Comments 1 - 7 of 7 Search these comments
If the phone is trying to communicate when off. Then putting it in a shielded enclosure, I think would drain it faster than a phone that is not.
I have noticed my phone will consume the battery 3 times quicker if I'm in a dead spot. Where I can't get a signal or a wifi signal.
The phone gets hot, because every radio on the device is constantly pinging trying to find a signal to connect to.
A fully charged battery will last me 3 days, if I did minimal browsing, and took and made phone call in normal usage frequency. Not staying on the phone a long time during each call. But if I'm in a dead zone, my fully battery will drain within 8 hours or less .
If this is true, and phones relay information even when supposedly "off," then a way to test this is to measure battery draw-down for 2 cases:
(1) phone off, but not shielded from signals
(2) phone off and fully shielded by a 100% steel enclosure
For the second case, an effective shielding enclosure will be determined by the ability of the phone to receive calls when inside the enclosure. I have already verified this to be the case using a steel lock box to enclose the receiving phone.
The wrinkle here is that determining battery depletion by battery voltage is a classic inverse problem; i.e., a battery's voltage is essentially constant until it is almost depleted.
I suppose I could keep the phone on and use an app to monitor battery usage. This would probably introduce confounding factors.
The reason why I want to conduct an experiment of this nature is to unambiguously quantify the nature of the threat. If I could verify that the phone transmits surreptitiously even when "off," then that confirms the warnings of the woosphere (which I am willing to accept given proof).