• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Edward Snowden Designs Phone Case That Shows When It Is Being Spied On

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Yeah but what about when the govt gets a listof people that dont want to be spied on by taking the purchase records from the Snowden company. !?!?! Then they will know who to spy on right away!!!! Muhahahaha! :)

Sorry , couldnt help it
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Yeah but what about when the govt gets a listof people that dont want to be spied on by taking the purchase records from the Snowden company. !?!?! Then they will know who to spy on right away!!!! Muhahahaha! :)

Sorry , couldnt help it

"If you don't have anything to hide, why do you need to know when you're spied on?"
 

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Is that a real question? I'm confused by the quotes. Also quite opposed to that line of thinking. There was a point in time in my living memory when privacy meant choosing who knew intimate details of your life and also was not considered an evasion or "hiding" things.

On topic though, I wonder why people would trust this device to tell them if someone else is spying on them if they already don't trust the tech and knowledge they have.
 
OP
Kenrou

Kenrou

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
"If you don't have anything to hide, why do you need to know when you're spied on?"

"The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there’s no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it’s in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That’s accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that’s what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched." ~ Glenn Greenwald


On topic : I would assume it simply tells them that the device is functioning without their use/permission ?
 
Last edited:

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
"

On topic : I would assume it simply tells them that the device is functioning without their use/permission ?

I think it's gotta be more than that. There would be an app that could do that. The second link goes into some of the more technical aspects of what they are looking to do and what they are dismissing as not good enough. It was interesting to read before it went over my head :)

What I mean though, is that this project has the same fatal flaw that all similar projects have, by that I mean they are trying to take an apple from the top of the tree and hand it to the shortest guy. Or make technologies that are not understood available to those who don't understand them. It is the ignorance of how their tech works that makes them (and me : just hopefully not as much) vulnerable in the first place.

I know most folks would rather just buy a thing than learn, but there is just something I can't like about this product, something that seems dishonest. I can't quite put my finger on it though
 

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
but there is just something I can't like about this product, something that seems dishonest. I can't quite put my finger on it though

Perhaps the "Trust me" nature of the technology? In a world where trust is treated like cheap currency while it becomes the most rare commodity on Earth?
 

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Perhaps the "Trust me" nature of the technology? In a world where trust is treated like cheap currency while it becomes the most rare commodity on Earth?

Yeah that :) As well as the fact that buying such a thing advertises that you either dont know how to do it on your own or are too lazy. Kind of like letting the neighbors see you move a huge safe into your home.... then they not only know what they have to beat but where to find your valuables. Then I have to get a safe to put my safe in, and if they see that one then I have to get yet another one and so forth.

it would be much simpler for a personal device to be considered as sacred as your wallet. Anyone I catch with my wallet is clearly legally not entitled to it or its contents. There are too many gray areas with online activity for my taste. A dozen years ago "data mining" was crossing the line and is now accepted by default ...but everyone who has posted in this thread so far has voiced their opinion on that kind of stuff in other threads. No need to rehash.
 

mrgoodkat

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Location
Chicago
There was a point in time in my living memory when privacy meant choosing who knew intimate details of your life and also was not considered an evasion or "hiding" things.


Actually, there never was. It's just that it changes over time due to the threats. Every country operates under the simple concept of surrendering a reasonable level of liberty, for security. Whether that be warrantless searches of homes when a madman killer is on the loose, or grabbing the metadata from communications that start in the US, but end outside of the US, in areas of the world where terrorists have historically found safe havens while plotting attacks. One of those areas is Western Europe.

The issue with the NSA PRISM thing is the false narrative that had people believe that the government cared, or could even disseminate "intimate details of your life" from what were essentially timestamps of communications that are pretty much industry standard for every technology company. A warrant was needed to then begin to try and disseminate that information, and only after there was a proven connection to a terrorist on the other end of the communication. And even then, if any of the people were US citizens, they were anonymized by simply calling that person "US citizen 1", etc. The only time they would be identified would be during a trial.

Of course none of this applies to people who are not US citizens, and are outside of the country. That is simple, classic espionage for matters of security. Europe wants to act outraged while many of these same countries, including Germany, have systems in place that were built with help from the NSA. And so we are reminded that no matter how good of friends or allies we are, we all have self interests. The EU's interest is very much in playing up the false narrative while Snowden himself stated that European countries have far less oversight over their own intelligence agencies. Certainly nothing approaching congressional oversight. And often none at all. That's how you get Der Spiegel articles highlighting German corporate and industrial espionage against the US, in years right before the Snowden leaks. Something the NSA is forbidden from doing unless there is a national security connection. Which makes the German outrage particularly disingenuous and downright scummy.

Like most things, I am highly skeptical of all narratives until I do my own homework. At no point in time is that more important than now. I truly worry about the increasingly conspiratorial nature we operating under as a society. I have spent time in the Middle East and that readiness to see conspiracy behind everything, is what has helped most of those countries remain stagnant both economically and socially. I feel we are now approaching those levels, and Putin and China are loving every minute of it.

Perhaps even more worrying the this relatively new absolutist mindset that does not recognize the need to surrender any liberty, for anything. Even if that sounds good to you, it shouldn't because historically, it leads to worse outcomes. Information has always been worth its weight in gold and has never been worth more than it is now and in the future. The digital information age happened and we are constantly shooting ourselves in the foot be being unreasonable, while countries who are our competitors, unfriendly, or straight up enemies, will not play by the same rules. This is not the Cold War, where the moral high ground wins you any points.
 
Last edited:

Alaric

New Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Location
Satan's Colon, US
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

I'm with Benjamin Franklin on this. As for conspiracies, the NSA does record every cell phone communication in North America, M$ and Google (and countless others) do have back doors in their products and they do provide the keys to those doors to the government, and the DNC did actively work to sabotage a Presidential candidate's campaign from the inside. And the IRS did target political opponents of the current Administration. These aren't theories, they're facts.

Actually, there never was.
Yes, there was.
 

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Every country operates under the simple concept of surrendering a reasonable level of liberty, for security.
People may accept that to a certain degree but that doesnt make it right or legal, just something that a blind eye is turned to

Whether that be warrantless searches of homes when a madman killer is on the loose,
Ummm no. Everyone else iis letting you search? Fine. Post a guard outside to make sure that the killer doesnt leave my place while you search everyone else and make sure you have a warrant for mine before you try to step past the threshold. I am certain there are laws on the books that prevent me from guarding my own rights that way but until then.... :)

or grabbing the metadata from communications that start in the US, but end outside of the US, in areas of the world where terrorists have historically found safe havens while plotting attacks. One of those areas is Western Europe.
the excuse here is that the meta data is no more private than the outside of the envelope on a letter sent through the mail. I can live with that but I feel it is a prevarication intended to smooth down folks that have had their rights trampled.

The only time they would be identified would be during a trial.
Oh you mean with that information that was collected without a warrant because they did away with the requirement for one? I see what you are getting at but I still see these are prevarications.




Perhaps even more worrying the this relatively new absolutist mindset that does not recognize the need to surrender any liberty, for anything.
Absolutes and extremes are wise to be guarded against. In this case I would say that there is an equal and opposing mindset that is just as worrying.
 

habbajabba

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Location
Oregon
Actually it's just a proof of concept and he is not alone in the concepts design. It simply entails a case which simply scans for any outward transmission from the phone when you the user turned everything off. It doesn't prevent it it simply looks for transmissions which you did not initiate or which shouldn't BE transmitting.