It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s Still Using His Old Android Phone. That’s Very, Very Risky

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hang on, I'm confused by the outcry. Hasn't the media already demonstrated that he is a Russian spy? So we know he doesn't have to worry about hacking.......



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I might.
Do you have one that says he doesn't?

And the question was hardware BTW.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

IMAGINE THAT
And they were true too.
How refreshing....



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

I really don't care about you trying to discredit the NYT. If you don't want to believe the evidence I posted fine, but I'm not going to derail the thread with a discussion on the ethicacy of the Times.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sillyolme

Im neither in IT, nor am I in any government position (never have, beyond a state mental hospital as an aide). And I can sit and think of several issues off the top of my head, like mic activation, camera activation, and key logging. Knowing 1 passowrd can iterate mayhem exponentially as it gives insight into how he selects passwords.

I can't imagine an IT professional not being able to conjure up similar scenarios.

The tracking issue that Wired points out is pretty unnerving for me, and EVERYONE on ATS should be aware that it is possible since the government being able to turn on the phone's gps or camera with only a battery inside the phone and it being off is a well known function. It shouldn't be hard to imagine that a hacker can do the same with illegal access to someone's phone.

There's a reason that the Secret Service creates dummy routes for travel through the city for the President. And the tracking thing has nothing to do with what is on the phone or what it is used for.

Though I do admit that Trump not using email will go a long way to "ghetto" securing this phone.
edit on 26-1-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I think people are looking at this whole story in the wrong way entirely.

The question, to me, should be; Why have these known exploits not been fixed by Android/Google in the first place?

If it's really such a big problem for one person to use one device to access one website then why are they in the hands of millions of people?

That seems like a problem that's worthy of fixing.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He only uses that one in public. It's bait. Good job Mr. President.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: KEACHI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He only uses that one in public. It's bait. Good job Mr. President.

What is this supposed to mean?



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noncents
I think people are looking at this whole story in the wrong way entirely.

The question, to me, should be; Why have these known exploits not been fixed by Android/Google in the first place?

If it's really such a big problem for one person to use one device to access one website then why are they in the hands of millions of people?

That seems like a problem that's worthy of fixing.


Android is open source under GNU. Anyone can see and play with the code. Google itself provides nightlys with security fixes, patches, upgrades, etc. A google line phone will get these updates automatically. Other manufactures use a "fork" of pure android to customize to their phone's particular hardware and features. Also a carrier provided phone usually will have an altered platform to work with their infrastructure and stop allow network functions. Bloatware.

Since there are many many manufactures that have many, many models, whenever an update comes out it is nearly impossible to implement the update to the phone without breaking features. So the rollouts are sometime weeks, months later or not at all.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noncents
I think people are looking at this whole story in the wrong way entirely.

The question, to me, should be; Why have these known exploits not been fixed by Android/Google in the first place?

If it's really such a big problem for one person to use one device to access one website then why are they in the hands of millions of people?

That seems like a problem that's worthy of fixing.

Because hacking is a constantly evolving crime that cyber security experts have to always play catchup with (because you can't prevent a virus/hack if no one is using it). The article also makes a point about how different phones may have "forked" versions of Android that don't get immediately updated to the latest version of Android.

This is not a simple case of, "Oh just fix it and we'll never have to worry about cyber exposure again".



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Show me ANY source that he is using that device for secure comms and I will be just as angry with him as with hillary or anyone else that compromises our national security.

The only thing offered for proof in this thread is the op article and they DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT KIND OF PHONE HE HAS!

So source please??



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody
Isn't his instance to use it against the law?

No. It actually isn't against the law. Wired points that out.


Nope it is NOT againt the law.......................especially when they dont even know what phone they are talking about



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think you are missing the point of why I'm concerned about this issue.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Who wants him to stop using it?
The only people I see that want him to stop using it are the people that wrote the article....AND THEY DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT KIND OF PHONE IT IS.

It only has to be a secure device if he intends to put classified info on it. You know this and you are only making yourself look silly.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

where were you when the patriot act went down?
if you are just finding these things out i feel bad for you.

Anything transmitted electronically is compromised. That is from the 90's. What they can do today is far more sinister.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector
My apologies for being so blunt about my thoughts. I completely forgot Android was open source and, therefor, so problematic to secure.

I then return to my previous stance. I'm all for it. Let him have his Twitter phone and watch when someone tries to hack it and gets locked up for a very long time. I wonder how much time someone would get for something as stupid as that.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No I understand exactly your concern, and pointed out the honeypot post earlier in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join