Won't somebody please think of the children!!! UK to mount fresh assault on end-to-end encryption in Facebook UK Home Secretary Priti Patel will badmouth Facebook's use of end-to-end encryption on Monday evening as she links the security technology with paedophilia, terrorism, organised crime, and so on. The ever-popular politician will say at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) event: "Sadly, at a …
This post has been deleted by its author
The more they protest, the more technical the miscreants will get in hiding their activities.
Facebook may do E2E encryption but they will still be looking at messages in order to profile users so they can serve ads.
I wouldn’t trust Facebook E2E encryption, government shouldn’t trust it either.
"Law enforcement agencies claim that E2E encryption would make it more difficult for them to investigate crimes at all levels."
They've been saying that for 25 years (RFC1984's silver jubilee is soon) but they have happily been using your metadata all that time, and doing nicely thankyou.
Mind you, Ms Priti is very likely to swallow their story hook, line and sinker.
> Law enforcement agencies claim that E2E encryption would make it more difficult for them to investigate crimes at all levels.
I really wonder how they managed before the times of Internet. How did they ever catch anybody when there was no magic box allowing you to listen to perps advertising their crimes?
It's just laziness, it's obviously easier to sit in your comfy chair and trawl the Internet for obvious signs of crime, than to do the leg work, ask questions, and draw (valid!) conclusions.
Just how much progress has been made in recovering those 400,000 mugshots and fingerprints that got fat-fingered off the Police Database?
Its about time we had a progress report on that. I know the answer is probably "no comment", but all the same an official progress report to confirm or deny what we all expect would be nice.
...that many politicians are being targeted by misinformation campaigns spread by antisocial networking sites. You see, if users can't encrypt their data then they can't hide it from the antisocial networks. Also, if the politicians are trying to regulate encryption they are obviously too busy to regulate corporations and run-away-capitalist-oligarch makers.
Then let's ban clothing everywhere too - and maybe force all cars, buses, and airplanes to use the Wonder Woman "invisible" plane mechanism. If everything should be accessible to the police then maybe even politicians would have to tell everyone all the companies they are working for and how many wives and kids they have ...
Keep adding up all these results and banning encryption will be banned.
Actually, yes. I do. The further to the extremes one gets, the more insular and self-serving the policies - and the less based on evidence they are. With its crack downs on public protest, with its supposedly law and order approach to being able to look at, and decrypt, everything (très Stasi), with Brexit, with its corruption, with its sucking up to Trump and whatever else they might decide to do tomorrow, the Conservative party has abandoned the centre-ground.
And yes, I'm quite sure that Corbyn's Labour would have been far from faultless too - given that they were also worryingly divorced from the rational centre - but I think that Starmer's Labour, and the Lib-Dems would show significantly more common sense. Better yet, a broad coalition government made up of non-arseholes from across the political spectrum.
Not all politicians are self-serving bell-ends.
It depends on your perspective. The older you are, the more recently ancient history appears to have happened. From my perspective, the 1980s really weren’t that long ago.
From Cheop’s perspective, Henry VIII was a recent occurrence.
From my son’s point of view, the Conservative Party have never been a centrist party.
'... there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'. (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, page 11)
The problem the politicians have is that end to end encryption (which cannot be read by state actors) is lauded when used by dissidents in countries of which the politicians disapprove, but criticised when used by 'our own' criminals. Dissidents fighting against oppression, revealing human rights abuses are good, whilst paedophiles, drug smugglers and people traffickers are bad. Both will use the technology available to the general population, and you cannot possibly make sure that only 'the good guys' have access to the secure tools.
It is a difficult problem and I do not envy the politicians in trying to find a solution. The fact is though that, paedophilles are often caught in ways other than reading their communications. The monstrous crimes of Barry Bennell were not revealed due to interception of electronic communications, but because some of his victims were brave enough to speak out publicly while he was alive. The crimes of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith did not get publicity until after their respective deaths, but it is unlikely that end-to-end encryption played any part in their evading justice.
Protecting children from abuse is a social issue and needs social solutions. Even if banning end-to-end strong encryption in consumer communications is one of those measures, that will not be anything like enough on its own, so maybe Priti Patel could say what other measures she is taking to protect children, like, for example, enhanced funding for child protection and social services?
Seeing as most child abuse happens within the family or involving others who are so close as to almost be family... would Priti (useless) Patel care to claim hust how protesting E2E encryption going to help with this... compared to the complete destruction of social care services and outreach services that she has personally overseen?
But apparently "she links [end-to-end encryption] with paedophilia". This suggests that while encryption still exists, it will continue to somehow make people feel attracted to children, so it must be banned! No one is safe anywhere!! We probably need to ban children too!!!1111one1
Perhaps we should treat them like battery chickens. Feed them well for a couple of months, then once they've put on just enough weight send them off for slaughter and an unenviable destiny wrapped in polythene on the supermarket shelves. Well, maybe restaurants would outbid supermarkets to implement a better feeding regime for the choicest dishes: kid a l'orange, bhuna gosht, infant chasseur, wiener schnitzel.
"Ban children and then there will be no paedophilia."
UK laws have been set up and enforced on the basis of "looks like a child".
IIRC a judge in Bristol refused a club a licence renewal because they had advertised grown-ups fancy dress nights with adults dressed in the classic St Trinian's style.
No children would reduce the demand for housing thereby reducing the demand for new construction on field and forest which permits threatened and endangered flora and fauna security to have unmonitored sex.
So the reason the Sheriff couldn't catch Robin was the encrypted messages?
From pre Volstead times
When we ban liquor in the USA, crime rates will go down, spousal abuse will disappear, and the specter of the drunken driver will no longer haunt us.
"compared to the complete destruction of social care services and outreach services that she has personally overseen? [...]"
It was zealous social service staff with their "Satanic Ritual" fantasies who destroyed some families a while back.
It is a fact of human nature that zealots in any area will abuse whatever powers they have been given - irrespective of any rationality.
Institutions tend to breed an echo chamber of behaviours that go against the ethos for which they were supposed to have been created.
"The crimes of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith did not get publicity until after their respective deaths"
There were accusations about them, just not much ever done about it & people covering for them e.g. David Steel admitted he knew Cyril Smith was an abuser back in the late 70's but did nothing about it
You could say the same about demanding ID to create a social media account as is being put forward in various places, mainly Australia. By forcing ID, you kill off things like the Myanmar protests, because anyone speaking against the coup will be rounded up by the military.
> you kill off things like the Myanmar protests
Yes, but you forget that Australia isn't Myanmar, the Australian government doesn't need opponents, because they are the "Good Guys" (Honest, gov). So what applies to Myanmar doesn't apply to Australia (other countries available)...
Besides, I'm pretty sure in Myanmar there is right now also a strong call to prevent child abuse by banning encryption, free Internet access, public gatherings, listening to foreign news (and all that stuff nasty "child abusers" usually do).
What they are doing is just ensuring that Government can read and access everything. They don't give a flying frak that anyone else could do so. FaceBook is implementing end-to-end ecryption ? El Zuck uses Signal, not FaceBook chat.
When you specifically don't eat your own dogfood, that sends a very clear message.
>Even if banning end-to-end strong encryption in consumer communications is one of those measures, that will not be anything like enough on its own
Parents should be protecting children. Your average 40-year-old parent went to school with computers, has probably used a computer every day of their working life, and has a mobile phone that gives them access to all the knowledge in the world.
There is no excuse for not locking down or at least monitoring your kids internet usage is this day and age - even if it is a game of whack-a-mole. Not understanding the technology is no longer a valid reason.
I suspect most of us on here do not have to get involved with network doings as part of our jobs, and have no reason to look at our router configs, ever...and yet, somehow, we manage.
@AC
Quote: "...has a mobile phone that gives them access to all the knowledge in the world..."
*
But you are forgetting the Large Corporations (many) who supplied all those convenient "apps" for the smartphone.
Each one of those apps is talking to a server at said Large Corporation.
One example will suffice to make the point....one for all of us to ponder:
- https://www.apple.com/uk/icloud/find-my/
...and scroll down to the heading "You can even find devices that are offline." So if you are offline, but still have Bluetooth running, Apple can find your device via other Apple customers. Interesting, n'est ce pas?
So....how many "apps" do you have on your smartphone? Perhaps a bit of a rethink is needed for the phrase "all the knowledge in the world"....with the emphasis on "all"!!!!
"think of the children" - whenever I hear a politician using that appeal (or anything similar) I immediately assume that the proposal is something which would be completely unjustifiable and unacceptable if subject to any rational review. In this case the implication is that if you oppose end-to-end encryption you are clearly a paedophile or some other sort of vile pervert.
I help run a youth group -- I'd much rather educate them and also them have a secure communication channel for reporting and discussing things they may not want parets to see.
Just because parents have no idea about a life on line they shoudn't do the 'bogey man' crap to further shackle thier kids.
So, if Patel is going to claim that the problem is paedophiles contacting children then the answer is very simple: deny encrypted chat to children (under 16, say). That has plenty of problems of its own but at least would considerably limit the damage to individual freedom and privacy while achieving the aim she claims to want.
Of course, in the real world, we know that she is only using the children as a hook to try to deny encryption to everyone. She doesn't care one whit for children - she cares for state authoritarian control of the people.
"deny encrypted chat to children (under 16, say)."
Not long ago 16 & 17 year-olds had a legal status in England supporting their being near to adulthood. They could, and still can, consent to sex or even get married. Then new laws have merged their general legal status with all other "children under 18".
If E2E is banned and the ban applied to politicians communications then maybe we're going to find out which porn movie Boris and Priti were watching the day after the election? If that happens then the ban will be lifted and Starmer will be blamed for being an untouchable.
One wonders why that might be.
When you're trudging around in a sewer, nobody is going to notice if you've got a bit of your own shit on you.
The degree of corruption in our current government means that if they were to single one minister out for special treatment correct oversight, they'd have to start applying it to all.
Multiple governments have proven multiple times they can't be trusted not to break the law to spy on innocent citizens.
At least if they have to install spyware to spy, there is a remote chance they might be held accountable if caught doing so illegally.
Recent article about how seriously "the system" takes child abuse:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-18/did-alex-jones-use-dhhs-database-crissp-to-groom-a-teenager/13301262
Securing existing systems that contain sensitive data just doesn't have the political sound-bite potential (or hidden, alternate narrative that benefits the status quo) of "end-to-end encryption enables pedophiles and terrorists!"
.....is that savvy folk who want their messaging to remain secret will encrypt their communications before their messages enter any public channel.
*
The spooks will use the backdoor, and all they will see is something like this:
kr4vs5k72XsJAlOrgl4nCRarShIh4HadG7oLUrEj
cT2zMrITy7cHuBcfMRY1S5iNQXWbwJO7YxiDqTEz
gDshg1KBAnadqBeLOVCju1ktqpOFIJgLC98PONeh
e9W7cBiBWtSzqxglYdgvYp2hk3yXuzahKLonIRmR
slWhYxSNEBAngLIfuN0xwPwx4dujyFK16JGPu90x
MrGhuzE1m32Fc9ivo101QTOfQrspm3APyfGRSvUF
GfqBa9yJEXKfe5IBodYfKJKhEVSV4P0tQ58DM3yZ
U5AJqRKDehajwVmNWBw9adMtqrOZg7SZqNEnatcH
mrGLuDSdUjsLIPkp8ZaVUdUd0JqBIzQByXcNmbcV
u1Ovs3otuxWf8Z076JUZU98LqBq1kRg9sF0J4zoH
i3Kp0tw7ipuFiFU5s5YFK327CLCXIrEvglY7QhC5
mlQ92BO7EBQjgfuhS7gB2X4vYjUL8VC3wjkdIXWd
6RiHYTgTYFoXKf0lutk9mB2hOh0349SxipYJ2ReX
uXOrQ3sTa5OXkHk90JYbOlmbur4t8ZSJmtw7SVIB
ORKlwD8zoVuFYf0XC7wPI14B6J8xox8NCfOpy5iz
yVwpwnA5gVkf8VSRgPczyHgtSPep0dO9w5IxazKD
eNe9
*
Thus making the backdoor moot!!
*
Perhaps Pritti Patel (and Ben Wallece) never get briefed by people who know about these things (Jeremy Fleming comes to mind).
*
Perhaps the next steps might be:
- ban the use of VPNs
- ban the use of TOR
- ban the use of encryption (except by people in Cheltenham!)
- ban the use of C programming
- make it illegal to possess a compiler (the cipher application used above is written in 1000 lines of vanilla C)
- make it illegal to think bad thoughts
- and so on...............
Actually - a thought just occurred to me reading this comment: given that in the UK refusal to provide an encryption key to the police is already an offence, how does that work with something like Signal, where the user never sees the encryption key? Or does the offence only apply to stored encrypted files?
I seem to remember that there was a case where it was proposed that the in-flight encrypted payload was somehow considered "stored" in the network and could be treated the same as a file. But I can't find a reference to the outcome.
You're thinking of the way Plod broke Encrochat.
They didn't decrypt the messages "in flight", they got them between being entered and encrypted by back-dooring the software (or similar, IIRC, it's "secret" how they did it). The court determined that the warrant they had for "data at rest" was sufficient.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/08/encrochat_court_appeal_ruling/
@AC
Quote: "...you ... get red-flagged...."
*
Really? Suppose the message originates on a burner phone? Or appears to originate at a VPN end point? It's not clear to me that the spooks can apply a "red-flag" to any identifiable account or person.
*
Even in the case of spooks finding mysterious cipher content in emails, it's likely that there are throw away email addresses at both ends....once again no identifiable account or person.
*
Oh....and before you mention metadata, IP addresses, mobile phone towers, CCTV and the like....a careful anonymous person will be using internet cafes (or someone else's hijacked WiFi), and staying well out of the way of CCTV.
*
Remind me again about this "red-flag" business!
"Really? Suppose the message originates on a burner phone? Or appears to originate at a VPN end point? It's not clear to me that the spooks can apply a "red-flag" to any identifiable account or person."
The burner phone or VPN itself would be a red-flag. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear would be their viewpoint.
"Even in the case of spooks finding mysterious cipher content in emails, it's likely that there are throw away email addresses at both ends....once again no identifiable account or person."
Just about everything on the Internet can be identified in some point or manner. After all, TCP is a two-way communications medium which means both endpoints must know each other.
"Oh....and before you mention metadata, IP addresses, mobile phone towers, CCTV and the like....a careful anonymous person will be using internet cafes (or someone else's hijacked WiFi), and staying well out of the way of CCTV."
It's hard to be careful when you're not guaranteed to be aware of all the surveillance tech that may actually be at your adversary's disposal, including tech you may not be able to detect or know such as hidden CCTV cameras, passive cell signal listeners who don't give their positions away, to say nothing of compromised endpoints and honeypot operations (like that convenient Internet cafe or VPN provider).
@Charles_9
Did you get the point about "identifiable account or person"?
Sure....a burner phone could be "red-flagged".....but so what? No account or person or address or credit card number......
Quote: "...both endpoints must know each other..."
Did you get the point about throwaway email addresses? Take a look at mail.com and tell me that the originator of a throw way address can be identified to an account or a person.
Quote: "...compromised endpoints and honeypot operations...."
Did you get the point that users (even users of compromised facilities)...these users might be using deliberately anonymised devices? Once again with feeling: No account or person or address or credit card number......
So in all these scenarios, the endpoint might be identified (Fred's Internet Cafe), but the actual person will still be anonymous.
The snoops need this anonymous person to make a mistake by contacting an actual identifiable account or person. If both ends are using the same processes........no identifiable accounts or PII.......
What am I missing? Your comment seems to say that "No communication can be detached from the actual person doing the sending". My take is that this is seriously misleading. Explain why I'm wrong!
And all of that is before we get to private ciphers which the snoops might take a long while to decipher..........
when I was young and the internet was far more open than it is now almost all messages (generally email) were in plain text and it was well known that various government organs from both the east and west were tapping into and monitoring such information. I got into the habit of putting blocks of random numbers at the end of mail labelled "encrypted message follows" or something similar. Hopefully it wasted somebody's time somewhere.
Yes, but back then it was only the government you had to worry about, and even so I wouldn't have dreamed of sending (say) credit card details in that manner. I well remember in the early days ordering something by email and sending my card details by putting them into an Acorn Draw file, converted to paths, inside a passworded Zip archive.
If E2E is banned - and does that also apply to https? - as suggested, perhaps just pre-encoding everything will return. We'll all send bog standard emails, but not in plain text.
M.
Hell, I've never used a credit card on the Internet. Not once. Not planning on doing so, either. Not until the system is entirely rebuilt from the ground up with security in mind. And even then, I will probably not trust whatever system they come up with. Too many things to go wrong.
"- ban the use of C programming"
Can I use perl? Assembler? COBOL? Fortran? Forth? Whitespace? The sendmail configuration language? Mouse?
Mayhap they should ban all programming languages. And networks. And computers. And telephones. And the Royal Mail (maybe not that one, I was on a roll ... :-).
remind me to break out my PGP-in-perl T-shirt next time I'm flying into Blighty
I notice with interest that literally nothing of these events made it into their Wikipedia page which has enough detail to have been written by their own PR people.
Well played as that is, maybe it's time to document their problems too.
Anyway, mildly drifting off topic here.
Can we mandate that anyone who proposes backdoors or third party access to encrypted information is forced to do without all of it for a period no less than, say, six months? That means no password protection apps, no access to HTTPS protected transactions and no use of end-to-end encryption on email and messaging.
Oh, and no mobile phone crypto either.
Yes, yes, I know they will fight this by deeming themselves too important and busy with the work for the nation, but who is to say that the unhappy recipients of such idiocy are not doing the same or, I'd argue, even more important work? I would not want to deprive a family lawyer of cryptographic protection exactly because they deal with children, for instance.
Why banning all crypto for that time? That's simply illustrative of what will happen if a government gets the master keys to all communication and data, it WILL leak at which point you may as well forget about the security of ANY Internet based transaction. Oh, and for those who want in all seriousness suggest that a government can keep a secret key, do a search on "TSA master keys" - you can even buy them on Amazon now.
But that would need an -encrypted- credit card transaction..
Govt makes encryption illegal.
The baddies who by definition are not concerned with following laws continue to use encryption.
Hey presto! You’ve just reduced the privacy of everybody who is honest and law-abiding whilst not affecting the bad guy one iota.
History testifies that it’s way more common for terrorists to use plain SMS and burner phones anyway.
"suggesting that time and effort spent railing against social media companies is better spent on teaching and reinforcing the basics of police record-keeping and investigatory techniques." but that will only work if you pay the people in house enough to prevent them being poached by competing companies. I've worked in the public sector a few times and been amazed at the offers I got to basically not do my job any-more as it was interfering with their operations - which were mainly getting managers to sign contracts that were effectively ways of preventing the said managers having any control over their data.
This is what they keep asking. But my answer, that it would look like an exact decimal representation of pi, written in an entirely black shade of white, enclosed in an entirely circular square does not seem to be going down very well.
"We're calling for a reset between the binary tradeoffs" - FFS - how do they keep getting away with such nonsense?
intolerable to the UK gov, but in the good old Khrushchev shoe-banging, EVERY democratic government (that is, when we refer to the regime we're pals with), and every oppressive regime in the world (that is, not our pals) feels the same inner urge to control what their citizens communicate in private because it believes it has every right, as the overlords ruling over the plebs. I remember every. single. home Secretary for the last 25 years or more, regardless of their sex and looks, have tried, more or less successfully, to undermine human rights and privacy (and many other rights) and every time I read / heard about their next idea, I felt, I'm listening to a little Hitler again, where do they all come from, being so remarkably alike, is there a special room in While Hall where they breed them? And every other country has such breeding room? Plus an aircraft hangar, for their little minions...
It is, at least in part, the fault of the Home Office civil servants. It has been combined with many little-hitler home secretaries, that see the office as either their only chance to tell everyone else what to do, or as a stepping stone to the top job itself, but I primarily blame the officials.
Officials tell the HS that if they don't authorise what they want to do then they will be personally blamed when the country goes to shit: crime rates rise, terrorist attack, an immigrant commits a serious crime, riots in inner cities. And that the only way to prevent this personal apocalypse is to just say what the officials tell them to say. That is then combined with the natural tendency for bullying officials to gravitate towards the home office, which is the "department for telling people what they can or cannot do", and to recruit in their own image.
It's good to see The Register push back against these nefarious Orwellian plans of the UK government.
The sad fact is that while many adults are indifferent towards terrorism and drug-trafficking, they get all pent-up when child pornography is involved. The idea that their little daughter gets her virginity taken by some stranger outrages them.
And the government makes handy use of this, continually stressing that massive eavesdropping is necessary "to keep children safe."
ah, but why spend time, effort and money while fishing for "named individual suspects", when you can trawl the whole population, and then place them in the individual sub-categories. Commies - to be shot. Perverts - to be kept on file (might be useful). Commentards - another database, cross-referenced with perverts and commies, etc. Think wide, think big, think BIG DATA.
This post has been deleted by its author
and be done with it.
You could cite 'National Security' along the way. How many [cough][cough] secrets have been inadvertently revealed on FB eh? Too many to count I'd bet.
(Twitter etc could be done for as well)
I'm sure that a lot of people's mental health will improve as a result.
Go on Zuck target me. I don't care.
I'm not on and never have been on any antisocial media platform and never will.
The Welsh language has been used to protect communications in the past. I understand that one person wishing to defect from their country and take up UK citizenship was required to advertise their intention in a national newspaper, so chose the Welsh language daily paper of the time.
More recently during the Bosnian war the Welsh guards were aware that the enemy were listening in to their communications, so spoke in Welsh and were there fro completely unintelligible to anyone else.
In his autobiographical book 'Disturbing the Universe', Freeman Dyson describes being in hospital in Wales, and the other patients on his ward spoke welsh, of which he understood not a word, but enjoyed its musicality.
Don't we already have people who are supposed to be doing this? i.e. parents.
The problem is now the government, and public, have gotten so used to curtailing the rights of the innocent majority to protect the vulnerable minority that this might start to get public support.
news at 11.
And not only stupid and authoritarian, but, well, also 3DZO VW1P 84PO OJO0 TGQS 8CFX 19EB Z8JW FJ30 NL69 35G2 XHTD II7Q U2OD 8UQI WHFZ PCOS 1N41 PW38 CX4Y QJYO W8BE KGF8 G2PC 6VGZ PB5J ABSD 2BQX V0SI N6UW GV39 2RZK 962L SEBV BTYF UDA0 9DN9 EEFA 4V98 IW0F 8XWP F1GD L9AY P6MI UIFP MSMX DHSQ NE95 ZKUR HV5D LV2Q YPUG KDM0 IX8X D34U 2280 9DDN UIDS YJTY ZKFB R408 U0O6 YFS2 9NB0 I5OA 722N TWTH NRT0 S1UE Q1FZ 7BQK XVQQ UDB6 9TQH YG4W WDTG 7X3N RH2I QX93 Y63A HF6V 9JP4 RASP KXJZ 56LN 2EK0 W4J3 1EVL YBOF UBQW TS6U RTRZ NUVA L5AA ZX8E UFY5 D6SC MUPL SQK2 HY9R
of course. But we all know that, right?
Patel is a fool and there is no technical solution to allow E2E except when we know the person is a peadophile. That said the author of this article sounds like part of the privacy at all costs cult. There is no reason at all why law enforcement shouldn't be able to access a person's communication once they have a court order. That said they have been spying on everyone illegally so encrypt everything already and forget about the children.
> There is no reason at all why law enforcement shouldn't be able to access a person's communication once they have a court order
Unfortunately there is, it's called "maths"... Maths don't respect court orders, and that's the whole problem here: Either you have safe encryption, or you don't, you can't have a lock which is safe, but still easily breakable by "the right people". Check the example of the TSA-approved "Travel Sentry" luggage locks (Wikipedia).
Besides, serious criminals (or at least intelligent ones) will simply use code words. "Uncle Joe will come visit for a couple days next week" sounds totally innocent, won't be flagged by any police surveillance, and will tell your accomplices whatever they need to know.
Also Administrative groups, once they twigged how easy it was for us to track them down and report them to their ISPs ... and then block the ISPs which allowed such abuse of resources.
Abuse OF the net, not abuse ON the net ... Waste my resources & refuse to clean up your act, I'll block you. Permanently in some cases (the alphagootwats come to mind ... ).
Facebook uses every feature it can to track / trace / discover other smartphones.
Check out the Nearby Connections toolkit available to Android developers to see what Facebook can do.
Under Settings on an Android device.
Settings > Connections > Off; or go into DEVELOPER: Settings > About Phone > Software > Build Number !Tap BUILD NUMBER 7 times! > May Request Passcode > Return to SETTINGS and select the function.
You can check out Developer Functions by version number on Google search.
A app developer friend has modded his Android so he knows when a FB user is in the area.
Best thing to do is to switch Android OS - I use LINEAGEOS, which arose from the dust of CyanogenMod, and it serves me well.
THEN you can protect the CHILDREN AND YOURSELF!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
