If you have a cell phone, The FBI can hear you.

There's a backup battery cell in my calculator so why wouldn't there be one in your cellphone =p

Though I doubt it has much use if you remove the main battery.

[edit on 15/7/07 by -0mega-]

Cell Phone triangulation is not something that generally can be done. To triangulate your position they would need three detection sources. When you are talking on your cell Phone only ONE tower is receiving your signal. If you are moving, as in a car, then when you pass out of the range of one tower, a second tower will pick up the signal. At any moment the best they can do is to get an idea of your general location by determining which tower is picking up your signal. Some phones are GPS equipped, and in those cases they can get a very good idea of your location. In any case, if you cell phone is powered off, they can neither hear your conversation, nor locate you.

If you really wish to have a secure conversation, I suggest using two cans and a string.Hmm But then..... perhaps they could tap the string of the truely paranoid. Better get out your tin foil hat!!!!

Calculators

Dont forget hearing aides, and anything electronic. Radios, microwave ovens, even that weed whacker can have a tap by the gov.

Yep, here it is

If you look at the back (don't have a picture of the back of it) and open up the battery area, you'll see a little piece of plastic or w/e that says "BACKUP BATTERY" or something similar, it's not even hidden, so I doubt it's anything sinister or obscure.

EDIT:
Found a pic with the backup battery area.


Also in that square shaped thing at the top middle, there's a reflective surface inside that, maybe there's a webcam at the other side recording your face =P (Of course it would be in the shape of a transistor or something so it wouldn't be suspicious)



[edit on 15/7/07 by -0mega-]

That back up battery is to preserve memory when you change out the main batteries in your calculator. Cell phones use flash memory and thus need no back up battery. In any event, a small button cell battery would not have enough power to generate a useful cell phone signal.

edited to remova a double post

[edit on 15/7/07 by Terapin]

they do have a supercomputer for that exact reason. It sorts on key words, of course.

I forget the name of the software it runs, but the capacity to sort through nosense and target relative calls is astounding

Originally posted by Terapin
Three things to clear up:

And two things for me to 're-clear up'.

Originally posted by Terapin
Second: as mentioned earlier, they can only listen in if you have the right sort of phone and it is TURNED ON. A powered off cell phone is dead and they cannot activate it remotely.

That is incorrect.

Certain phone models can not be fully powered down simply by pressing a button. The battery, in these phones, must be removed manually in order for the phone to be completely powered down.

Furthermore, this is the rule and not the exception with 'modern' cellular models. For instance: It is a basic feature which allows for address book appointment alerts and set alarms to still function even though the phone is powered off. Yes, it 'turns itself on' in order to do this.

My model Motorola does not have this functionality but most, not all, Nokia, Motorola and LG phones do.

Originally posted by Terapin
Third: they cannot track you like a GPS unless you have a GPS enabled phone. Most phones do not have GPS and they best they can do is to locate which Cell Tower is receiving your signal, but not your actual location.

Partially correct.

Yes, you need a GPS enabled phone in order for tracking of this nature to occur. However, most phones do have this feature. In fact, this is a FCC Mandated technology. Let me explain:

In 1996 the FCC put rules into place [E911] which required that wireless carriers set up systems by October 1, 2001. These systems required that wireless callers could be located to within 125 meters at least 67% of the time. The reason for this was to allow emergency dispatchers at public safety answering points (PSAPs) to locate callers from cellular phones. This is referred to as 'Phase II' of the Emergency 911 (E911) revisions.

Network solutions or handset solutions...that was the big question for wireless providers. Continuing improvement, dropping costs of GPS chips and the relatively short lifespan of a wireless handset, many chose to opt for the handset solution.

This mandate was revised in early 1999 and again in early 2000. It now reads as such:

In its recent revision to the rules, the FCC acknowledged the viability of GPS-based solutions by enacting new phase-in requirements for both network-based solutions and GPS-enabled handset solutions. Wireless carriers are required to declare their technology choice by October 1, 2000. Those that adopt the handset approach must begin selling and activating ALI (Automatic Location Identification) capable handsets by March 1, 2001; insure that at least 50% of all handsets are ALI-capable by October 1, 2001; and insure that 95% of all handsets are ALI-capable by October 1, 2002. Carriers in areas where PSAP requests are received must comply with more stringent guidelines. Carriers that elect network-based solutions must deploy Phase II to 50% of callers within six months of a PSAP request, and to 100% of callers within 18 months.

Source

In short: The FCC has mandated that 100 percent of all new digital handsets activated are ALI-capable (which requires GPS technology or a technology of equal capability) no later than December 31, 2002.

Originally posted by Terapin
Power off your cell phone for better privacy, and if all else fails, simply behave yourself and avoid any devious activity in the first place.

Unless you have a newer model phone produced by three major manufacturing companies. With the short life span of a wireless handset and the apparent addiction to 'newer and better' phones this would seem to apply to a good portion of the wireless communication using population.

[edit on 7/15/0707 by spines]

[edit on 7/15/0707 by spines]

In Northern Ireland they have microphones or other eavesdropping devices in the countryside just listening for sound or movement.




Echelon used by GCHQ to spy on all of us filters out emails,telephone calls etc.

Did you know during the troubles in Ireland, the army found the IRA'S signals for remote controlled bombs and would transmit them 24/7 resulting in primed bombs blowing up before reaching their destination. (EX Army source)

Originally posted by Terapin
In any case, if you cell phone is powered off, they can neither hear your conversation, nor locate you.

So you are saying that this report is entirely incorrect? Do you have any facts to back up your claims?

You are saying that if your phone is off they cannot turn on your mic?

I would like to see some evidence for those claims.

Originally posted by kleverone
So you are saying that this report is entirely incorrect? Do you have any facts to back up your claims?

I believe that I already supplied evidence that corrects his claims.

It's right up there...didn't write it all out for nothing.

Originally posted by spines

Originally posted by kleverone
So you are saying that this report is entirely incorrect? Do you have any facts to back up your claims?

I believe that I already supplied evidence that corrects his claims.

It's right up there...didn't write it all out for nothing.

Wait, wait wait...... you mean I'm supposed to actually read what you wrote? I thought that being one of your friends meant that you would U2U me the cliffnotes of your post so I don't have to do "all that readin"

You da man

Originally posted by Terapin
Third: they cannot track you like a GPS unless you have a GPS enabled phone. Most phones do not have GPS and they best they can do is to locate which Cell Tower is receiving your signal, but not your actual location.

They can get a little more accurate than that - true if you don't have a GPS function (that your aware of) they can't locate you that way.

But every so often your phone will scan the local BTS nodes to see that you are getting the best reception. Using the differing signal strengths received and different nodes (known locations of course) it is possible to narrow your position down further by triangulation.

When I used to work for a large UK mobile company I knew one of the *# codes for the nokias at the time, instead of periodically checking it would constantly search - thus really reducing the battery life and leaving your mate fuming at his brand new phone constantly running out! Had it done to me frustrating

nice to see it's making the news again, i'd wager FOX has a larger audience than

news.com.com...

remember when such paranoid notions were ridiculed? turns out everything the worst nuts said about cellphones is true: tracking, bugging, remote activation, maybe even remote detonation, it's all there and they're only admitting a tenth of what's really going on.

For some reason or another, break.com videos always stay stuck at buffering for me. I don't know if its poor server capacity on their end, or a problem on mine. Has this video been posted on youtube by any chance? I'd love to watch it there.

Edit: Nevermind, the video finally loaded for me. Somehow I'm just not buying it. First off, the story is fairly old and had it been true, I think it would have been making more press coverage than just Fux (sic) News.

Just more of your basic fear-mongoring we've all come to know and love from our friends at Fox.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by ModernDystopia]

Nope, it's pretty much true, more, it's not even that big a conceptual leap.

GSM phones are pretty much a computer controlled radio transceiver. It makes like a phone to keep the user happy but you can do anything you'd like with it from a programmer's point of view if you've got the development kit for that chip set.

Even if you manage to disable the GPS parts of the phone (just switching it off in the user interface doesn't keep the gubmint from getting the data, BTW), you can still find a phone user.

Not only do you get the hand-off data from the towers so you have sort of an idea, there is a device you can fly around in a small prop plane and pinpoint users' locations down to rooms inside a house if need be. It used to be used a lot (relatively) before GPS phones came along.

I wonder if anyone can explain this. My partner was at a training day with his work recently and there were a number of policemen doing the course too. At lunch break he was outside talking to one of them when the policemen said "I bet I can tell you the last number you phoned on your mobile, have you got it with you?". My partner didn't have his mobile on him as he'd left it in the car. So anyway the man explained that by punching a code into his own phone he could tell who you called or who called you on your own mobile. Is this real or was he joking?

Privacy is not universally recognized as a right

Originally posted by TheComte
People are selfish if they desire privacy? People who desire privacy lead to crime? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on here. That's even more ridiculous than reptilians trying to take over the world.

Privacy is not everywhere recognized as a natural and inalienable right. It is not recognized as such in, for example, the United States of America:

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes no further than this:

Ex. Art. 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The French recognize a right to privacy in their Constitution.

The situation varies widely from country to country, even in the civilized world.

The fact is that a personal right to privacy is almost impossible to define and protect -- not against the state, but against other people. For example, husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, sisters who read your diary, etc.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Privacy is not universally recognized as a right

I wasn't questioning whether or not it was recognized as a right. I was questioning whether private people are selfish and whether or not being a private person leads to crime.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I don't like every show on Fox, but as someone who's been watching the news for a long time, I will tell you that Fox's news shows, the one with Brit Hume, the one following with Shepard Smith and the Sunday show with Chris Wallace, are about as good as it gets, unless you're looking for programs that just tell you what you want to hear.


[edit on 2007/7/14 by GradyPhilpott]

Thank you for saying that I've always found it odd that so many people have not noticed all the news sources are biased. I guess they don't want to notice. FOX has always had some great reporting like you mentioned. CNN is improving from the days when the DNC Chairman obviously told them what to say (Joke so lighten up) Just skip the OP/ED stuff and you will find out the reporting is the same on all off them.

Use a Land Line if it is a problem. Then they need a warrant to listen to anything.

It would probably take half the working age population of the entire Earth to listen to every cell phone call and evaluate it. How many people work for the government? I would not worry unless you are in fact a criminal or a Terrorist. They don't care about what Sally did to John last week at the Mall.