Database Info

US government mandates special "emergency alerts" chip in all cell phones by 2012

US government mandates special "emergency alerts" chip in all cell phones by 2012
Yet another Big Brother measure destined to shove presidential messages to every cell phone user, eat battery juice, and add to the phone's cost:
A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones. [...] starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts [...] The Droid X already has the chip. The system will use GPS technology to send geographically-targeted alerts: information about public safety threats, Amber Alerts for missing children, and presidential messages. Users can't opt out of the presidential messages. [The alerts] eventually might include audio and video content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Below is a summary I cobbled together from the scarce information provided by the FCC here and here, and from press coverage.
The service is called "Personal Localized Alerting Network" or "PLAN" (technically called the "Commercial Mobile Alert System") and is scheduled to be available in New York by the end of 2011 and throughout the United States by April 2012, as a consequence of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act passed by Congress in 2006, which allocated $106 million to fund the program[1].
All new phones will be required to have the special chip, and according to AT&T spokesman Robert Quinn, some iPhones and Android phones already have it. It is confirmed that the Droid X (released in June 2010) does support PLAN and has a special "Emergency Alerts" app. Although this means the chip has been out there for at least one year, there is no precise list of which phones have the chips.
Carriers that will participate ahead of schedule are AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. The alerts will be text-like messages of 90 characters or less, and they'll be geographically targeted using GPS technology (does this mean that the chip will send your location continuously?). Alerts will be accompanied by a unique attention signal and vibration (helpful to people with hearing or vision disabilities). The PLAN alert will appear as a pop-up text, different from regular text messages. PC World reported that the alerts "eventually might include audio and video content".
Alerts will be pushed via wireless carrier cell towers, but are designed to not suffer from the congestion that can affect regular SMS text messages.
The CMAS Third Report and Order mentions that cost recovery is left as a decision for carriers: they may choose to absorb the costs themselves, or pass them on to customers.
Phones that already have the PLAN technology
* Motorola Droid X (sources)
* Sanyo Innuendo (source: Sprint spokesperson Crystal Davis, 571-288-6806, crystal.davisATsprint.com via Business Wire)
* Sanyo Vera (source: as above)
* Sprint "plans to launch more PLAN-capable mobile devices later this year, and include PLAN technology in all new Sprint phones by the end of 2011." (source: as above)
Has anyone heard of this? It's been 3 weeks since the news was out and I haven't seen any followup in the media. The technical information is also extremely scarce. A few questions can be raised.
Concerns with the PLAN chip
UPDATE: see a comment from reddit, which addresses most of these issues.
1. Why is there so little precise technical information on a measure that will affect every single phone manufactured since 2012?
2. The cited reason for having an extra chip embedded in each cell phone is that the current SMS infrastructure can get congested in times of emergency. However, PLAN still uses wireless carrier cell towers to push messages (as opposed to a different frequency, like the ones used for radio clock synchronization or GPS). The GSM standard already supports Cell Broadcast (CB) messaging. This FCC paper from 2007 states that "Cell broadcast is already resident in most network infrastructure and in most phones, so there is no need to build any towers, lay any cable, write any software, or replace terminals". What is the exact justification of the extra chip? If the existence of the chip is a misunderstanding of the media, then why don't existing phones work with the system already? Why do we need new phones that are "PLAN-capable"?
3. Why limit the system to 90 characters of text, instead of relying on the existing multimedia message infrastructure, which can be used to send, for example, such critical information as a photo of an evacuation map? Also, the system is not backward compatible with the over 300 million mobile phones already in place in the United States, while using SMS is (more on these issues). It will take a few years (5?) for all phones to support PLAN. How many lives will be lost in the meantime? SMS is available now. Also, old people, the ones most likely to be affected by certain kinds of emergencies, tend to use very simple phones and to be very late adopters of new technology. Their phones do support SMS though.
4. Does the technology use GPS, as BBC mentions? The battery drain and surveillance implications are major.
5. Users can't opt out of “Presidential” messages. What safeguards are in place that would prevent an oppressive government from abusing this technology?
6. The design of the system is not available. How can the users know that it won't be abused? The chip could be programmed to snap a picture from the phone's camera, or to covertly record audio, upon receiving a certain signal. Remote activation of a phone's microphone has already been done by the FBI using the so-called roving bug.
7. What is to prevent the government-required software from receiving a certain signal or message which would disable the cell phone or its Internet access (useful in times of civil unrest, as has been seen in the Arab Spring revolts)?
8. Will rooting phones or custom ROMs become illegal, especially if one modifies the function of how the PLAN network interacts with the smartphone?
Sources and media coverage
The only first-hand press coverage I've seen dates from May 10-11, and there's been nothing since.
* National Emergency Alert System Set To Launch In NYC, with audio from the announcement. 800+ users comments, mostly against the idea. "For now, the alerts are capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts."
* Engadget - text of the press release. "Participating carriers are including PLAN chips in their new phones, and many recently purchased phones already have the chip and only will require a software upgrade."
* Wired: Bloomberg, FEMA, FCC Detail NYC Emergency Notification System: "The assembled wireless-company executives, including AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, pledged their support for the system and said new devices will be equipped with a PLAN chip. [...] a list of compatible phones would be posted soon on the FCC’s website [...] Officials didn’t go into detail about the technical specifications of the new network."
* PC World: FCC Calls for Mobile Alert System (2008): "The alerts initially would be text only, though with vibration and audio signals for people with disabilities. They eventually might include audio and video content." (confirmed at FCC's site)
* MacDailyNews: U.S. gov’t mandates special chip in all cellphones; users can’t opt out of presidential messages: "It will use GPS technology and will send some of the alerts based on the location of the phone user."
* Daily Mail UK: Don't write off a text message from the president as a prank: It's an emergency and he might just save your life...: "A special chip is required to allow the phone to receive the messages"
* NY Times: Emergency Alert System Expected for Cellphones: "special chip [...] is currently included in some higher-end smartphones like the latest iPhones"
* USA Today: Cellphones get emergency alerts: "Some current cellphones, including some iPhones and some Android phones, already have the circuitry required to receive PLAN alerts. The iPhones that have the capacity to get alerts, says AT&T's Robert Quinn, will require software modifications. New AT&T phones due out in October will be PLAN-ready."
* NY Post: "Officials said at least three models already have the chip: the Droid X, the iPhone 4 and the Innuendo." The emergency alert feature and app (which can't be uninstalled) are confirmed on the Droid X. Note that the Droid X was released in July 2010.
* BBC: Mobile phone emergency alert system to launch in US: "Mr Bloomberg unveiled the Personal Localized Alerting Network, or Plan, on Tuesday, explaining that the system will implemented through a special chip installed on new mobile phones. The system works through GPS technology and will send some of the alerts based on a user's location."
* AFP: US alert system targets mobile phones: "The alerts will be text-like messages of 90 characters or less."
* Associated Press: Cellphone alert system announced in NYC: "A special chip is required to allow the phone to receive the messages. Some smartphones already have the chip, and software updates will be available when the network goes online later this year."
* FEMA page - no technical details, and nothing beyond what the press said
* slashdot and reddit
Specs
CMAS/PLAN specs I dug up. They seem to indicate that Cell Broadcasts will be used, but all specs are paywalled from $125 and up.

Hadn't heard about this at all. I'm not for it, I don't see why I can't just opt-in to a service like this, no special chip required at all. When I was in college, after the VA Tech shootings the University started a service to alert everybody in case of an emergency. Hell, my job has an automated system that tells us when there's an unexpected closing. But apparently the government needs a chip for that purpose. Absurd.

How much you wanna bet there's going to be a lot more in that chip than just something allowing you to receive warning messages.
How about full on tracking and voice recording?
Patriot Act.

Call me naive, but I'm not as paranoid about this. Sure, the gubmint does all sorts of monitoring they shouldn't, but going so far as to install a special chip in every cell phone in the country? They can't hide that. It's out in the open, to be dissected and shown to the world for what it is. I can't imagine they'd do something so brash. They'd never live it down.

I Am Marino said:
How much you wanna bet there's going to be a lot more in that chip than just something allowing you to receive warning messages.
How about full on tracking and voice recording?
Patriot Act.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I seen sum videos on yutube dat most new cellphones r bein tapped to hear your voice conversations bcuz of terorist acts

I see the Tin-Foil hat brigade have come out in force..
How is this not a good thing?
The Police cannot be everywhere at once, but the public is! If a child goes missing and a member of the public sees them, how is that not WIN for the child?

If you haven't done something wrong, then you don't have to worry..
But wait, that's not the discussion is it? It's healthy to be a little bit skeptic, but paranoid? Not so much.

The "nothing to hide" argument again
BazookaAce said:
If you haven't done something wrong, then you don't have to worry..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the common "nothing to hide" argument. It suffers from four problems:
* aggregation: if you bought a book on cancer, that won't raise any flags, but if you bought a wig as well, that suggests you're undergoing chemotherapy, something you might not want to be known
* exclusion - people are most of the time unaware of what information is being kept or tracked about them. When they accidentally find out to what extent they are being monitored, the reaction is one of shock.
* guilt by associaton - since you have no idea how your information is used and aggregated, what if some of the purchases you make or places you visit happen to match a pattern observed in actions of government enemies (not terrorists, but "hostile or critical journalists, campaigning lobbyists, businessmen who are likely to sponsor rival parties, people who oppose the party leader's favourite idea of the year")? Once you get on a watch list, even due to an error, it's extremely hard to get out of it. Read Hasan Elahi's story of how he was inadvertently detained by FBI agents in 2002, and since then, he publishes everything he does online, so that he can be monitored properly ("The government monitors your movements, but it gets things wrong. You can monitor yourself much more accurately").
* distortion - if you buy books on cellphone hacking, the government might think you want to thwart surveillance or avoid a roving wiretap; while you might simply be doing security research or writing a novel
More at http://tinyurl.com/debunk-nothing-to-hide .

Why can't they just send a text message out to everyone like they do in a lot of universities? Sounds like a waste of money.

Send text messages instead
panchopunk said:
Why can't they just send a text message out to everyone like they do in a lot of universities? Sounds like a waste of money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. We have all the infrastructure we need for text message; they are fast, cheap, and don't require forcing manufacturers to add yet another chip into the phone.

Did someone say the sekrit word?
dandv said:
Exactly. We have all the infrastructure we need for text message; they are fast, cheap, and don't require forcing manufacturers to add yet another chip into the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is money to be made. If each chip costs $10 to install. Think of all the denirro they are going to make. Plus some sort of upkeep tax to pay the director head(read: ol'bud) with.

what better way to keep track of ppl than a chip in a cell phone? Come on ppl...EVERYBODY has cell phones. Next its gonna be RFID tags under ur skin...
666...

... wow this is the biggest bull ever... text are easier require less effort and are less invasive... talk about wasting taxpayer dollars

New World Order

The Extreme invasive Big Brother gov show continues...

Personally, I like the idea of getting alerts like this, and I think their execution does make some sense. Let me explain: In order for them to use the text message infrastructure to do a mass broadcast, they would first have to get the message to the service providers who would then have to transmit the message to their customers - adding in potential points of failure. Or, they would have to get the providers to hand over a list of all current cell phone #'s to send the alerts directly (which would cause even more uproar) and would cost manpower on both sides in order to keep that list up to date. With the new chip/firmware, it takes all of that out of the equation - no "middle man" needed and the government doesn't have to maintain a list of phone numbers. I'm also guessing that the way you would opt-out would be to essentially turn off the chip through a software switch.
That being said, as much as I understand the thought process and them wanting to be able to broadcast messages to all cell phone users, I too would much rather it be an opt-in type of service - which would negate my entire argument above

Hmm... a government required chip in every cell phone? I'm not usually a conspiracy kind of person, but why do I get the feeling that no good can come of this?

STOP WASTING MY PRECIOUS HARDWARE SPACE!!
They could've used that spot to place some other chip to improve the phone and just make an app or something
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

abrigham said:
With the new chip/firmware, it takes all of that out of the equation - no "middle man" needed and the government doesn't have to maintain a list of phone numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those are good points. Also, in times of emergency, the phone network might become congested, while broadcasting to the chip is essentially a multicast message, which can't suffer from congestion.
As long as the chips are not identifiable and don't transmit information back, I'm okay with them (minus concerns about extra cost and battery drain). They'd be like a GPS receiver, or an atomic clock receiver.
But how can we verify that? Who will manufacture them? Will their hardware and software designs be public? Probably not, so as not to increase the risk of abuse by those who'd love to spam millions of people.
abrigham said:
That being said, as much as I understand the thought process and them wanting to be able to broadcast messages to all cell phone users, I too would much rather it be an opt-in type of service - which would negate my entire argument above
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, that wouldn't work, due to human psychology: people are way less likely to opt into a service that has dubious benefits, and opting in takes effort.
For example, consider organ donation in case of a fatal traffic accident: in Germany, which uses an opt-in system, only 12 percent give their consent; in Austria, which uses opt-out, nearly everyone (99 percent) does. The only difference is in the organ donor registration form:
Germany: Check this box if you would like to be an organ donor.
Austria: Check this box if you would not like to be an organ donor.
abrigham said:
I'm also guessing that the way you would opt-out would be to essentially turn off the chip through a software switch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But you can't opt out of presidential messages. And one can imagine those messages being used for more than emergency alerts. The US lives in climate of terror that makes Americans believe that TSA pat-downs improve security (they don't, they kill people because more take the freeways instead of planes, and about 500 extra people die each year in traffic casualties; plus $4B in lost business).
Presidential messages you can't opt out of are an easy way to escalate the fear-mongering with "terror threat alert" messages. They can later serve as a political platform capable of previously unbelievable reach, pushing the presidential propaganda down the throat of hundreds of millions of cell phone users.
But if we think like psychologists again, what will be the government's response to the comment above? Probably something like "People who hate the presidential messages will just ignore them, so calm down".
And that is exactly the problem: potential mass indoctrination of those who are mildly in favor of the regime, or who are neutral, or not pissed off enough with it. And this is how you get the most converts; not by targeting those vehemently against your opinion. And converts equals votes.

This is total MOD EDIT: LANGUAGE I don't want "them" sending me crap! If they want ppl to hear them then the U.S. gov. Can make a MOD EDIT: LANGUAGE app!
Sent from the Drivers Seat of my Suby txting and Driving doing 100MPH+ in a school zone! Ha.

Whether there are any Peer to Peer messaging apps on Android

whether there are any secure peer to peer messaging apps on Android? (The app should not store any message on any servers)

Skype is a great one, but unfortunately it stores messages for 30 days. It also works with calls, and calling to landlines/mobiles.

So whether the skype's messaging is routed through any servers?? So whatever the message sent by us is first sent to Skype's server?
I am looking for a app which would make a secure connection to another phone and which will enable me to send the messages securely..

Yes. Unfortunately, truely peer to peer is hard to find, as all popular IM services use a server in between.

I have a few questions
So incase if I send some objectionable material against Govt,there is a case that I can be tracked by the Govt? by asking Skype or someother provider to share my details? Whether it's possible for my Govt to look into what I have messaged to someone? (in Skype?)

That last post is highly suspicious...
Edit: Sorry if that offended you, removed the last bit.

suspicious? I had just doubts as I am thinking of who has given the Govt right to snoop into conversation between two individuals which is private?
Think about a situation where we are discussing something funnily against Govt and policies in Skype,the same Govt can use the skype evidence against us and can book us!!That's really pretty bad..

Are the government going to stalk on 2 billion people? It's an impossible task.

VOT Productions said:
Are the government going to stalk on 2 billion people? It's an impossible task.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing is impossible if you throw enough money at it ! Look how much they go thru every year !
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2

A quick Google search turns up Gibberbot, is this what you want?

You're wrong, it is possible but difficult to implement
It is proposed to use SLIDESMS.COM
Although they also in some way control the messages you send
However, as you send a message from the phone using a public WiFi via this website, no one is able to track down who sent it

Does say:
"Your IP: *censored* will be logged "

Gigerbot was not the one I was looking for as it involves messaging google
I was looking for an app that would
a)send messages directly from one android phone to another android phone
b)Messages should not be routed through any server
c)Messages should not be stored on any server
d)Messages should be encrypted and much more..
Because I have some plans to make one such app..that's why.

[GUIDE] Some incredibly simple things to protect YOUR PRIVACY!

{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
The term "privacy" means many things in different contexts. Different people, cultures, and nations have a wide variety of expectations about how much privacy a person is entitled to or what constitutes an invasion of privacy. Information or data privacy refers to the evolving relationship between technology and the legal right to, or public expectation of, privacy in the collection and sharing of data about one's self. Privacy concerns exist wherever uniquely identifiable data relating to a person or persons are collected and stored, in digital form or otherwise. In some cases these concerns refer to how data is collected, stored, and associated. In other cases the issue is who is given access to information. Other issues include whether an individual has any ownership rights to data about them, and/or the right to view, verify, and challenge that information.
This post does not intend to address the many definitions of privacy or the many technical means of protecting and invading one's privacy. There are already many posts addressing this aspect and brief search can turn up lots of answers for you.
This post is only intended to help the least technically savvy among us in maintaining some small amount of data security and privacy without getting very technical about things. It was derived from many diverse sources on basic privacy.
Note that I do NOT have a DONATE button anywhere.
I am not looking for donations.
If you feel that you should donate something, by all means,
send it to your favorite XDA developer and/or XDA itself!
And don't be shy about the
button for the many posters who were of help to you!
Recently, a friend handed me his phone and asked me to take a picture. “What’s the password?” I asked. “I don’t have one,” he said. I think I must have had a puzzled look on my face as, I suppose, I tend to grimace when someone I know tells me they’re choosing not to take one of the very simplest steps for privacy protection, allowing anyone to look through their phone with the greatest of ease, to see whichever messages, photos, and sensitive apps they please.
So, this post is for you, big guy with no password on your Galaxy/iPhone/Nexus/whatever, and for you, girl who stays signed into GMail on your boyfriend’s computer, and for you, person walking down the street having a loud conversation on your mobile phone about your recent doctor’s visit of that odd ailment you have. These are the really, really simple things you could be doing to keep casual intruders from invading your privacy.
1 Password protect your phone! It is one of the simplest things you can do to most devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.) with the least amount of effort. Many people tell me it is “annoying” to take the two seconds to type in a password each time before using the phone. Gimme a break, everyone!. Choosing not to password protect these devices is the digital equivalent of leaving your home or car unlocked. If you’re lucky, no one will take advantage of you. Or maybe the contents will be ravaged and your favorite speakers and/or secrets stolen. If you’re not paranoid enough, spend some time reading entries in Reddit, where many Internet users go to discuss issues of the heart. A good percentage of the entries start, “I know I shouldn't have, but I peeked at my gf’s phone and read her text messages, and…” Oh, and before you pick a password like "123456" or "password" do yourself a big favor and visit the Worst passwords of all time web page! No laughing allowed!
2 Turn on 2-step authentication in GMail (that is, if you use GMail, of course). The biggest conclusion you can derive from the epic hack of Wired’s Mat Honan is that it probably wouldn't have happened if he’d turned on “2-step verification” in GMail. This simple little step turns your device into a security fob — in order for your GMail account to be accessed from a new device, a person (you?) needs a code that’s sent to your phone. This means that even if someone gets your password somehow, they won’t be able to use it to sign into your account from a strange computer. (How it works - video) Google says that millions of people use this tool, and that “thousands more enroll each day.” Be one of those people! Yes, it can be annoying if your phone battery dies or if you’re traveling. Of course, you can temporarily turn it off when you’re going to be abroad or phone-less. Alternately, you can leave it permanently turned off, and increase your risk of getting epically hacked. Which do you like better?
3 Put a Google Alert on your name! This is an incredibly easy way to stay on top of what’s being said about you online. It takes less than a minute to do. Go here: http://www.google.com/alerts; anyone can do it easily. Google Alerts are email updates of the latest relevant Google results (web, news, etc.) based on your queries. Enter your name, and variations of your name, with quotation marks around it. Boom. You’re done. Now, that wasn't too tough, was it? I didn't think so. :-]
4 Sign out of your Facebook / Twitter / GMail / etc. account! Do it each time you are done with your emailing, social networking, tweeting, and other forms of general time-wasting. Not only will this reduce the amount of tracking of you as you surf the Web, this also prevents someone who later sits down at your computer from loading one of these up and getting snoopy. This becomes much more important when you’re using someone else’s or a public computer. Yes, people actually forget to do this, with terrible outcomes. Incidentally, if you have the Chrome browser on your PC and you use “incognito” (Ctrl Shift N) or Internet Explorer and you use “InPrivate” (Ctrl Shift P) you will automatically be logged out when you close the window, and no cookies or passwords will be stored. Pretty cool, right?
5 Don’t give out your email address, phone number, or zip code when asked. Hey, if some scary (or weird) looking dude in a bar asked for your phone number, you'd say no, wouldn't you? But when the person asking is a uniform-wearing employee at a local store, many people hand over their digits without hesitation. Stores often use this info to help profile you and your purchase. Yes, you can say no. If you feel badly about it, just pretend the employee is that scary looking dude!
6 Change Your Facebook settings to “Friends Only.” I really thought that by now, with the many Facebook privacy stories which have been published, everyone would have their accounts locked down and boarded up like a cheap Florida house before a hurricane. Not so. There are still lots and lots of people on Facebook who are as exposed on the internet as Katy Perry at that water park. Go to your Facebook privacy settings and make sure the “default privacy” setting isn't set to "public"! If it’s set to “Custom” make sure you know and understand any “Networks” you’re sharing with.
7 Use unique passwords for every site you go to. This sounds really difficult but - surprise - it is quite simple! Password managers come in many sizes and flavors these days. They will generate complex passwords and remember them for you. Protect yourself against phishing scams, online fraud, and malware. Many of these apps have versions you can use on your computer as well as on your tablet and phone. Some are free and some cost money. Your choice. Here, let me show you how simple it is to find a bunch of them: http://bit.ly/V4xehO! As I said, there are many - the one I use is this one here.
8 Clear your browser history and cookies on a regular basis. Do you remember the last time you did that? If you just shrugged, consider changing your browser settings so it is automatically cleared every session. Go to the “privacy” setting in your Browser’s “Options.” Tell it to “never remember your history.” This will reduce the amount you’re tracked online. Consider one of the several browser add-ons, like TACO, to further reduce tracking of your online behavior.
9 Read the posted privacy policy. Boring, isn't it? Every web site has one and likely for a good reason. Have you ever seen the XDA Privacy Policy? Yup, that's just what I thought!
In conclusion, here's one from the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.
As I said, this is not a technical article but it may make you think if it does the job right.
Sixth Circuit: No Expectation of Privacy in Cell Phone GPS Data
Drug dealers, beware. Your pay-as-you-go phones probably have GPS. And, according to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati, police can track the signal they emit without a warrant.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration committed no Fourth Amendment violation in using a drug runner’s cellphone data to track his whereabouts. The DEA obtained a court order to track Melvin Skinner’s phone, after finding his number in the course of an investigation of a large-scale drug trafficking operation.
The DEA didn’t know much about Mr. Skinner or what he looked like. They knew him as Big Foot, the drug mule, and they suspected he was communicating with the leader of the trafficking operation via a secret phone that had been registered under a false name. Agents used the GPS data from his throw-away phone to track him, and he was arrested in 2006 at a rest stop near Abilene, Texas, with a motorhome filled with more than 1,100 pounds of marijuana.
Mr. Skinner was convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On appeal, he argued that the data emitted from his cell phone couldn’t be used because the DEA failed to obtain a warrant for it, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The question in the case was whether Mr. Skinner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data his phone emitted. It’s a question that several courts are wrestling with. Federal law enforcement authorities, as in this case, say that investigators don’t need search warrants to gather such information.
Justice Department lawyers argued in a court brief that “a suspect’s presence in a publicly observable place is not information subject to Fourth Amendment protection.”
Judge John M. Rogers, writing for the majority, agreed:
There is no Fourth Amendment violation because Skinner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cell phone. If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal. The law cannot be that a criminal is entitled to rely on the expected untrackability of his tools. Otherwise, dogs could not be used to track a fugitive if the fugitive did not know that the dog hounds had his scent. A getaway car could not be identified and followed based on the license plate number if the driver reasonably thought he had gotten away unseen. The recent nature of cell phone location technology does not change this. If it did, then technology would help criminals but not the police.
He was joined by Judge Eric L. Clay. Judge Bernice B. Donald, who concurred but disagreed with the majority’s Fourth Amendment reasoning, said the DEA couldn’t have figured out the identity of Mr. Skinner, the make and model of his vehicle or the route he would be driving without the GPS data from his phone.
“It is not accurate…to say that police in this case acquired only information that they could have otherwise seen with the naked eye,” she wrote. “While it is true that visual observation of Skinner was possible by any member of the public, the public would first have to know that it was Skinner they ought to observe.”
A lawyer for Mr. Skinner didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.​
Comments? Suggestions? Ideas? They are all welcome.
Flame wars (relating to privacy or otherwise) are not. :-]

[GUIDE] Some incredibly simple things to protect YOUR PRIVACY - Part 2
Cameras on smart phones, getting better with each generation of new devices, allow people to take pictures or videos on the go and transmit these images by e-mail or post them to the Web. With phone in hand, unexpected sightings of celebrities can be snared with a flick of the wrist (turning the celled into the 'snaparazzi'), as can chance encounters with pretty girls or gorgeous sunsets. Their impact can be great for both good and evil.
Not too long ago two men lit themselves on fire in protest. But only one of them is credited with starting a revolution.
The difference between the two? Mobile phones recorded Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian fruit vendor, as he set himself ablaze in despair over his economic plight. Those videos kicked off the wave of 2011 Arab Spring demonstrations.
Abdesslem Trimech, the other man, fell into relative obscurity. (Source: The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything by Michael Saylor)
Back in 2005, a retail fraud investigator for one of the larger chain stores said that while he was still unable to capture a usable image of a credit card from even the then newer camera phones, he has been able to grab readable images of all account and routing info from the personal checks customers have produced at the checkout. Check writers, he says, have a tendency to "lay out" their check books on the writing counter at the registers and keep them stationary enough to obtain a clear image of all the personal information printed on the check. He has also tested this theory with camera-equipped palm tops and has found that with the adjustable resolution he has been able to get a pretty clear picture, with zoom, from a reasonable distance away (3-5 feet). So at this point in time, as phone cameras get better and better, your credit card might still be secure but your personal check might not be.
So, what personal information does your mobile phone reveal about you? Do you know? Do you care?
It seems that many people are slowly becoming more aware of the pitfalls and the mobile-privacy concerns.
According to reports, 54% of cell phone users in the U.S. have decided not to install an app once they discovered how much of their personal information it would access. (The amount of sensitive info an app can access typically is indicated by the "permissions" the app requests, listed on its information page.)
Also, nearly one-third of mobile app users report uninstalling an app from their phone because they learned it was collecting personal information they didn't wish to share.
We need to first be aware and also be willing to actively take steps in order to protect our own privacy. Children of all ages need to be carefully taught as well.
Okay, but what about students? Do students have an expectation of privacy on their cell phones while at school?
The short answer to this in the U.S. is a qualified yes. Whether educators have the authority to search the contents of student cell phones depends on a lot of factors. The key issue in this is the standard of reasonableness. According to New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) students are protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. In T.L.O., the Supreme Court goes on to say that the standard that law enforcement officers must reach to conduct a search (probable cause that a crime has been committed), is not required of educators. In general, the standard applied to school officials is whether the search is “justified at its inception and reasonable in scope.” (See When can educators search student cell phones)
What information should children be taught NEVER to reveal?
The suggestions depend on their age. Common 'wisdom' suggests the following:
Elementary School Kids should NEVER share (their own or another’s):
Age
Full Name
Address
Phone Number
Name of School
Password Information
Images (with possible exception depending on parental involvement)
Middle School Kids should NEVER share (their own or another’s):
Age
Full Name
Address
Phone Number
Name of School
Password Information (even to friends)
Most Images (At this age, kids get into social networking and will be sharing images via cell phones and digital cameras. Parents should focus on limiting the images their children share online)
High School Kids should NEVER share (their own or another’s):
Address
Phone Number
Password Information (even to friends)
Offensive or Sexually Suggestive Images or Messages
If you managed to get this far there must have been something that concerned you.
Congratulations! Learning more about privacy is the first step.
Here's one more little trick you might try since you spent all the time getting here. :highfive:
Want to have an unlisted phone but would not like to have to pay monthly for it? Ask your phone company to replace your last name with another name - your grandmother’s maiden name or something that you never use. This will cost a few dollars, but works very well. Many phone companies will do this for you. No monthly fees for having your number unlisted and as soon as you hear someone calling you Mr. {your grandmother’s maiden name}, you can either block the number or request to be put on the company’s Do Not Call List or <fill in the blank of your choice>. Note that Caller ID takes its information from the phone book, so you will be identified as Mr. {your grandmother’s maiden name} on Caller ID units of people you call unless you turn this feature off.
Another helpful addition to the listing (available in some areas) is: "(data line)", meaning that the phone number is connected to a fax or computer and not to a live person. Check with your local company if this option is available.
Some time ago, in a concerted effort, multiple ACLU affiliates filed a total of 381 Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests in 32 states, asking local law enforcement agencies to disclose how they are using mobile phone location data.
The FoIA request in North Carolina struck gold: a copy of an official Department of Justice flyer, dated August 2010 that explains exactly what data is retained by Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, and Sprint division Nextel. There's an enhanced copy on the ACLU website.
The eye-openers:
All of the mobile phone companies keep details about the location of cell towers used by every phone, for a year or longer.
All of the mobile phone companies keep records about voice calls and text messages received and sent for a year or longer. Verizon stores the contents of every text message for three to five days. (The others don't keep the text.)
IP session information -- tying your phone to an IP address -- is kept for a year by Verizon and 60 days on Sprint and Nextel.
IP destination information -- which IP addresses you connected to -- is stored for 90 days at Verizon and 60 days on Sprint and Nextel.
The ACLU is gathering information on what steps local police have to go through in order to acquire that stored data: warrants, formal requests, emergencies, possibly even informal procedures. They're also trying to figure out how law enforcement agencies share the data and how long it is retained.
There doesn't appear to be any sort of uniform nationwide policy or widespread judicial precedent.
The ACLU is also looking at law enforcement requests to "identify all of the cell phones at a particular location" and "systems whereby law enforcement agents are notified whenever a cell phone comes within a specific geographic area."
If you have been concerned about privacy and location data being leaked sporadically on your iOS or Android or Windows Phone device it seems you have been looking at very, very small potatoes!​
Comments? Suggestions? Ideas? They are all welcome.
Flame wars (relating to privacy or otherwise) are not. :-]

[ Another place holder ]

[GUIDE] Some Incredibly Simple Things To Protect Your Privacy!
If you find this thread helpful then do not forget to
Rate: *****
Submit thread as News Tip
If you find a particular post is helpful, please click on the Thanks button
If you are using XDA App or Tapatalk, long press on the post and select :good: Thanks
Thanks ny_limited - I just did all these!
Cheers
Tom

Szczepanik said:
If you find this thread helpful then do not forget to
Rate: *****
Submit thread as News Tip
If you find a particular post is helpful, please click on the Thanks button
If you are using XDA App or Tapatalk, long press on the post and select :good: Thanks
Thanks ny_limited - I just did all these!
Cheers
Tom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Appreciate the kind works, Tom, but.. This thread is for the non-technical ones among us. I suspect you are more technical than I am thus you hardly qualify to be here.

Thanks for the tips.
For extra protection, there's quite a few security apps on the market that will lock whatever information sensitive apps you want locked, usually with the same security options that your phone offers i.e. Password, PIN, pattern etc.
Just search "app lock" in the play store, for those interested.
--> dominating your screen from my t-mobile gs3, powered by: FreeGS3 R7 "Resurrection"

Complacency is one thing that most if not all internet/mobile/computing user have. I always advocate "Do not remember my password" while browsing from any form of medium to my friends. You never know when you will get compromised. Just leave your computer for a moment, your friend with malicious intent can extract all your private information with a simple and obtainable usb trick..
Even the thing most personal to me, my mobile phone, has no sites on "Log me in always" checked.
I hope websites would leave the box unchecked, as sites I visit always encourage user to have that option enabled. E.g. Ebay, Facebook..

Post # 2 has been updated just in case you need more reading material.

ny_limited said:
Post # 2 has been updated just in case you need more reading material.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
like 1 better :good:

coohdeh said:
like 1 better :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. I guess I really didn't need the 3rd placeholder after all.
---
Spes in virtute est. (via XDA app)

This article is just over a year old but still makes good reading if you haven't seen it yet.
Few people would willingly carry around a device that tracks their movements, records their conversations, and keeps tabs on all the people they talk to. But, according to documents recently released by the American Civil Liberties Union, cell phone companies are doing all of that -- and may be passing the information on to law enforcement agencies.
"Retention Periods of Major Cellular Service Providers," an August 2010 document produced by the Department of Justice, outlines the types of information collected by various cell phone companies, as well as the amount of time that they retain it. On some levels, this is reassuring: Verizon (VZ) is the only company that holds on to text message content, and they erase it after 3-5 days. However, text message details -- the information about who you text with -- is retained for a minimum of a year, with some companies keeping it for up to seven years. In other words, that little back-and-forth you had with Bernie Madoff back in 2007 will be on the books until 2014.
Complete article is here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

The privacy buck stops with the user
Yes, those terms of service are annoying. They're usually too complicated and too long, and users who want a certain mobile app will be inclined to click 'next' without actually reading the fine print, even if they're worried about what rights they're signing away. Still, "cellphone users need to take responsibility for their own data," maintains Steve Durbin, global VP of the Information Security Forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
​
Cellphone and smartphone users have a love-hate relationship with mobile apps. While they love the functionality and enhanced user experience they bring to the table, clearly many hate the perceived privacy intrusions, suggests a newly released report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
More than half -- 54 percent -- of app users surveyed decided against installing a cellphone app when they discovered how much personal information they would need to share in order to use it. Thirty percent uninstalled an app that was already on their cellphone because they learned it was collecting personal information that they didn't wish to share.
Many cellphone users take additional steps to protect the personal data on their mobile devices, including backing up photos, contacts and other files -- tasks performed by 41 percent of those surveyed. Some 32 percent have cleared the browsing or search histories on their phone, and 19 percent have turned off the location-tracking feature due to privacy concerns.
Finally, 12 percent of cell owners say that another person has accessed their phone's contents in a way that made them feel that their privacy had been invaded.
The complete article was written by Erika Morphy and published in the E-Commerce Times in September.

i just know that you can monitor the keywords via google alerts
some useful information here. Thanks a lot!

More cell phone privacy notes
Police Searches of Cell Phones
You may have a legitimate expectation of privacy of the information stored in your cell phone, and so a search warrant may be needed before a police officer can look at your phone's data. However, an officer has the authority to search a cell phone when the search is "incident to an arrest." The search is deemed similar to an officer that searches a closed container on or near a person that he's arresting.
Traditional search warrant exceptions apply to the search of cell phones. Where the accessing of memory is a valid search incident to arrest, the court need not decide whether exigent circumstances also justify the officer's retrieval of the numbers from your cell phone. Police officers are not limited to search only for weapons or instruments of escape on the person being arrested. Rather, they may also, without any additional justification, look for evidence of the arrestee's crime on his person in order to preserve it for use at trial.
Illegally Intercepted Communications
Most people would think that public broadcasting of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation would be illegal. Well, the US Supreme Court has found that (U.S.) the First Amendment allows an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation to be shared with others when the conversation involves matters of significant public interest. The lesson here is to be careful because technology has increased the chances that your cell phone conversations are being recorded and could be made public or used against you.
Cell Phone GPS Tracking
Although there are many advantages to cell phone GPS tracking, there are also privacy concerns. As most people carry their cell phone with them at all times, the ability is in place to track the exact movements of all individuals. Cell phone GPS could prove useful in saving lives during emergencies.
For these reasons the (U.S.) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires wireless network providers to give the cell phone GPS tracking location information for 911 calls that have been made from cell phones. This is known as E911. The law on E911 is fairly explicit. It allows carriers to provide tracking location information to third parties for E911 emergency calls only, however not under any other circumstances whatsoever without the consent of the cell phone owner. Recent court hearings have disallowed the requests of law enforcement agencies to obtain cell phone GPS tracking information from the cell phone companies for suspects in criminal investigations.
The complete article was written and published on Lawyers.com.

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos
Instagram said today that it has the perpetual right to sell users' photographs without payment or notification, a dramatic policy shift that quickly sparked a public outcry.
The new intellectual property policy, which takes effect on January 16, comes three months after Facebook completed its acquisition of the popular photo-sharing site. Unless Instagram users delete their accounts before the January deadline, they cannot opt out.
Under the new policy, Facebook claims the perpetual right to license all public Instagram photos to companies or any other organization, including for advertising purposes, which would effectively transform the Web site into the world's largest stock photo agency. One irked Twitter user quipped that "Instagram is now the new iStockPhoto, except they won't have to pay you anything to use your images."
"It's asking people to agree to unspecified future commercial use of their photos," says Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "That makes it challenging for someone to give informed consent to that deal."
The complete article is written by Declan McCullagh and published in c|net.
Thanks to FameWolf for the link!

Horrible Autoplay Video Ads Are Coming to Facebook
Facebook will unveil a new video ad product that will auto-play commercials upon arrival, executives told AdWeek's Jason del Ray. This most annoying addition, which will allow advertisers a chance to slap unsolicited videos all over the Facebook news feed, is expected to launch by April 2013, the sources say. And, to reiterate, yes, these will be the same variant of videos that pollute the ESPN.com homepage — the ones that start without you asking them to.
Facebook, which has been trying just about every kind of new ad it can this year, has not yet decided if these commercials will automatically play with or without sound. But in either case, you can bet they'll be a pain — and you can expect plenty of frustrated users. On the desktop version of Facebook, the vids will expand "out of the news feed into webpage real estate in both the left and right columns -- or rails -- of the screen," explains del Ray. Meaning: they will be everywhere. Also, for people who use a million tabs on older computers, imagine a ton of video playing over and over: slow-load city. Add a little audio in the mix and we can already see the confused masses looking for that one tab with the unwanted sound coming out of it. Oh, yeah, this is a really great idea, Facebook. As if you weren't full of those this week already.
The complete article is written by Rebecca Greenfield, published in The Atlatic Wire

ny_limited said:
Instagram said today that it has the perpetual right to sell users' photographs without payment or notification, a dramatic policy shift that quickly sparked a public outcry.
The new intellectual property policy, which takes effect on January 16, comes three months after Facebook completed its acquisition of the popular photo-sharing site. Unless Instagram users delete their accounts before the January deadline, they cannot opt out.
Under the new policy, Facebook claims the perpetual right to license all public Instagram photos to companies or any other organization, including for advertising purposes, which would effectively transform the Web site into the world's largest stock photo agency. One irked Twitter user quipped that "Instagram is now the new iStockPhoto, except they won't have to pay you anything to use your images."
"It's asking people to agree to unspecified future commercial use of their photos," says Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "That makes it challenging for someone to give informed consent to that deal."
The complete article is written by Declan McCullagh and published in c|net.
Thanks to FameWolf for the link!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Instagram has backed off the language in its new privacy and terms of service policies that set off a significant firestorm online. Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom posted on the company’s blog under the title “Thank you, and we’re listening”. Whether you believe him or not you can read more about it at Forbes.

Happy New Year, everyone!
Enjoy the festivities!
Will see you all next year!

New 2013 CA laws affect online privacy, homeowners, schools
From protecting your online privacy to party buses, there are 750 new California (USA) laws taking effect in 2013.
The complete KABC-TV (Los Angeles) article of January 1, 2013 can be found here.

[USA] New laws keep employers out of worker social media accounts
Employers in Illinois and California cannot ask for usernames and passwords to the personal social media accounts of employees and job seekers under laws that took effect on Jan. 1.
Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn in August signed legislation amending the State's 'Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act.'
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation adding the prohibitions to the State's Labor Code in September.
The two states join Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and Delaware in implementing such privacy laws.
Full ComputerWorld article: http://bit.ly/118L2tM

Question enabling call recording on a uk flip3

i have a flip3 on tesco mobile in the uk. is there a way to unlock call recording?
thanks

I'm using the ACR Call Recorder app from the Galaxy Store - Call Recorder - ACR - which seems to work OK in the UK.

thanks for the reply, ive tried that one and 2 others but ive found that sometimes they record clearly and others its inaudible regardless of the live call quality. sometimes i can only hear my voice too. on my previous phone which was a xiaomi that i bought from china the recording was natively enabled and it was flawless (very handy for my job as i cant always write down info while im working, also as customers like to alter what was said in their minds after they've had a quote )
i was hoping to enable the built in recording which is disabled in the uk

sidz70 said:
i have a flip3 on tesco mobile in the uk. is there a way to unlock call recording?
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately due to the Laws in the EU and UK. That feature is disabled on all Samsung EU and UK devices.

iceepyon said:
Unfortunately due to the Laws in the EU and UK. That feature is disabled on all Samsung EU and UK devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But there are no laws in the UK which prevent me from recording calls for personal use, and there is no requirement to inform (or receive consent from) the other party.
When I had a OnePlus 8 Pro, the built-in dialler allowed me to record all calls, so I can't understand why Samsung disable this feature.

CSC needs to be changed for native call recording to work.
https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/enabling-native-call-recorder-through-csc.3962224/

Philip said:
But there are no laws in the UK which prevent me from recording calls for personal use, and there is no requirement to inform (or receive consent from) the other party.
When I had a OnePlus 8 Pro, the built-in dialler allowed me to record all calls, so I can't understand why Samsung disable this feature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately this is a grey area in the law in the UK. As for all legal purposes in the UK both parties need to agree to have their conversation recorded otherwise if it was to be used in a legal action. The judge would disregard the call recording as both parties record in the conversation did not provide their consent to have their call recorded.

iceepyon said:
Unfortunately this is a grey area in the law in the UK. As for all legal purposes in the UK both parties need to agree to have their conversation recorded otherwise if it was to be used in a legal action. The judge would disregard the call recording as both parties record in the conversation did not provide their consent to have their call recorded.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not grey at all in the UK, and there is no requirement for the other party to the conversation to consent to (or even to be informed of) the recording, especially when performed by an individual. The only constraints are what is done with the recording - if the recording was made public, then the recorded party might have recourse to a civil (but probably not criminal) prosecution, but would have to prove that they had suffered damages.
As one of the exemptions from GDPR are activities carried out to prevent or detect a crime, I can't think of any circumstances when a telephone conversation recording would not be allowed in evidence.
The rules for businesses are slightly different - there are some industries (e.g. those regulated by the FSA) where there is a regulatory requirement to record all calls.
Of course, the law is different in other jurisdictions.

Which OS/area/brand/model/phone for a working Call Recorder

I'd like to open a useful thread to know a well-working Call Recorder with the most recent OS matched to the respective phones because it looks like it is a very hard issue.
A 'well-working' Call recorder I mean that:
- can record both ends of conversation with no warning vocal message;
- can also record through bluetooth earpieces the other end of call;
- can access the contact's names and then you can have shown on your recording list the called contact name.
- no root needed.

umby75 said:
I'd like to open a useful thread to know a well-working Call Recorder with the most recent OS matched to the respective phones because it looks like it is a very hard issue.
A 'well-working' Call recorder I mean that:
- can record both ends of conversation with no warning vocal message;
- can also record through bluetooth earpieces the other end of call;
- can access the contact's names and then you can have shown on your recording list the called contact name.
- no root needed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Keep in mind that what you want is not legal in all areas. Check the laws for your specific country and locality. Consent from all parties is sometimes required; at the very least, the most frequent requirement is that all parties to the conversation have to be aware that they're being recorded.

V0latyle said:
Keep in mind that what you want is not legal in all areas. Check the laws for your specific country and locality. Consent from all parties is sometimes required; at the very least, the most frequent requirement is that all parties to the conversation have to be aware that they're being recorded.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Volatyle, many thanks for your reply! I wouldn't open a polemic about this, but my unique purpose is to get automated data in my phone (i.e. when I'm driving the car and I'm with my bluetooth earpieces, etc.) when I listen to the people giving me details about my errands, etc. and I can hear them afterwards.
I find very stupid this restriction because - if we like - we can record the calls anyway... I think that the responsibilities against the law is a different matter and the lawbreaker has to pay for the privacy violation then.
Furthermore, currently, it is allowed with many phones to record the calls through either the phone's earpiece or speakerphone by an app installed into the same phone! Thus, my thread - I think - has the reason to be open because I'm looking for a feature that is already present in the phones, but I'd like to optimise a working call recorder only with an simple bt device connected or contact names regularly shown (another very stupid restriction - I believe) .

umby75 said:
Hi Volatyle, many thanks for your reply! I wouldn't open a polemic about this, but my unique purpose is to get automated data in my phone (i.e. when I'm driving the car and I'm with my bluetooth earpieces, etc.) when I listen to the people giving me details about my errands, etc. and I can hear them afterwards.
I find very stupid this restriction because - if we like - we can record the calls anyway... I think that the responsibilities against the law is a different matter and the lawbreaker has to pay for the privacy violation then.
Furthermore, currently, it is allowed with many phones to record the calls through either the phone's earpiece or speakerphone by an app installed into the same phone! Thus, my thread - I think - has the reason to be open because I'm looking for a feature that is already present in the phones, but I'd like to optimise a working call recorder only with an simple bt device connected or contact names regurarly shown (another very stupid restriction - I believe) .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't say I was going to close your thread, I'm just making sure you're aware of the legality of it. Whether or not a phone has a recording app or recording functions enabled does not mean it is legal, and it is your responsibility to be aware of the laws in your area.