Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,070
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 132 Times in 86 Posts

    Carrier IQ: A privacy tempest of what size?




    TOP STORY

    Carrier IQ: A privacy tempest of what size?


    By Woody Leonhard

    A YouTube video by Trevor Eckhart documents a litany of privacy-busting transgressions made by Carrier IQ, a software program factory-installed on mobile phones.
    Almost every news outlet in the U.S. seems to have run the story about Carrier IQ as if 1984 had finally arrived, with Big Brother (in large, corporate form) working the phones our smartphones in this case. But is that view accurate?

    The full text of this column is posted at WindowsSecrets.com/top-story/carrier-iq-a-privacy-tempest-of-what-size/ (opens in a new window/tab).

    Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.

  2. #2
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hi Woody
    Re: Carrier IQ: Some people have forgotten that cell phone or other mobile networks are not secure. Sending sensitive info or conversation using these networks is a risk. Even landline phones are not secure. We hear regularly about government officers both US and UK, complaining that their sensitive conversations have been overheard, when using cell phones. The general rule should be, 'no sensitive messages over cell phone networks'. To do otherwise is to jeopardise your security.

  3. #3
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sanford, NC, USA
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    What does this have to do with Windows? It's the Windows stuff I contribute to Windows Secrets for, and this garbage should be on some other "Toy Phone Users Secrets" column.

  4. #4
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Granite Falls, NC
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Sometimes a spotlight reveals more than a flashlight

    I tend to pay attention to Bruce Schneier's perspective given his renowned knowledge on the topic of security. Last year at the EWI Cybersecurity Summit, Bruce delivered a compelling message of insight all would do well to watch: http://youtu.be/I6ZkU2fUM5w This is not to say Woody Leonhard is mistaken in specific but rather that there is a much larger issue many have not considered.

  5. #5
    Lounger LilBambi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    26
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Woody. What a fantastic article. You got everything from all angles and cut through the feldercarb to the real issues.

    Thank you.

    Great link over at infoworld also.

    BTW: Why can't I post your article at Digg.com when using the complimentary link? I was so impressed with the article I tried to post it (but using the complimentary link where I clicked on story 2, but it wouldn't post to Digg. Sigh...was able to post it to technology on Reddit though.
    Fran Parker, AKA Bambi, Linux User #183283, Ubuntu User #11114, CNI Radio
    BambisMusings, Tumblr, Twitter, Malware Complaints - Stand Up and be Counted!
    I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grant[s] a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
    --James Madison, 1794

  6. #6
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

    I liked the article. Thanks.
    And thanks for bringing the EFF to my attention. https://www.eff.org/
    Martin

  7. #7
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    57
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    After reading the article, I'm inclined to agree that this is a tempest in a teapot. At the same time, I fully understand why people are up in arms. Every year, companies more and more show their utter disrespect for their clients and their privacy, all in the name of making a buck. As far as I'm concerned, no marketer has a *right* to know anything about me that I don't explicitly choose to reveal. I opt out of every data-sharing plan I can, and I resent companies that reserve the "right" to share data with their marketing partners when I don't even know who those partners are. It's gotten to the point that consumers are justifiably paranoid about their information being revealed and shared.

  8. #8
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    "But why would a phone company want to monitor your keystrokes, your mail, your SMS texts, or your location using a program inside your phone? It doesn't make any sense."

    On the contrary, isn't this the entire premise behind Google? Watching over every word, every contact, and then using that information to tailor advertising specifically for the user?

    It makes perfect sense for the cell phone carriers to be data mining so they can monetize the accumulated data in exactly the same way that Google and other companies do. Maybe next year's SmartPhone will offer me free data--in exchange for having an ad window at the bottom of each screen. Are the cell companies planing ahead for something like that? Perhaps. We know they certainly wouldn't tell us their plans, but it might just be good business sense to try deploying this software, this ability, to their entire user base before they tried to act on it.

    Remember, these are the clever folks who sell SMS messages as "text" at a thousand percent profit. There's very little they do by accident, and even less they will discuss with the public.

    That doesn't make it right or wrong, or touch the invasion of privacy issues. I'm just saying, Google has built a financial giant by data mining, the potential here should be clear. The secrecy? Well now, that's very different. Very cellular company style. And very wrong. I didn't rent or lease or borrow my phone, I bought it. It belongs to me. I'm entitled to know what it is doing, and what software is running on it. If someone is running software without my knowledge or consent--then that's theft and tampering, even if it is the cellular company.

    Redd
    Last edited by Redd; 2011-12-08 at 13:57.

  9. #9
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Garland, TX, USA
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    For me, the real issue here is...

    the fact that software that COULD be used for nefarious purposes, whether is currently is or not, was HIDDEN on the phones, and there is no way to turn it off. This is once again a sign of company's total disregard for the security and privacy of their customers. So my question is, when (no if) this information that no one is supposed collecting, is released to the public by a hacker who has gained access to it from either CarrierIQ or a carrier, who will be responsible:?

  10. #10
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    It is the POTENTIAL for abuse that bothers me. I don't do anything I really need to protect, but imagine a future with neo nazis or foreign (or even home grown) terrorists having access to all American's locations, who they are contacting, and what they are looking at on the web. No way to "Opt out" except ditch your phone. No lifelines...It might bring CBs and walkie talkies back. Oh wait, they've all been collected by the big "Recycling drives".

  11. #11
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    transmittal of data

    OK some of us can put up with the spin. But there are other issues here to be addressed. This video has clearly shown that if you sell your phone to someone else you are not pre equiped to wipe it clean and therefore this company is facilitating in data transmittal. There should be a big warning that even though your tele contract forces you to accept data transferrence, this action will be carried out if you sell your phone to someone that has the ap, all without you agreeing to this embedded gem.

    So will say T-Mobile or ATT provide free wiping services? Yah right! That was a quick thought. How about theft? Oh now we are on a roll. IQ Setup Inc. has a real problem on their table. I'll wait to buy in on this one.

  12. #12
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Other Nefarious Users for Carrier IQ

    My concern is not with the carriers but with malware writers who could easily use Carrier IQ as a keylogger to gather information. They might then download the information for other purposes. The most serious issue is the ability of Carrier IQ to record in clear text usernames and passwords that the user assumes are only being transmitted in encrypted form. Although carriers are required by federal law to provide an easy means for law enforcement to monitor voice communications with appropriate judicial approval, I am unaware of a similar capability requirement for monitoriing usermnames and passwords transmitted during an https connection.

  13. #13
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    I have been reading Windows Secrets for several years and I often find useful info to help me keep my XP and W7 machines as safe as possible. However, I am flabbergasted at the comments by Woody Leonard on the carrier IQ issue.

    In the middle of the article Woody espouses:
    "But why would a phone company want to monitor your keystrokes, your mail, your SMS texts, or your location using a program inside your phone? It doesn't make any sense. Working on data generated inside the phone is enormously inefficient and expensive as well as intrusive; it's difficult, both technically and legally, to make a case for it."

    I find this opinion mind boggling.
    Every outlet including WS has long known and pointed out that google and facebook have clearly defined the next generation of advertising tactics, and it's inconceivable to imagine that every large company in the world isn't clamoring to get on-board.
    Gathering info about you and your buying habits is the gold rush of the 21st century.
    Smaller companies pay unbelievably large fees to both of these entities and to independent companies that deal in personal information.
    Why wouldn't the players in the communications market embrace this also?
    If you have no use for the information, it certainly has value to another conglomerate who will gladly pay you for it.
    Perhaps in the future sticking to windows topics would be best.

  14. #14
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Drip Drip Privacy Over

    Great article. It takes a look at both sides. I find it unbeleivable that the CEO would try to squash Trevor's right to Free Speech and even give him a retraction prepared by CIQ.

    My 'Mother in Law' used to complain about the errosion of our privacy well over 20 years ago and she was connected in Washington D.C. born and lived in Virginia most of her life. Her family truly goes back as far as the civil war. Now Twenty years later I find that she was absolutley correct.

    The bottom line is that the errossion of our privacy has been going on ever since our government went on a solid campaign against communisum and every threat since then has caused further errosion. Take for example "The Patriot Act" the threat of a terroist in your backyard and the NSA policy of listening in on all calls for keywords with the participation of major telecom carriers. If it is not CIQ it will be something else and so on and so on. The only thing you can do is to make yourself a "Ghost" if you wish the real you to have privacy. Would it make us feel any better if the Senate passed a law and inspected all phones like the USDA does the beef. This whole thing is kind of "Matrixey".

  15. #15
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    PC World has an article about an answer to some questions from Carrier IQ that is worth a read. CNet has also posted a similar article.
    Last edited by Medico; 2011-12-13 at 11:24.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •