But these things have been around for years and years. The don't have to be the size of a suitcase, either. One of the ways that people create no-cell zones, say in a theater, is they bring in a small unit in their pocket that mimics a cell tower. It doesn't have to be high power since it is much closer to the cell phones in the theater than the nearest real cell tower is (probably). It thereby tricks the cell phones into connecting to it instead of the real tower and then simply doesn't complete the calls or route calls to it. But they can also be used to sniff whatever information a legitimate tower could access or to act as a man-in-the-middle attack on conversations.

But aren't calls and data encrypted when transmitted through the normal network?

 

But aren't calls and data encrypted when transmitted through the normal network?

Yes and no -- and I am far, far from very knowledgeable about current state of the art. However, most cell systems are reverse compatible with older generations such as 2G which had effectively non-existent security protocols.

For example, look at

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...es-all-thats-needed-to-eavesdrop-on-gsm-call/

One quite salient remark was:

“There is one key used for communication between the operators and the SIM card that is very well protected, because that protects their monetary interest,” Nohl said. “The other key is less well protected, because it only protects your private data.”

A lot of the weaknesses in commercial protocols come down to the people that designed them thinking that they can design their own security protocols and encryption algorithms instead of using existing standards. Almost invariably, they turn out to be wrong -- the very fact that they thought they could do it is a strong indicator that they aren't knowledgeable enough to be up to the task.

 

Governments will soon have no excuse for not catching most wanted criminals:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43751276

Chinese police have used facial recognition technology to locate and arrest a man who was among a crowd of 60,000 concert goers.

 

Governments will soon have no excuse for not catching most wanted criminals:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43751276

Bad Plastic surgery still works

After the unwrapping.

 

One of the upsides of facial recognition technology:

http://www.iflscience.com/technolog...ified-in-facial-recognition-pilot-experiment/

 

https://archive.org/details/TheOuterLimits-Tos-1x07-O.b.i.t.avi_90

(Outer Band Individuated Teletracer)

 

https://relentlessohio.com/about/license-plate-recognition/

Scanning millions of license plates a month, we are finding the location of future repossessions before assignments are even issued. Greatly reducing recovery times of your collateral.

The life of a Repo Man is always intense.

 

https://relentlessohio.com/about/license-plate-recognition/

Scanning millions of license plates a month, we are finding the location of future repossessions before assignments are even issued. Greatly reducing recovery times of your collateral.

The life of a Repo Man is always intense.

That article could just as easily have read something like: Scanning millions of license plates a month, we are tracking the movements of millions of citizens who have not yet been accused of doing anything wrong, greatly improving the government's ability to find something with which to charge anyone who questions its authority.

 

That article could just as easily have read something like: Scanning millions of license plates a month, we are tracking the movements of millions of citizens who have not yet been accused of doing anything wrong, greatly improving the government's ability to find something with which to charge anyone who questions its authority.

Sounds like a plan for a third-world government ...

 

bout sums it up in the UK

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...top-marketing-facial-recognition-tool-n884296

A group of Amazon shareholders are calling on the company to stop pitching its facial recognition tool to local law enforcement agencies, writing in a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos that the technology could pose a privacy threat and a financial risk.

 

Privacy gained, a little.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/22/16-402_h315.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...red-for-cellphone-location-data-idUSKBN1JI1WT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday imposed limits on the ability of police to obtain cellphone data pinpointing the past location of criminal suspects in a major victory for digital privacy advocates and a setback for law enforcement authorities.

 

Privacy gained, a little.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/22/16-402_h315.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...red-for-cellphone-location-data-idUSKBN1JI1WT

I loved the comment by Alito about how the ruling didn't address concerns over data collection by private companies. Well, since the case wasn't about data collection by private companies, but rather about practices by law enforcement agencies, it doesn't seem surprising that the ruling didn't address things that the case being ruled on wasn't about.

The claim that the ruling is bad because it might result in litigation or threaten practices that law enforcement has come to rely on is particularly troubling. If the government has been violating the Constitution, then why shouldn't there be litigation that results? If they are using practices that violate the Constitution, then why shouldn't those practices be threatened.

 

The ruling is bad for government snooping because it limits the bulk collection of digital records (a persons papers) without a warrant (but many agencies in government are exempt from warrant requirements because they are not law enforcement). Today, property includes digital records that might travel on public/private data-links. This was a needed update to property rights in the digital age.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/22/scotus-rejects-warrantless-tracking-of-c

"I would look to a more traditional Fourth Amendment approach," Gorsuch wrote. "The Fourth Amendment protects 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' True to those words and their original understanding, the traditional approach asked if a house, paper or effect was yours under law. No more was needed to trigger the Fourth Amendment." Furthermore, Gorsuch wrote, "it seems to me entirely possible a person's cell-site data could qualify as his papers or effects under existing law."

"I cannot fault" the majority "for its implicit but unmistakable conclusion that the rationale of Smith and Miller is wrong; indeed, I agree with that," Gorsuch explained. "At the same time, I do not agree with the Court's decision today to keep Smith and Miller on life support." In other words, Gorsuch would scrap these third-party precedents and have the Court start adhering to an originalist, property rights-based theory of the Fourth Amendment. That's how Gorsuch wanted Carpenter to win.

The guy thinks too much... If you agree with the limits then vote for it.

 

https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/

 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-t...s/amazons-face-recognition-falsely-matched-28

 

@nsaspook Some think the legislative body is a bunch of crooks. In a way, they are all true matches.

 

You have already reached this point. The overlords are afraid for their power, once the country falls, which will be very soon.

The tendency worries me:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38879530​

"It was recently revealed that the city of New York plans to install facial recognition tech on its bridges and tunnels to scan and identify people driving in and out."

In my opinion, this facial recognition fad (and I don't think it will be a passing one) clearly crosses the privacy threshold.

All over the world, a "ruling class" already enjoys privileges that are way above the average citizen. Once all privacy is lost, I think that we will have reached a point of no return, and the world will be divided between Eloi and Morlocks...

 

You have already reached this point. The overlords are afraid for their power, once the country falls, which will be very soon.

I, for one, laugh at our Alien Overlords.

 

I, for one, laugh at our Alien Overlords.

You should be!