The smartphone itself is a introduced perception of necessity. No one needs one of these things, no one even does anything interesting with them -- everyone is just basically logging their thoughts in a giant database to be gone over by academics, feds, and marketers.
It's not like people are using their mobile technology to write effective literary pieces or give meaningful comment. Nope, just shitposting, sexting, and using the phone bretty much. Camera is neat, but its not a great trade off for a 24/7 listening device in your pocket.
And don't even get me started on the tinfoil shit, because if business leaders making over six figures are putting their phones in Faraday cages during meetings, then you know there's something to the notion.
Back when we had dumb electronics (dumbphones and dumb mp3 players,) I always wondered why they weren't programmable, and why I had to carry around a phone and an mp3 player when a single device could easily perform both tasks. Now I have a smartphone, the benefits are pretty obvious to me, and I'm not going to give it up. I use my phone for listening to music, taking notes, browsing the internet, receiving emails. I can use the GPS to find my way around unfamiliar places and to take unfamiliar bus routes. I have my timetable on it, so I can tell at a glance when and where my next class is. I can use it to send emails into work if I'm running late. I can use it to SSH into my laptop to read Git commit logs at meetings.
If you don't see the benefits of a smartphone, you might be a bit of a shutin. Sure, if you can get to your computer whenever you need, you don't need a smartphone, but if you can't, the benefit is obvious. Also, the map is priceless. I don't think I can quantify the amount of time saved by being able to take unfamiliar bus routes.
well-said friend. while >>45289731 has points as well, (GPS is its main saving grace imo) i really resonate with your sentiment. these things are toxic. people seem to forget that the WHO basically said they likely cause cancer. 4g is harmful to the human body and absolutely everything is accessible to the authorities thru spoofed cell towers and a whole host of other means, most of which we probably aren't yet aware of.
god forbid anyone's critical about technology around here, you unquestioning shitstain, 'the fuck up.
So this is what smartphones are breeding these days? People no longer knowing how to be independant, they will always need their hand held by a pocket device, it's fucking pathetic.
>inflated sense of self-importance thinking the gubment is watching him
Next thing you're gonna tell me is you frequent /pol/ for its deep and meaningful circlejer-I mean discussions.
Only if you don't know how to protect yourself. There are free software stacks for smartphones. You can install CyanogenMod or Replicant. You can use an Android phone without GApps. Unless we're going into conspiracy theory territory, you still have the freedom to modify your phone such that it has no more privacy issues than a dumbphone.
>the WHO basically said they likely cause cancer. 4g is harmful to the human body
This sounds like something that needs a citation.
You can make a similar argument about all modern technology, but there's no value in it. Smartphones provide a tangible benefit. You can definitely exist without them, but why wouldn't you allow yourself that benefit?
>if business leaders making over six figures are putting their phones in Faraday cages during meetings, then you know there's something to the notion.
First of all, why do you think that anyone is doing that? Second of all, being a "business leader" does not make someone technologically literate. Thirdly, you don't have to have any special insider knowledge to know that if you've got a networked device with a microphone that's not running 100% FLOSS software, you don't want it in the room when you're discussing your war strategies. It's paranoid to consider the risk significant, but it's also common sense that there is some risk, and sometimes things are sensitive enough to call for paranoia.
>The smartphone itself is ... not a great trade off for a 24/7 listening device in your pocket.
ANY phone, smart or otherwise, is potentially both a listening device and a tracking device if it is capable of networking and has a microphone. You are not adding to this risk when you upgrade to a smartphone.
You don't lose anything when you switch from a dumb phone to a smart phone, except the additional cost of the necessary data plan and the additional cost of the phone itself. What you gain is a personal computer, as opposed to an embedded computer running an RTOS that can't into user applications, and all the benefit of having a personal computer in your pocket. The additional capabilities of a smartphone make you more capable of doing things that are bad for your privacy just as they make you more capable of doing everything that you might ever want to do with a computer, but there's nothing about a smartphone that's inherently less private.
>It's pathetic to own things that you could live without!
So says someone who at this very moment is using a computer he doesn't need to own to shitpost on a board he doesn't need to browse.
>But I need this computer for work/school!
No you don't, it just helps. So do smartphones.
With the right approach to security and a good combination of utilities, a smartphone really can be useful. I have no shortage of uses for mine. It 's practically a linux laptop at this point.
>free software stacks for smartphones
There is free software for literally everything now, but it doesn't matter if your phone is 200% open source, audited software because the baseband processor is backdoored hardware and runs proprietary firmware. Having a completely FOSS phone will probably protect you against the majority of criminals but if you're talking in the context of Orwellian stuff, carriers and governments have unlimited access to your phone 99% of the time, even when you think they don't.
The first person or company to develop a completely free and open hardware, firmware, software, and network protocol phone will be swimming in cash. Currently the only one that even comes close is the Neo900, which is still in development and still uses a proprietary baseband processor, which defeats the purpose.
You can bet that the U.S. government has audited the source code, and does the same for every update, that the source code is modified for his needs, and that it's using secret military crypto tech.
But what makes you think dumbphone software isn't similarly backdoored? All I said was that you could make your smartphone as safe as a dumbphone. Are we talking about smartphones or all phones here?
I think the worst condemnation of smartphone ownership is the rush to argue against this post. Of all the completely valueless actions to undertake, you guys are going to defend smartphones against a single OP on 4chan? What are you doing? There's nothing in this thread for you or anyone else.
We're not African tribesman you daft fuck. Hurr durr you don't need dat blah blah. Since when do we reduce our lives to the bare needs? Did anyone even say smartphones were needs? We can't want shit?
>you don't need that, therefore you have to justify possession of it
I could just sit on your face and take a huge shit.
Most dumbphones are backdoored as well, but the range of their transceivers and limited connectivity means they can't be accessed 24/7. Also as far as I know, most dumbphones only have one battery that when removed truly powers off the device. Almost all smartphones today have a small "backup" battery that can be remotely switched on so your phone can transmit data to towers or Stingrays.
No I haven't removed the battery or used Faraday cages or any of that shit. We're talking hypothetically here. If the principle is a phone free from spying and backdoors, then I'm saying software really doesn't matter because of the hardware.
>you don't have to have any special insider knowledge to know that if you've got a networked device with a microphone that's not running 100% FLOSS software, you don't want it in the room when you're discussing your war strategies
iyou don't have to have any special insider knowledge to know that if you've got a networked device with a microphone that's not running 100% FLOSS software, you don't want it in the room when you're discussing your war strategies
i literally stopped reading there, and pretty much everything before that was shit too
I don't think that smartphones typically have better range. As far as I know, the difference between a smartphone and a dumb phone is that a dumb phone has a single processor the runs a cellular networking stack on an RTOS, and a GUI and a few basic applications on the same processor and RTOS, and the limitations imposed by the RTOS make development hard, application performance bad, and complex applications impractical. Smart phones add a second processor and operating system for providing a better interface and better application support. I've seen a tear down of my smart phone. If there's a second battery, it's far too small to be capable of powering a cellular transceiver for long. Those things use a lot of power.
Can I ask a serious question to some of you guys? And I'm not trying to pose this question in a condescending type of way either.
I understand the notion of fighting for your freedom. I understand that you should never give away valuable information to people whom wish to do nothing but market bullshit and sell it to you based on key phrases in your emails and your search patterns.
But what I don't understand is why you go to literally the 10th degree in order to protect information that no one cares about. Not a single person (unless I'm sadly mistaken) on /g/ has information on their drives that would call for encryption systems, switching to "muh non bot net OS".
It's like saying "in America we have the right to bare arms! Therefore I will devote a large majority of my mental capacity to buying firearms!"
I understand all of the technical gymnastics /g/ goes through with their technology from a hobbyist standpoint but not from a "muh freedoms" standpoint. None of you have information worth protecting, really.
So why do you do it?
A smartphone is essential to pretty much anyone who doesn't have constant access to a PC. And good luck making friends and professional contacts without being able to answer an SMS message.
Of course this sort of paranoid nonsense would happen on a site for shut-ins and NEETs.
Would you object to having the proverbial telescreen overtly installed in every room of your house? Of course you would. Everyone would, because people value privacy whether they have anything to hide or not. The things that the worlds most powerful governments and corporations are doing today aren't less intrusive than telescreens (they are actually far more intrusive), just less overt. They're more abstract, and that makes it easier to bury your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that burying your head in the sand is a good idea.
This is basically the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument, which is deeply flawed. Just google it.