[geeks] a cell phone that doesn't suck

[David Muran-de Assereto]

On Nov 24, 2007, at 23:25 , Lionel Peterson wrote:

>> <snip> bunch of stuff
>
> <snip>
>
>> OK, I'll take that swing:
>>
>> "Experts say that the only defense is removing the battery"
>>
>> http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html
>
> A defense lawyer involved in defending accused drug dealers and a  
> fellow that
> makes his living sweeping for bugs (http://www.tscm.com/) - they  
> both have a
> vested interest in scaring the general public regarding government
> wiretapping.

Except that the FBI admitted it, and a Federal judge authorized it.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html

>
>
>> There are a lot more references out there; this is just the first one
>> I hit.
>
> The number of people that would have to be involved in creating such  
> a feature
> into a telephone (programmers, testers, engineers, designers, etc.  
> for all the
> phone manufacturers) is huge, and that they all were able to keep it  
> a secret
> for any length of time would be amazing if it were true.

But it's not a secret. It's a standard diagnostic feature, and has  
been since the mid-90's. It's just not publicly bandied about much.
I don't know why it was built in originally, since it is so easy to  
use for government or possible nefarious reasons, but the capability  
is there. For a while in the 90's, it was extremely difficult for law  
enforcement to purchase cell phone diagnostic equipment supposedly for  
that reason (hearsay from a mostly-reliable source).

>
>
> On the other hand, it is interesting that all the reports you read  
> about this
> discuss how prosecutors are getting warrants approved without any  
> substantial
> proof, but they down play that in every case there was a Judge that  
> approved
> the warrant... Why do the judges get a pass from the press?

Well, I'm guessing that the FBI made a reasonable demonstration of  
probable cause in the Genovese case, at least. From what I've read,  
cell phone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in most  
cases, so the standard wiretapping requirements apply. Of course,  
nowadays things are a little different because of the changes in FISA,  
so I wouldn't count on privacy.



David Muran-de Assereto
dmuran at tuad.org

Sapere Aude!