Ukraine Tracks Protesters Through Cellphones(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Ukraine Tracks Protesters Through Cellphones
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/world/europe/ukraine-protests.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
33 comments
When you are turning off the cell phone it sends a signal to the operator (graceful shut down) so the operator knows that you turned off the phone. When you remove the battery the phone has no time to send a message to the operator about the phone going offline so the operator doesn't know for sure whether it's turned off or it is out of the towers range at this moment.
Of course this doesn't mean that they can't track turned off phones, it's still technically possible (while the battery is there).
Of course this doesn't mean that they can't track turned off phones, it's still technically possible (while the battery is there).
It would also presumably mean that the government could compile a list of cellphones that turned off during the protests, while not located at but rather near the protests.
To a sane government, this information wouldn't be of much use. To a crazed paranoid government going on purges and witchhunts, this could be all the information they 'need' to find somebody suspect.
Of course if you pull the battery, they would also notice the phone dropping off the network (though it would be unclear what the cause was). To a crazed government, the difference might not be too important.
If you are ever in the sort of situation where any of this might become a concern, I recommend leaving the phone at home, sitting comfortably on your couch, turned on with the TV on. Of course this precludes using the phone in an emergency, so 'burner' phones with removable batteries may become valued.
To a sane government, this information wouldn't be of much use. To a crazed paranoid government going on purges and witchhunts, this could be all the information they 'need' to find somebody suspect.
Of course if you pull the battery, they would also notice the phone dropping off the network (though it would be unclear what the cause was). To a crazed government, the difference might not be too important.
If you are ever in the sort of situation where any of this might become a concern, I recommend leaving the phone at home, sitting comfortably on your couch, turned on with the TV on. Of course this precludes using the phone in an emergency, so 'burner' phones with removable batteries may become valued.
There's also state spyware like FinSpy that makes it seem like your phone is being turned off, or that airplane mode is activated but it's not so they can track you and listen in. Your baseband can also be sent silent sms for precise tracking, or sent commands to auto answer and turn on the mic without you ever knowing. Phones can also be bricked this way if the goal is just shutting down communication. Your carrier can also be coerced into OTA updating the SIM to broadcast your location, intercept voice, or programmed to use rogue BTS set up by police instead of regular towers. Welcome to the dystopian future here's your portable state spying device
The baseband can lie about the phone being off. So the phone has a blank screen but is still phoning home.
Rogue BTS/stingray. Ukraine needs to set up something similar to the decentralized Athens community network so protesters can turn on airplane mode and remove sim cards which will work for a while until they jam it. Note how every government during sustained protests resorts to hiring criminal hooligans to randomly assault people wonder if they will be given a list of subscribers to go visit like Bahrain did when doctors were dragged out of their houses and beaten for having their cell radios tracked to underground hospitals to treat injured protesters.
Of course their top 3 cellphone providers had no knowledge of this... (our American companies said the same thing). They probably got the cellphone data from the NSA. (For a small fee of course, added to our black budget.)
This is interesting though and something I think we should consider if we Americans ever get the courage to stand up to our government for it's abuses of power. It semi-happened with Occupy but they were barking up the wrong tree. You can only force a private bank/companies hand with the power of government. They can stand out their all day and do whatever, but it would be easier if a law or resolution were passed.
How do you know if someone at a protest is a 'plant' whose job is too incite violence so as to show the protest as negative regardless of their stated goals.
I was thinking of a system maybe, that would definitely be reputation based, but one where you could verify someones identity while still maintaining a certain level of privacy. Maybe something similar to how bitcoin works. Everybody could have a public key that anyone at the protest could scan if needed and say 'ya this person's legit, they have XXX amount of reputation, we are connected by XX people, etc' or 'woah, who are you? you have -XXX reputation and no one here knows you'... but this idea needs to be developed further...
When i put my 'evil' cap on and think how I would use the data if I had all the data in the world and I wanted to stop people protesting me, I would use those kinds of cellphone SMS messages to intimidate people in the area and I would want them to be divided by those who want to achieve revolution nonviolently and those who would easily engage in violence if given the opportunity. Taking it a step further, I would use that system the NSA made that tracks internet browsing history especially for porn, to threaten people that their data might be 'leaked' if they continue to protest. Or perhaps sent messages and calls can be 'rerouted' to different people to cause confusion in their communications. Or perhaps I'd use a few 'if-then' simulations to put the right police officer in front of the right protestor so that violence would be most likely to occur. evil cap off.
The rest of the world seems to be taking the lead in standing up to corruption, but when America catches up, I want us to lead by example of how it should efficiently and safely be done.
This is interesting though and something I think we should consider if we Americans ever get the courage to stand up to our government for it's abuses of power. It semi-happened with Occupy but they were barking up the wrong tree. You can only force a private bank/companies hand with the power of government. They can stand out their all day and do whatever, but it would be easier if a law or resolution were passed.
How do you know if someone at a protest is a 'plant' whose job is too incite violence so as to show the protest as negative regardless of their stated goals.
I was thinking of a system maybe, that would definitely be reputation based, but one where you could verify someones identity while still maintaining a certain level of privacy. Maybe something similar to how bitcoin works. Everybody could have a public key that anyone at the protest could scan if needed and say 'ya this person's legit, they have XXX amount of reputation, we are connected by XX people, etc' or 'woah, who are you? you have -XXX reputation and no one here knows you'... but this idea needs to be developed further...
When i put my 'evil' cap on and think how I would use the data if I had all the data in the world and I wanted to stop people protesting me, I would use those kinds of cellphone SMS messages to intimidate people in the area and I would want them to be divided by those who want to achieve revolution nonviolently and those who would easily engage in violence if given the opportunity. Taking it a step further, I would use that system the NSA made that tracks internet browsing history especially for porn, to threaten people that their data might be 'leaked' if they continue to protest. Or perhaps sent messages and calls can be 'rerouted' to different people to cause confusion in their communications. Or perhaps I'd use a few 'if-then' simulations to put the right police officer in front of the right protestor so that violence would be most likely to occur. evil cap off.
The rest of the world seems to be taking the lead in standing up to corruption, but when America catches up, I want us to lead by example of how it should efficiently and safely be done.
As if only Ukraine does that. How about OWS protesters?
When the US does it = good.
When a country we don't agree politically with does it = bad.
Likewise protesters attacking police with Molotov cocktails, charging their lines with farm equipment and torching police vehicles would elicit a fairly strong reaction from any Western government, yet the Ukrainian government is demonized...
When a country we don't agree politically with does it = bad.
Likewise protesters attacking police with Molotov cocktails, charging their lines with farm equipment and torching police vehicles would elicit a fairly strong reaction from any Western government, yet the Ukrainian government is demonized...
I couldn't image getting this text: “Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass disturbance.”
Puts a bit more focus on the reach available to anyone via my reliance on tech to "always be reachable". Good when my friends/family/customers need me but horrible when in the hands of bad actors.
Puts a bit more focus on the reach available to anyone via my reliance on tech to "always be reachable". Good when my friends/family/customers need me but horrible when in the hands of bad actors.
Well, this only proves how technologically backward the Ukraine is comparing to the US or the UK. Over here protesters can be tracked through cellphones before they even know they are going to become protesters.
nope,I think that's was just to add some pressure on protesters. Telecom companies even told that security forces was use fake cells to broadcast those messages
Dude, thinking is not going to change what is going on there. EU wants the civil war in Ukraine, its organisation is paid. "Protesters" are just per-hour hired guys, professional street muscles. Germany wants half of Ukraine. And it always wanted. There is nothing you can do about it.
And poor security forces are the guys who are ordered to wipe "protesters" to keep Ukraine whole body and not becoming Sudan with Russian winter. I can only pray they succeed. Winters are harsh in Kiev.
And poor security forces are the guys who are ordered to wipe "protesters" to keep Ukraine whole body and not becoming Sudan with Russian winter. I can only pray they succeed. Winters are harsh in Kiev.
The website says that I have already read my 10 free articles this month and need to pay money to read this one. This has been happening a lot with HackerNews links for me. Do I have a virus, or are you supposed to be rich to post here?
The New York Times is professional journalism. You don't need to be rich to afford $3.75/week. This is about $200/yr, on the order of the price of a print subscription. Working class families have been reading newspapers for decades.
Occasionally we find that professional, full-time newsrooms produce better content than the blogosphere. Producing that content took a staff of educated, full-time professionals with families and mortgages. I don't find it particularly offensive that people who regularly consume their output are expected to help fund their salaries so they can keep producing.
Occasionally we find that professional, full-time newsrooms produce better content than the blogosphere. Producing that content took a staff of educated, full-time professionals with families and mortgages. I don't find it particularly offensive that people who regularly consume their output are expected to help fund their salaries so they can keep producing.
Of course, because digital edition has distribution costs just like printed editions.
It's not about distribution. Much like ordering a book from Amazon, buying software, or going to see a movie, distribution is typically not the most relevant cost.
I think the NYTimes is one of the best bargains out there, and lucky for those who don't pay the benefits spillover to other journalism, especially the blog/twitter world.
I think the NYTimes is one of the best bargains out there, and lucky for those who don't pay the benefits spillover to other journalism, especially the blog/twitter world.
If you get the same news, and you were happy with what you were paying to get high quality news (you're not buying a sheet of paper, you're buying the news), then what's the problem?
Why should moving to digital mean reducing the price versus print?
Perhaps the NY Times should keep the margin difference as profit, helping to restore their financial condition from the recent disaster it has been, so they don't have to go crawling to Carlos Slim again. Building up their financial position would assist in their independence as a news source.
Perhaps the NY Times should put that margin back into the business, and create more / better content, thus more than justifying the price staying the same.
Either way, the argument in favor of reducing prices just because of cheaper distribution, is not inherently a good one.
Why should moving to digital mean reducing the price versus print?
Perhaps the NY Times should keep the margin difference as profit, helping to restore their financial condition from the recent disaster it has been, so they don't have to go crawling to Carlos Slim again. Building up their financial position would assist in their independence as a news source.
Perhaps the NY Times should put that margin back into the business, and create more / better content, thus more than justifying the price staying the same.
Either way, the argument in favor of reducing prices just because of cheaper distribution, is not inherently a good one.
Agreed, and this group as much as any should understand that just because the product is made of bits and can be distributed virtually free, it should not be free of cost.
Just like any good software company, the NYTimes should be thinking about their price strategy in a more complex way than cost plus. And I'm sure they are.
Just like any good software company, the NYTimes should be thinking about their price strategy in a more complex way than cost plus. And I'm sure they are.
Does the printed edition have videos? Real time updates? RSS?
You're not paying for distribution (ok, you are, but not very much). You're paying for the content to be created.
But I don't like nytimes and almost never read their articles, just looking if it's of any interest to me, because it was posted here.
Empirically you do - you've already read 10 this month.
Clicked on. Empirically it says a lot more about their titles, rather than content.
Sometimes it works in private window. But I agree, this is ridiculous, I cannot access most of the links to nytimes either, especially blog ones, even in private window.
Just add this script as a bookmarklet (drag it to your bookmark bar) and click it whenever you get a paywall message:
javascript:%20window.location%20=%20window.location.protocol%20+%20'//'%20+%20window.location.hostname%20+%20window.location.pathname%20+%20'?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes';
PS: Support journalism if you have the money to do so!
javascript:%20window.location%20=%20window.location.protocol%20+%20'//'%20+%20window.location.hostname%20+%20window.location.pathname%20+%20'?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes';
PS: Support journalism if you have the money to do so!
Thanks.
PS: Maybe I don't like their journalism and prefer straight to the point content.
PS: Maybe I don't like their journalism and prefer straight to the point content.
Find the appropriate extension/add-on for your browser (assuming you're using a desktop version) and kill all your cookies from nytimes.com.
Repeat whenever you get the 10-article notice.
Edit: it should go without saying, but... if you find yourself doing this often, consider purchasing a subscription so this service can remain online.
Repeat whenever you get the 10-article notice.
Edit: it should go without saying, but... if you find yourself doing this often, consider purchasing a subscription so this service can remain online.
[deleted]
I mostly forgot about it until I saw this article. Anyone here care to explain if this is true?