Slashdot Mirror
Your Cell Records For Sale Online, Cheap
AviN456 writes "The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that your phone records are for sale online to the general public. From the article 'The Chicago Police Department is warning officers their cell phone records are available to anyone -- for a price. Dozens of online services are selling lists of cell phone calls, raising security concerns among law enforcement and privacy experts.' One of these sites is selling cell phone records for $110 for a month's worth of calls. No court order needed, no credentials required. If they want your records and have the money, they get 'em."
I'm sure its on Google for free somewhere.
Unfortunately, this issue is nothing new.
Lots of good info on this problem can be found here, courtesy of the good folks at EPIC.
And finally, you can choose to opt-out of the releasing of your phone data here (at least you can try...opt-out information isn't listed for many of the companies). Also, many of these data brokers employ less-than-legal means to obtain the phone data anyway.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I bet the NSA might be able offer a reduced price on these kinds of lists.
One of these sites is selling cell phone records for $110 for a month's worth of calls. No court order needed, no credentials required.
That's absolutely stalk-tastic. So, in addition to being able to buy SS#, satellite images of their house, and public property information, we can get phone records now. Sweet.
Anyone want to see what 1-900 numbers Jack Thompson's been calling?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Both TFA and the /. post are slanted towards law enforcement agencies. There is nothing about the service or warning that shouldn't apply to everyone.
Depending on how paranoid you are, this information could be interesting. Worried about a partner cheating? Worried about your partner finding out? Worried your boss will find out you have frequent calls to your Cylon agent (or is she just in your head?) (Okay, the last one was a joke.)
But I wanted to make sure it was clear, this applies to everyone. Not just police.
So what? Phone records have long been a way to track unorganized, unplanned crimes. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Cell phones have made it soooo tempting to make all your calls (legal, and possibly illegal) whenever you fancy, that it is certainly scary to unorganized, undiciplined criminals. Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there? Obviously mere phone records aren't enough to catch Al Qaeda, so what do you have to worry about? Just run down to a different payphone, at different times, in disguise from the traffic cameras.
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
I have no fixed line. I only use cash cards for mobile. I haven't received a spam e-mail message in 8 years.
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with me? Why doesn't the corporate oligarchy like me? Why haven't I been offered to enlarge my reproductive tool, invest in Nigerian projects, or enroll in the US Gubmint Green Card lottery?
It is so fucking unfair.
I love how in the article they present the case of FBI agents being snooped on.
As if it's ok to snoop on regular people but you go too far snooping on FBI agents!
I personally don't care who knows who I am calling -- in fact I openly release my cell phone data to all my customers as I bill them by the minute when they call me (plus they can see who else calls me which helps when someone says I might have overcharged them).
My bigger concern has always been who could have the content of any calls recorded. I know the phone companies "don't" and I doubt government has any concern for what I talk about, but there is proprietary information we all discuss on the phone (nothing illegal, just ideas and other information I'd rather not share). Digital cell transmissions are already nicely compressed for transmission and those data streams are just perfect to stick on a huge hard drive and use in the future.
I have no political aspirations, so I guess my information would be totally useless in order to try to hurt me publicly, but for those who do think about the future -- is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?
Your post is a troll, to be sure... but yes. You do have such a civil right. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.
Just because the current administation (and to be fair, many past administrations) has wiped their collective asses with the 4th Amendment doesn't mean that it no longer applies.
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
This has nothing to do with Bush... this time. But it again shows the erosion of our personal liberties. And your flippant response notwithstanding, you're going to regret it one day when you wake up and wonder why you can't do or say the things you used to be able to do and say in this "free country".
It didn't start under Bush.. but it's not being rolled back by the current crowd in Washington either. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, with the very notable exception of Russ Feingold, are fighting for our freedoms anymore.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Two months ago, Macleans (Canadian magazine) ran a story on this, but they took it one step further: they bought the cell phone records of Canada's Privacy Commisssioner, Jennifer Stoddart. It was remarkably embarassing. Reading the Maclean's article was entertaining, so if any Canadian's missed it, check it out.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
I'm not trying to call names here, but that's sort of how a salesman works - he gives you a problem you don't usually think about, then says "This thing will solve your problem". Never thought of it like that before.
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
Once news of this hits the mainstream television media, I imagine the public outcry and following legislation will put the kaibosh on it.
Still, the underlying problem is far deeper than many will admit. I believe that we in the United States have a certain right to an expectation of privacy, but at the same time we cannot rely on that expectation to safeguard information regarding ourselves. Information exists beyond the scope of your personal effects, and you cannot reasonably expect others to protect it for you.
The problem is that most financial and personal transactions here rely almost entirely on security through obscurity: the identity thief can't steal your identity... until he gets ahold of your (trivial to obtain) SSN, and so forth. We rely on hiding information about ourselves as a means of securing our effects, despite the fact that such information is all but unprotectable in the face of modern technology.
No amount of legislation is going to stop people from uncovering information: the only way to mitigate this is to make the information on its own worthless.
A social security number should be useless to anyone but me. Same with a bank account number. The security needs to be seperate from the identification.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Well that's a very true statement... I think what I found disturbing about the article is how low the right price was, and how easy it was to approach the seller, and the lack of recourse for the individual.
It would be another matter entirely if getting caught using the service involved jail time or whatnot.
No, your phone records are your providors business records. They can do with them what they want. Go read your TOS.
"Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
Why would this even be an issue with the Patriot Act still out there?
I'm one of those people that doesn't have too much trouble with the Patriot act's purpose and typical use. But I think I do have trouble with my customers, suppliers, or competition being able to see who I'm talking to. In a competitive industry (I don't know, say wholesaling wine to restaurants in a busy city), being able to look over which restaurants of "yours" that a rival wine rep has suddenly been making a lot of calls to would be seriously helpful/evil business intel.
On a more serious note, say a foreign or criminal entity was shopping around for people to blackmail/extort. Just the ability to use evidence of a stock broker's calls to his mistress as a way to get him to distort the value of some penny stock, etc... well, it's all bad movie-type stuff, except it's real. And real cheap.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's this way you see :
- selling the organs of their customers would make them a lot of cash but is considered to be *really* bad almost everywhere;
- selling every little bit of data they have about their customers is considered bad in much fewer places (and is apparently quite accepted in the US) so although it's not as lucrative, they went with that.
It's probably safe not to let them know you still have both your kidneys though.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
The fourth ammendment is generally read to concern one's privacy with regard to government intrusion. In this context, the intruder is a private corporation, and thus the 4th ammendment wouldn't explicitly apply.
For that reason, we have a wide array of law with regards to tresspass, publication of personal records of various sorts, etc. It just so happens that cell phone records are not yet covered. That said, the described activity cited as "pretexting" is probably illegal since it involves a fraudulent transaction (if you had an arrangement with your carrier to keep the information private, and a thrid-party was subverting that arrangment by pretending to be you).
On the one hand, I am appalled at the erosion of our civil liberties and the almost-sedated non-response from the public. It reminds me of the way in which cancer kills you (the body ignores it when it's small, and as it only grows a little bit each day, the problem is put off until it's too late; a tumor that would have been actively fought if implanted full grown kills an otherwise health person because it's never that much worse than it was the day before).
But on the other hand, I'd love to see someone try to decipher my cell phone calls:
Me: Could you repeat that? ...other...erver room...ception in here...od damn fans...!
Them:If...the...ine when I...ick.
Me: No! Don't click on that! We need to log the error message.
Them:Hog...any..sausage?
Me:Not sausage. Message. Error message. Error message. Error message.
Them:...ot an err...hat about...age?
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:Could you...that?
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:...I just read...you? Zero zero...eff as in...apple, zero, ze...two. Got that?
Hey, maybe I could just ask the NSA for a cleaned up transcript!
--MarkusQ
I will sell my phone records for $110.
In the past, just the privileged few could obtain phone records. Politically connected or wealthy people could bribe the right people and obtain anything they wanted.
Now, anyone can do it. Turnabout's fair play - as far as I'm concerned. I like seeing rich pols exposed.
I've been busy lobbying to get the video archives of the New York Police made public as well.
Why should the police be the only ones with access to this footage? (I'll tell you why... if enough of it was made public, lots of NY's finest them would wind up fired or in jail.)
Maybe I'm better off starting a data broker business overseas and publishing it myself.
The difference between you or me and an undercover FBI agent being snooped on is that there's a decent chance the snooping will get the FBI agent killed.
That doesn't mean it's not a problem for everybody, just that it's a REALLY BIG problem for undercover agents.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Most europeans won't ever have this kind of problem with privacy and information selling. In Europe you can just go to the kiosk, buy a sim chip, buy some prepaid sim minutes, all without ID or a credit card. Use the phone for a few days, then toss the sim chip and put in a new one if you're paranoid. Thanks to our greedy, monopolistic telecom corporations over here, you get locked into 2-year contracts and have to give the company all kinds of private information upon sign-up including social security number.
There is an important issue being glossed over here: is the release of this information illegal or not?
The top article implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data. They point to unscrupulous insiders, and acts of fraud on the part of private investigators and data miners.
But the information from EPIC and the FCC suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out. Well, of course most people have never heard of this and so they have not opted-out. Therefore it is completely legal for the companies to share your phone call lists!
I'm annoyed and frustrated that the press reports are getting this so wrong (as usual). By implying that the problem is a few illegal acts, necessarily commited furtively and relatively rarely, they hide the fact that this is a perfectly legal, above-board business which is presumably going along at a brisk rate selling everyone's call info!
"Her mouth hangs open, and she appears near tears. 'Oh my God," she says finally. "I didn't realize this was possible. This is really alarming.'"
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
I have seen the bulletin. In it they indicate that they conducted a test and placed an order to get the records of one of the agency's own cell phones. A little while later an unknown person called that cell number and said they worked for the cell phone provider. The person then asked for some information about the subscriber. Some time later they got an email with "call records".
A little social engineering can go a long way. If a "service technician" calls asking me for information, I'm going to tell him I'm George W. Bush.
Heck is a place for people that don't believe in gosh.
That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)
...
To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:
Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp
September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp
Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp
and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp
Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
moo
If they are doing nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. Isn't that the tired old argument the governments give the people? It also applies to the police, politicians, judges, corporate officer, and any other official. I have long stated that every bit of information on these folks should be publically posted where anyone can have ready access to it. This information should incluse all licence numbers, SSN's, medical information, and so on. This is what they do to us so it should also be done to them.
After reading the SunTimes article I decided to call Sprint (my cell phone company). The people I talked to had never heard of this service. They told me that I needed to speak to fraud. After many attempts to get someone to listen I finally got a supervisor on the line. I explained that I did not authorize Sprint to disclose my address, name, and/or phone records with a third party. The supervisor opened the site and was shocked at what was available. I was transferred to a tech support person that I again explained the information release problem to. The technician told me he would get a phone from their stock of phones they use for testing and put the information from that phone into the website. After the technician verified the ability to gather information about a phone I was transferred to Sprint corporate security. Sprint corporate security was shocked that this type of service was available without a court order. I was assured that Sprint would not sell my information to a third party. The information about the site and news article was forwarded to the fraud and legal departments.
I wonder how Ernie would feel if someone purchased his phone records and found out who his client is? Since he is aware that phone records are for sale, isn't his statement the same thing as releasing his client's name and identifying her husband? If that is the case, it seems like she (or her husband) could sue the living daylights out of him.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy