Spy-Proofing Your Mobile Devices - Comments Page 1

Category: Privacy

(Read the article: Spy-Proofing Your Mobile Devices)

All Comments on: "Spy-Proofing Your Mobile Devices"

Comment Page: 1 |  2 

Posted by:

Pablo Cassels
18 Nov 2014

I think this (James Comey's statenebts)are all a smoke & mirrors show to keep the public feeling good. After Edward Snowden's revelations, I think all "security" agencies of the U.S. government will always have unrestricted access to their citizen's private information, if they continue to rely on commercial industries to protect them. Whose lobbyists continually enrich "our" representatives.

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

I appreciate this article. It easily breaks down the different view points, pros and cons, for me. I'm comfortable not having a strong opinion and just being able to see it from both sides. It does illustrate the need for open discussion regarding issues in an increasingly complex world. Thanks.

Posted by:

Al Zimmerman
18 Nov 2014

Well written and informative article. Thanks, and good for you.

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

Your article is spot on! Let's start actually obeying our constitution.


Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

I'm wondering just how they managed to solve all those crimes before the age of cellphones then? Score one for freedom of speech!

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

"That will leave law enforcement virtually powerless to solve crimes" and "Justice may be denied because of a locked phone or an encrypted hard drive," says FBI director Comey. Doesn't this imply that prior (the "olden days") to phones and hard drives, that law enforcement were powerless to solve crimes and justice has never been served?

I'm going to write my congress reps and senators.

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

With DARPA now having the fastest chip in the world, and working on DNA and atomic spin state storage that should mature in the next 5 years or so and can hold FAR more data than measly Terabytes, there is no reason to believe that the American State (AS) will not use it against it's citizens. And I HAVE thought about reasons why, and honestly can't come up with any except that it's unconstitutional - and that's never stopped our AS before.

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

FBI Director James Comey's exact words were: "The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened — even if it involves a case involving a child kidnapper and a court order — to me does not make any sense."
[Caution: SPINTOLOGY at work here folks! 1)The "closet" Comey refers to, just happens to be a private and a personal closet. 2)We have all heard of blanket warrants that have been previously issued out. 3)Finding an "independent judge" is almost like looking [errr...] for a virgin in a bordello 4)His comment about "child kidnapper" is a ruse and called "argumentum ad misericordiam"! 5)James Comey must be one clooless and out-of-touch FBI director; if providing encryption for personal use and protection "does not make any sense" to him!]

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

If I decide that a life of crime is for me, I'm going to have to investigate the use of carrier pigeons. It would be just my luck to get a stool pigeon in disguise.

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

"For those with Android smartphones or tablets, encryption has been available since the Android 3.0 (Honeycomb) release in 2011, but it wasn't turned on automatically."

How do you turn it on for Android phones with a system earlier than Lollipop?

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

Way to tell it like it is, Bob. Fear-mongering, secrecy and police state surveillance have never resulted in a better society for the majority of people at any time in history. Why do they continue doing it? Because we the people are the enemy.

Posted by:

elizabeth landry
18 Nov 2014

Dear Bob,
One of the most serious result of our information being compromised is our medical history being leaked which can be used to discriminate against us without us ever even knowing what happened or why. That alone is enough of a reason to keep everybody out of our business. Peace, E

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

I find it disgusting that Snowden alerted the world to how the government was basically dismantling the constitution and he is forced to remain in Russia.

Posted by:

18 Nov 2014

Bruce Schneier went further in his latest newsletter as follows:
As in all of these sorts of speeches, Comey gave examples of crimes that could have been solved had only the police been able to decrypt the defendant's phone. Unfortunately, none of the three stories is true. The Intercept tracked down each story, and none of them is actually a case where encryption foiled an investigation, arrest, or conviction:

In the most dramatic case that Comey invoked -- the death of a
2-year-old Los Angeles girl -- not only was cellphone data a
non-issue, but records show the girl's death could actually
have been avoided had government agencies involved in
overseeing her and her parents acted on the extensive record
they already had before them.

In another case, of a Louisiana sex offender who enticed and
then killed a 12-year-old boy, the big break had nothing to do
with a phone: The murderer left behind his keys and a trail of
muddy footprints, and was stopped nearby after his car ran out
of gas.

And in the case of a Sacramento hit-and-run that killed a man
and his girlfriend's four dogs, the driver was arrested in a
traffic stop because his car was smashed up, and immediately
confessed to involvement in the incident.


Hadn't Comey found anything better since then? In a
question-and-answer session after his speech, Comey both denied
trying to use scare stories to make his point -- and admitted
that he had launched a nationwide search for better ones, to no

This is important. All the FBI talk about "going dark" and losing the ability to solve crimes is absolute bullsh*t. There is absolutely no evidence, either statistically or even anecdotally, that criminals are going free because of encryption.

Posted by:

19 Nov 2014

@Janice --- Bottom line, on ruling in the Riley vs. California case, the US Supreme Court, upheld the US Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.

I just read, US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John G. Roberts Opinion regarding Riley vs. California. The ruling by the US Supreme Court, supported the Fourth Amendment, regarding Cell Phones. There must be a proper warrant, issued by a judge, before Law Enforcement can gain access to the contents of your Cell Phone.

Now, that makes sense to me. However, I really tried to read the whole opinion from the US Supreme Court Chief Justice ... I will readily admit, the Opinions of any "high or higher" court, is so full of legalese, that it can be very difficult, to read them.

I am a Medical person, not a Legal person ... Give me a medical document and I can understand, almost all of it. Give me a legal document and I have almost "no luck", in understanding what it says. I am NOT afraid, to admit that, either!

But, in getting the jest of the opinion, bottom line ... Getting any information from a Suspect's Cell Phone, mainly any person's Cell Phone ... An Search and Seize Warrant must be issued, to look at anyone's Cell Phone, for further evidence.

Now, that makes sense to me, why both Apple and Google, have "paved the way", for consumers to have Encryption, the moment you "purchase" your new phone ... But, only if, you have the "latest and greatest" of either an Apple or Android cell phone.

Posted by:

19 Nov 2014

Great article, Bob.

It just goes to show the contempt that the government, and law enforcers generally, have for the innocent individual.

Posted by:

19 Nov 2014

A delight to read these well informed comments and a delight to see Bob taking a definitive stand against this tyranny after so long soft peddling this information aggregation on the part of corporations like Google, as if there is a difference in this corporatocracy. There has never been centralization of information in human history that a state has not used to consolidate it's power.
Google founders say their goal is to know your next thought before you have it. Do you doubt that the state would let a constitution inhibit it's access to that knowledge?

Posted by:

Sam Fairchild
19 Nov 2014

So the title of this article is: "Spyproofing your mobile devices." I didn't see anywhere in the article how to spyproof my mobile devices--only a reference to "new devices" that have that programmed in by default and obscure mention of it being available on earlier devices. So where's the 'HOW TO" that this article alludes to? The article is informative but not in the way the title suggests. Disappointed in the article due to that fact.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The short answer is "use encryption." For Android users, the long answer is: tap Settings -> More -> Security -> Encrypt Device. Apple Users (iOS 6/7): Settings -> General -> Passcode Lock -> Turn Passcode On.

Posted by:

19 Nov 2014

Don't start bleating when the bombs start going off in the USA. Relying on an amendment that is anachronistic as the dinosaur is foolhardy. I hope you will feel comforted while getting blown up that the terrorists' privacy was not "abused" by an government department.

Posted by:

19 Nov 2014

I'll bet that Dir. Comey's phone number, or those of his family and cronies, aren't included.

Comment Page: 1 |  2 

Read the article that everyone's commenting on.

To post a comment on "Spy-Proofing Your Mobile Devices"
please return to that article.

Send this article to a friend. Jump to the Comments section. Buy Bob a Snickers. Or check out other articles in this category:

Need More Help? Try the AskBobRankin Updates Newsletter. It's Free!

Prev Article:
HOWTO: Email Really Big Files
Send this article to a friend
The Top Twenty
Next Article:
Geekly Update - 19 November 2014

Link to this article from your site or blog. Just copy and paste from this box:

Free Tech Support -- Ask Bob Rankin
Subscribe to AskBobRankin Updates: Free Newsletter

Privacy Policy