Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Guvante | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Guvante

> You can bet that, since he was on the run, his cell phone was off.

You then follow this with

> But if he was on the run, why was he carrying a cell phone? Answer: because he was stupid.

Your postulation that this is sufficient proof to say that they can track you with your phone off is suspect.

View on HN

I was skeptical the last time this subject came up, too, but someone pointed out that for an attacker with root access, it would be easy enough to reprogram the phone's power button to act like it was turning the phone off without actually doing so.

Given the fact that US law enforcement and security agencies are (now) indisputably known to be in the zero-day hacking business, the burden of proof is on those of us who've always claimed these stories were exaggerated.

Personally, I no longer feel confident about calling bullshit on much of anything. With the US government's infinite budget and unaccountable influence over device manufacturers and telcos, no hack is impossible.

Sorry but can't avoid laughing at infinite budget etc etc after a masterpiece such as https://www.healthcare.gov/

If all the operations are carried on by the same kind of contractors, we can sleep tight for few years.

Or a full-on cynic/paranoiac would suggest the poorly-done websites are part of a gaslighting scheme.

'gaslighting' - we don't use that term often in the UK, looks like a good word though... Please can you explain what that word means in this context. Thanks!

It's purposely constructing a false reality to make a victim think they are going insane. I am taking some rhetorical liberties by not intending the second part of that and using it to refer to the false information only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

I guess you mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

A friend of mine has always said that if you want a big f-up in projects then get the government to run it. But if you want something carried out with precision then get the military to do it.

Funny thing is, it doesn't seem to matter where healthcare systems are carried out they always run over time and over budget and end up in a big mess!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24130684

That's the irritating thing -- that so much money is being spent for such poor results. The NSA isn't very cost-effective at preventing terrorist attacks, and healthcare.gov isn't very cost-effective at providing health insurance.

When confronted with my government's incompetence, I never know whether to be pissed off or relieved.

NSAs job isn't just to prevent terrorist attacks, it's also to gather and analyse information for the US government and to keep US communications secure. I don't know whether or not they're "cost effective", but I don't think anyone would doubt that they've given the US a huge strategic advantage.

I don't know whether or not they're "cost effective", but I don't think anyone would doubt that they've given the US a huge strategic advantage.

It's tough to say. They say their mission is vital, but then their mission is literally to lie for a living.

No, their mission is to protect U.S. communications and break everyone else's. They don't have to "lie for a living" typically since typically no one knows to ask them questions :P

I see your point, but this sort of work would be coming more from the makers of stuxnet than the makers of health insurance websites...

That's a different thing.

Can a phone be tracked while off - or can you install malware that prevents your phone from turning off while misleading the user to believe that it worked?

The latter is a lot easier to believe and what you talk about. The discussion above/the post you answered is about the former.

The baseband can control everything, and the baseband itself can be controlled remotely. It is at least technically feasible. There's no real room for doubt on that.

>the baseband can control everything Why would that be the case? Baseband in this case refers to a frequency, eg taking data(audio, SMS, etc) and mod/demodulating it. It should take raw data at the bottom of the OSI model and prep it for the RF front end, and vice versa. I may absolutely be wrong, but it doesn't have any connection to the microphone other than receiving preprocessed digital audio from the application processor. Look at the interface for an e.g TI cc2500, that's the sort of device that's being discussed

"Baseband" in this case refers to a dedicated CPU and software that handles all of the high-level cellular radio protocol work. It's where the logic would be implemented to handle the data coming from a chip like the cc2500.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com