Lawless Obama Administration Grabs More Power

[Dave2]

Yes they can access the phones microphone even when your phone is shut off. The only safeguard is to pull the battery but with so many devices it really is pointless.

I think someone would notice the battery draining from the broadcasts.

Not really. The biggest drains are going to be from processing graphics, running the display, and looking for a cell connection. The only thing that might drain the battery is trying to get real-time audio if the phone is in a bad coverage area. If the audio is saved on the phone and then transmitted when there is a good connection, it won't drain the battery at all.

Wouldn't they notice the extra data usage on their bill?

Unlikely. Amounts reported by phone software and what carriers report already vary. US agencies are already in bed with the carriers, they could have already made sure the extra usage wouldn't be counted. Unless it's a boatload (which it wouldn't have to be), even people scrutinizing their usage wouldn't notice. It could be programmed to only transmit data when another legit program on the phone is transmitting data, thus making the user think it's just the legit program using that data.

Where would the audio be stored? And what about the OS? Android is open-source, where's the code to do it? It's not there? Must be in the chipset then.

I can save you a few steps... We're going to end up at a conspiracy that would require the participation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, working for multiple governments and companies, across a multitude of countries. The idea that not one credible person has slipped and said something they didn't mean to, or that not a single one of them has decided it's wrong and that the program should be exposed is simply ludicrous.

[VMI77]

I can save you a few steps... We're going to end up at a conspiracy that would require the participation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, working for multiple governments and companies, across a multitude of countries. The idea that not one credible person has slipped and said something they didn't mean to, or that not a single one of them has decided it's wrong and that the program should be exposed is simply ludicrous.

What are you talking about? They've already used the technology and it's been introduced as evidence in court trials. In one case the FBI activated the phone of an alleged mafia guy and recorded his conversations with people as he was riding in a car. The technology has been discussed in detail at sites like Wired and other tech news and information websites. In these particular cases they had warrants but that doesn't make it less possible to do illegally, it makes it more possible. Everyone that would be party to such surveillance knows it is legally in use by warrant and that alone makes it much easier to use without a warrant. It's not some kind of hidden secret as you're suggesting, the capability is widely known --and as a matter of fact, as regards the OP about collecting dossiers, a member of the Obama administration did talk and resign in protest. The fact is, most people are either indifferent or don't think it's wrong.....that's one of the reasons the country is where it's at now.

[Dave2]

I can save you a few steps... We're going to end up at a conspiracy that would require the participation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, working for multiple governments and companies, across a multitude of countries. The idea that not one credible person has slipped and said something they didn't mean to, or that not a single one of them has decided it's wrong and that the program should be exposed is simply ludicrous.

What are you talking about? They've already used the technology and it's been introduced as evidence in court trials. In one case the FBI activated the phone of an alleged mafia guy and recorded his conversations with people as he was riding in a car. The technology has been discussed in detail at sites like Wired and other tech news and information websites. In these particular cases they had warrants but that doesn't make it less possible to do illegally, it makes it more possible. Everyone that would be party to such surveillance knows it is legally in use by warrant and that alone makes it much easier to use without a warrant. It's not some kind of hidden secret as you're suggesting, the capability is widely known --and as a matter of fact, as regards the OP about collecting dossiers, a member of the Obama administration did talk and resign in protest. The fact is, most people are either indifferent or don't think it's wrong.....that's one of the reasons the country is where it's at now.

Yeah, by downloading special software to the phone. It didn't come that way.

[Dave2]

The idea [...] is simply ludicrous.

Upon further reflection and research, I want to back down from the word "ludicrous". I still don't believe it's happening the way CoffeeNut, Thomas, and VMI77 are suggesting, but nor do I want to imply anything negative about those who do.

[VMI77]

I can save you a few steps... We're going to end up at a conspiracy that would require the participation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, working for multiple governments and companies, across a multitude of countries. The idea that not one credible person has slipped and said something they didn't mean to, or that not a single one of them has decided it's wrong and that the program should be exposed is simply ludicrous.

What are you talking about? They've already used the technology and it's been introduced as evidence in court trials. In one case the FBI activated the phone of an alleged mafia guy and recorded his conversations with people as he was riding in a car. The technology has been discussed in detail at sites like Wired and other tech news and information websites. In these particular cases they had warrants but that doesn't make it less possible to do illegally, it makes it more possible. Everyone that would be party to such surveillance knows it is legally in use by warrant and that alone makes it much easier to use without a warrant. It's not some kind of hidden secret as you're suggesting, the capability is widely known --and as a matter of fact, as regards the OP about collecting dossiers, a member of the Obama administration did talk and resign in protest. The fact is, most people are either indifferent or don't think it's wrong.....that's one of the reasons the country is where it's at now.

Yeah, by downloading special software to the phone. It didn't come that way.

Yes, exactly, and it can be done remotely. But here's something to think about.....years ago, my phone had a real on/off switch. So far as I know, all phones now have software on/off switches. Why? That's the feature that makes it easy to insert surveillance software into any phone. Why should I have to take the battery out of my phone to really turn it off? It's not a TV that needs software for remote activation, so why the software switch?

[Thomas]

The idea [...] is simply ludicrous.

Upon further reflection and research, I want to back down from the word "ludicrous". I still don't believe it's happening the way CoffeeNut, Thomas, and VMI77 are suggesting, but nor do I want to imply anything negative about those who do.

That's why I used the words, "might", "could", and "if", because I have no idea if it's happening or not either. I'm just saying that the capabilities are there for it to be possible. So to be clear, I am not suggesting that it is happening.

[Dave2]

But here's something to think about.....years ago, my phone had a real on/off switch. So far as I know, all phones now have software on/off switches. Why?

I guess we've had different experiences... I can't remember ever having a cell phone with a physical "off" switch that actually cut power. Even well before smart phones, it was always a variation on holding the off or hang-up button or something for a while to turn it off. But to answer your question, it saves manufacturers the cost of adding a button and running wires to it. Plus it saves on support costs... "My phone won't ring when someone calls!" " Stop turning it off"... By having the "off" button merely hang up the phone and turn off the screen, and having to hold it down for a while (or whatever) to actually power-down the device, you can prevent a lot of confusion in users between the phone's "normal off" and "powered-down off" states.

My old Treos did have a mute switch that, as far as I could tell, just opened the circuit to the speaker; the phone never gave any indication that it knew I'd put it in silent mode, and there was never so much as a hint of sound while it was set. I miss this button dearly... On iPhones, the silent switch only turns off the phone, email, txt, etc ringers. Alarms and apps still have sound, so if I accidentally have an alarm go off or start playing a game because this is the third time I've heard the sermon this weekend... (The production team always gets bored by the time second service is in full swing)

[VMI77]

But here's something to think about.....years ago, my phone had a real on/off switch. So far as I know, all phones now have software on/off switches. Why?

I guess we've had different experiences... I can't remember ever having a cell phone with a physical "off" switch that actually cut power. Even well before smart phones, it was always a variation on holding the off or hang-up button or something for a while to turn it off. But to answer your question, it saves manufacturers the cost of adding a button and running wires to it. Plus it saves on support costs... "My phone won't ring when someone calls!" " Stop turning it off"... By having the "off" button merely hang up the phone and turn off the screen, and having to hold it down for a while (or whatever) to actually power-down the device, you can prevent a lot of confusion in users between the phone's "normal off" and "powered-down off" states.

My old Treos did have a mute switch that, as far as I could tell, just opened the circuit to the speaker; the phone never gave any indication that it knew I'd put it in silent mode, and there was never so much as a hint of sound while it was set. I miss this button dearly... On iPhones, the silent switch only turns off the phone, email, txt, etc ringers. Alarms and apps still have sound, so if I accidentally have an alarm go off or start playing a game because this is the third time I've heard the sermon this weekend... (The production team always gets bored by the time second service is in full swing)

The OP was about compiling dossiers. As far as cell phone surveillance goes, I'm only making the claim that the government (the Feds anyway) has the capability to both track your location via your cell phone and to download software that allows them to use your phone as a monitoring device. How often it is used is unknown.

But here are a few things that are known:

http://www.propublica.org/article/how-m ... e-watching

The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice has said mobile phone users have “no reasonable expectation of privacy.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3522137.stm

According to some reports, intelligence services do not even need to obtain permission from the networks to get their hands on the codes.

So provided it is switched on, a mobile sitting on the desk of a politician or businessman can act as a powerful, undetectable bug.

The technology also exists to convert land line telephones into covert listening devices.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call."

Surreptitious activation of built-in microphones by the FBI has been done before. A 2003 lawsuit revealed that the FBI was able to surreptitiously turn on the built-in microphones in automotive systems like General Motors' OnStar to snoop on passengers' conversations.

When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... veillance/

Sprint said sometimes it’s hard for the company to know whether it is being properly served, and that the legal standard of whether a probable-cause warrant was needed is unclear.