‘Google able to remotely reset Android security measures’



We’ve just posted the following news: ‘Google able to remotely reset Android security measures’[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2011/09/AndroidGreenGuyLogo.jpg[/newsimage]

Google is able to remotely reset Android devices if asked so by a court order. This way investigators can gain access to data on the device.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/google-able-to-remotely-reset-android-security-measures-77852/](http://www.myce.com/news/google-able-to-remotely-reset-android-security-measures-77852/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.


Got a feeling that as word of this gets out, I’ll hear fewer and fewer snickers at my flip phone.


First of alll, full disk encryption will slow any device, and my hunch is that iPhone would be ever so slightly faster without.

Reading the 42 page PDF linked, I think the article weighs in a little biased.

Under “The Problem” heading, they say “The debate may be characterized as one weighing individuals’ right to privacy against society’s interest in providing governments with tools that they require to maintain safety and provide security.”
[B]Is it so? The debate may also be characterized as on taking away even more privacy from the individual in a society showing too clear signs of “big brother sees you” already.[/B]

Further reading reveals that law enforcement are worried about the new encryption:
"Apple’s and Google’s decisions to enable full-disk encryption by default on smartphones means that law enforcement officials can no longer access evidence of crimes.

And further notes:
“Apple and Google are not responsible for keeping the public safe. That is the job of law enforcement. But the consequences of these companies’ actions on the public safety are severe.”

[B]Now is it necessarily so that the consequences to public safety are severe?[/B]
Could it be that it also could be used to silence the ever so needed critical voices too.
How critical can a voice become before being viewed as a threat to society? Before being accused of conspiracy to whatever?
The all overshadowing anti-terror laws may come in and put all other laws aside because i [B]may[/B] have said something critical they take out of its context and isolate…
The very ones that wants access to my phone decides that question and I somehow do not find it reassuring.

The public are already harazzed at airports all over the world every day, still the ones these security meassures are in place to catch manage to bring bombs on board…
We are watched by cameras most everywhere downtown and in other centras, for you an my security they say… And their control I would like to add.

The document lines up serious crimes like Homicide, Rape and Robbery Conspiracy, Child pornography, Cybercrime and Identity Theft among the reasons to make it look good to the public.
Now, do not get me wrong, these are all serious matters, but they do take the individual’s right to personal security too lightly.
However, this is to be expected from a document created with the sole purpose of getting access to retrieve data from phones.
They even bring in circumstantial reasoning that other nations are exploring similar solutions…
Does that make it ok then??

I have not spent enough hours to read the document thoroughly, but as far as I can tell, it fails to address proprietary encryption available to large criminal and terrorist organizations and that leaves Jane and John Doe as casualities again “for no apparent reason” as far as I can tell so far.

It seems what it is all about, is to have access to the phones of the general public, and that goes way too far in the “control” direction.
They mention that the Fourth Amendment dictates that search warrants may be issued only when a judge finds probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence or proceeds of the crime might be found on the device.

There are to much if how above for me to be buy into it - [B]probable cause to believe that evidence may be found? You may have done it so evidence could be found if he [U]believes[/U] it[/B]. I guess…

My point is that they strive hard for general access to devices which largely does not serve its purpose. How big percentage of the population that are criminals will vary, but imo it does not justify what they set out to achieve.

We are still at the start of the “all connected” society, and I will be here to defend the right of the common man as long as I live… We are not all criminals, in fact, not too many of us are, even though they like convince us otherwise.


One day all the people that don’t seem to care about losing their personal freedom and rights to privacy will regret letting the government gain such a level of control in their lives. By then it will be too late to get any of it back without a lot of personal suffering and sacrifice and even then that might not be enough.

Government sees technology as a way to control people and preventing it from empowering people seems to be their number one priority. Big businesses such as Google, Microsoft, Verizon etc. are accessories to the the governments’ actions to make us slaves to their will. I am convinced that Google, MS, Verizon, AT&T etc. need broken up via anti-trust laws. Then the government needs to be castrated from having the ability to make these sorts of power grabs. IMO, governments are creating/encouraging/using the terrorism problems to gain a stranglehold over people’s lives with their blessing.


If you encrypt individual files using non-Google technologies, such as third party compression utilities, Google will not have a back door to decrypt those files. Big business and/or big brother will be theoretically incapable of decrypting your files unless they get you to tell them your password.

If the governments in the US and elsewhere think they have any chance to win the Second Crypto Wars, they need to start by using basic logic like this. Otherwise, assuming they manage to pass anti-encryption laws in the first place, people will simply refuse to abide by such laws. No one can stop the public from sharing files, and that file sharing is often not a matter of privacy or security. Since millions of people depend on strong cryptography, said cryptography WILL NOT DIE.