Ah yes… the guys with masks, guns, the backing of the president, and virtually unlimited federal government resources are a “vulnerable group”

Fair enough!

Maybe, I couldn’t say if it’s a premium for privacy, marketing, or what.

As for turning over data without a warrant, I don’t have a problem with companies complying with lawful orders, as Proton does. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support the notion that Proton complies with non-legal or mere requests from LE. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t have an issue with telcos complying with lawful warrants, which is what Lawful Interception requires. but if your telco can only turn over limited amounts of data because that’s all it has access to, then that’s a plus.

Separately, do you have a source that telcos are unaware when LE is wiretapping? LE would likely need the assistance of the telco to do so and the telco should require the warrant.

We can all condemn CP and rightfully so. But it’s asinine to think you can break encryption and that only the good guys will be able to take advantage of that.

Don’t think that happened yet when I commented, but there you go - just the justification the UK government is looking for.

True, expensive. Prosper to offset no selling customer data.

Yeah it looks like the cell network is the consumer facing product

Fair points. Different strategies for different threat models I assume. Anonymity through hardening (if we take Cape at their word, big if) or security through obscurity.

100% agree. I would definitely not have them install graphene for you. Do it yourself so you know what’s in the installation

Collecting and monitoring are two different things. If NSA is still dragnetting communications in the post-Snowden era, it’s likely storing and then accessing when something gives the reason. The sheer volume of communication data is far too large to monitor everything.

Wtf? Is this real?

It’s insane how intense the UK is being about breaking encryption. I could understand the hysteria if they had just suffered a terror attack or something and were riding public outrage, but as far as I know this is just based on some nebulous national security/protect the kids justification.

It’s insane. The U.S. and E.U. are not doing any better. The west is becoming a surveillance state.

“Is any SMS/phone call coming out of your personal number something you should consider private from the government? Probably not.”

Well your phone calls themselves – the actual conversation – shouldn’t be accessible without a warrant for a wire tap, that’s pretty longstanding precedent in the U.S. Cell phone location information is also protected by a warrant (Carpenter v. U.S.), but pen registers (logs of who you call) do not require a warrant (Smith v. Maryland). I’m not sure if governments are prevented from purchasing data from carriers, just as any data broker could do. Additionally, who knows if governments are secretly collecting phone call and cell phone data and storing it, but only accessing it once they have a warrant. It’s impossible to know what’s fully happening on the back end between big telco companies and the gov’t.

Either way, at the end of the day, whether you have Cape or some other service, if you’re at the level of the government getting a warrant for your data any legitimate company is going to comply. That’s why the best thing is to have a company that can only turn over limited amounts of data because that’s all they have.

You get you phone number through them and they act as your carrier and then they use other telcos that have the physical infrastructure to service calls/data. Not that different from how Mint or other virtual networks operate, but Cape alleges to collect little data about its users and not to sell any user data.

That’s always the concern with privacy-focused services, especially if they’re not open source or audited.

But if we think about the practical application – who needs a honeypot for cell phone services? Carriers already collect so much data (location, telemetry, payment, government-issued ID, etc) and sell it willingly to whoever wants to buy. How could Cape be any worse? lol. If they adhere to any of their stated policies it seems like a plus, no?

Additionally, at least to me, Cape is not marketing the way the Anom phone did, where it trying to gain adopting by nefarious users. That’s my take - I’m not advocating for Cape since I don’t really know much about them, but I’m trying to put things in context.

So, they have their own phone that is for high risk individuals and is not available to the general public. Then, separately they have their own mobile network that you can use with any regular phone and they sell Pixels on their website (for $50, you can have them pre-load GraphineOS). The AD i posted is for their cellular network, which is not related to their own first-party device.

Yeah seems like it might have the benefit of VPN circumvention. I would be sending data to Verizon about my app usage and they’d get information they wouldn’t otherwise if I’m using a VPN.

Yeah it’s not good. And what’s funny is there no details about what it is. They’re not really selling me on what “enhanced” 5G is and why it’s a benefit.

It was a generic settings app notification that said something like “you’re getting enhanced 5G with Verizon” and that was it. I clicked it and then took the attached screenshot. No additional information other than that it shares my info.

I don’t know all the technical aspects of what my carrier might know, but I think that if you load the Chase app, for example, it’s basically just sending an https call to Chase. Not sure if Verizon would know whether that came from an app or browser.

Additionally, if you use a VPN, I don’t know if Verizon would see any of that data. But again, I’m no expert.