Slashdot Mirror


Russians Order Mobile Phone Encryption Removed

PenguinRadio writes "The Moscow Times is reporting that Russian security officers (The FSB, formerly the KGB) ordered all mobile phone providers to switch off their encryption systems for 24 hours, so the police could eavesdrop on all calls. An alert, either an exclamation point or an unlocked padlock, was sent to the phones in question. This is the second time such an order was given - the last time was after the hostage crisis involving Chechnya fighters in a Moscow theater. At least the Russian has the courtesy to warn all their phone users that this was going on. Not sure what the standard FBI procedure is on something like this..."

81 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Standard FBI procedure is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    to deny, deny, deny.

    1. Re:Standard FBI procedure is.. by noah_fense · · Score: 2, Informative


      Every carrier (land based or cellular) in the united states MUST be FBI compliant. That means if the FBI wants to tap your phone, all they need is a court order. And the carrier must own equipment capable of intercepting calls.

      Apparently there are less than 100 wiretaps every year, but compliance was mandated by the FCC sometime in late 2001, early 2002. I know this because I worked on carrier class VoIP equipment that needed to meet this FCC requirement. (We ended writing up a perl script).

      This means the FBI might not be able to listen to you speak on your cell phone from across the street, but they can listen sitting at their desk in their office.

      -n

    2. Re:Standard FBI procedure is.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      So....could someone get into said VoIP phone...and 're-write' the perl script to turn things off?

      ;-)

      Also...what about people using PGPhone and such...wouldn't that be pretty tough for them to eavesdrop on you?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. The official FBI policy... by bc90021 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is probably to have every undercover agent in Russia drop what they're doing and man some listening devices. ;)

  3. The FBI by vought · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Don't the NSA and FBI have access to the keys to unlock encryption per user here, or did I just see that in a bad movie* at some point?

    *Mercury Rising/Consipracy Theory/That horrible movie with Denzel, etc.

    1. Re:The FBI by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The session key used by the A5 cipher in the GSM standard is 64 bits. Interestingly, ten of those bits are not used. Suspicious people have claimed that the key length was reduced to facilitate eavesdropping. Carriers hotly deny this (http://jya.com/gsm042098.txt).

      Looking at it from first principles, there'd be little reason to disable encryption for a single user. Law enforcement could tap the phone network downstream of the tower, and intelligence services would want to listen to everybody. (I'm speculating 'cause I don't know).

    2. Re:The FBI by bhimaji · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The clipper chip was most assuredly implemented. In fact, Clipper chips sold more PCMCIA interfaces for desktop computers than just about any other application. Clipper chips were sealed modules, and PCMCIA seemed like the best way to package them.

      Interestingly, there was an attack for the Clipper chip which would let you encrypt your messages such that they would appear to be decryptable by the government, but if they tried to decrypt them they'd fail.

      Clipper worked as well as having government agents dressed in nazi-esque outfits in locksmith stores asking for voluntary copies of your house keys would work. That's to say, government agencies used it, but nobody else.

    3. Re:The FBI by photon317 · · Score: 4, Insightful


      The difference is the general level of hassle and red tape, as well as accountability. Of course if you're up there in intelligence I'm sure you can unaccountably "tap" the land phone network at will using more advanced systems (Echelon and whatever's come since come to mind) - but if you're just part of some FBI field office trying to handle an immediate situation akin to the Chechnya incident the landline option means you have to get authorization and go on record for doing it, and you have to be precise about what you're tapping, and you could be delayed by all the BS. If you can tap the airwaves easily (supposing you have a laptop that can crack the effectively 54-bit encryption of a GSM call on the air), you can do it without the fuss and without being accountable.

      Don't forget also that finding the right landline call to tap might be a needle in a haystack problem, but finding the right cellular call can be fairly easy if you're on-site near the caller, since you can just look for strong enough signal strength to be within a given radius of you physically, and furthermore even triangulate the signals' positions.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    4. Re:The FBI by asynchronous13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do US cell phones even use encryption? I few years ago I worked at a company that made high-speed A/D and D/A converters. One of our test setups picked out the strongest 10 cell phone signals and we could listen in to whichever one we chose. all for, uhh, testing purposes, of course. I know that we weren't breaking any 64 bit (or 54 bit) encryptions on 10 different channels in real-time.

    5. Re:The FBI by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good info on GSM technology in that link. I've always had a preference for GSM over the competing standards. It's always seemed like a more elegant solution, especially when it comes to using SIMs.

      Seemed for quite a while that GSM was going to die in Canada, but with two networks now, we're going pretty strong. With the exception of the first (analog) phone I bought, everything else has been GSM and I love the convenience of just moving my SIM from phone to phone and never having to call the company to register a handset, transfer details, worry about programming, etc.

      As posted, the GSM encryption is more than secure enough to stop casual evesdropping. It wouldn't stop law enforcement or government for long, but they can always just monitor at the cell cite, or have the service provider archive the data stream from suspect handsets anyway.

      By contrast, my 900mhz cordless phone at home has absolutely no encryption and could be monitored (albiet at short range) by anyone with a scanner. Consequently, I'd rather use the cell for talking to banks, making purchases with credit cards, etc.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    6. Re:The FBI by shepd · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      >NTSC, CDMA, all these things that the USA insists are better, when they quite clearly aren't.

      Tell you what, why don't you set your monitor to 50 Hz for a while and see that you don't come crawling back for 60 Hz NTSC goodness.

      I ask everyone nowadays that I know who has been on a trip to europe if they felt their eyes bugging out on them when they watched TV over there. Without failure, the answer is always "Yeah, it's weird, their TVs hurt my eyes. How'd you know about that?"

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    7. Re:The FBI by laemas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The session key used by the A5 cipher in the GSM standard is 64 bits. Interestingly, ten of those bits are not used."

      indeed , 10 of those bits were set to 0 by request of the American government , to allow easy decryption by unauthorised parties. 56 bit key is a hell of a lot easyer to decrypt than 64 bits.
      Also , you can buy mobile base stations for a few thousand usd. One of the examples shown to me worked by telling the phone it was in iraq/iran/somewhere else , the phone would not encrypte the call then. Something to do with not selling "weapons" to these countrys.

      All this was told to me by an ex-CIA agent friend of mine.

    8. Re:The FBI by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, I live in the goddamn middle of Atlanta, and I can't get a Sprint PCS connection without climbing on a building or something...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  4. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The KGB unencrypts YOU!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is the one time when I think Soviet Russia jokes are on topic.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "This is the one time when I think Soviet Russia jokes are on topic."

      Hopefully they'll focus on making them funny.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  5. scary by MrLint · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It kind of concerns me that the encryption isnt hardwired into the phone, and that it can be turned on an off at a whim. I wonder if the russian or US govt's allow the encryption on their stuff be turned off, or is this a lowly citizen thing only.

    1. Re:scary by ogre2112 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you were worried, I would assume you could rig up some sort of device to record your voice
      digitally which could then be encrypted if you wished, then change it into an analog signal which
      would be transmitted over the cellphone. Then the receiver could have a device to recieve the
      analog signal to decrypt it.

      Oh wait, they already invented modems. Damn, I'm always late with these ideas.

  6. Huh? by pv2b · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only thing GSM encryption prevents is eavesdropping on GSM calls with radio receivers. Law enforcement can still wiretap where the GSM call hits the copper, after all the call has to be decrypted by the phone network.

    I don't really see why they'd have to do this, technically.

    Perhaps they just wanted to "appease" the public by showing them that they are invading their privacy to search for Chechyen terrorists? After all, this is pretty visible.

    1. Re:Huh? by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it has quite an effect showing terrorists how their connection can be eavesdropped.

      Agreed... Though probably not the desired effect.

      "What? Those bastards can disable our nice secure channel any time they want? Well then, time to buy a few third-party end-to-end crypto devices that not only can't they disable at whim, but can't tap when it hits a landline either".

      Yeah. Great idea.

      When the hell will people learn that the "real" threats to our safety (not counting "stupid" criminals who barely escape a Darwin nomination) have enough of a clue not to trust any form of privacy they don't have direct control over?

    2. Re:Huh? by pv2b · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A Swedish company named Sectra among other things sell mobile phones with non-standard strong encryption, that only works between two of the same phones.

      But with normal GSM, not really. The GSM encryption, from what I've understood, is only intended to stop normal people from building equipment to eavesdrop on calls, not to stop law enforcement wiretaps.

    3. Re:Huh? by Fred+IV · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Even a mobile-to-mobile call has to go through the network. When you call someone using a cell phone, you're not calling their phone directly, your call goes to an antenna, goes through a network, sometimes goes to another network if you're roaming, goes to another antenna, goes to the person you're calling.

      You could get a seperate unit for you and the person you're calling like this one, but betting odds are that if someone really wants to know what you're talking about then it's going to be hacked anyway.

    4. Re:Huh? by dmszero · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What about calls made to mobiles on the same cell? surely the base station will not route this to the network and back?

      dms0

      --
      -= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
    5. Re:Huh? by hughk · · Score: 3, Informative
      Technically, GSM networks are quite hard to tap in the conventional sense because the way that the switches are interconnected and the calls bounce around between BSEs. Essentially, monitoring GSM requires extra software, that even in Western countries, is only being grudgingly installed by the networks.

      Also, to activate the tap requires the cooperation of the network. This means a nasty trail of paperwork and inconvenient things like warrants. This is fine when you are chasing Chechnyans, but awefully inconvenient when all you want to do is to place a squeeze on an oligarch.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  7. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by lewp · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder if they care that I'm having a fight with my girlfriend and am calling your wife to make arrangements to stay over tonight.

    --
    Game... blouses.
  8. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by craigtay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So should we just resort to random police raids? I'm sure they would find plenty of illegal stuff, but at the same time I really don't want some police person coming over to my house when I'm trying to have dinner with my family. This is pretty much the same thing. I don't want to have to worry constantly that I'm doing something slightly illegal and will get in trouble on a technicality.

  9. Why bother? by provolt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Not sure what the standard FBI procedure is on something like this.

    Why bother shutting off the encryption? Why not just go the the cell tower and and tap the line? Seems like it would be much easier than trying to pick calls out of the air. If you just disable the encryption, then the police would have to set up their own receiver. Why not just take advantage of receiver that's already available?

    1. Re:Why bother? by provolt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So they can track down the physical location of the person making the call?


      If the phone is within range of two towers the location could be pinned down to two locations, and a single location if it's in range of three towers. This isn't ideal, but it seems a lot more practical than dropping encryption for a large area and then using directional antennas to track them.

    2. Re:Why bother? by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They can already do this, in fact at least one phone companies policy on E-911 involves making modest upgrades to their basestation network to allow triangulation of customer devices to lead police or EMS units to the phones location when a 911 call is made.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  10. It's foil-hat-tastic by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not sure what the standard FBI procedure is on something like this...

    Isn't it obvious? They originate the signal from their secret base on the dark side of the moon, route it through ECHELON, then through the chip in your cerebellum, off the relay in the piece of fried chicken you're eating, through your computer just on general principles, then to your cell phone where it summarily cracks the encryption and displays the letters "BB." Then it kills you.

  11. This is not the second time by srk · · Score: 5, Informative

    The same had been done also in St.Petersburg (2nd largest city in Russia). it was not a terrorist attack but rather Bush visit there last May. Security of the summit had been cited as a reason to turn off encryption.

    Russian laws require judge approval to eavesdrop on a communication. It is not known if such approvals had been granted in all these three cases.

    1. Re:This is not the second time by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Severety of Russian laws was always compensated
      by lack of obligation to follow them.

      There are laws, and there are operating instructions. They may contradict, but you'll have
      lot of problems if you would appeal to law.

      There always is something which they can incriminate
      cellular operator, such as some tax miscalculations,
      and thus withdraw license and push him out of business, if he wouldn't cooperate with FSB.

      So, SORM-1 (System for operative and searching actions) in cellular networks exists and operate.
      FSB may call cellular operator anytime and ask for cooperation.

      Internet community in Russia is more concerned
      about privacy and human rights, so SORM-2 (simular system in internet) recieve much more attention
      from press. look at http://www.libertarium.ru/libertarium/sorm if you can read Russian.

  12. FBI Procedure? by browse · · Score: 4, Funny
    Not sure what the standard FBI procedure is on something like this..."
    You mean what was the procedure the last time they did it, or what will be the procedure the next time?
  13. In Soviet Russia.... by Dynedain · · Score: 5, Funny

    a) cell phone encryption turns on you! (how appropriate)

    b) cell phone encryption turns you on! (only on /.)

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  14. Courtesy Warning - Pointless? by grimani · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm quite surprised that they issued a warning to the phones in question.

    Doesn't this defeat the purpose of eavesdropping?

    As if terrorists would discuss their plans via mobile phones fully knowing that the FSB is listening.

    This type of action doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to: (1) send terrorists scrambling to other forms of communication (land lines, maybe?), (2) cause terrorists to delay their planning by a day, and (3) bring attention to the potential abuse and rile up privacy advocates everywhere.

    None of the above seem to accomplish any worthwhile goals for the FSB.

    Yes, in the hostage crisis case gain the ability to intercept terrorist communications while the crisis is in progress.

    In this case, however, the attacks have already been concluded. Two suicide bombers have taken 14 others with them. I don't think the accomplices are going to be calling the bombers anytime soon.

    1. Re:Courtesy Warning - Pointless? by tbdean · · Score: 5, Informative

      They didn't really "issue" a warning. They turned off the encyrption - making the antenea act like it wasn't capable of performing encyrption. Then all of the phones, noticing they don't have their normal encyrption, just added one more icon to the screen.

      They only issued a warning in the sense that Iowa issues a warning to all cell phone users that you are currently roaming. It's a function of the phone, not the KGB.

      --
      tbdean
  15. Crypto? What crypto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The FBI procedure might be to use equipment that can crack worthless cellular encryption in real time.

  16. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "o one cares about you and your puny little life and conversations. But you would certainly care if someone was planning on blowing up your train station or office building."

    I agree with you here. The Gov't isn't going to blackmail you. However, if the gov't can get in, why couldn't somebody else?

    I think the privacy moans and groans are overrated, but I did have a nice little scare when the RIAA announced it would start to sue P2P users. I want my privacy to protect myself from them. I'm not worried about the USA knowing about my personal life (they do anyway, duh.), but when encryption is ordered to be turned off, suddenly I'm open to the world.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  17. I don't think you can have encryption in the US by _Brazil_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What carrier lets you have encryption? I don't think it's a law or anything, but I never seen it as a feature for any of the major carriers. I have AT&T and I never saw that on the website... I remember I even tried to turn it on for my phone... it kept beeping at the beginning of the call saying encryption is not on...

    I now kinda would like to know what service does let you do it.

  18. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one cares about you and your puny little life and conversations. But you would certainly care if someone was planning on blowing up your train station or office building.

    Ever heard of INSLAW?

    That's why they do this. To find out who is planning to do bad things that hurt lots of people. They certainly don't care that you are having a fight with your wife and calling your girlfriend to make arrangements to stay over tonight.

    You obviously don't get it. You probably never will. Do you pay your bills using postcards? Or do you send in checks using envelopes?

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  19. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by mackstann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NICE troll. I also love how it's moderated "insightful." People are so fucking stupid sometimes.

    Let's get cameras put in our houses too. I mean, if you're not doing anything wrong, then who cares? Your life is normal and boring, the FBI won't care about you! So it's all ok! Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

  20. I'm shocked that... by David+Hume · · Score: 2, Interesting

    [a]n alert, either an exclamation point or an unlocked padlock, was sent to the phones in question.


    We'll probably see the standard privacy (natural, fundemental, pre-existing) rights vs. untilitarian (what if the terrorists have a nucclear weapon? / are going to kill 10,000 hostages?) posts.

    However, I'm just amazed that Russia issued such a warning... unless, as a matter of software determinism, they couldn't turn off the encryption without turning sending the warning.

    A bug, or a feature?

  21. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by grimani · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quote: "They certainly don't care that you are having a fight with your wife and calling your girlfriend to make arrangements to stay over tonight."

    What if I were some fledging politician rapidly gaining popularity for my almost rabid support for privacy and constitutional rights, young enough to still be idealistic and uncompromised by lobbying?

    Then my fight with the wife and subsequent visit to the girlfriend become quite relevant to The Powers That Be (TM).

    Don't laugh, this is the kind of stuff the FBI dabbled in under Hoover.

    Privacy is privacy. There must be checks and balances to ensure that powers are not abused. These checks now do not seem to be sufficient (or existent, in some cases).

    There's a reason we call it "erosion" of rights. It's a slow, insidious process - but that doesn't make it any less threatening.

    At the risk of sound trite, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

  22. Polite KGB by retto · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope Ashcroft doesn't get any ideas from this. We may wind up getting little text alerts on our cell phones when the Bill Of Rights is, and is not, in affect.

    Civil Rights On....Civil Rights Off...Civil Rights On...Civil Rights Off...

  23. GSM encryption is unsafe anyway by lylum · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:GSM encryption is unsafe anyway by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 2, Informative

      Close but no cigar.

      The CCC stunt makes it possible to clone your SIM-card in the case where your operator have chosen to use an algorithm called COMP128. (It enables you to extract Ki from the SIM-card) but requires you know the PIN-code and have access to the card since it is a chosen plain-text attack that requires in average 100000 16 byte data words.

      Ki is a 16 byte secret key known to the SIM-card and to your home operator. In the GSM system session keys are transferred from the operator to the SIM-card in the handheld at regular intervals and each time the phone is tiurned on. The session keys are encrypted using an algorithm that is in effect a hash function of the Ki and the session key generating a set of 12 byte encrypted session keys. The operator is free to chose the hash algorithm but originally this comp128 was passed along as a demonstration.

      Data encryption is using the encrypted session keys and another algorithm.

      It is left as an exercise to the interested reader to figure out why the SIM-card hash function f(16 bytes key,16 bytes Ki)->12 bytes data, is not usefull for data encryption :-).

  24. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by steve_stern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Today they only care if I want to blow up a train station or office building.

    Tomorrow they'll care if I plan to murder a single person.

    Next week they'll care about rapes.

    A month from now it will be any felony.

    Next year, if I call up a friend to say I'm running late, but I'll speed a little to make up the time, I'll get a ticket mailed to me.

    A generation from now, I'd hate to see what happens to my kids if they decide to make fun of a "Bushism" that the President has said. Its an extremely slippery slope. A police state is not worth the small level of extra security you may (or may not) get.

  25. Polute to the extreme? by geek · · Score: 4, Funny

    "At least the Russian has the courtesy to warn all their phone users that this was going on"

    Yo Al Qaeda, we'll be listening to your phone calls on September 16th from 4am to 5am. Just FYI, so go about your day as usual.

    Just brilliant isn't it? Next we'll be mailing crack houses letters informing them of the raid 3 weeks later.

  26. Civil Rights On....Civil Rights Off... by powerlord · · Score: 2, Funny

    great! One more blasted feature on my phone the manual probably won't cover or will bury under 50,000 menu options! ... and I bet Tech Support won't know how to enable/disable it either!

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  27. Overt versus covert by Ghoser777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm wondering if there's anything proventing the ex-KGB from doing this eavesdropping without doing this type of warning. The interesting thing in this policy is that it lulls people into thinking that they know overtly when they're being monitored, which may keep people from wondering when they maybe monitored covertly i.e. without a friendly reminder.

    Matt Fahrenbacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
  28. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope. Sorry. I don't care whether or not the government is trying to track me specifically, but frankly, given a chance, I would rather risk a train station exploding than live under a tyranical goverment that does what it pleases, such a government could easily off people at a faster rate than terrorists can and I want those checks and balances IN PLACE.

    With what you suggest, I think it the equivalent of federal agents being able to search anyone's house, for any reason at all, without oversight. If they wanted to, I'm sure they can find a lot of stuff to nail you with if your opinions are out of favor with the current administration, say you're a Democrat or Libertarian when there is a Republican in office.

    Quite frankly, there was a warrant system for this sort of thing.

    I don't care if you think that most everyone leads a boring life. That doesn't matter, what does matter is a goverment that thinking they can barge in everywhere without cause, without due process and quite frankly, possibly humiliate or blackmail anyone they please.

  29. This is suspicious by ugen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The russian authorities have a law (SORM) which requires any communications provider to have special equipment tapped by FSB. This law is well implemented and therefore FSB has access to all phone conversation regardless of the encryption.

    The true purpose of this action is any one of the following in order of highest to lowest probability:

    1) Draw public attention to the bombing/terrorist act and drum up support for whatever it is the government is planning next. Good way to do it as anyone and their dog carries a cell phone. Bad way to really tap conversations since now everyone knows they are being tapped.

    2) Draw a lot of attention to current interior minister Gryzlov and his tough and honest men tactics (that and the current cleaning of "dishonest" policement from less important police units). He's probably getting promoted to
    head up some political party so that will help.

    3) Put the terrorists/chechens/whoever on the run - scare them etc. This sure is a big dynamite in a small pond though - so i doubt it.

    4) Have other units not equipped with SORM uplink do the tapping, using scanners or some such. Unlikely since GSM even when unencrypted still can't be listened in on without expensive equipment. I doubt this one even more, but i had to put it here for the sake of balanced options:)

  30. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by Doomdark · · Score: 5, Informative
    "Government isn't tracking YOU".

    Right. And you are one of those loonies that send all their mail in postcards and cares not about privacy. Good for you.

    Problem though is, if and when goverment officials have access, they (some of them) will use it. For their main job, perhaps; for their entertainment, certainly, for other enterprises, quite possibly. Not just to listen to "really really bad guys", but gradually smaller fish, down to figuring out if their wifes are cheating them, or what their neighbours are talking about. Or for more enterprenially oriented peons, ways to blackmail people, or to get to some other useful information; be it for job or for personal businesses.

    Never underestimate possibilities that open, or blindly assume everyone uses those powers responsibly. Grow up, use your brains, learn more about basic human nature, and corruption power causes.

    --
    I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  31. Maybe not about tapping phones at all... by Goonie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's think laterally for a minute here. The point of this may not be to listen to cellphones at all.

    By announcing publicly that they're going to be tapping everyone's cellphone for the next day or two, they will have denied Al-Queda or whomever it is they are worried about the ability to make secure phonecalls. So maybe, if the organisation was about to pull a terrorist attack, they wouldn't be able to coordinate their actions and would have to abandon the attack. Alternatively, maybe the point of the exercise is that the people of concern would be forced to use alternative, more vulnerable means of communication (landlines or face-to-face meetings).

    What do you guys think?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Maybe not about tapping phones at all... by agurkan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I, for one, think you should watch fewer movies. Seriously, you are asking /. crowd how law enforcement of Russia thinks?

      --
      ato
  32. Hey analog-boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    1998 called, it wants its cell phone back.

    Modern (digital) cellphones cannot be tapped with a radio. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

  33. So does that mean... by phorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That my phone has the ability to work in encrypted and non-encrypted mode? Does the phone automatically join the non-encrypted session without warning, or will it balk?

    Really, it would be a good idea to have some sort of *privacy off* icon or something like that on most phones (I think some Nokias I've seen have this).

    1. Re:So does that mean... by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I tried to turn on encryption on my Nokia phone using AT&T's system it warned me on every connection that encryption was not active. My home network aparantly has encryption turned off, I believe this is true of the entire AT&T network.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  34. CDMA by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've been told that U.S. CDMA systems XOR the data frsmes with a static bit pattern. Needless to say, that is pathetically easy to crack.

    U.S. law enforcement agencies and the TLAs do not want cellular users to have ubiquitous encryption.

    Warrants? Warrants? We don't need no stinking warrants!

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  35. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by sixdotoh · · Score: 4, Informative
    I did have a nice little scare when the RIAA announced it would start to sue P2P users. I want my privacy to protect myself from them.

    Yeah, I just read an article by John Dvorak that claimed that the whole stink with the RIAA is making privacy and anonimity forefront issues for many internet users. He says that all this is only going to make it harder for the RIAA/government to catch downloaders, and it will aid in things like child porn rings and ... I dunno I forget his other examples ;].

    It's a good article, check it out Not sure if /. already posted it, but its relevant and worth it.

    --

    This post was brought to you by the number 584811 and the characters / and .

  36. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by sixdotoh · · Score: 4, Funny
    It is exactly because of myopic idiots like this that we have a constitution.

    The Supreme Court is taking care of that....

    --

    This post was brought to you by the number 584811 and the characters / and .

  37. Symbols... by FRiC · · Score: 3, Informative

    So that's what the exclamation and unlocked padlock symbols mean. Whenever I go to China my phones always show those symbols and no one knows what they meant. I guess someone's eavesdropping.

  38. Re:There are options to the end user by MannyDixn · · Score: 3, Informative

    > the Russian FSB (Front Side Bus?) FedeRAL'naya SLUzhba BezopPASnosty -- Federal Service [of] Security, is what it stands for, I have capitalized the syllables for stress, the "L" in Federal'naya is followed by an apostrophe to signify palatalization, like the first "n" in canyon. The FSB is analogous to the Department of Homeland Security, in that it oversees all national-level security operations. It does not stand for Front Side Bus.

    --
    Can *you* prove that *you* don't have weapons of mass destruction?
  39. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by Cyno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    Unfortunately for us a majority of the population is not willing to pay that price.

    But I agree. What's the point of having laws if you have no freedom to begin with?

    Laws are made to limit freedom to keep everyone safe. But some people believe that its okay to make laws saying I can't drive my car or fly in a plane because its possible for that car or plane to crash into them. Those people are dumb. That's why natural section exists.

    Unfortunately we've overgrown nature's laws and seem to think we're smart enough to write our own. And now look at the results. Just brilliant.

  40. Old words, but still valid. by nicodemus05 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Reminds me of a quote:

    What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly. It would be strange indeed if so celestial a thing as freedom should not be highly rated. -Thomas Paine

    --
    while (!sleep){

    sheep++;

    }

  41. Re:Government isn't tracking YOU by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " So should we just resort to random police raids?"

    But why stop there? Such a half-ass effort will surely miss far too much illegality. The only good solution is to have daily (or even more often) police inspections of every home, office, person, vehicle, etc. And just as an added precaution, we should install video cameras on every street, in every ally, and in every room of every home, office, or other such structure. From there, all the visual information could be fed into a lovely Oracle database, having been sorted by an advanced AI system. That way, any and all illegal acts are caught on tape, and the law-breaker can simply be put in jail, or perhaps even more simply, to death. Since we have it right on tape, there's obviously no need for a trial. And since those who break the law deserve to be caught and punished, no one should have any problem with this. After all, you're not doing anything illegal, immoral, or undesirable, right?

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  42. No warning needed in GSM by Vendekkai · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least the Russian has the courtesy to warn all their phone users that this was going on

    No courtesy or warning is needed. GSM handsets automatically display the no-encryption icon when OTA (Over The Air) security is turned off by the operator.

    V

  43. A5: ask your GSM operator by dimss · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are two versions of A5: with full 64bit (for US, Germany etc) key and 54bit key (For Russia, Latvia, China etc).

    Two months ago I requested my GSM company about their encryption technology. They replied: "Yes, we use good encryption. No, we cannot tell you which exactly".

    Try to ask your GSM operator.

  44. Same here in Estonia by smkldr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The situation is quite the same here in Estonia, the unwilling former Soviet republic. All three GSM operators are required by law to provide equipment that allows the defence police to tap into any phonecall. Until recently this was simply a legal requirement, but at this point all three (if I'm not mistaken) have actually purchased and set up these systems. The legal side of listening to a specific phonecall is a completely separate matter.

  45. Looks like FUD by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sitting just now in my office in the center
    of Moscow, and my phone doesn't display "No encryption" alert. It was so during Nord-Ost musicle hijacking, but not now.

    BTW, it is not very comforting to think that
    somebody in the same bus with you might carry
    2 kilo TNT bomb, which would explode when somebody
    send SMS to it.

    Latest bomb in Moscow was apparently done
    via some remotely controlled ignition and
    explode when they tried deactivate it.

  46. Re:FBI by the_germ · · Score: 2, Informative

    They didn't shut down the phone system, just the encryption!
    The 'standard FBI procedure' would probably be the same, but without letting anybody know. So nobody would riot - most of the people wouldn't even notice the encryption shut off.

  47. Red tape? Hassle? In Russia? by tgma · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are sites in Russia, like compromat.ru or flb.ru which regularly post transcripts of mobile phone calls between famous people. I have been able to follow the progress of friends/former colleagues in this way, and it's quite amusing. What is not amusing is the ease with which those calls can be tapped, even with encoding switched on. As the poster above says, someone is getting access to the signal after the tower, probably via a direct feed to the mobile operator's exchange.

    In the case of those sites above, the tapping is done by various private security services, or maybe by the official security services, moonlighting on behalf of private firms. The output is then leaked to the press, via clearinghouse sites like the ones above, as part of various political/economic squabbles that define the Russian political landscape. The operators have to comply, as the security services are close to the Ministry of Communications, and if you start bleating about civil rights or due process, the Ministry will rapidly discover an irregularity in your license, and make your life hell. In any case, it's not hard for the Russian security services to get a court order, which would force the operator to give access.

    So why switch off encoding, when you can get access to the conversations without it? It may be a timing thing, as you say - it may take time to set up a tap for a particular number. Or more likely, you don't know the number that you are trying to tap (it's very easy to get a prepaid SIM card, or to steal one) so you aim to find your target by eavesdropping. If you are looking to tap the phone of a senior politician or businessman, you already know the number you are tapping, so you don't need to go after their signal.

  48. I doubt notification in the U.S. by Quila · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't a main point of the PATRIOT act that providers of any communications couldn't notify the suspect if eavesdropping was occuring? Turning off encryption would be as good as admitting that, so it's probably illegal to notify.

  49. Old Russian Adage... by tspauld98 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Funny, this reminds me of a joke that a Russian friend told me...

    Both of us are of the age that we grew up during the Cold War and remember what it was like having nukes pointed at each other day and night...

    Anyway, we were on the phone and the connection was really bad. At one point, we heard a click similar to someone picking up the phone. So, Dmitri paused and said, "Wait a second..." After a few seconds, he began to speak again and I asked what had happened. He explained that, in Russian, it is considered polite to pause the conversation when you hear the FSB changing the tapes recording your conversation. :)

    I laughed my ass off.... Yes, people, I'm now ass-less....

    --
    "Ahhhh, best laid plans of mice and men... and Cookie Monster." -- Cookie Monster, Sesame Street
  50. Ah, you just got a VX10 too? by caveat · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just picked up an LG VX10 yesterday, it's a great phone with killer reception - but i didn't know it was possible to build as totally non-intuitive and confusing a UI as it has (and i'm technologically proficent!)

    Yes, it's mad offtopic, forgive me, it's early still..

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  51. Yeah by poopdik · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not sure what the standard FBI procedure is on something like this...

    Damn Russians. If they lived in the USA they would be treated with the respect and courtesy a country full of apathetic weekend patriots deserves. None. Our government would do something like play up the effectiveness of the crypto in protecting personal conversations and important business secrets on one hand, while ordering a no-warrant backdoor into the system with the other. Of course these secrets would become public in 20 or so years in the name of "full disclosure" to give everyone a woody about their current administration, and the typical American would fail to see how those lies of the past would have any relevance in his life that present day. Stupid Russians.. I bet they wish they were free (to be played like puppets) like us.

  52. obligatory by grasshoppah · · Score: 2, Funny

    in soviet russia, the FSB encrypts you!

    actually... that's right according to the article:)

  53. I used to hate the Russian Intelligence agencies by nightsweat · · Score: 2, Funny
    I used to hate the Russian intelligence agencies.

    But they kind of GRU on me.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  54. Document Describing Standard Procedure. by Elvisisdead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This document will tell you exactly what procedure is for wiretap.

    It also lists that: "In 2002, no federal wiretap reports indicated that encryption was encountered. State and local jurisdictions reported that encryption was encountered in 16 wiretaps terminated in 2002; however, in none of these cases was encryption reported to have prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted. In addition, state and local jurisdictions reported that encryption was encountered in 18 wiretaps that were terminated in calendar year 2001 or earlier, but were reported for the first time in 2002; in none of these cases did encryption prevent access to the plain text of communications intercepted.

    --

    "Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
  55. Are they thick? by Crazy+Viking · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is no need to turn off the encryption to listen in on calls. They can just use the Lawful Intercept feature which is a built-in in all mobile phone networks. All they need (in most countries) is a court order to enable it. I appreciate that turning off encryption on all calls would enable them to listen in to the calls much more easily, but honestly, how much manpower have they allocated to deal with the tapping of all these phones in that 24 hour window? Do they REALLY believe that this aids them in their investigative efforts?

  56. re: FBI Procedure by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    --Not sure what the standard FBI procedure is on something like this..." --

    They use something called the "Mushroom Treatment". The axiom states, "Keep the public in the dark and feed them full of BS".

    Then if the sh*t hits the fan, so to speak, the FBI falls back on denial.