[geeks] a cell phone that doesn't suck

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>Date: 2007/11/24 Sat AM 11:18:36 CST
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] a cell phone that doesn't suck

>On Nov 24, 2007, at 11:17 AM, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>>> NOTE: I'm not saying they are right, but consider:
>>>
>>> As long as it falls below a certain emission rate, off can be defined
>>> as something most of us here would not define as off.
>>
>> uhm, "On is the new Off"?
>
>"soft off" is very common.  Less than half of the devices around me  
>right now actually power off when I hit the power button.
>
>Why would I assume my cell phone is any different.

Because your cell phone runs on a battery - I suspect most of your other devices runn off wall current...

>>> Have you actually powered a cell phone off and checked it for
>>> emissions, or for that matter, checked the data stream and verified  
>>> it
>>> never sends video data without being asked?
>>>
>>> No?  Then you don't really know.
>>
>> Well, yeah, if you exclude the possibility of applying logic to the  
>> question, then yes, you are right - I don't really know.
>
>Really?  What logic did  you apply to determine that cell phones are  
>fully powered off, and can't be abused in their on and off states?
>
>It should be interesting.

I was bemoaning the inability to even attempt to use logic, the requirement that I produce scientific proof.

In theory, if I turn off the phone remove the battery and measure the charge, then replace the battery, wait an extended period, then test the current remaining in the battery and compare any loss to the expected drain on a similar battery not installed in the device I can assume the unit was off, as no current was used (can we all agree that transmission and reception requires electricity in a phone?). If I did all that, I've only proven that the phone didn't use power. If I add a freq. counter to the mix and monitor emissions whilst inside a farady cage for the extended period, I suppose I could say that this one phone was actually off. But then there are the thousands and thousands of other phone models I'd have to test to *prove* my assertion.

>We already know the opposite is true anyway.

We do?

How would you know the difference between the phone company altering the phone while it is turned off vs. the phone company disabling features on the phone once it turns on and access their network (kill on connection, for instance)? Or a time limited activation, that kills a feature/phone once a point in time is exceeded (like a DHCP lease)?

>Most cell phones can be remotely activated, turned off, or  
>reprogrammed, even if you have them "off".
>
>The only question is whether or not this is being abused or maybe how  
>much is it being abused.

So the theory is that the phone company can reach out, activate an otherwise powered down device, activate it, and do so in a manner that doesn't alert the wearer/user? For this to be true, the phone needs to be on when off (soft off you refer to), have a silent/invisible power-on sequence, and not drain the battery in a manner to alert the user that the phone has a problem with the battery?

There were recent reports that phone companies could turn on microphones on cell phones that were powered on and listen to what was going on (yay, one less tool for law enforcement!), but no one ever asserted that the phone could be turned on remotely (I find it hard to believe that cell phones have a "wake on WLAN" feature, but I'd love to be proven wrong)...

The cell phone location the original article referred to was based on the "beacon" signal that powered-on cell phones emit to alert the network the phone is on and where it is on the network (what towers should handle incoming calls to reach the phone) and triangulation based on signal strength. It is not based on actual GPS readings, as the stated resolution is "one block", GPS resolves much better than that in my experience.

Lionel