phone?

Hey /sec/ I've seen some of you say that you don't use smartphones anymore, neither do I but i don't even have a dumbphone at the moment, is using regular sms and calls safe with a dumbphone? what flip phone would you recomend?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. What is your threat model ? What are your use cases ? Please elaborate.)

Since everyone here seems to think for some reason that they are specifically targeted by the inexhaustible resources of the state intelligence apparatus (and that they can actually do something about it), I find it endlessly amusing that they gravitate toward the security equivalent of post cards and CB radio

It is safer remotely from less attack surface but less safe in range. That is if it is even an actual old feature phone not a modern feature phone that just is running same stuff as any smartphone with GPS included.

>is using regular sms and calls safe with a dumbphone? If you don't assume that your communications are secret since anyone with 25$ can snoop them. >what flip phone would you recomend? Whichever cheap one you can get your hands on, they're all pretty much the same.

>>24546 With AI you dont have to be targeted also some people know people that work for government agencies who can use it to spy on whoever they want. I really hope someone forms a class action lawsuit against the government on premise of harm to mental health from mass surveillance for trillions of dollars with offer to drop it to lower if they drop mass surveillance.

>>24549 I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that switching to a cell phone where you can't even use SSL or PGP or OMEMO is the exact opposite of a solution to that problem

>>24551 >my dumb phone's web browser doesn't have ssl and it's email doesn't have security stuff... If your "dumbphone" has internet and email it's not really a dumphone.

>>24554 Cell phones had internet connectivity since like 1996.

>don't use smartphones anymore Because most things can be done from a computer. Unless there's software that you need that is mobile app-only and that uses some kind of device integrity checking junk, you can do it from a computer. Therefore, if you have no such needs, a phone is only needed to receive/send calls and text, which will be insecure regardless of device

>>24557 ...That being said, dumb phones make you look cool and therefore are the one and only valid choice

>>24555 >Cell phones had internet connectivity since like 1996. 5-second search, first couple of hits... https://jomo.so/blog/best-dumb-phone-without-internet https://thetinylife.com/dumb-phones-for-minimalists/

This is already starting to turn into an incredible clusterfu​ck where nobody is even actually talking about the same thing, so allow me to split some hairs I'm seeing essentially these arguments so far [and their implications]: >1. I have a dumbphone with a web browser and an email client >2. But a dumbphone can't have internet or email >2.2. [therefore your phone is not a dumbphone] >3. But cell phones have had internet connectivity since 1996 > [3.1. and smartphones didn't exist yet] > [3.2. therefore it must be the case that dumbphones with internet connectivity have existed] > [3.3. therefore a lack of internet connectivity cannot be the defining feature of a dumbphone] >4. But look, I found these modern dumb phones that don't have internet >1. I have a dumbphone with a web browser and an email client The first thing to note is that this exchange begins with a strawman -- I am >>24551 and the quote in >>24554 is way off the mark in its understanding of what I was saying. I don't have a dumbphone and I wasn't talking about browsers or mail clients on dumbphones not having up-to-date security features. It probably sounded like I was referring to web browsers because I mentioned SSL. The thing to understand here is that SSL is used for lot more than just web. HTTPS is "HTTP over SSL", not "HTTP but now with encryption". What I was saying is that, on a dumbphone, you won't have access to modern software for messaging/chat/email/etc. that encrypts data between client and server (often using SSL/TLS), has support for PGP or E2E tools, or otherwise takes advantage of the best defenses we have against being spied on. So what I'm actually talking about is already in agreement with >24554 because my point is not this: >a dumbphone will have an old, insecure web browser and email client but rather this: >if you use a dumbphone to communicate, you'll most likely do so by making phone calls and sending SMS messages, which are, as I said before, the security equivalent of CB radio and post cards, especially if the government wants to find out what you're saying to people. That is to say: If the problem you're trying to address is that the government might spy on your communications, then getting a dumb phone will do nothing for you. The only effective way to mitigate this threat is to use strong encryption, and the tools needed to do so won't be found on a dumbphone. >2. But a dumbphone can't have internet or email Now, the next thing I want to clarify: What makes a dumbphone a dumbphone is not that it can't access the internet. A dumbphone, a.k.a. a feature phone, is a phone that is not a general-purpose computer (unlike a smartphone). For this reason, the options for adding software (and therefore capability) to it range from few to none. The term "feature phone" is as opposed to a regular cell phone, which handled calls and text messages, and had zero options for adding software. Feature phones added more features to this basic core, such as calendars, calculators, games, browsers, maps, email clients, etc. For the purposes of this discussion, a feature phone or dumbphone is functionally equivalent to a regular cell phone. This is because the features on a feature phone are pretty much always unimaginably bad. The ones that were actually useful for something were such a rare relief that they tended to gain cult followings. "Useful for something" in their time obviously doesn't imply that they are useful for anything now. >3. But cell phones have had internet connectivity since 1996 A more accurate statement would be "a cell phone that could access the internet was released in 1996". Most cell phones at the time couldn't do this at all, which is why people were jizzing their pants over the Nokia 9000 Communicator. Internet access, especially web browsing, if it was a feature on a given cell phone, remained largely useless for years. As late as the mid-2000s, the "internet"/"web" shortcut button found on many phones was nothing but a big obnoxious piece of sh​it that you would regularly hit by accident (because, as a marketing/promo tool, it was usually oversized and in the fu​cking middle of all the sh​it you actually wanted to press the most), and then you would sweat as you exited the resulting window with the caution of an EOD tech, lest you incur ungodly extra charges. However, > [3.3. therefore a lack of internet connectivity cannot be the defining feature of a dumbphone] is correct (but, as explained above, irrelevant). >4. But look, I found these modern dumb phones that don't have internet This is just content marketing trash written by people who don't care about technical distinctions. Both sites are about minimalism (digital and otherwise), particularly as a way to reduce information overload or being swamped with messages. With this in view, the articles are roughly about "here are some cell phones that can hardly do anything, so you won't get stuck looking at them for hours and/or it's harder for all those morons from work to use it to reach you with dumbass questions and impositions at all times". And more particularly, the articles claim to be about cell phones without "internet", yet many of the listed examples have features that use . . . the internet. It looks like they're really trying to make a list of cell phones that don't have web browsers, for people who can't allow themselves to be able to browse the web on their phone. None of this is a meaningful counterargument to any of >3. Anyway, basically: Dumbphones can have internet access, but it doesn't matter, because a dumbphone with internet access and a dumbphone without internet access are indistinguishable in terms of how much they'll help you not get spied on: Zero.

>>24545 If you're getting a flipphone get a rugged one that can take decent photos and MAYBE has internet access. I'm rocking a Kyocera DuraXV that is waterproof and has rubber bumpers; it's nice knowing that for reduced functionality (which was never a big concern for me regardless) I'm getting something tougher and more robust. Be warned that flip phones became a fad among young losers and that you might be associated with them as a result. Still, the benefits outweight the costs. >>24546 >>24551 It's a good way of not putting trust into technology that shouldn't be trusted. Using your phone as a trusted piece of hardware isn't a good idea regardless of what OS is installed; just use your (hopefully hardened) computer like a normal person. >>24558 This is also true. You'll be conspicuous as hell but the ladies love it :) >>24560 >because a dumbphone with internet access and a dumbphone without internet access are indistinguishable in terms of how much they'll help you not get spied on: Zero. Though reducing your footprint is a tangible benefit. The efficacy in creating a normal footprint by letting out some personal data through phone calls and SMS is a different debate

>>24559 No browser is not the same as no internet. In places like the US all the older cellular signals were shut down except some smaller more isolated carriers so for most networks it is VoLTE which means a VoIP call over the LTE data connection. Though this isn't bad since even without using special apps it encrypts the calls at least from phone to tower, unfortunately not beyond that point so it is still susceptible to stingray attacks.

I've finally lost my smartphone, and feel deep relief, but also a bit of anxiety over missing important calls. I can finally move back to heaven (flip phones) :) One big gripe I have with the modern world is crashing down, but it is like kicking dead whales down the beach that I have to spend money on a new phone no matter how cheap since I don't want one in the first place, oh well. Just a small blog post since it's relevant to this thread

>>24561 the ladies do not love it. the idea of someone not feeling the need to be constantly connected is foreign and suspicious to them. my theory is here in the PNW, mental illness is a huge issue. 9 times out of 10, if you meet someone without a form of anxiety causing them to seek constant validation, they're some flavor of deranged, and understandably, most don't want to hang out long enough to find out which. needless to say, this goes for more than just the women. if its a guy, they get creeped out as well, or put you on a pedestal like you're some kind of untouchable god apart from the modern world. either way you get alienated.

>>24564 yeah it's pretty good normal user repellant

>>24564 >the ladies do not love it. then why do I always get complements?

>>24570 they're mocking you, friend

>>24571 they literally come up to me while I'm doing other things and complement me and ask about the phone. It's happened at the gym, in a class when I was in highschool and college, and in a supermarket

>>24572 you lack an understanding of social cues/are hallucinating/experiencing false memories

>>24572 Lol I think >>24573 is just projecting, it is of course totally normal for this to happen and not be some weird Mean Girls schoolyard cattiness. I bet that isn't even what's happening to him either and he confuses/disturbs a lot of people by responding defensively. The wimminz can be old tech enjoyers too, maybe for more "ooh bound-book journals and fountain-pen calligraphy" reasons but also maybe for the same reasons you want one

>>24578 I think that Lain is wrong about phones since some girls just purely like the aesthetics of some flip phones but to me he doesnt feel wrong about not using certain social media. People think you are weird if you not only currently dont but refuse to use certain social media platforms or messengers. It is unfortunately very socially isolating to care about privacy or security. I dont think that will change until there is something easy to use, fast, has all features desired by most, reliable and looks good then you dont have to sell security or privacy just say "it's better and most use it now".

>>24545 I think you are better off by using Pixel phone with either CopperheadOS or LineageOS without Google apps. Instead, use F-Droid or something like Aurora Store (Disclaimer: I have never used Aurora Store myself.). >is using regular sms and calls safe with a dumbphone? Short answer is No. GSM link towers can instruct all phones (whether it's a dumb phone or smartphone) to turn off encryption. Users don't notice anything if/when this happens. A malicious attacker can construct their own fake GSM link towers. There are multiple DEFCON and CCC talks about it but I forgot the exact talk that I'm remembering. But it's old news by now. (There may be also differences in encryption and security of 2G/3G/4G, IIRC.) Second, all SMS are unencrypted. SMS were an afterthought (read about the history of SMS). You should always use Session, Signal or XMPP (Jabber) or something else if you require privacy. There is also the problem that modern dumbphones are actually smart phones without touch screen. You need to buy some old phone or you are better off with a smartphone (in my opinion). Unless, your problem is that you spend too much time with your smartphones and social media apps. But then again, most modern "dumbphones" come with WhatsApp and FecesBook (LifeLog?) Messenger. Another point to consider is that old dumbphones had Bluetooth exploits back in the day (2000s). You could make a random phone (that had Bluetooth enabled) to call to any number you (attacker) wanted.

>>24580 It is an all around dumb idea to treat a cellphone of any type as a trusted device. It's better to assume everything transmitted to and from it is essentailly public domain, regardless of what tech you use. Dumbphones are good for reducing fingerprint or projecting a more normal one, which is an often ignored part of security/privacy considerations