August 18, 2013
Motorola Mobility, owned by Google, have announced their new phone, Moto X that is a pioneer in surveillance technology.
Without draining the cell phone battery, Moto X can listen to everything within its vicinity.
Cell phones that monitor auditory environments can also discern between the phone owner’s voice and what room the phone is in by utilizing ambient noise analysis.
The software can decipher the mood of those speaking, access when to disturb the owner and record all conversations in the near future.
Pattie Maes, professor for the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) explained : “Devices of the future will be increasingly aware of the user’s current context, goals, and needs, will become proactive—taking initiative to present relevant information. Their use will become more integrated in our daily behaviors, becoming almost an extension of ourselves. The Moto X is definitely a step in that direction.”
Carrier IQ has been installed in many cell phones which would mean that cell phone owners (CPOs) are transmitting user location, web searches and text messages that can be intercepted by any hacker or government agency.
Senator Al Franken pointed out that Carrier IQ violates the 4th Amendment and federal wiretap statues.
Google’s Android OS is vulnerable to such manipulation ; even to the extent of having all customer conversations recorded by the FBI or other surveillance agencies.
With Android being the most popular cell phone, the focus of attention by the FBI for surveillance operations is quite impressive.
This leaves millions and millions of Americans at the mercy of agencies that seek to illegally spy on them.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is inserting spyware into cell phones through links and email attachments to circumvent wiretapping court orders.
The FBI uses hacker software to exploit vulnerabilities in cell phones that allow them to listen in on American citizen’s conversations.
As part of the scheme, the FBI employs hackers to create this specialized software; as well as private tech corporations that have recently sold such software to law enforcement agencies on the state and local level.
Last month the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that since customers give up private information to their cell phone companies, which are a 3rd party, this data is public knowledge and not protected under privacy laws.
This decision is based on the third-party doctrine that is a “legal concept established by a set of court decisions over decades that treats records held by a “third-party” as not subject to the same level of protection as say, the private journal you keep in a locked file cabinet in your home.”
In the decision, the judges wrote: “We understand the cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private … But the recourse for these desires is in the market or the political process: in demanding that service providers do away with such records … or in lobbying elected representatives to enact statutory protections. The Fourth Amendment, safeguarded by the courts, protects only reasonable expectations of privacy.”
The ruling stated in part that the 4th Amendment is not applicable to information provided to cell phone companies in exchange for the “use of their phones . . . is entirely voluntary.”
Representative of the federal government asserted during the case proceedings that historical cell-site data created and kept by a cell phone corporation is part of the ordinary course of business and it would be reasonable that those records would be “specific and articulable facts”.
Seeking that information for relevance and materials necessary to an “on-going criminal investigation”, the search and seizure of phone records of Americans which turns their cell phones into surveillance devices, is reasonable and not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
According to the federal court, the distinction is that the customer gave up their private information to the cell phone corporation.
This allows records held by a “third-party” as not subject to the same level of protection as other aspects of American life that is protected by the US Constitution.