What are privacy implications of always on Bluetooth?
I am considering an Garmin watch, read this article by Mozzila, and wondering: if I will keep Bluetooth on all the time, what would be implications for privacy? I'm using GrapheneOS, ofc.
Perhaps anyone can share their experience with Garmin watches?
ptaski if I will keep Bluetooth on all the time, what would be implications for privacy?
If you have two devices on your person frequently communicating via Bluetooth, I believe that will make you locally trackable based on the two MAC addresses. A business, for example, will know it's the same person visiting on a later date. It is cheaper for people to track via Bluetooth versus cellular, though the range is much shorter.
A random citation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143622816307330
de0u interesting that the idea, which is far from wrong, that BT is "cheaper" for "people", not necessarily " the people", which typically can afford and access the cellular route, for tracking you suggests that a significant adversary with an eye on Bluetooth as a weapon is your zit faced basement hacker rather than the FBI.
You can kill Bluetooth in a win10 machine, though you have to first figure out that its a threat (usually by discovering the source of an attack) and then dig a little deeper into windows than most have time for (turn it off in the uefi settings). But where in android?
I mean at the radio shutdown level?
How about it, graphene is? Some of us ain't skared of the gubmint, and don't lose that much sleep over popups.
But some of us want miscreant creepers out of our business.
AccessDeniedBitch I'm not sure I follow. Is there a concern that turning Bluetooth off via the quick tile doesn't turn the radio off?
There is in my mind until I understand a good reason why the following scenario exists.
To be complete, but probably irrelevant, immediately after both of my gos installations, I found BT to be on. So I turn it off.
Seems like I'm done, no? I'll get into why I'm so fanatical about chucking BT below. But...since I am, o go through all the settings I know to reach, looking for my arch enemy, Bluetooth. Among the few is found in settings>apps>see all x apps> (with show system apps selected) Bluetooth.
There I find that this app has permissions to access a lot of things, like files, sensors, network, to name a few. Viewing the permissions reveals that they are all enabled and grayed out. Can't be disabled.
This begs the question: whats the point of disabling my ability to control access of a thing (that happens to be used to radio stuff in and out of what it can access) if I can actually turn it off? Without a sensible explanation, the situation is disturbing.
Now to why I'm overboard about this and use"disturbing".
My surface running updated win10 has, of course, BT capability. Left to its own devices, it will install some 15 drivers that allow BT to poke its nose into my system using various protocols. The drivers seem somewhat persistent. I found only one way to convince win10 that I goddamn fucking do not want Bluetooth in my surface: cut it off in uefi. This does the trick. No traffic per wireshark, no ability in any settings to enable BT.
If this same ability to kill BT in windows exists in gos/android, its not obvious to me that its effectively working.
Why do I want to control BT so badly?
Bluetooth was introduced before 9/11. Before McVeigh. Before Lockerbie. Before, I think, you could still install win95 on all your machines that would run it from the same CD.
Security then was such a joke that broward county required more care to keep someone from logging in to pay my water bill for me than boa required to keep others out of my business.
You couldn't joke about a bomb at the airport in 1979 but getting one on board and detonated seemed pretty trivial given the continuing incidents. We due don't have things like kiddie scripters. Hacking wasn't seen as a legit Method for your own little group of creeps to influence society.
Bluetooth was how you avoided wires in transport of mostly digital audio. I had some modules that did that. My bet is that I could have hacked into them to repurpose them, but I had two Harris prism radios leftover from a project, which did raw dsss with a mere setting of parameters. Cypress semiconductor started selling a 7 chip that did short range dsss soon after that and they still do.
None of these things had security in mind then. And I'm sure that workable drivers can be found.
In 1987, I was designing the camera head for a face recognition system. The hardware and firmware, including 16-bit is a card, were done but needed testing. The two guys doing the analysis software in I think winnt, were slow to get me something. A high school buddy happened to work there. What I needed was the old outp and inp (I think those are the names) that were no longer available in Borland c. Two days after I asked, this guy delivered to me a file that he wrote in Microsoft assembler. I had what I needed. It was that easy for him to poke through the security layers that nt had put in my way.
Security was just then starting to be taken seriously, long after Bluetooth should have been buried.
This mess gives me the concern that bluetooth, perhaps not by intent, offers more hacking possibilities than I care for. Having it remain in any of my systems whether I like it or not only sharpens that concern.
Threads of this type have been locked. Thank goodness, not before someone handed over how to shut down BT from adb.
I know that he was kind of saying "go ahead, but don't come crying to me when you brick your device".
I won't.
See, its my device to brick. My 349 to flush.
I was admonished for my aggressive style. I'll tone it down. But notice that it netted me a real answer just in the nick of time, for better or worse.
I'm retired from physical science in industry. Think abbott labs, raytheon, allied signal bendix. I know how to get answers. Once in a while its not pretty. Wish it were otherwise, and I apologize for ruffled feathers.
AccessDeniedBitch I was admonished for my aggressive style. I'll tone it down.
Please read our code of conduct https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/11-grapheneos-code-of-conduct
Your behavior and attitude is not just aggressive, it's selfish as well:
See, its my device to brick. My 349 to flush.
See, it's not just about your device, it's about what other people may or may not read on here, interrupt it wrongly, and could brick their device based on your comments.
But notice that it netted me a real answer just in the nick of time, for better or worse.
This is your official notice to notify you that I will be banning you if you continue acting with such careless disrespect for others on our discussion forum.
If you have any questions feel free to DM me on matrix @akc3n:grapheneos.org (please do not continue your rants here or any other threads, thank you.)
Edit: fix typos (autocorrect [you're < your]). Thanks @de0u
about [your] device
akc3n
Akc3n, i dont understand why you guys can't let this guy talk? Whats the big deal?
So he has some tone and some attitude, so what? Why is this such a big crime? Its not like he is going around disrupting the forum or verbally berating a GOS team member or any visitor.
What's the big damn deal about this guy being upset about something? He might have a false or misdirected gripe, but why should he be sensored and silenced? I don't get it. Is the reader so stupid that they'll be thrown off by this type of post and not be able to detect the same thing that the rest of us have, that such remarks must be taken with a grain of salt? And if a reader is that stupid, why should @AccessDeniedBitch or I pay for it?
This notion of me being responsible for someone else's "false interpretation" of my words is outrageous and a very dangerous precedence in a free thinking society.
You know fully well that if someone makes a post and is too rude or aggressive people will simply not engaged and answer him. Its an automatic self regulating social mechanism. Case and point > [deleted] . So why is it necessary to threaten him?
Frankly i think he is intelligent and funny, also a bit misdirected. But it doesnt deserve punishment. If this is your policy then your policy is going too far and it reflects very badly on you all. You are starting to resemble the "bad" types.
So please, let the man talk. People should be allowed to be wrong, mistaken, mad, upset, demanding, and have a bad day.
Ultimately my point is, "what is the big daaamn deal"?? Who got hurt? Its a freakin forum! All one has to do is not read that post or skip it!
So whats with the hammer flinging?
User2288 this is also a public forum and can be accessed by minors. It should be only appropriate that age walks hand in hand with wisdom and politeness.
[deleted] so should we go around and sensoring the whole internet (since its public) because minors exist?
How about the books in the library? They are public and have all kinds of things not appropriate minors and even offensive to adults. Yeah? Should we take all those books down? ....How about television?
Oh you know... How about we turn north america to Islamic Iran, or North Korea. There are no child inappropriate conversations in those countries. No conversations at all.
You don't know the hell you are talking about. I do. I recommend you study jordan peterson on the subject of free speech and implications of rules to regulate language.
Thread getting derailed, this was my last post on the subject.
User2288 I only looked at the first paragraph and didn't look at the rest. Are you looking to be the next?
I have made some mistakes in the past, but I have learned from them and now know that if I am not mentally fit for something, I would and should keep it to myself and stay away. Perhaps some do not acknowledge their mental state. I rest my case.
akc3n See, it's not just about [your] device, it's about what other people may or may not read on here, interrupt it wrongly, and could brick their device based on you're comments.
User2288 This notion of me being responsible for someone else's "false interpretation" of my words is outrageous and a very dangerous precedence in a free thinking society.
At the end of the day (or maybe the beginning), discuss.grapheneos.org is not Hyde Park or "the public square". It's a virtual server somewhere, rented by the GrapheneOS project, dedicated to helping people improve and better use GrapheneOS, staffed by volunteers, with content, generally of high quality, also provided by volunteers (thanks, everybody!). Both the technical detail and the tone reflect on the project.
Because the technical detail and the tone reflect on the project, the project can publish a community-standards guide, and the volunteer moderators can enforce it (sometimes making mistakes -- it happens!). Users who, in the (fallible human) judgment of the volunteer moderators, suggest things that might cause other users to suffer may well be requested to do things differently. This web site isn't a free society in the sense of being governed by one or another government's constitution; it's a free association in the sense of being a place where people who are more or less ok with the site's policies (as interpreted by fallible human volunteer moderators) choose to hang out to help each other.
Just my two cents! Please note that I do not speak for the GrapheneOS project.
re: With regards to the recent discussion in this thread and others, particularly about the behavior of certain individuals.
In line with our community guidelines and the principles upheld at GrapheneOS, I wish to directly address the concerns raised here.
Our Code of Conduct emphasizes maintaining a respectful, welcoming, and constructive environment. Discussions should focus on GrapheneOS, its features, and code, rather than on individuals. Every member deserves to participate without harassment, discrimination, or condescension.
While valuing free speech, essential in any thriving community, our platform specifically facilitates discussions about GrapheneOS. Differing opinions are welcome but must stay relevant, respectful, and constructive. This is about ensuring discussions are beneficial and safe for all, not just about expressing opinions.
Recently, certain comments/posts have deviated from these standards. Aggressive tones, confrontational styles, and resistance to community norms conflict with our commitment to a respectful discussion environment. Knowledge and experiences are valuable but should be shared considerately, in line with our guidelines.
Our moderation approach is not about censorship but maintaining discussion integrity. It's about aligning the community with our values and standards. Actions taken against specific posts or behaviors aim to uphold these agreed-upon standards, not to suppress individual voices.
Given these points, I encourage everyone to consider how their communication impacts the community. I am open to discussions within our guidelines, but persistent disruptive behaviors will prompt actions as outlined in our code of conduct to preserve our discussion quality.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. The strength of our community lies in our collective commitment to maintaining a respectful, informative, and supportive environment.
Footnotes:
Understanding Censorship, Free Speech, and Moderation
Our moderation is about ensuring that discussions remain on-topic, respectful, and constructive, based on our rules and code of conduct. This includes preventing harassment, misinformation, and off-topic discussions, fostering a positive environment for discussing GrapheneOS.
AccessDeniedBitch Threads of this type have been locked.
Censorship involves suppressing opinions or information based on their unpopularity or variance from a certain viewpoint. What might seem like censorship in our community is actually moderation aligned with our guidelines. We don't suppress free speech; we strive to maintain a space for focused, constructive discussions about GrapheneOS.
User2288 why should he be sensored and silenced?
Respecting free speech, we prioritize keeping our community a productive and respectful space for GrapheneOS discussions. Moderator actions are not censorship but efforts to uphold our community standards.
User2288 so should we go around and sensoring the whole internet (since its public) because minors exist?
Back with the original topic… what implications does having Bluetooth on with a smartwatch or wireless earbuds have?
I guess it increases attack surface and reduces privacy as @de0u said, because os the two MAC addresses of the two BT radios talking to each other constantly? Is that any different than having BT on? There’s only one MAC, but whoever wants to track BT devices, can still track that person, right? (That’s the reason why I like the auto off feature for BT and wifi).
What would be the mitigations if someone was still inclined in wearing a smartwatch? Using an LTE smartwatch and not use BT?
AccessDeniedBitch
Did the answer i gave you in the other thread that was closed answer your question?
On topic, I read the the Garmin link. It goes to can you trust what they say about not sharing your PII and other info with 3rd parties? The watch does look nice. A link was posted in another thread to an open source watch. Watch looked clunky IMO and screen was lame, but I'm used to sacrificing for security/privacy.
As for Bluetooth itself, I don't see it as being secure as WiFi with a VPN at all. If you have Bluetooth scanning (along with WiFi scanning) off that eliminates a lot of location and ad tracking. While the Bluetooth connection to a watch or a car infotainment may not be very secure from a hacking standpoint, it also has a very short range. I'm not very concerned about a hack as someone would need to be really targeting me personally and can't hack me by other "easier" (easier in a long distance remote attack without having to follow me) means that is not in my threat model. I'm not particularly concerned about a Bluetooth hack, unless I am missing something in that it can be done long range. The concern for me is the device you are connected to slurping up what it can and sending it off. For my car, it is an older model where the infotainment does not connect to the internet so I am not concerned with data loss using Organic Maps or Magic Earth with Bluetooth turn-by-turn. I am still grappling with a watch along those lines. The key would be only being able to transmit to my GOS phone.
Garmin is not as invasive regarding privacy concerns compared to others as far as I can tell. I'm experimenting with GOS and paired a Fenix to the Connect app on the main profile, with Gapps disabled. The notification push to watch is useful at home, while airplane mode is switched on when out to prevent the constant watch broadcasting. The offline map and GarminPay features are handy even in airplane mode. I'm unsure about the app's Bluetooth chattiness and have disabled app's BT scanning permissions via adb. The app's third party internet connection is limited to Google Firebase - DNS blocked.
Most of Garmin's newer watches can upload exercise activities via Wi-Fi and be viewed on the Connect website without phone involvement at all, perhaps that is the way to go.
As for Bluetooth itself, I don't see it as being secure as WiFi with a VPN at all. If you have Bluetooth scanning (along with WiFi scanning) off that eliminates a lot of location and ad tracking.
Having Wi-Fi/Bluetooth scanning enabled only allows apps with the Location / Nearby Devices permissions to do scans while Wi-Fi or Bluetooth are otherwise disabled. If you don't give out those permissions, it makes no difference. The scanning toggles are off by default on GrapheneOS, and standard permissions like these are never granted to user installed apps by default.
am missing something in that it can be done long range
Bluetooth can be quite long range. It depends on the radios at both ends. Most Bluetooth accessories have very weak radios, but the radio in the phone can work quite far away. If there was a strong radio on the other end, it should work from quite far away.
The concern for me is the device you are connected to slurping up what it can and sending it off.
It can't do any of that unless you explicitly give it access to data.
de0u No, there are different Bluetooth standards with different versions of privacy features. It depends on the Bluetooth version used by the accessory. Modern Bluetooth LE attempts to provide much more privacy than Wi-Fi with MAC randomization, since it rotates the MAC addresses while in use and randomizes them on both ends. It's far from perfect but it's a lot more private than carrying a Wi-Fi AP with you where the AP has a fixed MAC address. GrapheneOS uses per-connection MAC randomization but it remains the same while connected, which isn't as good as what the Bluetooth LE privacy features provide.
