How much do 'they' know?

Kurtis

The question maybe isn't how much do they know it's what they going to do with the knowledge that you watched barbarella the other day?

If "they" want to come round for a cuppa, I'll quite happily tell "them" what I've been up to. Would be nice to have some company. 

Kittyfrisk

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

For the record, it absolutely is possible to inject code into a phone remotely.  Code that can convertly activate the mic & cameras and read the GPS data.  It's only done in certain scenarios and isn't what we're talking about here but it most definitely happens.

You dont even need to do that, the police for instance can track a phone without doing this, they need reason to, but it can be done.

Isn't this just triangulation using base stations?

Not sure, I do know the phone only has to be switched on though, it doesnt actually have to be calling anyone.

Yep, the phone is constantly communicating with transmission stations when switched on.
I used to like that FM radios made 'dot to dot to dot to dot' tones before you received a call on older non smart mobiles 

Its quite scary because if your phone is at the scene of a crime it could easily be ascertained that you were too. A bit like finding a terrorists passport at the scene of a terror attack.

Not stating these examples as definitive facts 
https://forensicresources.org/2019/are-there-really-flaws-in-cell-phone-location-evidence/
https://www.envistaforensics.com/knowledge-center/insights/articles/the-role-of-cell-phone-location-mapping-in-criminal-cases/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-draft-guidance/extraction-of-information-from-electronic-devices-draft-code-of-practice-accessible-version

robgilmo

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

For the record, it absolutely is possible to inject code into a phone remotely.  Code that can convertly activate the mic & cameras and read the GPS data.  It's only done in certain scenarios and isn't what we're talking about here but it most definitely happens.

You dont even need to do that, the police for instance can track a phone without doing this, they need reason to, but it can be done.

Isn't this just triangulation using base stations?

Not sure, I do know the phone only has to be switched on though, it doesnt actually have to be calling anyone.

Yep, the phone is constantly communicating with transmission stations when switched on.
I used to like that FM radios made 'dot to dot to dot to dot' tones before you received a call on older non smart mobiles 

Its quite scary because if your phone is at the scene of a crime it could easily be ascertained that you were too. A bit like finding a terrorists passport at the scene of a terror attack.

Not stating these examples as definitive facts 
https://forensicresources.org/2019/are-there-really-flaws-in-cell-phone-location-evidence/
https://www.envistaforensics.com/knowledge-center/insights/articles/the-role-of-cell-phone-location-mapping-in-criminal-cases/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-draft-guidance/extraction-of-information-from-electronic-devices-draft-code-of-practice-accessible-version

My point was , if your phone was there, it isnt in my view proof that you were, also your phone could be put there in an effort to frame you.

Kurtis

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

For the record, it absolutely is possible to inject code into a phone remotely.  Code that can convertly activate the mic & cameras and read the GPS data.  It's only done in certain scenarios and isn't what we're talking about here but it most definitely happens.

You dont even need to do that, the police for instance can track a phone without doing this, they need reason to, but it can be done.

Isn't this just triangulation using base stations?

Not sure, I do know the phone only has to be switched on though, it doesnt actually have to be calling anyone.

Yep, the phone is constantly communicating with transmission stations when switched on.
I used to like that FM radios made 'dot to dot to dot to dot' tones before you received a call on older non smart mobiles 

Its quite scary because if your phone is at the scene of a crime it could easily be ascertained that you were too. A bit like finding a terrorists passport at the scene of a terror attack.

Not stating these examples as definitive facts 
https://forensicresources.org/2019/are-there-really-flaws-in-cell-phone-location-evidence/
https://www.envistaforensics.com/knowledge-center/insights/articles/the-role-of-cell-phone-location-mapping-in-criminal-cases/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-draft-guidance/extraction-of-information-from-electronic-devices-draft-code-of-practice-accessible-version

My point was , if your phone was there, it isnt in my view proof that you were, also your phone could be put there in an effort to frame you.

If someone puts your phone (or any other belonging really) at the scene of a crime it doesn't really matter if it's recording sounds though?

If someone wants to frame you there's lots of things they could do. 

robgilmo

Kurtis said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

For the record, it absolutely is possible to inject code into a phone remotely.  Code that can convertly activate the mic & cameras and read the GPS data.  It's only done in certain scenarios and isn't what we're talking about here but it most definitely happens.

You dont even need to do that, the police for instance can track a phone without doing this, they need reason to, but it can be done.

Isn't this just triangulation using base stations?

Not sure, I do know the phone only has to be switched on though, it doesnt actually have to be calling anyone.

Yep, the phone is constantly communicating with transmission stations when switched on.
I used to like that FM radios made 'dot to dot to dot to dot' tones before you received a call on older non smart mobiles 

Its quite scary because if your phone is at the scene of a crime it could easily be ascertained that you were too. A bit like finding a terrorists passport at the scene of a terror attack.

Not stating these examples as definitive facts 
https://forensicresources.org/2019/are-there-really-flaws-in-cell-phone-location-evidence/
https://www.envistaforensics.com/knowledge-center/insights/articles/the-role-of-cell-phone-location-mapping-in-criminal-cases/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-draft-guidance/extraction-of-information-from-electronic-devices-draft-code-of-practice-accessible-version

My point was , if your phone was there, it isnt in my view proof that you were, also your phone could be put there in an effort to frame you.

If someone puts your phone (or any other belonging really) at the scene of a crime it doesn't really matter if it's recording sounds though?

If someone wants to frame you there's lots of things they could do. 

It doesnt have to record sounds, it just has to be switched on. I think police questioning and surrounding circumstances would determine the outcome of an investigation, or I would hope so, phone location shouldnt be deemed as absolute proof, however it could still put you at the wrong end of things quite quickly.

Kurtis

robgilmo said:

Kurtis said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

For the record, it absolutely is possible to inject code into a phone remotely.  Code that can convertly activate the mic & cameras and read the GPS data.  It's only done in certain scenarios and isn't what we're talking about here but it most definitely happens.

You dont even need to do that, the police for instance can track a phone without doing this, they need reason to, but it can be done.

Isn't this just triangulation using base stations?

Not sure, I do know the phone only has to be switched on though, it doesnt actually have to be calling anyone.

Yep, the phone is constantly communicating with transmission stations when switched on.
I used to like that FM radios made 'dot to dot to dot to dot' tones before you received a call on older non smart mobiles 

Its quite scary because if your phone is at the scene of a crime it could easily be ascertained that you were too. A bit like finding a terrorists passport at the scene of a terror attack.

Not stating these examples as definitive facts 
https://forensicresources.org/2019/are-there-really-flaws-in-cell-phone-location-evidence/
https://www.envistaforensics.com/knowledge-center/insights/articles/the-role-of-cell-phone-location-mapping-in-criminal-cases/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-draft-guidance/extraction-of-information-from-electronic-devices-draft-code-of-practice-accessible-version

My point was , if your phone was there, it isnt in my view proof that you were, also your phone could be put there in an effort to frame you.

If someone puts your phone (or any other belonging really) at the scene of a crime it doesn't really matter if it's recording sounds though?

If someone wants to frame you there's lots of things they could do. 

It doesnt have to record sounds, it just has to be switched on. I think police questioning and surrounding circumstances would determine the outcome of an investigation, or I would hope so, phone location shouldnt be deemed as absolute proof, however it could still put you at the wrong end of things quite quickly.

It doesn't have to record but that's what the threads about. There's lots of ways people could frame someone, I don't think this one way is really worth worrying about. They could put your dna at the scene of a crime. Even that wouldn't be proof. 

robgilmo

Kurtis said:

robgilmo said:

Kurtis said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

For the record, it absolutely is possible to inject code into a phone remotely.  Code that can convertly activate the mic & cameras and read the GPS data.  It's only done in certain scenarios and isn't what we're talking about here but it most definitely happens.

You dont even need to do that, the police for instance can track a phone without doing this, they need reason to, but it can be done.

Isn't this just triangulation using base stations?

Not sure, I do know the phone only has to be switched on though, it doesnt actually have to be calling anyone.

Yep, the phone is constantly communicating with transmission stations when switched on.
I used to like that FM radios made 'dot to dot to dot to dot' tones before you received a call on older non smart mobiles 

Its quite scary because if your phone is at the scene of a crime it could easily be ascertained that you were too. A bit like finding a terrorists passport at the scene of a terror attack.

Not stating these examples as definitive facts 
https://forensicresources.org/2019/are-there-really-flaws-in-cell-phone-location-evidence/
https://www.envistaforensics.com/knowledge-center/insights/articles/the-role-of-cell-phone-location-mapping-in-criminal-cases/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-draft-guidance/extraction-of-information-from-electronic-devices-draft-code-of-practice-accessible-version

My point was , if your phone was there, it isnt in my view proof that you were, also your phone could be put there in an effort to frame you.

If someone puts your phone (or any other belonging really) at the scene of a crime it doesn't really matter if it's recording sounds though?

If someone wants to frame you there's lots of things they could do. 

It doesnt have to record sounds, it just has to be switched on. I think police questioning and surrounding circumstances would determine the outcome of an investigation, or I would hope so, phone location shouldnt be deemed as absolute proof, however it could still put you at the wrong end of things quite quickly.

It doesn't have to record but that's what the threads about. There's lots of ways people could frame someone, I don't think this one way is really worth worrying about. They could put your dna at the scene of a crime. Even that wouldn't be proof. 

exactly, yet we are seeing an influx of phone data being used in court proceedings apparently, I think most criminals would probably switch their phones off nowadays when heading out to commit a crime, I mean, how awkward is it when your missus calls you up as you dangle on a wire over a laser triggered alarm system in a bank volt at 3 in the morning to ask if you have put the bins out. 

Kurtis

robgilmo said:

Kurtis said:

robgilmo said:

Kurtis said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Kittyfrisk said:

robgilmo said:

Emp_Fab said:

For the record, it absolutely is possible to inject code into a phone remotely.  Code that can convertly activate the mic & cameras and read the GPS data.  It's only done in certain scenarios and isn't what we're talking about here but it most definitely happens.

You dont even need to do that, the police for instance can track a phone without doing this, they need reason to, but it can be done.

Isn't this just triangulation using base stations?

Not sure, I do know the phone only has to be switched on though, it doesnt actually have to be calling anyone.

Yep, the phone is constantly communicating with transmission stations when switched on.
I used to like that FM radios made 'dot to dot to dot to dot' tones before you received a call on older non smart mobiles 

Its quite scary because if your phone is at the scene of a crime it could easily be ascertained that you were too. A bit like finding a terrorists passport at the scene of a terror attack.

Not stating these examples as definitive facts 
https://forensicresources.org/2019/are-there-really-flaws-in-cell-phone-location-evidence/
https://www.envistaforensics.com/knowledge-center/insights/articles/the-role-of-cell-phone-location-mapping-in-criminal-cases/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-draft-guidance/extraction-of-information-from-electronic-devices-draft-code-of-practice-accessible-version

My point was , if your phone was there, it isnt in my view proof that you were, also your phone could be put there in an effort to frame you.

If someone puts your phone (or any other belonging really) at the scene of a crime it doesn't really matter if it's recording sounds though?

If someone wants to frame you there's lots of things they could do. 

It doesnt have to record sounds, it just has to be switched on. I think police questioning and surrounding circumstances would determine the outcome of an investigation, or I would hope so, phone location shouldnt be deemed as absolute proof, however it could still put you at the wrong end of things quite quickly.

It doesn't have to record but that's what the threads about. There's lots of ways people could frame someone, I don't think this one way is really worth worrying about. They could put your dna at the scene of a crime. Even that wouldn't be proof. 

exactly, yet we are seeing an influx of phone data being used in court proceedings apparently, I think most criminals would probably switch their phones off nowadays when heading out to commit a crime, I mean, how awkward is it when your missus calls you up as you dangle on a wire over a laser triggered alarm system in a bank volt at 3 in the morning to ask if you have put the bins out. 

It's being used, they can tell by call records you were on phone while driving for example. Or prove you were communicating with someone involved etc. It's used as part of the circumstancial evidence. 
It's not proof though and you probably wouldn't be convincted on that alone. 

sinbaadi

This forum is the worst when people keep worrying each other.  That single character column width!

In this instance, my gut is that there is a bit of confirmation bias at play.  You are probably a person whose profile online puts you in a pot which means that you would get that news article in your "feed".  You may have seen it before, you may not have.  You may or may not have received it before, but you notice it this time because you watched the film.

The other possible scenario is that your phone noticed that a certain song or soundtrack was playing (loads of phones do this by default even when locked, they'll tell you what that song is so you don't even have to Shazam it anymore).  You could check for this by looking at Settings and searching "Now Playing" history.  Honestly I don't know if Google uses the data collected in this way, but I assume that they do.

Kurtis

Who watches barbarella anyway. Perv!

  

Kurtis

Where did you see it? 

robgilmo

Kurtis said:

Who watches barbarella anyway. Perv!

  

I love a bit of Barbarella, 

Kurtis

robgilmo said:

Kurtis said:

Who watches barbarella anyway. Perv!

  

I love a bit of Barbarella, 

Oh I have watched it, when I was about 13.

Wasn't paying much attention to the story though. 

robgilmo

Kurtis said:

robgilmo said:

Kurtis said:

Who watches barbarella anyway. Perv!

  

I love a bit of Barbarella, 

Oh I have watched it, when I was about 13.

Wasn't paying much attention to the story though. 

There was a story?