Android phone tracking

[stackberry369]

I just saw an article that says android phones can be tracked by battery power

Posted via the Galaxy Note 4

 

[SpookDroid]

If you mean the battery scanners, yes, and it doesn't apply only to Android, it applies to pretty much any electronic device with a battery inside (mostly Lithium). And it can't be 'tracked', it can only be fairly detected (sort of like a metal detector at the airport... it knows you have metal on you, it doesn't know exactly where it is or what it is).

 

[stackberry369]

If you mean the battery scanners, yes, and it doesn't apply only to Android, it applies to pretty much any electronic device with a battery inside (mostly Lithium). And it can't be 'tracked', it can only be fairly detected (sort of like a metal detector at the airport... it knows you have metal on you, it doesn't know exactly where it is or what it is).

http://gizmodo.com/spies-can-track-you-through-your-phones-battery-use-eve-1686978418

Posted via the Galaxy Note 4

 

[stackberry369]

http://gizmodo.com/spies-can-track-you-through-your-phones-battery-use-eve-1686978418

Posted via the Galaxy Note 4

 

[SpookDroid]

That's a technique, not a device. Got it!
And yeah, I think Gizmodo is just trying to create buzz (drama always generates traffic and clicks). There are many similar techniques that when you think about it, it's quite logical. If I know which tower you're using and can get a signal strength reading, I can model your probable position around said tower (because towers are a fixed, known location). Now, if I get two more towers at least that can 'see you', I can do the same and see where those circles intersect. The more towers that see you, the more accurate my approximation will be. And this is actually what network-determined location does.

Same thing with WiFi routers. If I know the exact location of a router, all I need to do is get who's connected to it and the power level of the transmission and I can at least tell how far away from the router you are, thus, approximating your location.

Think of a kid screaming. If you can't see him, but you can clearly hear him, you can tell he's nearby and can even judge where the scream is coming from. If the kid's away and he needs to yell louder for you to hear him, you'll know he's further away. Now, if you take the same kid yelling constantly, you can even tell if he's moving and in which direction. You didn't 'hack' the kid to track him, you're just using the available data (the screaming) to approximate his movements and location. Same principle here. Clever, yes...practical, not really.

 

[stackberry369]

That's a technique, not a device. Got it!
And yeah, I think Gizmodo is just trying to create buzz (drama always generates traffic and clicks). There are many similar techniques that when you think about it, it's quite logical. If I know which tower you're using and can get a signal strength reading, I can model your probable position around said tower (because towers are a fixed, known location). Now, if I get two more towers at least that can 'see you', I can do the same and see where those circles intersect. The more towers that see you, the more accurate my approximation will be. And this is actually what network-determined location does.

Same thing with WiFi routers. If I know the exact location of a router, all I need to do is get who's connected to it and the power level of the transmission and I can at least tell how far away from the router you are, thus, approximating your location.

Think of a kid screaming. If you can't see him, but you can clearly hear him, you can tell he's nearby and can even judge where the scream is coming from. If the kid's away and he needs to yell louder for you to hear him, you'll know he's further away. Now, if you take the same kid yelling constantly, you can even tell if he's moving and in which direction. You didn't 'hack' the kid to track him, you're just using the available data (the screaming) to approximate his movements and location. Same principle here. Clever, yes...practical, not really.

The BBC has an article about this too

Posted via the Galaxy Note 4

 

[stackberry369]

That's a technique, not a device. Got it!
And yeah, I think Gizmodo is just trying to create buzz (drama always generates traffic and clicks). There are many similar techniques that when you think about it, it's quite logical. If I know which tower you're using and can get a signal strength reading, I can model your probable position around said tower (because towers are a fixed, known location). Now, if I get two more towers at least that can 'see you', I can do the same and see where those circles intersect. The more towers that see you, the more accurate my approximation will be. And this is actually what network-determined location does.

Same thing with WiFi routers. If I know the exact location of a router, all I need to do is get who's connected to it and the power level of the transmission and I can at least tell how far away from the router you are, thus, approximating your location.

Think of a kid screaming. If you can't see him, but you can clearly hear him, you can tell he's nearby and can even judge where the scream is coming from. If the kid's away and he needs to yell louder for you to hear him, you'll know he's further away. Now, if you take the same kid yelling constantly, you can even tell if he's moving and in which direction. You didn't 'hack' the kid to track him, you're just using the available data (the screaming) to approximate his movements and location. Same principle here. Clever, yes...practical, not really.

Nowhere did I say that it was a device lol

Posted via the Galaxy Note 4

 

[SpookDroid]

Nowhere did I say that it was a device lol

Posted via the Galaxy Note 4

I know haha, sorry, that was a 'talking to myself' thing haha