Confiscating the Phone Records of US Citizens

[BKDotCom]

Just because you have cell phone records or even all the conversations/text messages recorded, that still doesn't tell you who 918-xxx-xxxx belongs to until you get a court order.   

No court order required to use the Google

[TeeDub]

General eavesdropping should not be allowed.  I don't want a govt that looks at all calls, particularly the actual conversation data, and then uses that data to track everyday citizens.   They need to have a reason, first, and then ask for the call and/or personal data.  This is, to me, philosophically similar to police setting up the random check stations for drunk drivers.  It's a blanket search that indiscriminately targets everyone, and then sweeps up whatever it can find.   I'm all for stopping drunk drivers, but general-public check stations are over the line.  (JMHO)

It is my understanding that eavesdropping requires a court order.   All call records (to/from/duration) are not considered confidential.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_message_accounting)

[patric]

It is my understanding that eavesdropping requires a court order.   All call records (to/from/duration) are not considered confidential.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_message_accounting)

You are referencing old landline Caller ID tech from the '80's, not the unwarranted mass mining of digital communications by persons not a party to those conversations.

Are you not allowed to talk about Stingrays?

[BKDotCom]

You are referencing old landline Caller ID tech from the '80's, not the unwarranted mass mining of digital communications by persons not a party to those conversations.

Are you not allowed to talk about Stingrays?

Are you implying I could throw up a cell-tower and listen in on my neighbors?
(this is considered a man-in-the-middle attack)

[patric]

Are you implying I could throw up a cell-tower and listen in on my neighbors?
(this is considered a man-in-the-middle attack)

Paraphrasing Rebounds point, "could" does not necessarily mean "should."

That technology exists.  It's illegal as hell but agencies seem to think that their nondisclosure agreements somehow bypass the U.S. Constitution.

[TeeDub]

That technology exists.  It's illegal as hell but agencies seem to think that their nondisclosure agreements somehow bypass the U.S. Constitution.

Strangely, I don't think there are any laws about performing a cellular "man in the middle" attack OTHER than the fact you would be rebroadcasting on a licensed spectrum that is "owned" by a particular cellular provider.

Much like email...   If you choose to send it unencrypted, you shouldn't get too angry that someone may read it.

[patric]

Strangely, I don't think there are any laws about performing a cellular "man in the middle" attack OTHER than the fact you would be rebroadcasting on a licensed spectrum that is "owned" by a particular cellular provider.

Much like email...   If you choose to send it unencrypted, you shouldn't get too angry that someone may read it.

Its called wiretapping, and yes it is against the law.

Are you not allowed to talk about Stingrays?

[TeeDub]

Don't know much about Stingrays.   Got to pet one once.

Wiretapping is not the same as a man in the middle.   I am not a lawyer, but I thought wiretapping must involve eavesdropping.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/03/wifi_imsi_catcher/

[patric]

As long as you are willing to pay the NSA for the privilege of carrying a GPS tracker in your pocket, you have no expectation of privacy.

...or that police equipment doesnt find its way into the hands of organized crime.




For the first time, the U.S. government has publicly acknowledged the existence in Washington of what appear to be rogue devices that foreign spies and criminals could be using to track individual cellphones and intercept calls and messages.

The use of what are known as cellphone-site simulators by foreign powers has long been a concern, but American intelligence and law enforcement agencies — which use such eavesdropping equipment themselves — have been silent on the issue until now.

The agency's response, obtained by The Associated Press from Wyden's office, suggests little has been done about such equipment, known popularly as Stingrays after a brand common among U.S. police departments.

http://time.com/5226553/spying-devices-washington/

[TeeDub]

...or that police equipment doesnt find its way into the hands of organized crime.

Why not just build your own?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/03/wifi_imsi_catcher/

https://hackaday.com/2016/04/08/build-your-own-gsm-base-station-for-fun-and-profit/

[patric]

Why not just build your own?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/03/wifi_imsi_catcher/

https://hackaday.com/2016/04/08/build-your-own-gsm-base-station-for-fun-and-profit/

From time-to-time someone gets the bright idea to sell their departments hardware
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/ex-tulsa-police-officer-who-sold-police-guns-now-indicted/article_59420378-f975-5914-a1fa-aa0274ddcda1.html
and selling a much-desired item that technically doesnt even exist might have crossed their mind.

So now its in the nations best interests for people to track down and neutralize fake cell sites (which violate FCC rules anyway) and use strong encryption on cell phones, now that Homeland Security brought the problem to our attention.

[patric]

Senators Urge Release of Unclassified Records on Suspected Foreign Use of 'Stingray' Devices in US
https://gizmodo.com/senators-urge-dhs-to-release-unclassified-records-on-su-1825363211


Developed by a team of security researchers based in Germany, the CryptoPhone works by measuring three potential indicators of an IMSI catcher in action. The first notes when a phone shifts from a more-secure 3G network to a less-secure 2G one.
The second detects when a phone connection strips away encryption, making interception easier. And the third reports when a cell tower fails to make available a list of other cell towers in the area; this is called a "neighbor's list," and it allows phones to easily switch between nearby towers. IMSI catchers typically don't offer lists of alternatives because they seek to keep phones captured.

[patric]

Defending Privacy, Supreme Court Says Warrants Generally Are Necessary to Collect Cell Phone Data
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html

Basically just tells departments to do what we do and claim the data siphoned up with Stingrays is actually coming from "confidential informants."

[Breadburner]

Defending Privacy, Supreme Court Says Warrants Generally Are Necessary to Collect Cell Phone Data
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html

Basically just tells departments to do what we do and claim the data siphoned up with Stingrays is actually coming from "confidential informants."

Speed Humps have listening devices..You have been warned....

[cannon_fodder]

Breadburner:  are you okay?  In the last few months,most of your posts have not made any sense. Its not that I disagree with them or think they are mean, they are incoherent.  That wasn't a trend until recently.  What gives?

- -

On the ruling:  it makes sense to me.  The government's argument was that you are voluntarily giving up data, so they should be able to scoop it up without justification.  A cell phone is essentially required to operate in the modern world. I cannot imagine the founding fathers being okay with the government tracking every person's movement (and potentially their contacts and/or content) simply as the cost of operating in the modern world.

Getting a warrant is a low hurdle.

The split on issues like this continues to surprise me.   We have seen a shift in the last ~25-30 years.  The conservatives are now more likely to trust the government and want to grant it more powers, the liberals are more likely to be skeptical of the power of the State and to check it.  Ideologically, that seems backwards to me.