Smartphones, Facebook "listening" and privacy???

[peterb]

As any good spy or cop TV thriller will tell us, those trying to evade the authorities take the batteries out of phones to avoid being tracked, because otherwise, the phone can be remote-turned-on, and GPS (for instance) remote-enabled. Well, that's great, if your phone has a sealed battery that you can't remove, innit?

Remove the sim card. (Or if you are doing something where you don't want to be tracked, don't take the phone with you.)

[Saracen]

Remove the sim card. (Or if you are doing something where you don't want to be tracked, don't take the phone with you.)

Well, there's not much point buying/having a phone if you can't take it with you.

Ironically, I'm not particularly bothered, in practice, if MI5/GCHQ/NSA are tracking my movements and listening to ambient noise, since I'm not doing anything likely to get me targetted, or that wouldn't be hugely soporific to any poor intelligence analyst trying to follow my movements. They wouldn't track me for long.

I am bothered if commercial interests are doing it. I resent that notion intensely, and regard it as a gross intrusion. As I've said before, I don't want targetted advertising, from anybody at all, under any circumstances whatever. I don't want ANYBODY shoving junkmail through my door, or sending me advertising texts, targetted or not. And I don't want ANY commercial organisation tracking or profiling me, for any purposes whatsoever. I don't care what sweeteners they offer. I don't care what "offers" I miss, what discounts I don't get or what "rewards" they would have offered. I just want to be left the bleep alone by companies.

But we know from previous experiences that companies don't care what we want. As a case in point, look at trying to avoid tracking cookies. There is supposed to be a cohesive process for avoiding such cookies, but does it work? Does it hell. You end up having to visist numerous websites to "opt out", half of which don't work, and you've not only got to do it for every browser, but every browser on every computer. The law was changed to make these cookies opt-in, so what happens? We get a message appearing, often quite subtly, saying that by continuing you "opt in". And your options are "agree" or "learn more". Rarely is there a "no cookies please".

So I'm forced to conclude, based on evidence to date, that these commercial interests actively reject playing a blind bit of notice to our wishes, and will actively pursue any way they can to get any information they can on us, even knowing we actively don't want it.

So if these kinds of capabilities on phones exist, I think you can guarantee some company out there will exploit it.

IMHO, data protection laws need SERIOUSLY tightening up, and given real teeth. Teeth such that, if they bite, will REALLY hurt companies, and shareholder of companies, that abuse privacy. Not just fines they shrug off. Or better yet, put them out of business. An example or two should suffice to "encourage" the others. But will it happen? Will it hell.

[BobF64]

The law was changed to make these cookies opt-in, so what happens? We get a message appearing, often quite subtly, saying that by continuing you "opt in". And your options are "agree" or "learn more". Rarely is there a "no cookies please".

That's the problem with laws, they're often written by people who have no clue, so lack large amounts of common sense or even forethought.

Of course, that might just be the result of lobbying and "industry" meddling, and it did start off with sense.

The cookie thing should have been utterly obvious, the intent should have been to encourage sites to abandon their use, but all it did was make sites annoying. Heck, some sites won't even let you in without accepting their use of cookies.

[peterb]

Well, there's not much point buying/having a phone if you can't take it with you.

I agree with you. I find it intensely irritating that a company I legitimately looked at now has targeted adverts appearing on many of my other browsing pages. It doesn't endear me to them - to the extent that I my not be buying from them. Edit - in fact I have just installed adblock+ although I have white-listed HEXUS!

But my point was that even if you have a phone with a non-removeable battery, the tracking function can be disabled by removing the sim card. Of course that renders it useless as a phone - but so does removing the battery.

[Saracen]

I agree with you. I find it intensely irritating that a company I legitimately looked at now has targeted adverts appearing on many of my other browsing pages. It doesn't endear me to them - to the extent that I my not be buying from them.

But my point was that even if you have a phone with a non-removeable battery, the tracking function can be disabled by removing the sim card. Of course that renders it useless as a phone - but so does removing the battery.

But does it? I read something somewhere that all that was needed for tracking GPS-equipped phones was that phone's IMEI number.

That, though, is likely to be authorities tracking the phone, not companies, so I take the point.

But still, my original point is that if FB can identify music or TV shows from the mic's ambient noise detection, who's to say what else could be, or is being, done without us being asked, or even told?

Do we TRUST that it isn't?

[peterb]

But does it? I read something somewhere that all that was needed for tracking GPS-equipped phones was that phone's IMEI number.

True

http://tibetaction.net/wp-content/up...h-Combined.pdf

The only certain way is to remove the battery (or put it in a tin box)

[Saracen]

True

http://tibetaction.net/wp-content/up...h-Combined.pdf

The only certain way is to remove the battery (or put it in a tin box)

Thought so.

I love the idea of some poor intelligence agent having to listen to hours of my stomach rumbles, and post-curry farting session, only to have me take the battery out prior to doing something "interesting".

Also, of course, if he who is being surveilled knows he is being surveilled, the opportunities for misinformation are significant.

[peterb]

Thought so.

I love the idea of some poor intelligence agent having to listen to hours of my stomach rumbles, and post-curry farting session, only to have me take the battery out prior to doing something "interesting".

Also, of course, if he who is being surveilled knows he is being surveilled, the opportunities for misinformation are significant.

Yes, but it is quite difficult to construct a coherent mis-information strategy, particularly if activity before the individual realised that he was being monitored is available!

In effect, you would be trying to create a second online identity with no links at all to the first. Not easy.


And it is extremely unlikely that "routine" surveillance information would be analysed unless there was a specific reason which arose from some other activity that caused you to be a target of interest. Of course, if you were a target of interest and you were observed using anti-surveillance methods, that might in itself raise suspicion (and the level of covert surveillance).

But this has got away from the possibility of commercial firms (like Facebook) from monitoring, which I find rather more insidious.