|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2007 : 19:17:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by HalfMooner
"Tracking" is not "recording," Jerome.
Legally, all cell phones in the USA are being required to have a method of being located. This can be, but often isn't, GPS. That's to make emergency response available to someone who can't give their location. Regular land-line phones have had a location system called E-911 established for many years, and it's a life-saver.
|
Yes, and with the tracking ability they can download a program that allows them to listen to one on one, person to person conversations.
| A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." |
|
Shame on you for not reading (or for ignoring) what Mab and Kil posted, Jerome! The FBI had to first get a court order, then physically install a device in the phone. It's not done remotely!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/19/2007 20:39:03 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2007 : 20:48:39 [Permalink]
|
Actually Mooner the ABC report that Jerome linked to suggested that they can do it without planting a device in it.
In any case, they still have to get a court order to listen in on the phone no matter how it's done. The first article was rather ambiguous about that and I had to follow the links to get to the truth of it.
My problem with this is if they don't have to place a device in the phone perhaps it makes it too easy. Going after Mafioso using a wiretap or a bugging device is nothing new. But it is not all that easy to plant bugs. If they don't need to plant bugs, perhaps they will expand the use of bugging simply because it's relatively easy.
Again, I have no reason to doubt Mab since he works for a company that builds cell phones. As of this writing, I just don't know enough…Perhaps an Erickson phone can't be bugged remotely but a Nokia can be?
Here is the part that gets me. How in the world did the FBI get their hands on and plant a bug in at the very least ten targeted personal cell phones if it wasn't done remotely?
Edited to add:
Actually, I don't know if they bugged one phone or ten. Ten people moved to suppress conversations intercepted by listening devices. That doesn't mean ten people were bugged. Only that they were picked up by a bug. Hmmmm...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 21:15:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Actually Mooner the ABC report that Jerome linked to suggested that they can do it without planting a device in it.
In any case, they still have to get a court order to listen in on the phone no matter how it's done. The first article was rather ambiguous about that and I had to follow the links to get to the truth of it.
My problem with this is if they don't have to place a device in the phone perhaps it makes it too easy. Going after Mafioso using a wiretap or a bugging device is nothing new. But it is not all that easy to plant bugs. If they don't need to plant bugs, perhaps they will expand the use of bugging simply because it's relatively easy.
Again, I have no reason to doubt Mab since he works for a company that builds cell phones. As of this writing, I just don't know enough…Perhaps an Erickson phone can't be bugged remotely but a Nokia can be?
Here is the part that gets me. How in the world did the FBI get their hands on and plant a bug in at the very least ten targeted personal cell phones if it wasn't done remotely?
|
It seemed pretty clear from your source that the FBI had to physically place a bugging device in the phone, which would agree with what Mab wrote. I think the ABC source is wrong. Why would they have gone to all that trouble, if they could have instead just flicked a remote switch?
Answering your question is impossible for me, but I'd suggest it involves good police work (not my area of expertise), and maybe cooperating people close to the mob suspects. Maybe they arranged with the cell service providers to create glitches in the cell phones from the network side, then had the cell companies tell the mobsters they should bring in their phones for a quick "upgrade" to fix the glitch? Or they could have simply snuck someone into their homes to snatch the phones, replacing them as they still slept. Likely, they used several methods.
I do think the potential for abuse of cell phone systems is scary, even if it's limited to physical location tracking (which I think does not require a phone conversation to be in progress to work). And it's probably not all just potential, since the methods and extent of domestic "anti-terror" electronic spying are secret.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/19/2007 21:19:38 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 21:33:15 [Permalink]
|
This is from a technology news information site:
FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool
The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.
The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him. |
Also, the U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns:| a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone. |
And, The Financial Times reports:
| mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call". |
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:02:29 [Permalink]
|
From Wiki
Some mobile phone (cell phone) microphones can be activated remotely, without any need for physical access, even when the phone is switched off. This roving bug feature is reportedly being used by law enforcement agencies and intelligence services to listen in on nearby conversations. A United States court ruled in 2006 that a similar technique, used by the FBI against a mobster after having obtained a court order, was permissible.[3] While it is not possible to do this with every mobile phone as of 2006, some models are susceptible to being remotely reprogrammed with this capability without the knowledge of its owner. Purportedly, the person carrying the phone will not know that the phone is transmitting his conversation, but an observant owner may notice that the battery is being depleted sooner than expected. |
Here is an interesting article that doesn't exactly answer the question. FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool.
Okay, I have looked in several places and there doesn't seem to be agreement on whether a device must be planted or it can be done remotely… So I am still wondering myself.
I doubt that Jerome is wondering though. He hasn't figured out what skepticism is actually about…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:10:23 [Permalink]
|
Kil, the logistics seem simple enough, there are valid reasons to do it, and it has been published without denial. I do not see why one should be skeptical.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:13:41 [Permalink]
|
| This Financial Times story that Jerome quoted from but forgot to link to seems to be the original story on the “Roving Bug.” Many stories cite it without actually linking to it, which I find odd. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:26:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Yes, and with the tracking ability they can download a program that allows them to listen to one on one, person to person conversations. |
The "tracking ability" has nothing to do with the ability to download firmware.
| A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." |
As Mab has indicated, this is highly dependant on the individual phone's firmware. Secrets like that are difficult (although I won't say impossible) to keep. It's unlikely that all software developers from all handset manufacturers are in on the conspiracy.
I know that a long time ago (years) it was possible to activate a mic remotely and use it this way, but it is not a technique used now. At least not legally. I am speaking only from an Australian POV. If a warrant is issued to monitor telephone conversations, it is not achieved from the handset. There are many reasons why that would be a poor implementation.
At any rate, the real issue is whether or not they're doing it illegally. If they have legal permission to listen to conversations, what does it matter that they do it using a phone handset, parabolic mic, or recording device placed somewhere?
I realise that technology can (and does) make abuses of privacy easier to implement, but crippling the technology won't help, we have to learn to deal with it at a non-technical level.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 07/19/2007 22:28:47 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:27:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil, the logistics seem simple enough, there are valid reasons to do it, and it has been published without denial. I do not see why one should be skeptical.
|
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is
simple, neat, and wrong."
--Henry L. Mencken |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:36:30 [Permalink]
|
John:
At any rate, the real issue is whether or not they're doing it illegally. If they have legal permission to listen to conversations, what does it matter that they do it using a phone handset, parabolic mic, or recording device placed somewhere? |
Right.
John:
I realise that technology can (and does) make abuses of privacy easier to implement, but crippling the technology won't help, we have to learn to deal with it at a non-technical level. |
Right again... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:40:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Kil, the logistics seem simple enough, there are valid reasons to do it, and it has been published without denial. I do not see why one should be skeptical.
|
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is
simple, neat, and wrong."
--Henry L. Mencken
|
In Baltimore, we (including Mencken) do not term simple realities, complex problems.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:47:45 [Permalink]
|
When privacy is concerned I think of politics. We know that political power generally wants to keep that power and will do unscrupulous and sometimes illegal things to keep that power (Nixon). A free people should not trust the political elite to only use their power legally and for good. Enumerable times in history we have seen this sort of power used against the peoples will.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 22:51:23 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I would just suggest that anytime one wants to post a startling idea, he or she should first carefully read up on it, and understand its basics. So far, we see no convincing argument either way, as to whether even some present-day cell phones can be remotely rigged to transmit voices within range of their mics. Not disproved, but not proven.
On the other hand, I suspect the US is equipped to track locations, and listen into cell phone conversations almost anywhere in the world, and probably does it now domestically and without warrants, too under the new domestic spying program. Internationally, this would be mainly the NSA's job, and it's been mentioned as a capability in tracking terrorists and narco-traffickers for years.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/19/2007 22:56:17 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 06:19:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
John:
At any rate, the real issue is whether or not they're doing it illegally. If they have legal permission to listen to conversations, what does it matter that they do it using a phone handset, parabolic mic, or recording device placed somewhere? |
Right.
John:
I realise that technology can (and does) make abuses of privacy easier to implement, but crippling the technology won't help, we have to learn to deal with it at a non-technical level. |
Right again...
|
Damn, two in a row? I think I'll take the weekend off..
Actually, apart from being mostly irrelevant, the methodology used by law enforcement is often protected. Here, it's called Public Interest Immunity (PII).
The idea being, if a bad guy's lawyer tries to call us techs into court to disclose the means by which certain evidence was obtained (e.g. Police Psychics) generally in order to attempt to discredit it, we claim PII, as putting our technology or methodology into public records would significantly reduce it's future effectiveness.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 07:40:01 [Permalink]
|
Most phones only have about 2 hours battery life while actively using the phone.
If you want to use the phone as a listening device, you have to make the phone dial out to your listening post. When it does, the time starts ticking... The power consumption will practically be the same as for a regular call, perhaps a little less if you know the phone's location and can use a parabolic receiver to get a good reception of a weaker signal. The LCD display of a phone consumes a small fraction of the transmitter, as does the lighting for the display, so making the phone connect a call stealthily does not extend battery life. Also, there are those flashy antennas you can buy at tech- shops that has diodes that starts blinking when the phone receives a call. Such a fancy gadget will be a dead give-away for a bugged phone using this method.
I seriously doubt that a recording can be used in court to identify speaking people.
I've heard that JPEG photos can be dismissed as evidence in court because the lossy compression of the photo means that the pic will not show an exact representation of what was being photographed.
Is this really true?
Anyway, a phone bug's signal strength has to be good as to not loose quality. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
FBI Spying From Your Cell Phone
