers are just as bad but you can at least not just blame google because they created an open phone platform that some other company wrote bad software for. Do you blame Apple for Mac IE5 being shit or Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a practice Google started, by offering services and software free of charge in return of spying and data collection.
So ... one doesn't have to be THAT old to know that Google did NOT start this practice. Yahoo was doing it before Google, and there was geocities, which IIRC was before Google (or around the same time) and, heck, in the 90s there were dozens of fly-by-night dial-up ISPs who gave you free access in return for a marketing survey and permission to send you promotions. What was Google the first to do? Google was the first to do this DISCRETELY enough that it wasn't obnoxious to the user, and WELL enough tha
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has been tight lipped but don't be surprised if it is found on iphones either. They already have a client available for Iphones. So if the carrier choses to install it you are SOL.
The carrier would have to convince Apple to make a special version of iOS for them because carriers cannot by themselves install unremovable crapware on iPhones. I'd like to see the carriers try this, I could use a good laugh.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to simply edit the hosts file on a rooted android phone to block carrier iq, or does it use ip addresses directly? Just rooting android is easier than doing the entire root/custom recovery/custom ROM dance for most people.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. I do not and will not own a cell phone until it is Stallman approved. Which will be never.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Added to the fact that you can't have a contract for something that breaks the law is the legal principle that both parties have to be agreeing to the same contract - i.e. there has to be a meeting of minds on the terms of the contract.
Just saying that the carriers are going to collect data is not enough in my opinion, as the way in which this data is collected and the depth of of the data that is going to be collected was not spelled out. And that is for obvious reasons: not many people would willingly
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Interesting)
you have to sign the carriers agreement, and in the carriers agreement, there is undoubtedly a clause where you give them permission to collect your data and use it as they see fit
That would seem right, but only for the time of the contract. What if, as in the video, you have a phone which isn't bound to a contract anymore, and still spying on you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Informative)
In the video, he explains he has a separate phone for development, without any mobile provider / SIM, which he also plays games on.
It was connected via Wifi. Every keystroke, HTTPS search, etc. was recorded and presumably uploaded to CarrierIQ or to ATT (or whomever).
His device is not of concern to any mobile operator.
That's a significant issue, and I doubt he'd be hard pressed to convince a lawyer to take it on.
(IANAL, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Carrier IQ DENIES that they are recording keystrokes. They deny this right now, on their website in a PDF, that is linked to right at the top of their home page:
"While we look at many aspects of a device’s performance, we are counting and summarizing performance, not recording keystrokes or providing tracking tools. The metrics and tools we derive are not designed to deliver such information, nor do we have any intention of developing such tools."
So even if our agreement with the carrier permits logging/capturing of this data, it doesn't allow you to LIE about doing it. Their software clearly logs data. We don't know if it keeps that data or transmits it back to anyone. But the data is clearly being captured in some fashion as demonstrated by the video.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't recording "keystrokes" .... they are recording "event data" of which, keystrokes are merely a sub-class of events. It's not a lie...
"While we look at many aspects of a device’s performance, we are counting and summarizing performance, not recording keystrokes or providing tracking tools."
While I appreciate your efforts at devil's advocate throughout this thread, you seem to have missed the mark on this one. It is immaterial that keystrokes are a sub-class of the event data they are collecting; it is a lie to say categorically that you are not collecting keystrokes when you are.
Re: (Score:2)
If they recorded only events that weren't keystrokes, then it wouldn't be a lie. But that is not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
there's a LOT of things you can't just ask consumers for permission on the TOS and then go "nanananan it's legit you signed the contract!".
same thing applies to that you can't sign away your career through non-competes even if some employer wants you to believe so.
I wonder why so many people nowadays think that such clauses and shenigans are legit? is it because people read donald duck comics where they serve as plot devices? usury is illegal too - even if someone writes a contract for it(fyi uncle scrooge
Re:Can't someone sue the carriers? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with the spirit of your rant, AT&T did just show us this past spring that we might already be in such a dystopia. They challenged a customer's right to partake in a class-action lawsuit (when a customer had signed an binding arbitration contract. AT&T took it to the supreme court and won. [arstechnica.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break the news to you, but this is the world you live in now. Contracts are binding unless found all or in part ( under specific circumstances ) to be invalid by prior legislation or precedent.
They might want you to believe that, but any contract still has to be able to withstand a test of reasonableness in court. Some might say a weasel worded contract by a multi-national company enabling them to spy on what you as a customer believed were encrypted transmissions potentially beyond the life of the contract is a tad one sided and might just possibly be deemed not worth the paper it's written on. Companies rely on most people not knowing their rights to be able to continually get away with this ga
Re: (Score:2)
in general, in the west - that doesn't seem to include USA anymore - there's certain consumer rights and privacy expectations, you can't force consumers to waive warranty with shrink wraps.
having to have a telecoms operator isn't voluntary either, in the west it is regarded as a basic service that you can't just attach any clause you want to. you have to have a phone and it can't come with bigger privacy invasions than necessary. it's an utility.
I don't think shareholder value had anything to do with the de
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that should there be confidential transactions of any sort, such as client attorney privs, done over the phone that CIQ would log would be illegal regardless of whatever "contractual" terms you sign. After all, the phone is presented as a communications device, not a device to eavesdrop on everything you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the ambiguity comes in is where we draw the line as "private information". Is your conversation or web history considered private? You'd have to convince the courts shou
Re: (Score:3)
Where the ambiguity comes in is where we draw the line as "private information". Is your conversation or web history considered private? You'd have to convince the courts should you take it that far.
No, I would not need to convince a court of anything. I would, however, talk to my cellphone provider to see if they did anything like this. If so, I'll find another provider that doesn't. If I can't find one, then I'll do without.
This is close to the most despicable business practice I've heard of in a long time. My provider runs a hidden keylogger/spyware app on my phone, for which I'm paying the bills?!?
I've read the CarrierIQ "Privacy and Security" disclaimer. I don't believe them. I've also read
Caught in a lie then. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just nasty. First try to silence the researcher, then try to deny what's going on when you've already been caught.
The question is, will this have any effect? Will carriers stop shipping this stuff ? Will consumers care?
My guess is no, they'll just try to hide it better in future.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the FCC decide this is a violation of what they're allowed to do?
This to me sounds like it could be bordering on illegal ... and, of course, how likely is it that law enforcement is requesting this data and forcing the carriers to keep it secret?
Re:Caught in a lie then. (Score:5, Insightful)
This to me sounds like it could be bordering on illegal
Bordering? It might be legal federally, but if I recall correctly (not a lawyer), there are States where recording such data is a violation of wiretap unless both parties are aware of the recording. And such some people here on /. are pointing to contract clauses where "data necessary to the functioning of the network" or similar are spelled out and saying that people consented (and are thus aware, which is suspect in itself). But let's take this a step further. CarrierIQ says in plain English that they're not logging keystrokes. Any customer who knows about carrierIQ and has seen carrierIQ's statement has a reasonable expectation that "logging keystrokes" is not part of the data logging they're agreeing to. "Aha!" says the weasel lawyer "the ordinary people didn't know about carrierIQ! Only our execs knew it was installed on our phones." To which I say, "did carrierIQ misrepresent its logging nature to those execs?" if it did, then carrierIQ might be logging keystrokes between a user and the phone company when the phone company execs have a reasonable expectation that carrierIQ isn't doing that. Then carrierIQ is in trouble in two-party states.
In Soviet America... (Score:3)
...capitalists spy on you.
I have (Score:2, Insightful)
Always been suspicious of the countless android apps that REQUIRE device permissions such as "full internet access", "read phone state and identity" etc...
Re:I have (Score:5, Informative)
Always been suspicious of the countless android apps that REQUIRE device permissions such as "full internet access", "read phone state and identity" etc...
As far as I can gather this is worse. It comes pre-installed by your carrier, you never grant it access to everything and there is no sign that it is installed.
Re:I have (Score:5, Informative)
Then install Permission Denied application (you need root) what gives you possibility to rip those permissions off from application https://market.android.com/details?id=com.stericson.permissions [android.com].
After selecting what permissions the app can have, you need to reboot to take it affect.
And the other great application is Droidwall what is firewall (needs root as well) where you choose per application does it have access to WLAN or 3G internet connection. Great to limit some apps only to use WLAN instead 3G or vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
What application's permissions would be modified to protect a persons phone from CarrierIQ with your app?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After all, flashing a ROM after rooting is a really small step in terms of difficulty and then you're totally free of CIQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have (Score:5, Informative)
One of the latest (7.2 or something) CyanogenMOD versions allows you to revoke permissions on installed apps. Which is the main reason why I installed Cyanogen.
Needs to be labeled as spyware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Needs to be labeled as spyware (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . at your expense.
So guess who pays for the transmission of all those logged clicks . . . ?
. . . and you thought some other app was draining you battery and carrier account limit . . . ?
Conspiracy theories aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
What software is actually affected? What phone models? What platforms? What applications?
If it's just AT&T and its victims, well, it's their own private little hell. Otherwise, some facts would be nice.
For now, (quoting from the article), phrase of "millions of Android, BlackBerry and Nokia phones" smacks of cheap propaganda and scaremongering.
Regards,
Ruemere
What phones and providers to avoid? (Score:2)
So, will someone set up a list for which products not to buy?
If I get a phone here in Sweden which is just plain vanilla stock version will that contain the software or is it something the service providers install on "their own" phones?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see it on my UK stock (non-branded) Desire.
Look in "All Applications" as explained by the video. I haven't checked with the debugger.
Re:Conspiracy theories aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like none of phones sold in EU comes with this preinstalled.
Think about it. EU would rip every carrier, phone manufacturer and software company in pieces if such privacy abusing would rise.
Not even any end user license would protect those companies at all.
CyanogenMod (Score:5, Insightful)
So even more reason to flash your droid with CyanogenMod or custom ROM of your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
By my opinion, every Android phone should be upgradable by the user in any country legally, when ever new ROM is released, from Google or from third party.
After all, phone manufacturers and carriers are just selling hardware and services, not the software.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still a level of trust required, you shift from trusting your tele-operator to trusting the Cyanogen-mod people.
To be honest, the best, relatively doable way, is to compile the ROM yourself. It's not that hard, XDA Developers has great information on how to do so. Sure, in this case you need to trust google but in the previous cases you need to trust google + teleoperator, or google + cyanogen mod devs.
Let
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention the compiler that was used to compile _your_ compiler - http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html [bell-labs.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It would be nice if smartphones were given the same level of respect that PCs get.
Unlocked boot loaders, choice of operating systems, and more protection from illegal search and seizure from law enforcement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please don't reply that Android is open source, unless you can show me the sources for CIQ!!!
Please don't reply that Linux is open source, unless you can show me the sources for Flash or Opera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow, a dumb troll (Score:5, Funny)
GP's point was that CarrierIQ is as much part of Android as Flash or Opera is part of Linux. The fact that it runs on Android and that carriers install it on Android doesn't change that.
How does it feel to fail even at basic reading comprehension skills?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then nobody can use linux on computers with NVidia video card and call it linux? Or broadcomm wifi chips? That is the main problem with android — we don't have open source drivers for the phones. And that is the fault of mobile phone manufacturers. As well as locked bootloaders.
As for the CIQ — it is not a part of android. It is a third-party app, so comparison with flash is quite adequate. Heh, using your own argument — not having CIQ didn't stop CyanogenMod or other roms. Heck, I'm
Re:CyanogenMod (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhmm... how so? Android's openness has nothing to do with CIQ.
Re:CyanogenMod (Score:4, Insightful)
Three-letter agencies (Score:2)
Just another example of how Big Brother has gone corporate.
Re: (Score:2)
> I saw a comment on another website speculating that the NSA might be involved with this. I'm not nearly enough of a tinfoil hat wearer to accept that without any evidence
Haha, good luck finding the evidence. The NSA is trying really hard to avoid leaving any hard evidence behind.
Personally I think this has NSA written all over it. It is a software clearly designed to spy on customers, although I tend to believe that it is not usually report back the findings. Of course that is only a switch that you
Credit card number exposure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
phone carriers are 'friends' with law enforcement, remember.
they get special benefits (ewwww!).
both are thugs and both like their organized crime way of life.
and they both tolerate you and I as long as we don't stir up the game that they both have going.
Pizza (Score:2)
There's the story about how intelligence was gathered by watching the number of pizza deliveries to the White House.
Imagine how much better this would be. Not only spying for the govt, and by the govt, but for corp espionage.
Company A: Hey, out data shows a number of people at our competitor are gathering at an off-site location...hmmm
Re: (Score:2)
Probably gathering for a pizza party!
is this on iphone too? (Score:2)
That makes it clear. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more than that - e.g. it can log distinct events such as receiving an SMS (complete with text), or URLs you type in the browser (not as separate keystrokes, but a complete URL).
The pertinent question is, what exactly gets sent over the network?
Not PCI compliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not PCI compliant (Score:5, Interesting)
And therein lies the solution to this problem. As soon as someone hacks into their database and steals a ton of credit card info, personal data, etc, there will be enough uproar and backlash to kill off CarrerIQ, and bite carriers like AT&T that preinstalled it.
May I suggest... (Score:5, Interesting)
What are they thinking? (Score:2)
I mean, really. Android (and the Android market and Android apps) already has grown a reputation of being full of crap and scamware and spyware and Google is somehow very much "we spy on you but in turn everything we offer is free" anyway. With things like that Google and the carriers just nail down Android phones as something you have to sell your soul for getting some free candy. And yes, people love free candy and have not really a use for their souls, but then smartphones aren't free at all. Things like
Re: (Score:2)
A couple things:
1) It's also on Blackberries, I think he said Nokia (Win phones? Symbian?), and who knows about Iphones - I suspect it is.
2) Google wasn't spying enough, so a 3rd party provided the software to the carriers, not through the app store to users.
It could be that Android's openness is what allowed this to be discovered.
How this will affect the smartphone
This explains... (Score:2)
why Android phones are so laggy/sluggish.
In Soviet Russia phone would spy on you... (Score:2)
...wait, it's true, only in Corporate USofA and today!
Read P.K.Dick on world taken over by corporations. He wa a visionary, like so many S-F writers. They have foreseen all things that happen, technically and morally.
But is the data actually transmitted anywhere? (Score:5, Interesting)
In this video, the researcher is looking at debug logs from the phone itself, not network traffic logs showing remote communication. He clearly shows that keystrokes and URLs are being passed to the IQ software running on the phone, but presents no evidence that the data is actually sent to anything outside of the phone.
Has anyone determined what the IQ software does with all this information besides writing it to the debug logger? Is it actually sent somewhere, or saved to persistent storage on the phone? (I'm no Android expert, but I'm under the impression that debug messages are discarded when there's no debugger attached.)
Having this software running in the background is sneaky and certainly makes spying more possible than it would be otherwise, but it's not necessarily the huge immediate privacy violation that everyone seems to be assuming it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Some other folks were speculating that since you signed an agreement with your carrier that it somehow makes this legal. This is absolutely false. There are certain rights that you can sign away, certainly, but don't think of it like that. Think of it like, "What is Verizon doing with this data and how are they transporting it?"
Here's a few laws and industry regulations they are violating (by recording all keystrokes) off the top of my head:
1) The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS): If anyone ever (ever) enters credit card information into their phone (via an app, web page, whatever) that data must be protected according to the DSS (because all the carriers accept credit cards, that is). That means it must be encrypted in transit, when it is stored, and more importantly: certain information must *NOT* be stored (again, ever). For example, if a user enters the CVV2 from their card into an online form the carrier must ensure that this data does not get stored (good luck with THAT regex! hah!).
2) Graham Leach Bliley Act (GLBA). Undoubtedly, personally identifiable financial information is being recorded, transported, and stored without the user's knowledge or consent (each transaction/event would need its own notice and agreement with the carrier). That could add up to literally MILLIONS of violations.
3) Sarbanes Oxley: If they're recording this data they had better damned well keep an audit trail on it and be regularly disclosing that they're doing so to all their investors. They also must have documented controls & procedures and (likely) perform regular audits to ensure that said controls & procedures are being properly followed.
4) They can be held liable for having knowledge of crimes but not reporting them.
5) They can lose their common carrier status: Since they're now recording literally everything users do online they can be held (partially) accountable for what those users do. If you recorded the data you certainly could've audited it for fraudulent activity. "Have you been the victim of a crime that took place over a cell phone? Call the law offices of Sue & Win."
6) There's probably a dozen laws that say you can't intercept and/or store information related to people's banking accounts and financial transactions (unless you're the bank that the customer is interacting with). These laws are the ones that should make the carriers quiver in their boots. Some of these were written specifically to deal with gangsters and organized crime and as such could land executives in prison (not that I think the U.S. Attourney General would prosecute since our government is sadly, "stupidly hard on individual crime but soft on corporate crime").
7) Unless their contract specifically spells out that they're going to record every keystroke you enter into your phone they've opened themselves up to millions of lawsuits. If anyone ever wins one of these it will be game over for the carriers. "verizon" and "at&t" will likely become some of those "$50-per-click" Adwords on Google.
8) If they're not using proper encryption of this data in transit and storage, the PCI DSS will be the least of their problems... That's criminal negligence right there. After hearing all the controls the Payment Card Industry requires of the carriers for something as simple as a credit card number what jury could be convinced of a defense such as, "We didn't know!"?!? I mean, seriously. Forget being fired. If someone knowingly decided it was a good idea to record all keystrokes they should go to prison. It is the penultimate example of why you don't put non-technical people in charge of making technical decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
Going a step further, there should be liability for those who collect this data: If the user downloads kiddie porn, they're now liable because they were able to know this and didn't act. If the User stalks someone and they do not report this to authorities, they should be held liable. If someone tweets messages that indicate suicidal tendencies and they take no action, they can be held liable.
Collect this data at your peril. You want to know all about me? Fine. Now you become an accessory for everything I
Not exactly accurate... (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I have thoroughly reverse engineered CarrierIQ's software.
This issue has been blown out of proportion. CarrierIQ has hooks that respond to events triggered by keystrokes, web traffic, and SMS messages. It also makes the mistake of printing debugging output containing plaintext of some of this data, which is a pretty bad screwup. Additionally, there's no real reason CIQ should have hooks in those places in the first place.
What they don't do is actually store any of this information and report it to your carrier (keep in mind I know this because I actually looked at the application). In terms of what's actually being stored, I've seen no evidence that CIQ is collecting anything more than what they have publicly claimed: anonymized metrics data. That doesn't mean users shouldn't be able to opt-out of this software, since it still represents a potential risk to privacy. But at this point, this whole thing has turned into a witch hunt.
In short, there's a big difference between "look, it does something when I press a key!" and "it's storing all my keystrokes and sending them to my carrier!". This video demonstrates the first, but the second doesn't actually happen. They shouldn't be doing what they're doing, and users should be able to opt out, but this isn't nearly as evil as people are making it out to be.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't demo it in the video, but there was one bit where he showed permission list for the app - and it basically owns the world. And yes, this includes recording audio. Whether it's actually using that permission for anything is an interesting question.
Re: (Score:2)
carrier hands passed only.
what would samsung do with your information?