Those concerned about privacy. Yes you have spyware called Carrier IQ installed in your Note 5...

[prolongExistence]

Interesting, I just ran Trend Micro Carrier IQ Scanner, Bitdefender Carrier IQ Finder & Lookout Labs CarrierIQ Scanner & Protection and all 3 say that Carrier IQ is NOT found on my AT&T Galaxy S6 edge

 

[Carlo Villa]

Verizon Note 5 here....

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[murphcid]

Yep, I am infected with it on my AT&T HTC One M8, and HTC cannot remove it. So do the Unlocked and Developer phones have it installed? How bad is it really in terms of snooping?

 

[Aquila]

Yep, I am infected with it on my AT&T HTC One M8, and HTC cannot remove it. So do the Unlocked and Developer phones have it installed? How bad is it really in terms of snooping?

Good question. In the 2010-2012 scandal, they said it only got basic diagnostic info about signal strength and things like that - completely not personal. Then it was discovered that the app had the capabilities to monitor keystrokes, transmissions and essentially anything that you input into the device, including web page submissions, the contents of sent messages, emails, etc and the frequency, timing, etc of received info. Very similar to meta data information from the agencies, perhaps a little more in some areas and a little less in others. For example, they might have the ability to capture what number you called and whether you dialed it or pressed a contact option or a linked number from the browser, etc. - but there's no reason to think they could capture audio of the call. Now they claimed that they never actually processed or transmitted any of that type of data, but it really wasn't definitively proven one way or another. My best guess is that it has access to approximately everything and is limited in what it is programmed to retrieve, store and transmit.

 

[digitalbreak]

Called ATT and tried getting information about this Carrier IQ and after talking for minutes, I asked them to give me the list of pre-installed software and services that comes with my Note 5. For that, the rep said she doesn't have access to it and that the only way one could get access is using the power of attorney by calling national compliance number. She also said she is not in liberty to provide that number. She also added none of the internal articles have the CarrierIQ reference.

This is ridiculous, the fact that I am paying for the service and phone, and that they cannot give me what software and service is installed in the phone is just bad! I am going to the main store here and see what the folks say.

 

[Fr0gburp3r]

Found this in the interwebz - interesting doc regarding ATT and its use of CIQ - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8XNKMkDOR9_KdEoqQ&sig2=ZBK8bx5oWNQbdg1TJflAxQ

Posted via the Android Central App

That document only mentions Android and RIM devices. I guess Apple wouldn't allow them to install it on their devices. If Apple uses its own diagnostic service, at least it can be disabled in settings. This is one of the big drawbacks of Android, I guess. Open source for the device manufacturer and carrier but not the consumer.

 

[Fr0gburp3r]

Interesting, I just ran Trend Micro Carrier IQ Scanner, Bitdefender Carrier IQ Finder & Lookout Labs CarrierIQ Scanner & Protection and all 3 say that Carrier IQ is NOT found on my AT&T Galaxy S6 edge
View attachment 200748View attachment 200750View attachment 200749

AT&T has probably learned how to mask it from apps that can identify it. I have CIQ on my Note 5 but it doesn't appear on any CIQ scanner app.

 

[Shuckster]

I have it on the s5 active. Force stopped it. Not good.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Kelly Kearns]

The detectors show it on my AT&T Note 4.

If people think that Apple doesn't have its own tracking and not telling people what it is collecting, you didn't pay attention to the info that was leaked concerning PRISM and Apple ADMITTING it.

 

[dllb]

HTC was the only phone maker that made the mistake of using a version of Carrier IQ that may have illegally collected information.

All the others only logged an SMS that was sent when you are on the phone, and it was locally encrypted then was never capable of being un-encrypted.

You guys are worrying about a lot of nothing. It's always been a tool to help providers find cell problems, it was never used or meant to collect PERSONAL data.

As others have said, I'd be more worried about patriot act data collection over this any day.

 

[anon(9652351)]

Called ATT and tried getting information about this Carrier IQ and after talking for minutes, I asked them to give me the list of pre-installed software and services that comes with my Note 5. For that, the rep said she doesn't have access to it and that the only way one could get access is using the power of attorney by calling national compliance number. She also said she is not in liberty to provide that number. She also added none of the internal articles have the CarrierIQ reference.


This is ridiculous, the fact that I am paying for the service and phone, and that they cannot give me what software and service is installed in the phone is just bad! I am going to the main store here and see what the folks say.

I sent you a private message.........Check your inbox

 

[syspry]

HTC was the only phone maker that made the mistake of using a version of Carrier IQ that may have illegally collected information.

All the others only logged an SMS that was sent when you are on the phone, and it was locally encrypted then was never capable of being un-encrypted.

You guys are worrying about a lot of nothing. It's always been a tool to help providers find cell problems, it was never used or meant to collect PERSONAL data.

As others have said, I'd be more worried about patriot act data collection over this any day.

You'll go largely ignored... Unfortunately. I appreciate the fact finding you've done for what it's worth.

 

[monsieurms]

I think you mean "could"...care less

Actually, it's traditionally and logically "couldn't."

"Could" makes no sense if you think about it. The point of the phrase, after all, is to indicate that the speaker does NOT care at all about the subject under discussion. It is of no importance to the speaker. Saying "could" care less, however, actually means that they do care to some extent, because...they are admitting that they could care even less than they currently do.

The use of the negative "couldn't" confused people. It seems counterintuitive, a lot like when you see trucks carrying dangerous materials with signs "flammable." The correct word was "inflammable," but that seemed to confuse people and send the opposite message. So, it's gotten to the point where the corruption has started to make its own rule and I've actually seen it accepted in style books and the like. In the past, "Could" used to automatically be listed as incorrect and an error. To whatever extent now accepted by force of common repetition, it is a relatively recent corruption of the correct usage and it really makes no sense.