What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
115 Comments
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25This is 100% true. Also, the bugging software can be activated, and the bugging conducted over the mobile service provider's network without the service provider knowing it. This is a requirement of "Lawful Intercept" capability in mobile network equipment.
Don't believe it? Read it for yourself: http://cryptome.org/3gpp-li-docs.htm
How do you like your "land of the free" now?
On top of the "secret" specs for this stuff are further layers of "double secret" specifications each equipment maker provides depending on to whom they are selling the network equipment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23sadly they can just patriot act them if they really want to...
- dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Aren't there already people calling for his resignation?
- patrickbwells, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15What? You think that the President of the United States uses Sprint? Or maybe he has a prepaid tracphone.
- cornfry182, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16As it clearly noted, it takes nothing more than a simple software push over the wireless network to the specified cellphone in order to silently activate the mic on the phone. It even said RAZR's and the like are especially susceptible. Gee, almost EVERYBODY I know has a RAZR... these damn cell-phone companies just seem to GIVE them away these days... get out your tin-foil hats guys....
I'm sorry, but this just does NOT sit very well with me. I see a few comments about "I hope the FBI comes to their senses and stop this crime" etc etc. I think it's painfully clear that the FBI and other intelligence agencies are very much at the tip of their senses... They fully realize the power at their hands. And we now know Bush and his lackeys are doing this sort of thing behind the scenes without even the courts knowledge every single day --Who's to say this cellphone tapping isn't part of their program? Frankly, I'd be surprised if it wasn't.
Also, take note that this is a little different from them tapping our landlines, which they've had the capability to do for years (though never legally without a court order, as they're doing now). At least when they're tapping our regular phones, it's only when you're on a phone conversation. As this article states, this cellphone thing allows them to hear our conversations even when we think our phone is off, when we're not even thinking about the possibility having our private conversations listened to.
DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE HERE SEE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THIS AND THE IMPLICATIONS IT HAS ON OUR PRIVACY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE??????
How long until we find out that M$ has set up the same type of system in their latest OS, to allow the feds access to anyone's computer, or that they're doing this with Onstar systems in peoples cars (which are, essentially, glorified cellphones operation on standard GSM networks), etc etc etc. I realize that the last sentence is HIGHLY, HIGHLY speculative. That is the point. Honestly, very very honestly, if you had seen a post yesterday claiming that the FBI was tapping our mics in our cellphones, and that everybody better watch out, but there was no CNET story behind it, there would have been a major flood of "F**K YOU TIN-FOIL ASSHAT CONSPIRACY THEORIST" messages all over the comments. Today, it's a different story. So lets think about the possibilities of the future, at least in passing. They're already doing this sort of thing with surveillance cameras and mics on the street in major cities across the country, and the world, which has seen plenty of mainstream coverage. Is all of this really necessary?
Of course this is only for "terror prevention" *rolls eyes*
PLEAAAAAAASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE before you digg this down, please read it carefully. I have not said ANYTHING that has not been a top story in mainstream news in the last few months, and anything speculative I have marked as speculation. This is NOT a conspiracy rant. It's simply my feeling on the implications of mainstream current events, and my fears of the possibilities associated with them based on the history of man abusing power. Nothing more, nothing less. Being an American, in this day and age, we are no strangers to our leaders ABUSING power. It's not really a stretch to worry about them being able to turn on our cellphone mics at will.
Thanks - diggtard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Can't wait for this to be over used by Hollywood in Law & Order and shows like CSI.
- mrmontrose, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Not cool i love technology, but I fear privacy is dead. Consider the current administration, I wonder how often our government does this to "suspicious" people in this country with out anyone knowing.
- Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24You just know that this capability is in XP, Vista and Google too...
Regarding rights, I am sure these men are "suspected terrorists" under the ever growing definition, they have no rights. Soon no one will. - erotocrat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19I wonder what would happen if someone were to do this to the President's cellphone and posted the conversation online. There would be calls for his resignation.
- Mambo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I imagine it wont be long until people start carrying modified phones that have a button to physically disconnect the battery when its not in use.
- xofc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18hit wrong reply - digg me down.
- Frayed_Knot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's enough to turn one into a complete freakin’ Luddite.
- Frayed_Knot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery;
- JimMessenger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"...two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations."
I'm sure they'll claim that those recordings are inadmissible because of attorney client privilege? - FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's enough to turn one into a complete freakin’ Luddite.
by Frayed_Knot 2 hours ago
Sadly, yes. This is why I use a pre-paid phone card, on a phone that was bought with cash. I'm actually really boring and don't do anything illegal, but the increasing loss of privacy nowadays just bugs the beejeeshus outta me. No, I DON'T want to live in a fishbowl, thanks.
And to any who think this lack of privacy will only be used against suspected criminals, I say this. You are assuming that each and every government or corporate exployee who has access to your information is never petty, vindictive, malicious, unethical, undertrained, or unprofessional EVER. - cranium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9The problem is, this administration (and probably future administrations) does not give a crap about warrants.
- bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You're watching way too much Prison Break
- jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Everyone calm down. The feds HAD a warrant. This is not a law change, just a equipment change. The people the were going after are mobsters (they murder people) It is great that we are able to take them down.
If you are afraid of this happening to you, never do anything that justifies a warrant, and it wont happen. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6""What info do they intend to get?"
We're talking about the Mob here, so I'd guess... money laundering, murder, corporate fraud....."
Umm... the question still stands. Have you ever heard a connected guy on the phone? Sounds something like this:
guy1: Hey, did you take care of that thing?
guy2: The Jersey thing?
guy1: No, the other thing; the Lamont thing.
guy2: I got our fat friend to take care of it.
guy1: Good.
(end of conversation) - msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yeah, but with land lines, I could generally see if a phone was in the room, and could avoid it if I wanted. Now, anyone who has a cellphone (which is practically everyone, including myself), is carrying a potential wire for the feds. I have no issues with it when they had to get warrants to listen to people, but now that thats no longer the case, it's a concern.
- ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You have to actually modify the phone. In this case it can be done remotely, without the phone even so much as turning on it's screen.
- monkeychewtoy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@ XaNtHa
"What info do they intend to get?"
We're talking about the Mob here, so I'd guess... money laundering, murder, corporate fraud, embezzlement, perjury, bribing... should I go on? The NSA wiretapping innocent Americans was unacceptable, but the FBI wire(less)tapping a mobster's phone? That's what the FBI is freaking for, man. - hriwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4artofwar, I think you will find that those stickers are "fake"
http://www.crimethinc.com/a/cards/28_med.gif - mrmontrose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When I see talk about our liberties being reduced because we are in a war with terrorism I am often reminded of a quote from one if our founding fathers Ben Franklin:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"to physically disconnect the battery"
better yet, the microphone. - badave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@artofwar
Go take a pic of that sticker. I'm going to take that and put it on my work phones. Chaos will ensue, hopefully. - Flametndo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Why cant FBI give people some privacy?
- jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4don't want to be grammar nazi but the spelling is "walkie talkie"
- drumguy12345, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The real question is, "how long until they use the cameras too?" who doesn't want millions of roaming security cameras...
- dstywho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Nextel phones are annoying enough with their walky talky. This is just one more reason not to get a nextel phone.
- vguard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The FBI and the mob work for the same paymasters and play for the same team. Sure they have their public "disagreements", but it's all for show. Doing it to the Mob makes it more palatable to the general public. It's just a matter of time till it's OK for the Average Joe.
Sadly, many of you seem to think this is "OK". Well, guess what? You've been scammed, yet again. - Changa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
I posted this before Slashdot did... How can we steal a headline from Slashdot before Slashdot?
What I wanted to know about this story is how they did it.
When my cellphone is transmitting it gets hot and the battery life goes down quickly. - davecor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pfffft.....
I've said for YEARS that you HOPE your phone is off when you hang up. The display is dark, the keypad is off, but who is to say it's actually off? Hell, I used to say the same about analog house phones. It's on the cradle, but the mic could still be active. Just takes a little hardware change.
Now if I can only get my mom to activate Keylock - Her phone has called me from her purse a few times. - ChillyEli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If this technology is already implemented in cell phones, couldn't a hacker develop a system to do it also? Or is it carrier specific?
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Jim: I suspect they would use the information from the bugging to catch them red-handed at something rather than for incriminating words.
- 60days, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not a linux/OSS fanatic by any means, but I seriously think this is where open-source software (and to some extent, hardware) will be needed most in the future. As increasing networks allow for greater top-down control and surveillance, they also allow for greater collaboration and bottom-up design and security. It's the only realistic way I can think of to balance the accelerating powers in the hands of the elites (governments, companies), or indeed for us to have any substantial expression of our will in these areas (since so many of the powers lie outside of our ability or 'right to know' and hence react democratically or economically).
- thunderer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Just as long tool doesn't get passed off to homeland security...
- kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I bet more people will be turning off their cell phones when not in use after they hear this.
- t3st3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) because they're bastards
2) because they're serving government and government afraid too much you'll have something against it.
3) because it is easier to be cheater than just do your work in lawful manner.
4) because crime is easiest thing to do, doing job in lawful manner requires some real efforts to catch criminals.And FBI, police, ... are lazy enough :)
Actually, FBI abuses their power so much that it become a bunch of criminals itself.As for me, I'm afraid and dislike them as much as terrorists and criminals.Law should be equal to anyone - there is no "god-like" humans even if they serve governments.Our ex-USSR KGB is bunch of suckers compared to FBI. - m00dy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3oh yea and this is what I was looking for....
http://www.global-security-solutions.com/GSMPassiveCellularInterceptor.htm - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not the same thing. With that device you can spy on cellphoen conversations, but you can't turn on the microphone remotely, while the phone is off.
- sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Watch the interesting movie The Listening (Italian: In Ascolto), that is about this type of listening to active phones. Here's the imdb info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427461/
- xofc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7RTFA - yes, the FBI had a warrant.
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3tumbleweed? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427461/
if your paranoid remove the battery while not in use... - xhadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GSM phones are also vuneriable to this, While I was working for NATO in Germany we had our security guys do a demonstration of this explaining why we had to remove our batteries and turn in our phone whenever entering a securied area.
I was stuned at how easy it was for them to do this however at the time (3 years ago) they had to be in pretty close proximity I guess this has changed now. - xhadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the tech is real. Everything else is what you want to believe. If you don't believe it then don't but do a little research on the tech... Heck Google it. Like I said above I have seen and heard it in action. Look at any company or government organization that has top secret security polices and you will find that they believe this to be true by making it mandatory that no cell phones are present in any Secret or Top Secret Meetings under and circumstances. If they believe it.... shouldn't you?
- XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I allready saw this used on CSI: NY about a month ago, and I am not sure that wasn't a rerun allready.
Police have had the ability to turn on cell phones remotely for a long time, most people just don't know about it. Think about the good side: some emergency happens, someone calls 911 on their cell then it gets deactivated for wome reason, the police can reactivate it and get back in contact with the people in trouble.
Everything can be used for good OR evil. - Alex.w, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"better yet, the microphone"
- What if they turn the camera on? My phone has two cameras now, front and back, they'd get a good look around my deck :P - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ahem. RTFA. And remember to remove the battery.
- MannyHills, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I would wonder how much battery power it uses when its just being used as a wiretap. It still needs to send your entire end of the conversation so it would seem to use a lot. I would get suspicious if my phone battery all of a sudden lasts for less than half the time it did previously.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 