Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1.    #1  
    I saw this article on cnet: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

    http://news.com.com/FBI+taps+cell+ph...3-6140191.html

    I wonder if that can be done on the Treo, and I wondered if someone could write some software that would alert us if/when someone tried to remote activate our mics....
    Last edited by IamVincent; 12/05/2006 at 09:41 PM.
    Treo 700p, 650p 600p, 300p, IIIc, III, Vx, USR Palm Pilot, Newton Message Pad 130, Newton Message Pad 120, (Was there a MP 100?), HP Calculator, Pencil and Paper, Chisel and Rock ....
  2. #2  
    I left the Mafia, I'm ok.
  3. wbwjr's Avatar
    Posts
    440 Posts
    Global Posts
    441 Global Posts
    #3  
    uh oh!



    just kidding of course
  4. #4  
    Congrats...I think you just stumbled across the cause of all the rapid battery drain threads!!!

    Sprint Pre & Motorola H300 BT headset

    Dead devices: Palm Pro; Palm III; Treo 600, 650, 700p, 755p; Centro
    Yes, I finally updated my tagline!
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by IamVincent View Post
    I saw this article on cnet: FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

    http://news.com.com/FBI+taps+cell+ph...3-6140191.html

    I wonder if that can be done on the Treo, and I wondered if someone could write some software that would alert us if/when someone tried to remote activate our mics....
    I saw the same article and was about to post it when I searched out the OP. Needless to say, I was quite surprised and am quite dismayed that it's gotten down to this.
  6. #6  
    <dons tinfoil hat>
  7. #7  
    Big Brother is alive, well, and upon us! How long before this is abused by the FBI?? They've done it before.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  8. zeze22's Avatar
    Posts
    187 Posts
    Global Posts
    234 Global Posts
    #8  
    have to throw in my two as a lawyer. I am about as cynical and liberal as they get, but the rule of law still lives in the US and Aam despite the mess the Bushies have made. No government agency has the will or resources to do this unless you have been ocean-hopping and mingling with Al-Sadr's lieutenants. Too many Constitutional and political implications for the Feds to do this to the ordinary, local criminal.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by zeze22 View Post
    have to throw in my two as a lawyer. I am about as cynical and liberal as they get, but the rule of law still lives in the US and Aam despite the mess the Bushies have made. No government agency has the will or resources to do this unless you have been ocean-hopping and mingling with Al-Sadr's lieutenants. Too many Constitutional and political implications for the Feds to do this to the ordinary, local criminal.
    I'll have to agree. Notwithstanding a some applicable statutory exemption, legal process is ALWAYS required.

    If the evidence is obtained illegally, the criminal case (for which the evidence was originally collected) would be most likely be ruined - that is, the case would be turned down by the prosecuting attorneys, or the evidence would be suppressed by the court.
  10. #10  
    who cares. Let them listen does it really matter if they know what time my wife will have dinner ready?
    Ymeagle

    Treo 700p Sprint Favorite apps in order: phone, navigator (tomtomGPS) , NV Backup, Docstogo, Versa, keycaps, minitones, PdaNet, Butler, palmPDF, volcare, AOL im, DA, BOLD MEANS FREE
  11. #11  
    The only problem with both of the above is that mistakes get made, and the rule of law has been suspended for terror suspects, such that you may not even be told the evidence against you so that you can refute it, and you may never get your day in court. The more information they gather on you, the more likely a mistake can be made e.g.

    FBI error cited in lawyer's arrest
    By Jerry Seper
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    January 7, 2006
    http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...40521.300w.jpg

    FBI fingerprint examiners "committed errors" in mistakenly linking an Oregon lawyer arrested as a material witness in the 2004 Madrid train bombing that killed 200 persons, but the suspect's "adherence to Islam" played no role in its mistake, a report yesterday said.
    Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded in a 273-page report that the FBI fingerprint laboratory's "overconfidence in the skill and superiority of its examiners" prevented it from seriously considering the Spanish National Police's finding that the suspect's print did not match one from the crime scene.
    "The unusual similarity between Mayfield's fingerprint and the fingerprint found on the bag confused three experienced FBI examiners and a court-appointed expert," Mr. Fine said.
    "The OIG concluded, however, that FBI examiners committed errors in the examination procedure and that the misidentification could have been prevented through a more rigorous application of several principles of latent fingerprint identification."
    Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim convert and a lawyer in Portland, Ore., was arrested by the FBI in May 2004 as a material witness after FBI fingerprint examiners identified his print as matching one found on a bag of detonators connected to the terrorist attack on commuter trains.
    Mr. Mayfield was released two weeks later when the Spanish National Police identified an Algerian national as the source of the fingerprint on the bag. The FBI laboratory later withdrew its fingerprint identification. Mr. Mayfield has since accused the government in a lawsuit of singling him out because of his Muslim faith.
    But Mr. Fine said his office found no evidence the FBI misused any of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act in conducting its investigation, saying Mr. Mayfield's "adherence to Islam played no role in the initial, erroneous determination that there was a fingerprint match."
    He said the fingerprint specialists did not know Mr. Mayfield's religion, his marriage to an Egyptian immigrant or his legal representation of other Muslims.
    The FBI had obtained authority to conduct surveillance and searches of Mr. Mayfield's home and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) through the Patriot Act. Mr. Fine did note that while searches conducted before his arrest were pursuant to the FISA warrant, after his arrest, the searches were based on criminal search warrants that did not involve the Patriot Act.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5356-6818r.htm

    If the Spanish police were not doing their job he could very well have been in Guantanamo bay by now, with no information or venue to defend himself. If they did not have his fingerprint (which he may had to give for a biometric passport for example) he would not have been implicated in something which happened on the other side of the world.

    With surveillance now based on what kind of food you eat and where you sit in the airplane or what your name is, the population under surveillance has increased tremendously, and anyone who knows anything about statistics and false positives will know that when the phenomena you are looking for is rare the rate of false positives will be very high, no matter how good your correlations are. The bigger the data base, the more likely bizarre coincidences occur in it. Thats just probability and stats.

    Imagine tripping one of these invisible wires e.g. transferring a large amount of money overseas, and then being under routine surveilance for one or two days, just when you happen to be watching a movie about terrorism.

    Mistakes are made easily, which is why people guard their privacy, even from the good officials of the state. To find the Barcelona article I had to Google spain and bomb and fingerprint, and I wonder how many little trip wires I set of. I guess i will have to make sure i only watch Mary Poppins for the next few days....

    Surur
  12. #12  
    If you watch Mary Poppins, you may be considered a terrorist- since it is a terror/horror flick...

    Check out "Scary Mary"



    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  13. mal5z's Avatar
    Posts
    137 Posts
    Global Posts
    142 Global Posts
    #13  
    Before people -- including the author of the CNet article -- speculate too much about (i) what the FBI can do technically and (ii) what the FBI can do legally, it's worth looking at the actual facts. Here are the links to the affidavits that the prosecutor submitted in order to be allowed to listen in on these mafia targets.

    http://www.politechbot.com/docs/fbi.....p1.120106.pdf

    http://www.politechbot.com/docs/fbi.....p2.120106.pdf

    In my opinion, there's at least two important things that can be taken from them. First, as you see, a judge has to approve electronic eavesdropping in advance and, as you can also see, it takes a lot of evidence and paperwork to be able to convince the judge. Judge Jones had to sign off on this in advance and then, after the fact, the Government was required to defend the legality of its technique to Judge Kaplan in opposition to the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. So that's two judges who need to be convinced before the evidence can collected and used. There's no reason to think the judiciary and the system in general aren't doing their jobs.

    Second, CNet's speculation aside, I don't see anything in the affidavit that looks like it's saying that eavesdropping in that case involved the FBI turning on someone's microphone. Even CNet admits that they're just speculating, and I can't really see what they base it on.

    Just my two cents.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by mal5z View Post
    In my opinion, there's at least two important things that can be taken from them. First, as you see, a judge has to approve electronic eavesdropping in advance and, as you can also see, it takes a lot of evidence and paperwork to be able to convince the judge. Judge Jones had to sign off on this in advance and then, after the fact, the Government was required to defend the legality of its technique to Judge Kaplan in opposition to the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. So that's two judges who need to be convinced before the evidence can collected and used. There's no reason to think the judiciary and the system in general aren't doing their jobs.
    I thought Bush did not care too much about courts and judicial oversight.

    Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

    The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.
    Evidence being thrown out means nothing if you never get to court, or if the court holds to different standards e.g. a military court.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/po...&ex=1292389200

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 12/08/2006 at 02:51 PM.
  15. zeze22's Avatar
    Posts
    187 Posts
    Global Posts
    234 Global Posts
    #15  
    Surur is exactly right. But, that was my point. A lot of political and judicial energy is expended every time these guys conduct extra-constitutional investigations. I was encouraged when so many Americans were turned off by the dirtier parts of the Patriot Act and the torture techniques of US military and investigators. And guess what, Bush paid a lot of 'political capitol' for that conduct. So, my point is, if you're downloading copyrighted tunes or planning to sell a quarter-ounce of kind-bud, you can rest assured the Feds haven't tapped your Treo.
  16. fabulas's Avatar
    Posts
    189 Posts
    Global Posts
    316 Global Posts
    #16  
    the FBI will tap your phone at the switch, there is no way your treo could tell it's being tapped

Posting Permissions