FBI Taps Cells LIVE
 
Notifications
Clear all

FBI Taps Cells LIVE

8 Posts
8 Users
0 Reactions
1,061 Views
(@stan-sikorski)
Posts: 1710
Famed Member
Topic starter
 

FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html

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.
Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.
The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.
Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.
While the Genovese crime family prosecution appears to be the first time a remote-eavesdropping mechanism has been used in a criminal case, the technique has been discussed in security circles for years.
The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said 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."
Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone."
Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spyware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone--all without the owner knowing it happened. (The FBI declined to comment on Friday.)
"If a phone has in fact been modified to act as a bug, the only way to counteract that is to either have a bugsweeper follow you around 24-7, which is not practical, or to peel the battery off the phone," Atkinson said. Security-conscious corporate executives routinely remove the batteries from their cell phones, he added.
FBI's physical bugs discovered
The FBI's Joint Organized Crime Task Force, which includes members of the New York police department, had little luck with conventional surveillance of the Genovese family. They did have a confidential source who reported the suspects met at restaurants including Brunello Trattoria in New Rochelle, N.Y., which the FBI then bugged.
But in July 2003, Ardito and his crew discovered bugs in three restaurants, and the FBI quietly removed the rest. Conversations recounted in FBI affidavits show the men were also highly suspicious of being tailed by police and avoided conversations on cell phones whenever possible.
That led the FBI to resort to "roving bugs," first of Ardito's Nextel handset and then of Peluso's. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones approved them in a series of orders in 2003 and 2004, and said she expected to "be advised of the locations" of the suspects when their conversations were recorded.
Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit (p1) and (p2) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." That phrase could refer to software or hardware.
One private investigator interviewed by CNET News.com, Skipp Porteous of Sherlock Investigations in New York, said he believed the FBI planted a physical bug somewhere in the Nextel handset and did not remotely activate the microphone.
"They had to have physical possession of the phone to do it," Porteous said. "There are several ways that they could have gotten physical possession. Then they monitored the bug from fairly near by."
But other experts thought microphone activation is the more likely scenario, mostly because the battery in a tiny bug would not have lasted a year and because court documents say the bug works anywhere "within the United States"--in other words, outside the range of a nearby FBI agent armed with a radio receiver.
In addition, a paranoid Mafioso likely would be suspicious of any ploy to get him to hand over a cell phone so a bug could be planted. And Kolodner's affidavit seeking a court order lists Ardito's phone number, his 15-digit International Mobile Subscriber Identifier, and lists Nextel Communications as the service provider, all of which would be unnecessary if a physical bug were being planted.
A BBC article from 2004 reported that intelligence agencies routinely employ the remote-activiation method. "A mobile sitting on the desk of a politician or businessman can act as a powerful, undetectable bug," the article said, "enabling them to be activated at a later date to pick up sounds even when the receiver is down."
For its part, Nextel said through spokesman Travis Sowders: "We're not aware of this investigation, and we weren't asked to participate."
Other mobile providers were reluctant to talk about this kind of surveillance. Verizon Wireless said only that it "works closely with law enforcement and public safety officials. When presented with legally authorized orders, we assist law enforcement in every way possible."
A Motorola representative said that "your best source in this case would be the FBI itself." Cingular, T-Mobile, and the CTIA trade association did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mobsters: The surveillance vanguard
This isn't the first time the federal government has pushed at the limits of electronic surveillance when investigating reputed mobsters.

In one case involving Nicodemo S. Scarfo, the alleged mastermind of a loan shark operation in New Jersey, the FBI found itself thwarted when Scarfo used Pretty Good Privacy software (PGP) to encode confidential business data.
So with a judge's approval, FBI agents repeatedly snuck into Scarfo's business to plant a keystroke logger and monitor its output.
Like Ardito's lawyers, Scarfo's defense attorneys argued that the then-novel technique was not legal and that the information gleaned through it could not be used. Also like Ardito, Scarfo's lawyers lost when a judge ruled in January 2002 that the evidence was admissible.
This week, Judge Kaplan in the southern district of New York concluded that the "roving bugs" were legally permitted to capture hundreds of hours of conversations because the FBI had obtained a court order and alternatives probably wouldn't work.
The FBI's "applications made a sufficient case for electronic surveillance," Kaplan wrote. "They indicated that alternative methods of investigation either had failed or were unlikely to produce results, in part because the subjects deliberately avoided government surveillance."
Bill Stollhans, president of the Private Investigators Association of Virginia, said such a technique would be legally reserved for police armed with court orders, not private investigators.
There is "no law that would allow me as a private investigator to use that type of technique," he said. "That is exclusively for law enforcement. It is not allowable or not legal in the private sector. No client of mine can ask me to overhear telephone or strictly oral conversations."
Surreptitious activation of built-in microphones by the FBI has been done before. A 2003 lawsuit revealed that the FBI was able to surreptitiously turn on the built-in microphones in automotive systems like General Motors' OnStar to snoop on passengers' conversations.
When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.
Malicious hackers have followed suit. A report last year said Spanish authorities had detained a man who write a Trojan horse that secretly activated a computer's video camera and forwarded him the recordings.


 
Posted : 02/12/2006 10:25 am
Alex Linder
(@alex-linder)
Posts: 6701
Member Admin
 

Good article. Ought to call them slave phones. Or ear bracelets.


 
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:05 pm
(@confederate_soldier)
Posts: 79
Estimable Member
 

Thanks for the info. I thought I was safe by using a prepaid anonymous phone. But now it seems using a pager and going low tech is best. Pagers and public phones (land lines).


 
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:31 pm
Oy Ze Hate
(@oy-ze-hate)
Posts: 1565
Noble Member
 

I've heard that they also have GPS microchips in them. So that if need be, they can always locate you if you're carrying your cell phone.

Who needs RFID chip implants when FEDZOG can install all kinds of Big Brothery abominations in your harmless little cell phone?

1,200,000 results for cell+phone+GPS+tracking


Yeah, we're all just a bunch of hateful anti-semites

A note of appreciation from the rich

 
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:38 pm
elbwgreez
(@elbwgreez)
Posts: 332
Reputable Member
 

Seems like making the cell phones transmit audio all the time would severely limit the battery life. For this reason an alert "gangster" could figure this out, especially now it is common knowledge.


 
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:47 pm
Subrosa
(@subrosa)
Posts: 3262
Famed Member
 

Just another reason to ditch the high tech if and when the shooting starts.


 
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:48 pm
(@dan-allan)
Posts: 1180
Noble Member
 

Probably in order to prevent another Cronulla Beach-style uprising. Wherein, the White men used some sort of cell phone technology (although I don't know if it's the same as being discussed here) to coordinate and unite against the nonwhites.


 
Posted : 02/12/2006 2:56 pm
James Woroble Jr.
(@james-woroble-jr)
Posts: 626
Noble Member
 

It get's worse...
[color="Red"]
Nike+ IPod = Surveillance

By Annalee Newitz
Nov, 30, 2006

If you enhance your workout with the new Nike+ iPod Sport Kit, you may be making yourself a surveillance target.

A report from four University of Washington researchers to be released Thursday reveals that security flaws in the new RFID-powered device from Nike and Apple make it easy for tech-savvy stalkers, thieves and corporations to track your movements. With just a few hundred dollars and a little know-how, someone could even plot your running routes on a Google map without your knowledge.

The Nike+ iPod gives runners real-time updates about the speed and length of their workouts via a small RFID device that fits into the soles of Nike shoes, and broadcasts workout data to a small receiver plugged into an iPod Nano.

While this setup sounds convenient and cool, it didn't sit well with Scott Saponas, a computer science graduate student at the University of Washington in Seattle. After enjoying his Nike+ iPod for a few months, Saponas began to suspect there might be other, more nefarious uses for the gear.

He brought his concerns to University of Washington computer science professor Yoshi Kohno and fellow graduate students Carl Hartung and Jonathan Lester. After just a few weeks of tinkering, the four researchers discovered that the Nike+ iPod is, as Kohno put it, "an easy surveillance device."

The first problem is that the RFID in the shoe sensor contains its own on-board power source, essentially turning your running shoe into a small radio station capable of being received from up to 60 feet away, with a signal powerful enough to be picked up from a passing car.

Compare this with the roughly 3-centimeter to 10-inch read range of a typical consumer-grade RFID, such as the kind you find in smart tags in Gap clothing or in credit cards, which is passively powered by the reader.

Additionally, the sensor will reveal its unique ID to any Nike+ iPod receiver. With a quick hardware hack that Kohno said "any high school student could do in the garage," the researchers hooked a Nike+ iPod receiver up to a Linux-based "gumstix" -- a tiny, $79 computer that could easily be hidden in door frames, in trees next to jogging trails or in a pocket.

In their report, the researchers detail a scenario in which a stalker who wants to know when his ex-girlfriend is at home taps into her Nike+ iPod system. He simply hides the gumstix device next to her door, and it registers her presence as she passes by in her Nike shoes. If he adds a small "wifistix" antenna to the device, it can transmit this information to any nearby Wi-Fi access point and alert him to her presence via SMS or by plotting her location on Google Maps.

A thief could use a similar set-up to case several houses at once, figuring out when Nike-wearing owners are at home and when they aren't.

Neither Apple nor Nike had comments at press time.

Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Lee Tien says the Nike+ iPod is a harbinger of things to come. "We're going to see more devices like this in the next few years," he said. "This isn't just a problem with the Nike+ iPod per se -- it's a cautionary tale about what happens when companies unwittingly build a surveillance capacity into their products."

UC Berkeley RFID researcher David Molnar agreed with Tien, adding, "This shows a need for independent oversight and investigation of these technologies before they go to market. These things happen because the people building devices don't think about privacy implications."

Molnar also speculated about how easy it would be for a company to build their own tiny readers and deploy them in a large environment, selling the data stream to those who would track spouses or teens, or collect information about how many people wearing Nikes visit malls or movie theaters. "Given that there are no laws about skimming data in California right now, it would be perfectly legal to do it there," he said.

The researchers, for their part, just want to see Apple, Nike and other manufacturers fix the problem. They offer a simple solution in their report, which is to build the sensors to speak to only one reader.

"Using relatively standard cryptographic techniques, you could make it very difficult to listen to broadcasts from somebody else's sensor," said Kohno. He hastened to add that he doesn't believe Apple and Nike purposefully designed the sensors to be surveillance-friendly. "I just think companies should be as aware of privacy issues as they are of safety issues," he said. "Too often, they aren't."


-
-
-

All is for naught without a good edJEW(K)shen.

[ Educational sites ]

The Jewish Tribal Review

JewWatch

WhatReallyHappened

Joe Vialls Investigations

Judicial Inc.

NJ Unfiltered

Vanguard News Network

 
Posted : 02/12/2006 4:09 pm
Share: