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.
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!
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"
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 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.
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.
Maybe because for someone working undercover, who assumes that only the police (meaning, them) have access to cell phone call logs, this could easily get them killed.
Just think: you're a gang leader and suspect that someone in your organization is a narc. You have all of their cell phone numbers, because that's how you communicate, so you call up Locatecell and get the logs. The one who has the local PD in their logs gets a pair of cement shoes for Christmas.
While the rest of us could certainly be inconvenienced, or perhaps lose our jobs / marriages / etc., because of this, probably we won't have the same risk of ending up dead.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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
Sucks for the cop. If only there was some way he could have *two* cell phones: one for gang business and one for personal/police use...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.