Slashdot Mirror


Greek, U.S. Officials Tapped For Years

Bruce Schneier posts on a story being reported in the Seattle Intelligencer. Greek and U.S. officials in Greece apparently had their phones tapped for over a year before the 2004 Olympics. From the article: "It was not known who was responsible for the taps, which numbered about 100 and included Greek Prime Minister Costas Caramanlis and his wife, and the ministers of foreign affairs, defense, public order and justice. Most of Greece's top military and police officers were also targeted, as were foreign ministry officials and a U.S. embassy number. Also tapped were some journalists and human rights activists." Schneier gives a bit of technical background on how the tapping was accomplished.

236 comments

  1. Well duh by DarkClown · · Score: 3, Interesting

    does this surprise anyone? it's the admissability in court that's really the big deal, as well as being able to point to the use of it in ongoing investigations between agencies and oversight.

    1. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you read the article you moron? wait, I know the answer to both.

    2. Re:Well duh by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't tap foreign officials for things to be "admissible in court" - you tap them so that you get the information of what their plans are. Of course, in some states no-party phone taps are legal (I believe that Arizona is one - I'd have to recheck) if you own the phone service, and in most states one-party phone taps are legal (tough luck people of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington who want to tap a phone call that they're taking part of). None of these would cover tapping someone who'se phone you didn't own, but then again, the federal government tapping a foreign government's phones doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of domestic wiretap law.

      Really, though, is this such a surprise? I'd think a foreign government would have to be bloody daft to accept any sort of tech built in the US where any sensitive communication is going to take place. You can make a no-click phone tap from a modem; you think that the US government can't do better? Or do you think that the Bush admin has the scruples not to tap its allies?

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    3. Re:Well duh by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the curious, here's a list of how each of the fifty U.S. states handle tape recording of telephone calls.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    4. Re:Well duh by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Wiretaps aren't all about court cases. They're about information. Information is power, especially when it comes to public officials and conversations that are thought to be private.

    5. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Court? Court? We don't need no fucking court! The President will will just declare you an "enemy combatant" and then disappear^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H detain you until terrorism the world over is defeated.

    6. Re:Well duh by kfg · · Score: 1

      it's the admissability in court that's really the big deal. . .

      When I arrange with a confederate to look at your poker hand and signal me what you're holding, it ain't so I can tell people about it.

      KFG

    7. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOSSAD

      hello CIA, MI5

    8. Re:Well duh by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I'm in Texas, so I looked up the appropriate statute. Here's a snippet:

      Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Texas Code Crim. Pro. Art. 18.20.

      Now, I wonder just how closely they define "electronic communication"? Ignoring the fact that even a basic Bell telephone is electronic communication (as is a tape recorder for that matter), what if the signal travels over an IP network? Or is inside a PBX? And if that's legal because the final product is rendered audibly, what about recording the output of one of those old handset couplers?

      Hmm.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    9. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why do you specifically point out the Bush administration? I would imagine that most administrations since at least 1945 have had spy operations against allies. I'm sure right now we have assets (be it human or electronic) in place in the UK, and I'm sure they were there well before the Bush administration.

      Please friggin quit dropping Bush's name wherever you think there may be Evil(tm) going on. He's done some bad stuff, but lets not get carried away.

    10. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Why do you specifically point out the Bush administration? "

      Well, duh, it is a hot-topic item these days for that administration. And what a obvious way to start a long thread of political jabber.

    11. Re:Well duh by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Hasn't "tapping one's allies" been an industry standard best practice ever since factions and allies were first invented, more than five thousand years ago?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    12. Re:Well duh by tsotha · · Score: 1
      Or do you think that the Bush admin has the scruples not to tap its allies?

      I don't see why you think our government was doing the tapping. Every country spies on every other country - in recent years just off the top of my head I can think of incidents where the US government was spied on by Russia, France, the Phillipines, China, and Israel. Those were efforts that were discovered by the FBI - I'm sure they're just the tip of the iceberg.

      I'm sure the US embassy already has recording devices on all the phones; it's hard for me to believe US spies would tap the US embassy.

    13. Re:Well duh by undeadly · · Score: 1
      Why do you specifically point out the Bush administration? I would imagine that most administrations since at least 1945 have had spy operations against allies. I'm sure right now we have assets (be it human or electronic) in place in the UK, and I'm sure they were there well before the Bush administration.

      Yes, this has gone on for a long time, including financing of political groups. However, Greece is a NATO member and thus a close ally to USA, but is still treated ths way. Just imagine (or better, read some) what USA does to non-allies.

      Please friggin quit dropping Bush's name wherever you think there may be Evil(tm) going on. He's done some bad stuff, but lets not get carried away.

      Bush Jr is scary, really.

    14. Re:Well duh by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Corporate espionage especially. It's been common practice for years to have American intelligence services pass on information to Boeing regarding Airbus' activities and vice versa. Helps in the bidding and design process a bit.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    15. Re:Well duh by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it (IANAL, but am married to one), IP telephony and PBX calls can be recorded without notification to the person you are talking to, as they're still defined, rather loosely I'd say, as voice traffic. Now, whether or not this remains the case once elected officials start looking more closely at IP telephony due to the screams and howls of their well-funded telco lobbyists remains to be seen. I have a sneaky suspicion that the people who are most likely object to one-way recording are going to be large businesses trying to prevent accusations/lawsuits of abusive or intentionally obtuse customer service reps.

      Frankly, I'm surprised Georgia still allows one-way recording. I figured Bellsouth would be pretty much in the forefront of shutting it down. Maybe there's a reason they want it active?

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    16. Re:Well duh by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now, I wonder just how closely they define "electronic communication"?
      Wonder no longer.
      From Article 18.20 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure:
      "(15) "Electronic communication" means a transfer of signs, signals,
      writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature
      transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic,
      photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. The term does not
      include:

      (A) a wire or oral communication;
      (B) a communication made through a tone-only paging device; or
      (C) a communication from a tracking device. "

    17. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in a capital once, for a branch of the government of a country that will stay unnamed.
      When the first gulf war started, we where all summoned to a "security meeting". Amoug many things, we where told that every government employees in the capital had their phone conversation listened to at least once a week on average (so some more than others).
      When asked how they could possibly know that, the answer was "You did not hear it from me, but it is basic statistics from our own listening on others we do in other capitals of the world".

    18. Re:Well duh by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Cool. Now we just have to define "wire communication" - and for that matter "oral communication" as it refers to audible signal, such as a 300 baud modem. Which the code may well cover - I'm kicking myself for mentally skipping over the reference in my first post.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    19. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I'm sure the US embassy already has recording devices on all the phones; it's hard for me to believe US spies would tap the US embassy.

      I have no idea whether the US embassy was involved, but US's intelligence service (along with UK, France, Germany etc) would be sophisticated to put bugs onto their own phone lines for reasons of plausible deniability. Of course, the bugs will then have to be sophisticated enough to either not really bug (which potentially compromises the plausible deniability aspect) or bug and transmit, but in an encrypted manner so that your allies (Greece/US as well as the EU one below are all allies), can't use it to bug you instead. Here's a story about phone tapping in the EU a few years ago.

      In this case, who has access to insert software trojan horses in Vodafone software? Do Vodafone not have records of access (free from tampering)? Or was it a more sophisticated operation involving multiple Vodafone employees?

    20. Re:Well duh by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Ericsson was a Swedish company (which, according to the article was the provider of the equipment). Also, one of the phones that was tapped was a US Embassy phone. Maybe the Swedes were spying on the Greeks--we should not forget that Sweden was an aspiring nuclear power (or read this). Maybe they want to become a superpower...

    21. Re:Well duh by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      Look at: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/CR/co ntent/htm/cr.001.00.000018.00.htm
      In particular you want to go to "Art. 18.20. Interception and use of wire, oral, or electronic communications". It should contain all the definitions you want. "Oral Communication" and "Wire communication" are the first two listed.

    22. Re:Well duh by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Bush's name drops in on this story because the taps don't appear to have been done for anything even vaguely resembling security reasons but for strictly commercial exploitation. Just like the NSA secret spying, how much of that information will end up in the hands of favoured corporations or be used in election campaigns or even just for straight up blackmail.

      There is no indication the US was even involved, it could just be corporate spying, what is different between spyware on a computer and spyware on a mobile phone. It really proves the point, politicians love the idea of spying on and controlling their electorate but reality always snaps back and the politicians find out that their privacy and that of their families is the more likely to be invaded with malicious intent.

      The reality is, that for the politicians to be able to secure their own privacy and that of their families they also have to secure ours, as goes our privacy so does theirs (their corporate masters are a hell of a lot more eager to spy of them than on us, got to to make sure that investment doesn't betray them).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point the First: Vodafone is a British company.

      Point the Second: the U.S. Embassy in Athens was apparently among the victims.

      Point the Third: You're a complete tool.

    24. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, though, is this such a surprise? I'd think a foreign government would have to be bloody daft to accept any sort of tech built in the US where any sensitive communication is going to take place. You can make a no-click phone tap from a modem; you think that the US government can't do better? Or do you think that the Bush admin has the scruples not to tap its allies?

      Believe me, I am no fan of the Bush administration, but there is no evidence that this was the work of a US spy agency. There are plenty of other governments out there who spy (the data-logging British "rock" in Moscow a case in point). Neither is there any indication that the phone switching equipment was "Made in USA" as you stated. There are plenty of other equipment manufacturers (Nokia, Siemens, etc). In fact, Greece would have been stupid to buy US equipment since we are a generation behind the rest of the world in phone technology.

    25. Re:Well duh by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      You don't tap foreign officials for things to be "admissible in court" - you tap them so that you get the information of what their plans are.

      Exactly. And it's not just foreign officials. A friend of mine worked for the SNP, a Scottish political party. They were warned on the first day that their phones were tapped and they should watch what is said.

      The only scandal about Watergate was that they got caught.

      Or do you think that the Bush admin has the scruples not to tap its allies?

      It's not a parisan issue. The tapping of foreign officials predates the bipartisan system that some people mistake for democracy.

    26. Re:Well duh by mpe · · Score: 1

      You don't tap foreign officials for things to be "admissible in court" - you tap them so that you get the information of what their plans are.

      Which is why it's called "spying". Assuming you are a goverment about the only thing you can do to "foreign officials" is to boot them out of/stop them entering your country anyway.

    27. Re:Well duh by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the US embassy already has recording devices on all the phones; it's hard for me to believe US spies would tap the US embassy.

      Maybe the existing recordings wern't going to the "right" spys. There's also the issue of CYA, i.e. bug yourself to avoid being suspected.

    28. Re:Well duh by mpe · · Score: 1

      Neither is there any indication that the phone switching equipment was "Made in USA" as you stated. There are plenty of other equipment manufacturers (Nokia, Siemens, etc).

      Unless Ericsson manufactures non-NANP equiptment in the USA it almost certainly wasn't. Even if the hardware was made in the US it would be running the non-NANP software (all of the major manufactures have a special NANP version of software).

      In fact, Greece would have been stupid to buy US equipment since we are a generation behind the rest of the world in phone technology.

      More to the point US hardware would be rather incompatable in both hardware and software.

  2. Geek phones tapped? by tlay · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did anybody else think that the article was
    "Geek U.S. Officials Tapped For Years"?

    I dunno...maybe that's just because I was on \. I was thinking that.

    -TLAY

    1. Re:Geek phones tapped? by scheme · · Score: 3, Funny
      Did anybody else think that the article was "Geek U.S. Officials Tapped For Years"?

      I seriously doubt geek anythings but especially geek government officials would be getting tapped on a regular basis.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    2. Re:Geek phones tapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf is \.?

    3. Re:Geek phones tapped? by toetagger1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry budy, backslashdot.com is somewhere else. This is /. (slashdot)!

      --
      who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
    4. Re:Geek phones tapped? by tlay · · Score: 1

      Oh shoot...I've been on windows too much today.

      -TLAY

    5. Re:Geek phones tapped? by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      Did anybody else think that the article was
      "Geek U.S. Officials Tapped For Years"?


      No, but at first I thought its too bad how broke they are, and maybe they should be given a raise?

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:Geek phones tapped? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      I seriously doubt geek anythings but especially geek government officials would be getting tapped on a regular basis.
      You kidding?

      I'd hit it.

      I'd hit it like the fist of an angry God.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Geek phones tapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone else think that the article was
      "Geek U.S. Officials Tapped For Years"?

      No, when I read it I thought it said:
      "Greek, U.S. Officials Trapped For Years"

    8. Re:Geek phones tapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first glance, I thought it read "Greek and U.S. Officials Trapped for Years.

      I'm glad it's Friday.

    9. Re:Geek phones tapped? by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Did anybody else think that the article was
      "Geek U.S. Officials Tapped For Years"?

      Close, I came up with:

      "Geeky U.S. Officials Trapped For Years".

      Words are fun. =)
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Geek phones tapped? by Frazbin · · Score: 1

      And here I thought it was a story about a prestigous scientific department being called to make a sacrifice for their burgeoning biology division:

      "Geek U's Officials Tapped For Ears"

    11. Re:Geek phones tapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey dingus, wtf is backslashdot?

  3. Post-Intelligencer by eviloverlordx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That would be the Seattle *Post*-Intelligencer.

    Good thing there's no editor or anything...

    --
    'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
  4. Court?? by Mad-Mage1 · · Score: 1

    I sincerely doubt they were looking for "evidence" for a trial...I also doubt that it was either Greece or the US that did this. The conference calls were probably setup from the provider (Vodaphone's) side, not actually installed on the phone itself.

    --
    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    1. Re:Court?? by Buran · · Score: 1

      In which case, since it wasn't government-ordered, the provider is guilty of illegal wiretapping. Vodafone is going to have to pay up big for this.

    2. Re:Court?? by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Can you say Israel boys and girls?

      I knew you could.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    3. Re:Court?? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1
      The conference calls were probably setup from the provider (Vodaphone's) side

      What's to stop Vodaphone from doing this with all of their phones? I imagine a few corporate executives would be looking long and hard at their mobile phones if they knew they were potentially tapped at purchase. The possibilites for corporate espionage are limitless, but perhaps the discovery of a few unauthorized corporate wiretaps is what it'll take to make people take a harder look at warrantless wiretapping in general.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    4. Re:Court?? by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      Yes... this all makes sense. Because Israel has a vested interest in Greece....

      It's called anti-semitism. Get over it.

    5. Re:Court?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's called anti-semitism.

      Typical response. The moment Israel is mentioned as something other than "God's Chosen", people like yourself crawl out of the woodwork and cry "anti-semitism". It's farking annoying and it'd be nice, if you guys could finally get over whatever the issues are that you're dealing with. KTHX!

    6. Re:Court?? by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      You're a bloody moron. As Kissinger told Meir, "That has nothing to do with this."

      Of course Israel has a vested interested in what happens during the Olympics in Greece. What do you think would have happened to the Israeli athletes in Munich if Israeli intelligence had an inside line on what the Germans were planning?

      Furthermore, you poison the well. Saying something about Israel that isn't glowing and praiseful is not antisemitism. Saying something about Israel slaughtering Palestinians is not anti-semitic either. After all, the Palestinians are semites.

      If you wonder why Israel has no credibility anywhere in the world outside of the United States, maybe you should consider what your actions have to do with that.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    7. Re:Court?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say Israel boys and girls?

      You could but expect to be called "antisemitic". Since it's just not PC to say anything remotly critical about that country.

    8. Re:Court?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical response. The moment Israel is mentioned as something other than "God's Chosen", people like yourself crawl out of the woodwork and cry "anti-semitism".

      IIRC it's ok to describe Israel as being "victims of the Nazis". Just so long as you don't look too closely at the demographics of the Israeli population or question the "six million" figure.

      It's farking annoying and it'd be nice, if you guys could finally get over whatever the issues are that you're dealing with.

      Don't hold your breath...

    9. Re:Court?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying something about Israel that isn't glowing and praiseful is not antisemitism. Saying something about Israel slaughtering Palestinians is not anti-semitic either. After all, the Palestinians are semites.

      But many of the Israels arn't, sorry that isn't PC either...

      If you wonder why Israel has no credibility anywhere in the world outside of the United States, maybe you should consider what your actions have to do with that.

      Wonder where the United States has any credibility left :)
      Not that Israeli credibility is present in the whole US.
      The least PC aspect of the whole mess is that some of the strongest critique of Israel (including demands that it cease to exist and pay reparations to the Palestinans) comes from Orthodox Jews.

  5. So? by garrett714 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Greek and U.S. officials in Greece apparently had their phones tapped for over a year before the 2004 Olympics.

    Mod me troll like I'm sure you troll mods will, but honestly who the hell cares about this? People are getting tapped constantly in the US and elsewhere, how is this story even remotely interesting to anybody but the person who posted it and the mod who let it through?

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's interesting is the *how* of it. As well as the fact that the tapped the PM of Greece. Imagine if someone tapped good ol' Bushy's cell phone. Now *that* would be something, wouldn't it? Well, this isn't much different.

    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because it's tapping at the highest government levels including the P.M? Kinda the same as Bush/Blair getting wiretapped just has a smaller impact cause it's only Greece after all.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <i>People are getting tapped constantly in the US and elsewhere</i>
      Do you think you have any privacy?  Where have you been?

    4. Re:So? by javaxman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      honestly who the hell cares about this? People are getting tapped constantly in the US and elsewhere, how is this story even remotely interesting

      It's interesting in many ways :

      - it confirms what was previously just expected/suspected.

      - The way in which it was done ( by installing software on the carrier's cell network that 'conferenced in prepaid phones' ) is definitely interesting.

      - It was discovered.

      Oh, and I've not read this anywhere else, but there's a post here which gives a few other details, including the mysterious "suicide" of one of the local security officials... not that I can tell you that it's anything real other than some radom dude posted something here, but still, that's interesting too, especially if true.

      Anyway, I find it much more interesting than another RIM article or another CSS&HTML book review.

    5. Re:So? by DevanJedi · · Score: 1

      The fact that people were tapped is not what makes the story interesting; if you actually RTFA'd you would know that there was malicious code in the mobile phones that "conference called" calls to other numbers where they were then recorded.

    6. Re:So? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I found it pretty cool. Malicious code at the phone company's central office used to serupticiously record the conversations of top government officials and foreign diplomats? Way cool from a technical/geek standpoint.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re:So? by Betabug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Oh, and I've not read this anywhere else, but there's a post here
      > which gives a few other details, including the mysterious
      > "suicide" of one of the local security officials... not that I can
      > tell you that it's anything real other than some radom dude posted
      > something here

      The story of the Vodafone employee who was found dead two days after the discovery of the "spyware" has been in the TV news here (in Greece) and in some online news reports too. There was a "thorough investigation" by a high ranking state attorney, after which it was declared suicide. Vodafone denies any connection of this death to the phone tapping.

  6. Where technology exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abuse of technology will also exist. This is exactly why it is critical to have laws to moderate such abuses. Judicial oversight is critical. At least we know it must not have been anybody in the "West" who did the tapping... Nobody in the "West" would EVER tap a phone without judicial oversight...

  7. Too bad by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1
    Koronias issued a statement saying the company removed the spyware immediately after it was located, and informed the competent state authorities.

    Too bad they didn't have Symantec Genesis yet.

    --
    Stop! Dremel time!
  8. Re:Interesting by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or, are their specific areas of the phone ROM designed for including new and inovative istructions as our fearless leaders (or paying advertisers) require?

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  9. Re:Interesting by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Informative
    > > It "conference called" phone calls to 14 prepaid mobile phones where the calls were recorded.
    >
    >That was clever. How did they get access to the phones to flash the programming? Phones worked fine otherwise. Makes me think someone had access to them at the factory. How else would they be able to get the source. Or would they need it?

    One of three ways:

    1) A backdoor in phones for snooping; either placed there by design/regulation in concert with the manufacturer, or slipped in by means of some clever hackery. Read "Reflections on Trusting Trust" for just how clever said hackery could be.

    2) By means of the normal process whereby automated firmware updates can be delivered to phones. Same sort of way a Tivo or satellite/cable decoder can be "updated" remotely. Except that the "update" only went to the "right" phones. Sort of a variant on #1.

    3) Or the old-fashioned way: the same way a virus/worm author gets access to flash your BIOS, or overwrite the material on a hard drive. Sent 'em some HTML that exploited a flaw when rendered. Sent 'em a .JPG with corrupt headers.

    A mobile phone is a computer with a writable storage device on it. Computers run code. Computers do what they're designed to do, unless the code they run contains flaws - in which case they do what they're told to do, which may not be what the designer intended, but it's precisely what the cracker intends.

  10. Re:Interesting by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

    No need to get all so "conspiracy FUD" about the phone companies loading code onto your phone. From the first article it says that "spyware" was loaded onto the central Vodafone server. Which is obviously the best place to attack the system. That way you can use the entire network as your spy infrastructure.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. Goatse Tapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging from that picture, must do strange things with their mobile phones in greece. Maybe they DO need to be monitored...

  12. Why can't we have... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a phone conversation encryptor?

    Actually the idea is as old as the MAD magazine, but with today's technology it could be implemented using public keys and a tiny modem in the headset.

    voice -> data -> public-key encrypted data -> voice.

    Ta-da! :D

    1. Re:Why can't we have... by lawpoop · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Powers That Be really really *really* don't want private individuals to have private conversations. It would be too easy for them to organize their ouster.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Why can't we have... by OzPeter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One slight problem I can think of :-)

      1. Build encryptor for phones to hide nefarious deeds
      2. Authorities take interest in you
      3. Authorities tap your phone and find out that they can't decode your speech data
      4. Authorities go " .. Hmmm .. I wonder what he is hiding?" and throws mainframe full of cracking software at the problem.

      At this point you are effectively putting head to head two computer systems:

      1) The *hand held* device that you built to encode and decode speach in *real time* in order to hide what you are saying.

      2) A multi room mega computer owned by the Authorities with a sole purpose of cracking coded data.

      Wanna take bets as to which system will win in a test of wills???

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Why can't we have... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Why not just use VoIP and an SSL tunnel between the two people?

    4. Re:Why can't we have... by stanwirth · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The objection to "roll your own" reads:
      1. Build encryptor for phones to hide nefarious deeds
      2. Authorities take interest in you
      3. Authorities tap your phone and find out that they can't decode your speech data
      4. Authorities go " .. Hmmm .. I wonder what he is hiding?" and throws mainframe full of cracking software at the problem.

      Several problems with this objection. First of all STU phones have existed for years (and they keep replacing them with STU I, STU II, STU III etc) -- well because the keep getting cracked. So your point that such a phone couldn't be built -- blunted somewhat.

      Second of all, if you were conducting internet traffic on the same line as your voice traffic, both as packets, one can be disguised as the other.

      This is what VOIP already does -- and is it any wonder that commercial server-mediated VOIP services are being pushed in a situation where FOSS/P2P could do? FOSS/P2P VOIP could be easily disguised as music sharing...oops! That's under attack, too. I wonder why. Is it really just to protect the poor singer/songwriter (and the profits of RIAA members)? Or is it to stigmatize and have an excuse to monitor your most likely covert channel?

    5. Re:Why can't we have... by utexaspunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could one not make 2 encryption devices that would go on either end of the phone conversation that are pre-populated with identical large sets of random data to be used as a one-time pad? Or some kind of real-time random number generators that share a common seed? Seems like that would be pretty tough to crack...

    6. Re:Why can't we have... by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that a phone couldn't be built .. and you point out that they are built .. but also are being cracked (which is what I was mainly alluding to happening in an arms race)

      The more general point I was trying to make (and badly) was that if the authorities are interested in you, then they will bring to bare on you as many resources as matches their interest. And that any small, portable device will never be a match for a much larger, more powerful device.

      Hiding your voice as another type of data stream will only work as long as they haven't yet taken an interest in you. Once they realise that it is you that they should be looking at, then I am sure all manner of data that you generate or receive will come under a very detailed inspection. Other people would call this "security by obscurity", which will minimise the risk of getting randomly caught. The whole game changes if you have been pointed out as an interesting person from some other source.

      I am sure there have been much smarter people than me looking at both sides of this fence both in encrypting and decrypting data. without being too speculative, I am sure that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station is one solution to this problem.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:Why can't we have... by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 3, Informative

      From official Greek sources, actually all high ranked officials have end-to-end encryption enabled handsets. The problem is that many officials admitted that many times they do not use this feature because of the inconvenience, since both parties have to have them enabled. The same way we do not always enable gaim encyption even though we and I our geek friends went through the trouble to set it up once.

    8. Re:Why can't we have... by Fatchap · · Score: 1

      In theory you could, but you would need to store as much random data as the combination of all of your phone calls. It by definition would threfore have to have a finite life.

      --
      The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    9. Re:Why can't we have... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Dude, here, in the U.S. we oust the Powers that Be every two, six, and four to eight years.

      The whole thing is done in public, with intense media coverage and participation. The Powers that Be and the Powers that Wish to Be participate openly in the proceedings, and each faction's ouster plans are hotly debated at all levels of our society for months and even years preceding an ouster event.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    10. Re:Why can't we have... by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh really? You mean that all of the corporate boards are dissolved every 2, 4, and 8 years, and new boards are instated?

      You mean that the Democratic and Republican parties are not more than 8 years old?

      All that happens here in the US is that the two political parties trade off every several years. Currently, laws are written in private closed door sessions, when they are not directly written by the corporate interests themselves. Case in point, the recent consumer bankrupcy bill. It was literally written by industry lawyers. And bills are passed in the middle of the night, with little to no floor discussion.

      Open your eyes, man. We live in Corporate fuedalism.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    11. Re:Why can't we have... by hachete · · Score: 1

      yes, the better idea would be to feed a *completely* different, unemcrypted mind-numbingly harmless conversation down the phone at the same time.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    12. Re:Why can't we have... by PayPaI · · Score: 1

      at 16kbps, an 8gig microdrive could store enough random data for 46 days of audio. Or at 2 hours a day, that would be a year and a half of calls.

    13. Re:Why can't we have... by Fatchap · · Score: 1

      True but then you have to recreate your random data and exchange it again. So the life of your device is finite.

      --
      The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    14. Re:Why can't we have... by Foerstner · · Score: 1

      Wanna take bets as to which system will win in a test of wills???


      According to current, public knowledge of mathematics, a well-designed algorithm, implemented properly, can be secure against any sort of known multi-room mega-computer.

      That is, a BlueGene/L-class system (or even something 1000 times more powerful) using any known factoring algorithm, would not be able to crack AES-encrypted traffic in any reasonable amount of time.

      Of course there is always the risk that the NSA has a functioning quantum computer, and/or a nice O(n) prime factorization algorithm. But that's not so much a test of wills as a test of the limits of science.

      --
      The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    15. Re:Why can't we have... by Bodysurf · · Score: 1

      That's OK, because at least that would stop them from potentially filtering phonecalls "en masse" thru stuff like Echelon.

    16. Re:Why can't we have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the basis of sigsally, the WWII voice encryption between President Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Churchill. It used a 33 LP record of one-type random numbers to provide the security between the U.S. and England. Of course, the key distribution was the main problem, as each LP could be only used once, and realistically, only gov'ts could afford to maintain constant updates.

      See Turing's biography for further information.

    17. Re:Why can't we have... by mesocyclone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a whole lot easier to just steal your encryption devices, put in something that will give away the keys, and return it.

      Or just put someone hear you when you are talking.

      Or look at other information about you to see if you are worth listening to.

      Or ask a bunch of folks about you.

      Or feed you some information about something nefarious and see if you use encryption to relay it to someone.

      It is way too easy to put your faith in high tech cryptography and high tech cryptanalysis, when old fashioned methods work much better.

      The Venona project ( http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00039.cfm ) worked because the Soviet organization for producing one time pads duplicated some of them. Oops!

      So much for high tech.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    18. Re:Why can't we have... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      that's too much work, you can fly under the raid much easier than that. you think Echelon is going to pick up a conversation about "ihad-Jay"?

    19. Re:Why can't we have... by Burz · · Score: 1

      The qualities [that a president] is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. ... His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. -- Douglas Adams

    20. Re:Why can't we have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how are those tactics feasible when they are targeting millions of people for mass surveillance? Ubiquitous use of strong encryption would set them back years to the point where they could only target a few thousand people at a time. It's a problem of degree.

    21. Re:Why can't we have... by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      They are not targetting millions of people. They are doing traffic analysis on millions of people, and perhaps using word recognition on unencrypted traffic.

      So if I were a terrorist, I would use encryption and draw attention to my traffic, leading to further analysis.

      And if I were an ordinary citizen, I would not normally use encryption (except perhaps for commercial secrets which I don't want *foreign* agencies grabbing) because I don't want to make the legitimate job of tracking terrorists harder. Unlike many, simply do not fear the NSA scanning my traffic for keywords, maybe looking a bit harder on a call or two, and then ignoring me because I'm not a threat. I do, on the other hand, fear international modern terrorism, because their attacks can kill a whole lot of people, and that is very, very bad. Furthermore, from the selfish side, they might hit someone I love, or much more likely, do serious damage to the economy.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    22. Re:Why can't we have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So if I were a terrorist, I would use encryption and draw attention to my traffic, leading to further analysis."

      Fortunately, the Crypto Wars are over and crypto has won. Key escrow, the FBI, and the NSA were losers in those wars. SSL, SSH, and other strongly encrypted protocols are used by so many people as to render them worthless as a cause for police suspicion. Now projects like Tor are building on that foundation of strong crypto to defeat traffic analysis. It's only a matter of time.

      Too many Americans consider privacy fundamental to liberty and won't give up that liberty to gain a little security from terrorism. A few scare mongering speeches from Bush cannot overturn such an established American principle. Once the PSTN gives way to VoIP and more people start using VoIP over WiFi and WiMax, strongly encrypted and traffic analysis resistant voice communication will become common. If even 10% of Americans switch over, then use cannot lead to suspicion.

      So feel free to run all your communications by the NSA for analysis, but don't expect free citizens to willingly subject themselves to government scrutiny when they have the technological measures to resist it.

    23. Re:Why can't we have... by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      Oh, I expect foolish free citizens to do their best to defeat a government agency which has as its purpose protection of the United States from terrorists.

      It does amaze me how quickly Americans have concluded that the terrorist threat is minor. Al Qaeda is very smart to launch their attacks elsewhere now and wait until they have something really nasty, like a nuke, before they attack us again. They didn't anticipate the ferocity of our first response. But they do study history, and know that the decadent west cannot fight a protracted war unless the citizens are scared frequently in their daily life. So they will wait. They saw how both Democrat and Republican administrations were too weak to respond to their overseas atrocities to our citizens (Carter - Iranian embassy takeover, Reagan -Marine barracks bombing, Clinto - first WTC attack, Mogadishu, USS Cole).

      And when they do attack, those who have done their best to stop the government's attempts to provide security will look worse than stupid.

      In the late thirties, there were those who didn't fear the Nazis, in both Britain and the US. So we entered that war with virtually no military (other than a badly decimated Navy). Only the existence of the oceans prevented us from suffering grievous damage to our civilian population as a result.

      So go ahead and stick your head in the sand. Hey, those terrorists aren't going to hurt you. Heck, just because they claim a God given right to kill 4,000,000 innocents doesn't mean they are actually going to do it. Just because it is likely that more truly rogue states will get more an more nukes (I assume you just love the current government of Iran and are willing to trust your safety to their sanity) doesn't mean we should worry about one of those nukes being carried by an (untraceable) terrorist and set off in a major US city. Just because the same organization that killed 3000 Americans (and others) in one attack in New York City repeatedly claims that they will do worse next time is no reason to try to prevent them - certainly not if it requires that we let the government scan our boring and irrelevant conversations in their search for the real bad guys, right?

      Heck, we know (from zillions of Slashdot posts) that terrorism is really a minor threat, and the big threat is our Bushitler run government, right?

      Sigh.

      As to crypto, it is true that the NSA cannot put the genie back into the bottle. The good news is that counter-intelligence people know that their enemy often makes stupid mistakes (such as the re-distribution of one timoe pads by the KGB - Venona - nsa.gov ), and doesn't always use crypto. Furthermore, the NSA is smart enough to keep their cryptoanalasys capabilities secret (at least until some traitor spills the beans to the New York Times, which will happily print it - causing even further damage than recent leaks).

      But just as I correctly anticipated a very damaging terrorist attack prior to 9-11 (the date and method were the surprise, not the general location nor the casualty count), I'm sure that some terrorist group, almost certainly an Islamofascist one, will do their very best to do a whole lot worse than 9-11 next time. And they will probably succeed. Just as 9-11 would very likely have been stopped if it wasn't for *overly restrictive* civil liberties barriers (I am not, obviously calling for an end to civil liberties), the more barriers we put in the NSA's way, the more likely they will succeed in something much worse next time.

      Someday, Americans will wake up and realize that one has to *balance* civil liberties with defense. The founders of the country knew that, which is why the both created a Bill of Rights (which comes nowhere near, btw, prohibiting the current NSA monitoring) and a strong executive. Having just fought a war, they knew full well that you can't have both a fully libertarian country and a country that survives.

      Let's see what happens to civil libertarian concerns after Hamas blows up a few school buses around the count

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    24. Re:Why can't we have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Just because the same organization that killed 3000 Americans (and others) in one attack in New York City repeatedly claims that they will do worse next time is no reason to try to prevent them"

      Certainly the government should try to prevent them, to the extent that its methods of prevention are in accordance with and furtherance of the principles of liberty. If they aren't, what's the point? We'd be trading one tyrant for another. Forcing us to choose between terrorism and liberty is a false dilemma anyhow. Terrorism can be fought without compromising essential liberties.

      "Furthermore, the NSA is smart enough to keep their cryptoanalasys capabilities secret (at least until some traitor spills the beans to the New York Times, which will happily print it - causing even further damage than recent leaks)."

      The NSA isn't arrogant enough to think it has a monopoly on brain power, the most important ingredient in cryptanalysis. If modern cryptosystems had been broken by the NSA, the US government wouldn't be using them for top secret information. The only security provided by a broken algorithm is the belief that your adversaries haven't figured out what you already know. The NSA wouldn't rely on that. That's why they lobbied so hard for key escrow.

      s/traitor/patriot/; Putting oneself at risk of torture and imprisonment by exposing an illegal and unconstitutional infringement on millions of Americans' rights is the work of a true, patriotic, American hero. The goverment exists only to protect individual rights; when it stops doing that it deserves zero obedience or respect.

      "I'm sure that some terrorist group, almost certainly an Islamofascist one, will do their very best to do a whole lot worse than 9-11 next time."

      Under fascism, the people exist to serve the government, which represents a personified state. In promoting the power and survival of the state, the government has unlimited authority to oppress the people, who have no rights. Americans ought to guard against powers both foreign and domestic who seek to impose such a system on us. By asserting that the only legitimate purpose of government is to guard our rights, we cannot allow our government to violate them in defense of its own power, economy, or global influence. Once a government starts infringing upon its citizens' rights, that government loses its just authority to exist.

      "Someday, Americans will wake up and realize that one has to *balance* civil liberties with defense."

      The concept of inalienable rights excludes a possibility of "balancing" liberty with defense. Nothing, however scary or dangerous, can excuse the violation of our liberties. Defense must come after liberty. Make no mistake, the only alternative to liberty is tyranny, and that is not worth defending.

      "Having just fought a war, they knew full well that you can't have both a fully libertarian country and a country that survives."

      Actually, the founders started a war and put themselves and many of their countrymen at risk of death to gain liberty, not to survive. Maintaining British rule would not have destroyed the colonies. Clearly, they preferred death to tyranny. If we have to make the same choice, then I choose death at the hands of terrorists over tyranny at the hands of the US government. Responding to fear by giving away your rights is pure cowardice.

    25. Re:Why can't we have... by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      Certainly the government should try to prevent them, to the extent that its methods of prevention are in accordance with and furtherance of the principles of liberty. If they aren't, what's the point? We'd be trading one tyrant for another. Forcing us to choose between terrorism and liberty is a false dilemma anyhow. Terrorism can be fought without compromising essential liberties.

      I find this one of the most annoying arguments around. It is, to put it simply, ignorant or stupid - take your pick. Or to be more civil, it is absolutist. In any case, it p*sses me off royally because the people who put it forth are not stupid, but the argument is off the scale of stupid.

      Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the NSA put a microphone up my butt if the alternative was having my daughter murdered by the bastards who murdered many other peoples' kids on 9-11. And if you are real human being, living in the real world, you wouldn't either.

      The idea that listening to international phone calls is in any way equivalent to the tyranny of death, or the tyranny of Sharia law, especially in the form advocated by the Wahhabis, is so idiodic that I am amazed every time I see it come up, but here it is again. The cold choice: one tyrant or the other.

      Grow the f*ck up! This isn't an academic game. This is war, whether you believe it or not. Maybe you should get some American history books. Then you would find out how war fighting, with much greater invasions of privacy, is not inconsistent with liberty, at least in the long run. Or you could look at it the way that libertarians and other lovers of liberty do, if they have half a brain: you can't have liberty if you don't protect the system that protects it for you, and that requires the loss of some liberty.

      I voluntarily sacrificed a couple of years of my life, and put myself in significant danger, when the war was a heck of a lot less clear (Vietnam) than the one we are in now. Don't give me this sh*t about the equivalence between two tyrannies - one in which, gasp, you can't talk to your French girl friend without the NSA listening in, which is some way is the same as having a nuke go off in LA, with the threat of more, with the long term intended effect of putting you in an American Saudi Arabia! What frigging crap. This isn't tyrannny, it is merely a reasonable effort to avoid the civil libertarian absolutism that prevented us from stopping 9-11... when one part of the FBI had the information and was prevented from using it by civil libertarian concerns.

      And don't tell me that being able to talk without intercept to a suspect Al Qaeda operative is an essential liberty. It ain't. For one thing, when you talk to someone overseas, has it ever crossed your brain that maybe, just maybe, the intelligence agency of the country on the other end might be listening in? Duh. If you really think you have some magical right to private phone calls to anyone, anywhere on earth, then you haven't graduated from diapers yet. ...

      and then, to make it worse, you argue with the assertion that perhaps having the NSA keep some secrets doesn't benefit them. Another silly utopian viewpoint - the belief that open crypto systems are always better. BONG! Wrong! And while the NSA doesn't have a monopoly on brainpower, they have something close to it in this area, and they know a lot of stuff that you don't, and isn't public, because contrary to the simplistic view that openness in security is already good, it just isn't.

      Openness for public crypto systems is often a good thing. It brings a lot of brainpower to bear (including NSA brainpower - they show up at crypto conferences too, you know). But they aren't the sort of amateurs to build secret crypto systems and imagine that they are secure. Rather, they are the sort of folks who have been dealing with crypto systems for decades that nobody else has even heard of. They were so far ahead of academia that many, many years after DES was put out, public cryptographers finally discovered differentia

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    26. Re:Why can't we have... by mpe · · Score: 1

      This is what VOIP already does -- and is it any wonder that commercial server-mediated VOIP services are being pushed in a situation where FOSS/P2P could do? FOSS/P2P VOIP could be easily disguised as music sharing...oops! That's under attack, too. I wonder why. Is it really just to protect the poor singer/songwriter (and the profits of RIAA members)? Or is it to stigmatize and have an excuse to monitor your most likely covert channel?

      It's also easier to tap a system which which has some central "hub" than one which is entirely peer-peer. It's also easier to hide backdoors in proprietary software/devices.

    27. Re:Why can't we have... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Or feed you some information about something nefarious and see if you use encryption to relay it to someone.

      This is actually also a cryptoanalysis technique.The Venona project ( http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00039.cfm ) worked because the Soviet organization for producing one time pads duplicated some of them. Oops!
      So much for high tech.


      Not a tech problem so much as a problem with humans misusing the tech.

    28. Re:Why can't we have... by mpe · · Score: 1

      So if I were a terrorist, I would use encryption and draw attention to my traffic, leading to further analysis.

      If you were a terrorist with any sense you'd do whatever was appropriate to make your traffic not stand out.

      And if I were an ordinary citizen, I would not normally use encryption (except perhaps for commercial secrets which I don't want *foreign* agencies grabbing) because I don't want to make the legitimate job of tracking terrorists harder.

      Sometimes using encryption is probably about the worst thing you can do, since you've attached a piece of metadata saying "this is stuff I want kept secret".

      Unlike many, simply do not fear the NSA scanning my traffic for keywords, maybe looking a bit harder on a call or two, and then ignoring me because I'm not a threat.

      What makes you so sure that the people listening will not think you are a threat? What makes you think that they are are not a threat to you? Do you even know who they are?

      I do, on the other hand, fear international modern terrorism, because their attacks can kill a whole lot of people, and that is very, very bad.

      Governments also kill a lot of people, even when you can separate them from "terrorists", which certainly isn't always the case.

    29. Re:Why can't we have... by mpe · · Score: 1

      It does amaze me how quickly Americans have concluded that the terrorist threat is minor.

      Compared with many other things the "terrorist threat" is minor. The terrorist threat in the US is minor compared with the terrorist threat in other parts of the world. (Including that from terrorists backed by the US Government.)

      Al Qaeda is very smart to launch their attacks elsewhere now and wait until they have something really nasty, like a nuke, before they attack us again.

      Al Qaeda are not the USSR, they are not even ETA or the IRA. At best "Al Qaeda" is a collective name for various groups at worst it's part of a conspiracy theory.

      They saw how both Democrat and Republican administrations were too weak to respond to their overseas atrocities to our citizens (Carter - Iranian embassy takeover, Reagan -Marine barracks bombing, Clinto - first WTC attack, Mogadishu, USS Cole).

      You examples don't really link to "Al Qaeda" at all. Most of them are attacks against US military forces, one took place in the US and one involves a popular revolution overthrowing a US backed tyrant.
      Maybe you should first consider the number of atrocities perpetrated by the US first. The people involved in your list could claim, with some justification, that they acted in relatiation.

    30. Re:Why can't we have... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Certainly the government should try to prevent them, to the extent that its methods of prevention are in accordance with and furtherance of the principles of liberty. If they aren't, what's the point? We'd be trading one tyrant for another.

      Between "home grown Stasi" and "foreign terrorists" the former tends to be a lot more of a threat than the latter. Actually the worst possible senario is that you get both with the same paymaster.

      Forcing us to choose between terrorism and liberty is a false dilemma anyhow. Terrorism can be fought without compromising essential liberties.

      It's also unclear that restricting civil liberties actually deters terrorism in the first place.

      Under fascism, the people exist to serve the government, which represents a personified state.

      There are also several other indicators of fascist states...

      In promoting the power and survival of the state, the government has unlimited authority to oppress the people, who have no rights. Americans ought to guard against powers both foreign and domestic who seek to impose such a system on us.

      Probably best to start with those who claim to be Americans, but support another country.

    31. Re:Why can't we have... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I wouldn't mind if the NSA put a microphone up my butt if the alternative was having my daughter murdered by the bastards who murdered many other peoples' kids on 9-11.

      It's your decision if you want a microphone up your butt, but it isn't your decision to go demanding that microphones be stuck up other people's butts. Would you also be prepared to pay for the microphone too? Remember that a factor in "9-11" was over reliance on high tech mass communication interception.

      And if you are real human being, living in the real world, you wouldn't either.

      In the real world idea that letting the government spy on you will somehow protect you from evildoers dosn't actually work. The reason it dosn't work is that spys are in it for their self interest, whereas something like a terrorist attack anything but a threat to their interests, they will just turn around and say "if we have more resources and powers we'll do better next time".

    32. Re:Why can't we have... by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      My point exactly. The best tech doesn't keep humans from screwing up the system.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    33. Re:Why can't we have... by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      You miss the point entirely, while gratuitously slamming the US government.

      My examples were not meant to define terrorism, but to show why those who use terrorism concluded that the US was weak enough to be a suitable target. It matters not the slightest that those who made the attacks were terrorists or not (I agree that attacks against military are not terrorist attacks - even if made by terrorist organizations).

      Furthermore, it matters little whether Al Qaeda is a tightly coupled terrorist organization or a loose federation. It used to have a country at its disposal, it has trained thousands of people in terrorist techniques while indoctrinating them in Islamofascist ideology/theology. It still commands the loyalty of many terrorists (Zarqawi, for example, who has many people killing many people in Iraq), and as such represents a threat.

      I find your justification for acts of terror to be disgusting, as I do your moral equivalency between them and US actions. But they are also irrelevant.

      What counts is the threat, not silly justifications or nonsense moral equivalencies.

      The threat to the US is not minor, because modern Islamofascist terrorists have much larger goals than the terrorists of the past - they truly intend to re-establish the Caliphate, over the entire world. Furthermore they have what Kagan has defined as a very effective weapon: the suicidal killer - a human smart bomb.

      You clearly demonstrate yet one more person who simply doesn't understand modern terrorism. You view them in terms of past terrorit movements, when the real threat today is a religious movement capable of appealing to a very large number of people. What matters the conjunction of modern Salfism and the potential for its adherens acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

      The combination of blaming the US, minimizing the threat and babbling about whether previous actions were terrorism or not ( irrelevant ) seems to be a common part of a common syndrome of logical irrelevancy and denial of reality.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    34. Re:Why can't we have... by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      Oh, please.

      Paranoia about the motivation of "the spies" is pathetic. Sure, some people in any organization are in it for themselves. But to say that all of them are in it for some sort of unreasonable self interest is simply dishonoring a lot of people who have a bit more honor than you credit them with. But even if they do it for their self interest, it would make sense to align that self interest with the interest of the people, which is what their bosses try to do. High in that self interest is defense from enemies that would kill innocents in large numbers.

      Ignorance of their abilities is something I wish we all had, because then our enemies would too.

      What works in counterintelligence is using many techniques. Relying only on intercepts would be really, really dumb.

      Oh, and please explain why 9-11 was related to an "over reliance on high tech mass communication interception," eh? I think you pulled that out of your microphone-bereft butt!

      Probably the greatest villain in not stopping 9-11 is to be too much lawyer-like thinking and artifical barriers that crippled an already under-automated and overly bureaucratic FBI. Another would be the Clinton Administration's failure of imagination (there were plenty of prior events that should have given them a clue) and the reliance upon police techniques (and legal restraints) for stopping what were really acts of war by a widespread, but loosely coordinated bunch of religious fanatics, one group of whom (Al Qaeda) had the full resources of a country (Afghanistan), lots of money, thousands of trained members (actually, tens of thousands went through their Afghanistan training camps), a keen eye for our weaknesses, and the willingness to give their own lives to kill lots of innocent Americans.

      Do you think those folks are gone? Do you think they have no need to communicate? Do you think that maybe, if a loose-lipped congressman hadn't mentioned that we were tracking Osama by his sat phone comms, that we might not have done them a bit more damage? We were getting good intelligence from those high tech communications intercepts. Don't you think they still have needs to communicate?

      Beyond that, it is important to recognize that the Islamofascist/Salafist terrorists are not all Al Qaeda, and are not all well trained in tradecraft. Not that 9-11 happened in spite of really pathetic mistakes in tradecraft by the hijackers. These groups are and potentially subject to detection by all the various techniques of counter-intelligence, from low tech means such as rewards, infiltration, and informants to the very high tech such as traffic analysis, data mining and intercepts.

      In World War II, the *good guys* intentionally killed millions of civilians. We temporarily took away lots of civil rights, and engaged in ethnic profiling that resulted in Japanese citizens being forced into internment camps. Some of those measures were necessary, some may not have been, but nobody at the time could know which. In any case, the result is that we don't all speak German and salute a swastika, and Asia is not all part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity sphere.

      War is tough. It asks sacrifices of our citizens. Unfortunately, too many today don't understand the concept of sacrifice for their country. The government is supposed to simply leave them alone, but somehow while doing so magically protect itself so it can keep doing that. This elitist view means that those who have a better understanding are left with the sacrifices, such as those in our 100% volunteer military. And it also means that all of us are at greater risk because of the blindness that 50 years of living in a safe cocoon creates.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  13. Re:Interesting by wfberg · · Score: 1

    They didn't have access to the phones. They just altered the programming in the phone exchange.

    From the article:
    Roussopoulos said the surveillance was carried out through spy software installed in the central system of Vodafone, the mobile telephony provider that served the targets.

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
  14. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you actually read the article?

    It said that they discovered malicous code, presumably somewhere in the cellular phone routing infrastructure, such that calls placed to and from those numbers were intercepted and duplicated to the other phone numbers.

    It didn't say anything about the cellphones that these people owned being compromised, they implied that it was the cellular network itself that was compromised!

    That's quite a major hack!

  15. Seattle Intelligencer?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that like Bush and his term suiciders? I bet Webster's bones are clawing their way to his grave surface now, with sickle in hand ready to unleash the Apocalypse...

  16. Organized Crime? by egarland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sounds like an organized crime activity to me. Lots of cash flowing around and knowing people's secrets could be just what somebody needed to get a fat contract where they could skim millions. Follow the money and you'll probably find who did this, even if you cant prove it.

    I wouldn't be surpriesd if organized crime here in the US hadn't figured out a way to tap into people's phone calls. The telepone companies don't seem to care who listens to our phone calls anymore.

    It's time for end to end encryption of all communications. We should get an SSL session from one handset to the other.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    1. Re:Organized Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surpriesd if organized crime here in the US hadn't figured out a way to tap into people's phone calls.

      They don't need to figure it out, AT&T already owns the phone lines.

    2. Re:Organized Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Organized crime? I don't think so. Why would the organized crime care about what greek human right activists and anarchists talk about just before and during the 2006 Olympic Games in Athens?

      Something else that the fine article fails to mention is that the cells that the eavesdroppers used were spotted and all of them are very close and around the US embassy and most of the embassy people live in that area. There isn't any real doubt in Greece that the US embassy was at least involved.

      From an anonymous greek Geek

    3. Re:Organized Crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the British? Vodafone is a British company and (like all mobile phone companies) depends on the patronage of government for their bandwidth licenses. And the British love to spy. That said, I don't know where their embassy is located in Athens.

    4. Re:Organized Crime? by mpe · · Score: 1

      This sounds like an organized crime activity to me. Lots of cash flowing around and knowing people's secrets could be just what somebody needed to get a fat contract where they could skim millions. Follow the money and you'll probably find who did this, even if you cant prove it.

      Another possibility is that following the money leads somewhere which it would be politically incorrect to accuse.

      I wouldn't be surpriesd if organized crime here in the US hadn't figured out a way to tap into people's phone calls.

      As well as being able to place their own taps (on any line) organised criminals are also likely to want to find out which taps are in place.
      It would probably be a safe assumption that these people have at least the same abilities as official "snoops".

      It's time for end to end encryption of all communications. We should get an SSL session from one handset to the other.

      That would upset governments who want to be able to tap people's phone calls. The problem is that as soon as you create a communication system which allows for interception by any group of people it becomes insecure. Effectivly you get domestic intelligence, foreign intelligence, telco suppliers, telco employees, organised crime as a package deal when it comes to who can listen to telephone calls.

    5. Re:Organized Crime? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Organized crime? I don't think so. Why would the organized crime care about what greek human right activists and anarchists talk about just before and during the 2006 Olympic Games in Athens?

      These "targets" tend to more imply government. Leaving the question of "which one". Of course it could be that organised crime put the taps in on behalf of a government...

  17. From Vodaphone Customer Service by Billosaur · · Score: 1
    Vodafone - one of the country's four mobile telephony providers - discovered the tapping after receiving complaints from customers over problems operating their phones.

    "Hello, Vodaphone Greece. Yeah, I've got a complaint about my service. I think someone's tapping my phone. How can I tell? Every time I talk to my wife I hear heavy breathing that isn't hers, if you know what I mean..."

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:From Vodaphone Customer Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely hilarious. And instead of someone tapping the phone, she's having an affair! :o)

  18. Re:Interesting by kent_eh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    How did they get access to the phones


    They didn't have to.

    They (whoever "they" is) did it all from the telephone company switch.

    This is exactly the same mechanism that is used for "proper" (IE: court ordered, law enforcement initiated) taps.

    A command is issued in the switch that makes any future calls to or from the "target" phone part of a conference. The 3rd party in the conference would normally be a one-way audio device, that is connected to the police recording equipment.

    In this case, it appears that the monitoring party was another cell phone (a pre-paid one, hard to track down who it belongs to).

    The "hack" in this case, is really just an un-authorized use of an existing function in the telephone switching platform. It only takes a couple of commands, from a login with appropriate permissions, to do this.


    All that stuff in the movies "..what was that, did you hear a click?" is bogus. I've been involved in a lot of testing of these and you can't tell that there's anything out of the ordinary going on.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  19. Re:Interesting by ale3ns · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm currently in Greece right now. What they officialy announced was that malicious code triggered a feature of the Ericsson systems Vodafone is using that "duplexes" phone calls. This feature is disabled in Greece by default (or should be anyway) because it is illegal. What is being heavily debated over right now is this: Once Vodafone's administrators found out about the malicious code and the whole illegal setup, they immediantly shut it down, hindering the task of finding the location of the 14 numbers almost impossible. So the question is, if you where in the Vodafone administrator's shoes, would you immediantly shutdown the obviously illegal code, or inform the police before taking action about it?

  20. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well actually the phones themselves were not at any way 'changed'. It was a software change in the Vodafone system that when one of the phones being spied on rang, a conference call was made to one of the 14 phones that were set for spying, and presumably the phone was recorded. That is what makes this case so strange. It was a software change made in the central computer system of Vodafone so only someone from the inside could have done it. And as Greek Vodafone people say, their system gets software updates only through the "mother-company" Vodafone.

  21. Who fucking cares? by Sepodati · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you weren't doing anything wrong, then who cares if some dick listens to you calling your wife pet names. There are obivious security issues to be concerned about with the olympics. They should be able to monitor communications to find any wrongdoing/planning/bribing/etc...

    ---John Holmes...

    1. Re:Who fucking cares? by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh, okay. How about you you make all your inboxes publically accessible from your website? You arn't doing anything wrong, right?

    2. Re:Who fucking cares? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true ignoramus. By your logic then, the government should be able to bug, film, and record everything we do anywhere since, "Hey, you shouldn't be doing anything wrong in the frist place" (mispelling intended). You should have paid attention in history class during the Nixon lessons. Then, maybe you'd understand the danger of giving our government this kind of unchecked power. It's also a violation of the fundamental rights we all have as citizens, you know that whole stupid "unreasonable search and seizure" thing? If you're American too, I pray for our country's sake that your post was intended to be satirical. If it was satire, great job impersonating a moron!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Who fucking cares? by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      First, define "wrong". Next, imagine the evesdroppers are puritanical retentive maniacs who define "wrong" as "anything enjoyable", or "anything that does not contribut to business profits". Say a friend rings you up and asks to borrow a CD. Is it ok then for the RIAA swat team to converge on your location and take you away?

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:Who fucking cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly have no understanding of the level ignorance that your comment demonstrates?

    5. Re:Who fucking cares? by Cheapy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am going to tell a little story.

      Once upon a time, there was a dike. It was just a simple dike, nothing special. The dike was built, as dikes are, to stop water from flowing all over. One day though, someone decided to break a little bit of the dike. Nothing too drastic. Just a little water flowing out. What's the harm, y'know? In fact, it's helpful to the people nearby, since they get some free water! Thus, the whole wasn't fixed. But this little hole soon started to get larger. Alright...well the people are getting more free water now! But this hole kept on getting larger. Eventually, the hole was so large that the dike was of no use anymore. All the people who were getting free water could now be found under that water.

      Now, to come back to the topic at hand: What happens when the government finds out that it is "okay" to eavesdrop on its own citizens? That the people don't care one bit about the whole thing. The government starts to do it more often. Eventually, it is too large to stop. I could very well bring up the Nazis, but I'd prefer to not violate Godwin's law.

      Stories such as these raise awareness to the fact. I remember reading a comment earlier today about how the RIAA was purposely initiating frivolous lawsuits (Such as suing the person who never used a computer.) simply to remind people that they are still actively hunting those 'evil pirates.' The more people are aware, the more they participate. For example, in the late-1700s and early-1800s, the literacy rate throughout Europe started to rise. At the same time, the level of participation within politics also rose. One of the primary causes of the French Revolution (and the Terror that followed) was the use of newspapers to raise awareness amongst the populace.

      Nowadays, awareness is the first step toward action.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    6. Re:Who fucking cares? by Project2501a · · Score: 0

      Yes, hi, it's called the GREEK CONSTITUTION, if you know what i mean, kthnkxbye

      --
      ----
    7. Re:Who fucking cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you don't deserve any of the freedoms that our constitution grants us. plain and simple.

    8. Re:Who fucking cares? by routerguy666 · · Score: 1

      If the people don't care about it, the people don't care about it. You pretty much negate the rest of your argument right there.

      If and when elected officials find a circumstance to extend their stay in office without additional elections, then your naziphobia will be warranted. Of course that will also be the time when the right to bear arms will suddenly seem like a real good idea to all the folks who would currently like to disarm the citizenry while at the same time crying foul every time the government acts like, well, a government.

    9. Re:Who fucking cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French Revolution isn't such a great example - this was the same Revolution where corrupt people took the place of other corrupt people as leaders of the common man, all the while killing innocent people who dared to resist, killing famous scientists, lawyers, poets, authors etc.

      The Revolutionists killed many who didn't deserve to die - a lot of people who pushed for equality and socialism and betterment of everyone.

      They weren't as bad as Pol Pot's destruction of intellectualism by any means, but they certainly managed to destroy a significant portion of France's enlightened culture of the time, even if it did lead to an increasing secularisation and limitation of the Church, and a move to democracy over many years.

    10. Re:Who fucking cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not doing anything wrong when I have a private, late-night conversation with my friends, but that doesn't mean I want a government spy with a notepad allowed in the room with me as we chat.

      "Those who will trade liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

    11. Re:Who fucking cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do care about it. Even you do as your reply is proof of that.

      People's feelings aren't coherently organized yet but it the powers keep up their idiotic policies it will be.

    12. Re:Who fucking cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I could very well bring up the Nazis, but I'd prefer to not violate Godwin's law.

      I'm pretty sure you just did...

    13. Re:Who fucking cares? by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between people not caring, and people not knowing.

      That said, I'm not quite sure why you bring up the right to bear arms. I'm supposing that you simply cast me as someone who would be against it due to my previous post? On the contrary, I'm very well for the right to bear arms. The best way to stop a police state is with weapons. That is a case where you need quick action, for if the police state is allowed to continue for long, the people will be indoctrined towards it and would thus resist attempts to free themselves.

      On a side note: Explain what you mean by 'naziphobia'.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    14. Re:Who fucking cares? by routerguy666 · · Score: 1

      What argument could you possibly make that the citizenry is walking about blind to what is going on when you are posting in response to a public story about eavesdropping, when NSA activities are constantly in the headlines, when every armchair theorist in America operates under the premise that the government has been, is and will be spying on everyone it can... The citizenry is well aware. They simply do not care. They don't care about Guantanemo, they don't care about secret CIA prisons, they don't care about collateral damage in Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever. The amount of people saying nothing in this country astronomically outweighs the relative few who are making a noise and trying to get their message across via protests and the media.

      If people really felt things were going to hell, why are they doing nothing about it? It is certainly not due to a lack of information sources. What used to be called treason, is now called honest and probing journalism or whistleblowing (eg, the NSA and numerous other 'leaks'). Government officials can't even catch some head from an intern without it becoming front page news. There is -no- shortage of information for the people to digest.

      Naziphobia - fear of Nazi style tactics/governance. Prompted by "I could bring up Nazis" in your original post.

    15. Re:Who fucking cares? by Sepodati · · Score: 1
      It's also a violation of the fundamental rights we all have as citizens, you know that whole stupid "unreasonable search and seizure" thing?

      What's unreasonable about this? You're in a position of importance regarding the olympics or anything, for that matter. What's wrong with monitoring you to ensure there's no wrongdoing. Paranoia of "blackmail" aside, there is no issue. What if you get a seemingly unimportant call, but everyone else on your "staff" or whatever gets the same call? Hopefully someone doing the listening can piece things together.

      Why not come out and say what they are doing? Because no matter how secret you try to make something, it always leaks. The best you can hope for is that the leak occurs after you've gotten the information you need or ensured there's nothing wrong going on.

      ---John Holmes...

    16. Re:Who fucking cares? by Sepodati · · Score: 1
      "Those who will trade liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

      So a smart guy gave his opinion. That doesn't make it law, does it? I disagree with Ben. I'm sure other's do, too. I could care less what's monitored so long as the data gets to the right people who can hopefully do something with it. History has shown that even when they're given the right data, it's hard to piece it all together. You really think Airman Snuffy listening to your cell phone call about WoW really gives a flying flip what you say?

      ---John Holmes...

    17. Re:Who fucking cares? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Go read the 4th amendment. I did when this scandal broke. That's the standard by which warrants are awarded by our courts. Bush decided that he didn't in fact need the courts to rule and that n violation of our Constitution, he'd go ahead and tap at his leisure. THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW! The last time we let a president get away with this, we had the executive branch spying on political enemies and breaking into psychologists' offices looking for dirt. The point is, you cannot trust the executive to rule on wiretaps without oversight, WHICH IS WHAT THE LAW STATES. Pay attention to the current hearings with Gonzales.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    18. Re:Who fucking cares? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, then go live in Russia. We have a fourth amendment in this country that explicitly prohibits what the President did. We also have the FISA act which explicitly declares itself as the *sole* means by which the President fulfills his fourth amendment duties in order to receive a wiretap. There's nothing wrong with taps with probable cause AND A WARRANT. If there weren't a Republican majority, Bush would be impeached and out of office. Even Republicans are saying he overstepped his bounds.

      The only reason the President would piss on FISA is because he must be spying on persons that he knows he'd never get a legitimate warrant against. And, that would not be members of Al Qaida or terrorist organizations (read that as you and me).

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  22. First rule of phone tapping: by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The first rule of surveillance is this: Always bug yourself.

    "Omykod, neighbor, I just discovered a webcame in MY shower, too! Chekkidout!"

    "Wow dude, someone put that same keylogger on my laptop, too! Here it is, right in the process list on my Windows Task Manager!"

    "Greek Allies: Thank you for sharing your concerns that we were behind the recent suspicious rerouting of cell phone calls made by your top government officials. As you can see from the attached mobile phone company records, our embassy has been a victim of this heinous eavesdropping as well. We look forward to working with you to find the Real Perpetrators. Sincerely, CIA Field Chief -REDACTED-"

    1. Re:First rule of phone tapping: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Sincerely, CIA Field Chief -REDACTED-

      Man that guy gets around, I (don't) see him everywhere.

    2. Re:First rule of phone tapping: by killerdark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can think of an other group who from a historical point of view has interest in what is going on during the Olympics. Remember Munich? I think they are more likely to be involved in this.

      --
      A tadpole is a pollywog
    3. Re:First rule of phone tapping: by mikael · · Score: 1

      Neighbours several houses down on the next street once bought a cheap baby intercom that ran on FM radio. It was rather suprising to be cycling through the channels fo find a new but rather gritty family sit-com, only to realize that events were actually synchronised to the events happening in their backyard.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:First rule of phone tapping: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of an other group who from a historical point of view has interest in what is going on during the Olympics.

      As well as a history of tapping phones without the authority the relevent governments and links to organized crime.

      Remember Munich? I think they are more likely to be involved in this.

      The country few dare name...

  23. expect the expected! by ILKO_deresolution · · Score: 0

    uhhh Im not a goverment official...I still don't trust a land line
    maybe they got used to a non-invasive goverment and said blathering blather skytzes

    --
    I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
  24. Like they weren't being tapped already? by Gunfighter · · Score: 2, Informative

    I mean... c'mon. Everyone knows that at least one third party was already listening in on those conversations anyways. What's the surprise that someone else figured out a cheaper way to do it? That's just good geeks at work trying to impress the bean counters over at the GAO.

    Note to self: two tinfoil hat posts in one sitting... I need to cut back on the Mt. Dews after lunchtime

    --
    -- Stu

    /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
    1. Re:Like they weren't being tapped already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Echelon exists then why did Bush need to order illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens calling overseas?

    2. Re:Like they weren't being tapped already? by Gunfighter · · Score: 1

      AC wrote: If Echelon exists then why did Bush need to order illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens calling overseas?

      If you've read up on Echelon, you know it is designed to catch everything. It's almost like a huge crop harvest. You grab all of the crop and then pick out your prize specimens to enter in the county fair. Likewise, you sift through an enormous mish mash of communications traffic looking for something that stands out as informative and/or requiring some sort of action. If you've ever worked in the intel world, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You get to the office in the morning and sift through 100 fricken pages of varying levels of stuff to come up with a three paragraph summary brief that fits a) the importance level, b) the focus, and c) the security clearance level of your intended audience. It's not easy.

      The wiretaps Bush's administration signed off on were concise and targetted, just like the ones mentioned in the article. All incoming and outgoing international calls to and from the U.S. are, and have been for quite time (loooooong before Bush's dad was even elected Vice President), legally monitored or recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. Anyone with any common sense can figure that out. These particular orders were just narrowing down the scope of focus, that's all.

      COMINT and SIGINT are, and always have been, a big hit with the alphabet soup guys that make up the US intel community. Why the media is making such a big deal about it now and crying "IT'S ILLEGAL!!" is beyond me. They must have a grudge against that idiot liberal we elected to the oval office. Next thing you know, they'll start crying about recon satellites flying in orbital patterns above the US. I can hear it now: "If they're flying in space above us, they might be taking pictures of us on our own U.S. soil...[gasp] oh noes!!! ILLEGAL!! [insert crafty way to blame whatever administration occupies the White House here]"

      --
      -- Stu

      /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  25. Re:A few questions for Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you hadn't noticed, no one knows who tapped the phones. But I suppose you're happy to jump to conclusions, or you just feel like cluttering the thread with pointless banter.

  26. Why is this surprising? by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These games are played all the time by foreign intelligence services. The most important question here is, if this was not a Greek agency that was behind the wiretapping, why didn't Greek counterintelligence know about this for so long?

    1. Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it was likely a foreign intelligence service. Greece's main geopolitical rival is Turkey, I would suspect it was people working for the Turkish intelligence services.

  27. Not the whole story... by Sub+Zero+992 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some more interesting details:

    1) The software used was developed by Vodafone's major supplier,
    Ericsson. It was installed although Vodafone does not own any licenses
    to use it.
    http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_polit ics_371_03/02/2006_172382

    2) Vodafone was notified by a Reseller, Q-Telecoms, about delays in
    text message delivery, after which they undertook an ad-hoc analysis.
    They found the software, supposedly a remotely activated Trojan (how
    the hell could a Trojan get onto an SMS gateway?), by sheer luck, and
    then disconnected the computer from the network.

    3) The day after (2) the local security manager was discovered dead.
    "Suicide", don't you know.

    4) Ta Nea (http://digital.tanea.gr/) are claiming it was the CIA,
    since the remote proxy used for collecting data appeared to lie in the
    vicinity of the American and / or British embassies. How amateurish is
    that? Their motive was "Anti-Terrorism" before, during and evidently
    also after the 2004 Olympics, which is no doubt why the list of
    mobiles being tracked also included those of some prominent, and very
    very active (if you follow the news about bombs and firebombs at Greek
    banks and ministries, you'll know what I mean) anarchists (not
    commies, much more left wing than those boy-scouts).

    So long,

    --
    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
    1. Re:Not the whole story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were also caught redhanded in moscow:

      http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&q=british+ spy+rock&btnG=Search+News

      That stuff is far from James Bond sleek MI:7 stuff. Really lame, but then
      what do you expect government salarymen to do? There is no cause anymore,
      so they are just well paid under trained snoopies.

    2. Re:Not the whole story... by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      anarchists (not commies, much more left wing than those boy-scouts).

      As an anarchist, I am offended by that.

    3. Re:Not the whole story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Generally speaking, anarchists are regarded as being ultra-left.

    4. Re:Not the whole story... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      only on the completely broken linear political map.

      Anarchists are the extreme of Libertarianism.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:Not the whole story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarians (right libertarians) == Free Market Capitalism == Economic Extreme Right
      Anarchists (left libertarians) == Absence of money / trade == Economic Extreme Left

    6. Re:Not the whole story... by sirnuke · · Score: 1

      Quite true. But when was the last time you met someone who was right winged socially and extremely libertarian?

      --
      Zing!
    7. Re:Not the whole story... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I guess the best shape to represent the spectrum would be a triangle, as going far enough to either the right or the left requires an authoritarian government.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    8. Re:Not the whole story... by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      It does seem that the extreme of either end is a dictatorship ... and the dictatorships resemble each other it seems. Probably the reason is that the real spectrum is about human mindsets. I recently saw a documentary series on the origins of the 3 religions of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And the thing that struck me, and the narrator, was that in all the people who were interviewed the major difference was not between the religions but between the tolerant and the intolerant in the same religion. The fundies, of each group, sounded just the same "blah blah blah [insert religion here] blah blah". People who have a locked down mentality are I suspect attracted to extremes such as fundamentalism whether it is religion or politics.

      My $0.02 anyway.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    9. Re:Not the whole story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      megali mou

      it also turns out that all of the pre-paid phones were purchased a long time ago. the original owners of the phones were contacted; none of them are still in possession of the phones.

    10. Re:Not the whole story... by mpe · · Score: 1

      It does seem that the extreme of either end is a dictatorship ... and the dictatorships resemble each other it seems.

      I have heard this described this as the "line" being more of a circle, hence going very far left or very far right winds up in the same place.

      I recently saw a documentary series on the origins of the 3 religions of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And the thing that struck me, and the narrator, was that in all the people who were interviewed the major difference was not between the religions but between the tolerant and the intolerant in the same religion. The fundies, of each group, sounded just the same "blah blah blah [insert religion here] blah blah".

      Sometimes the "insert religion here" bit is not even that obvious.

      People who have a locked down mentality are I suspect attracted to extremes such as fundamentalism whether it is religion or politics.

      A common behaviour appears to be that of angry mobs, be they burning embassies in Syria, "brownshirts", harassing alleged child abusers (and the occasional doctor), etc.

  28. Re:Interesting by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd guess that they probably got access at some stage during shipping, not at the factory, and swapped outbound phones with ones modded in at their leisure.

    Never underestimate the power of even a simple device to spy. My favorite spy tool of all time was a plaque given to the US Embassy at Moscow by the Soviets in 1946. The US inspected it and determined that there was absolutely no way it could be bugged. It was ;) It was a hollow cavity resonator - it had a large open space in the center with a simple wire in it. The vibration changed the capacitance between the diaphragm and the post plate, but there was no power source. It was not a bug on its own, but when the Soviets would broadcast a strong radio signal, an induced current would induce currents and stimulate a return broadcast at varying frequencies using the wire as an antenna, with frequency determined by the distance between the diaphragm and the post plate (which was determined by the sound impacting the diaphragm). I.e., a simple arrangement of metal became an FM transmitter when you broadcast radio waves at it.

    --
    Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
  29. Re:A few questions for Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A little perspective. Probably just solidifies your thinking (I ain't saying you're wrong).

    - Hitler on Line One: There's a Long History of Intercepting Foreign Communications, and Some of It May Have Been Legal
    - The Falafel Connection: All Those NSA Wiretaps Are Just a Friendster in Disguise

    Lastly, remember how things were in WWII. Letters going out of the country were opened, read, edited, and sometimes destroyed, before they made it to their destination.

  30. Re:Interesting by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    I'd start routing them calls from a random set of teenagers phones.

    That's to protect the targets from being further owned and in hopes of getting the black hats to attempt a fix (Fuck the teanagers; Is there time?).

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  31. misdirected post by everphilski · · Score: 1

    I think you meant to send that here ... otherwise its just trolling.

  32. Re:Interesting by chrisjwray · · Score: 2, Informative

    I always liked this story about the xerox machine in the Russian embassy doing more than just copying documents.

  33. Re:Interesting by kent_eh · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This feature is disabled in Greece by default (or should be anyway) because it is illegal Disabled, sure, but it's a standard Ericsson (and every other phone switch maker, as well, I expect) feature. The code to make it happen is part of the system, and all that is needed to turn it on is a handfull of commands (restricted level commands typically issued by Ericsson).
    The collection of Ericsson cell phone switches that I am currently sitting beside (4 of them) have a lot of features available in them, that my employer hasn't bought, and are not enabled. All it'll take to enable those features is a call to Ericsson with a purchase order.

    My wild-assed speculation is that this "hack" was done by an employee, or former employee) who was probably recieving more than one income..

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  34. ...tapped for years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did anyone else think this was about long-running sexual favours between officials in the two governments?

    1. Re:...tapped for years? by josepuerto · · Score: 0

      perhaps...

  35. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In europe its remote flashing, the phone service provider can remotely flash cell phones on their network. For instance 3 (www.three.com) does so.

  36. Re:Interesting by ale3ns · · Score: 0

    You're probably right (I know nothing about telephone switches). That is what most experts are saying here also. Which brings us to the next interesting fact. A day before the whole thing went public, a vodafone employe, the one in charge of the department commited suicide. Vodafone says this has nothing to do with the taps. People who knew the guy, said he was concerned about some issues at his job, but surely he wasn't suicidal. This brings a hollywood like turn in the whole story. I'm guessing organized crime. But the list of people being monitored doesn't reveal this clearly...

  37. Must it be the US? by ChePibe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sure, the US does a lot of wiretapping, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was the US. But is it too quick to blame America for this incident?

    As someone who has worked for the US government overseas before and studied a the subject of intelligence and international relations before, I can imagine a lot of others would love to (and probably have done) the same thing.

    There's the old standbys - Russian intelligence, the Chinese, the Israelis, the British, and others. Of these, I'd say all are reasonably suspect with the possible exception of Israel (I know nothing about Israeli-Greek relations, please enlighten me if you know more on the subject).

    There are regional powers that likely have the interest and capabilities to do so as well (Turkey, Cyprus, Albania perhaps).

    Don't get me wrong - there's a fairly high probability the US had some hand in this and, like I said earlier, I wouldn't be shocked if the US was behind it. But I'd avoid jumping on that bandwagon too quickly without more information. There are a lot of other intelligence services out there, and they're very active in pursuing information.

    1. Re:Must it be the US? by ale3ns · · Score: 0

      Actually based on the phones monitored (besides the Greek officials), you have your high profile anarchists, some arabian business men if I recall right, and a phone or two in the US Embassy. It's obviously in US interests to tap those phones. Even the US Embassy phones could be explained: to monitor possible 'corruption' of US officials. Recently there was an issue of arabian citizens kidnapped by UK authorities for questioning on Greek soil. I'm not saying it was definitely CIA hands down, we don't know all the facts yet and that kind of conclusion is immature at this time. I could buy them being framed by organized crime, because anti-americanism is at its high around the world. But facts are, things are looking bad for them right now...

    2. Re:Must it be the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The facts that:

      a) A number of arab people were in the list.

      b) The antenna's used by the wiretappers formed a triangle around the US embassy (in Greek, but you can see the pic).

      seem to suggest that it is not "too quick to blame the US..."

  38. Well, I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have phones in Greece! Who knew?

  39. Re:Interesting by AJWM · · Score: 1

    That setup used rather primitive (by today's standards) technology, a modified movie camera that recorded the doc images on film -- putting the Xerox tech who swapped the film out at some risk, I imagine.

    Consider that today's copiers (and printers) are all digital and that it would be pretty trivial to have them store copies to flash memory for easy retrieval, either by a tech "running diagnostics" or over the wire or even wireless. (Heck, many copiers already have the built-in smarts to disallow copying/printing of currency, what's a little more firmware hidden away in there?)

    Now, for the truly paranoid, consider how much of that stuff is made in China these days.

    --
    -- Alastair
  40. We know who did it by slapout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on. You know it was just the Olympic Committee making sure no one violated their trademark on the term "Olympics". Because you know they have to protect the term "Olympics" so that know one else can make money off the word "Olympics". If these officials where caught using the term Olympics they could be in big trouble with the Olympic Committee. Hold on, someone's knocking on my door.....

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  41. I care, and so should you? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    Something doesn't have to be wrong, for the need for secrecy to exist.

    Suppose someone has an embarassing (though legal) secret? The person listening could easily blackmail the individual. Or worse yet, what if it's a business conversation, and someone listening could easily profit? You don't think the US listens to other countries business communications, and passes the info to US corporations? Or other countries would spy on the US? Interesting...

    I'm convinced you're either a troll, or just incredibly stupid. Since your an American, both could be true. Considering you're a soldier, you shouldn't be metaphorically wiping your ass with the constitution. :P

    1. Re:I care, and so should you? by Sepodati · · Score: 1
      Considering you're a soldier, you shouldn't be metaphorically wiping your ass with the constitution

      The fact that I'm a soldier should make my the reasoning for my statement painfully obvious. I give up liberties every day in exchange for security. I have to show my "papers" everywhere I go. My papers are my ID card and my weapon. Without those, I can't go anywhere. What I'm writing is being monitored. My email is monitored. As I've said several times now, it's all about the data getting to the right people. Those people need a broad view of everything in order to piece things together. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. And yes, sometimes one asshole ruins it for everyone by exploiting the data. Don't destroy everything because of the one asshole, please. :)

      ---John Holmes...

    2. Re:I care, and so should you? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight... You think the entire world should live like you do? With papers and ID everywhere? And everything being monitored? This is good? Is that what you are saying?

    3. Re:I care, and so should you? by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Well, if I were to rule the world... ;)

      All I'm saying is that from my perspective, this is a non-event. We do need people to bitch and moan about this, though, to keep everything in check. But I don't personally care. Probably should have just moved on to the next topic, or, gasp, work...

      ---John Holmes...

  42. Oh! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wiretaps!

    "Stop poking me. Stop poking me. Stop poking me. Seriously, stop poking me."

  43. Precedent counts for something by ianscot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In the U.S., we're talking about a nation that seems to have bugged members of the U.N. Security Council before the big vote on a second Iraq resolution. Hans Blix, the weapons inspector, also thought he'd been tapped by U.S. spy agencies.

    It's not like the Executive Branch has just asserted its right to basically do what it pleases in the name of fighting terrorism, is it?

    I understand your list of usual suspects, but something on the level of what's described doesn't sound like the Russians. Why would they do it? (And to the same objection about the States -- they've already proven their willingness and ability...)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Precedent counts for something by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      Had some problem posting this the first time, hope it works right this time...

      All the points you make are correct. Please note that I agree that the US very well could be responsible and it's certainly a likely candidate. That said, I'd also argue:

      1. The US is hardly unique in its use of phone tapping to collect SIGINT. Other countries have and continue to run such operations around the world (including in the US).

      2. The matter at hand is foreign intelligence gathering. While Bush's views on domestic intelligence are different, granted, this is overseas SIGINT which is generally regarded as free game and has been for the past 60 years for presidents from both sides of the aisle.

      3. Other countries - including Russia and China - have an interest in what goes on in European countries like Greece as well. Not to mention regional rivals as listed.

      I'll agree - the US has motive, capability, and even the opportunity. But so do others. Jumping from motive to direct accusation with as little evidence provided is not necessarily called for is all I'm arguing. If we're going to drag the US in as one of the "usual suspects", let's not forget the other usual suspects.

      I appreciate your comment.

  44. Guys, get over it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are being watched, end of story. The only ones who have to worry are terrorists, muslims, jews, liberals, democrats, non-whites, homosexuals, and christians/white people/republicans who don't promote the right-wing or neo-con party line.

  45. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Fuck the teanagers; Is there time?

    I'm not sure, but don't you think it would look kind of bad if they failed to trace the taps in time because they were off fucking teenagers? Do the trace first; the teenagers will still be around later.

  46. Re:Interesting by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
    I.e., a simple arrangement of metal became an FM transmitter when you broadcast radio waves at it.

    That is... really ingenious.

    Sorta reminds me of the 'sniffing' devices they hung from spy planes in Vietnam, that were supposed to detect traces of ammonia that would eminate from bomb-making facilities. They ended up bombing a lot of empty forest, with buckets of piss adorning the branches...

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  47. Skype has it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really funny those companies in the /. article earlier this week that blocked skype but allow people to do unencrypted phone calls.

  48. Turkish intelligence services? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    You're right, it was likely a foreign intelligence service. Greece's main geopolitical rival is Turkey, I would suspect it was people working for the Turkish intelligence services.

    I sure hope not, the last thing we need more sabre rattling in the Balkans.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  49. Obligatory tinfoil hat joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news: the White House denies involvement, refuses to release documents related to the case.

    *ducks

  50. Re:Why can't we have...ALREADY DONE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cryptophone.de/

    there is even a softphone that works with a PC/modem (not winmodems).

  51. I think it was CIA by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was 1 phone in the US embassy bugged too. 1? Why only 1? Why only the USA Embassy?
    I reckon that's either to test it, or so it could be denied later ('well we were bugged too').

    If it was Israel, China etc, I bet they'd bug all the western embassies - it would just be an extra line in a configuration file.

    Plus I know a few Ericsson switch engineers and they are all US or UK contract staff which rules out China or Russia to me (but maybe that has changed, maybe Ericsson use Russian staff now?) and Turkey Cyprus or Albania, forget it! Where would they get switch engineers from?

    I hate to jump to conclusions too, but it looks highly likely, especially given the domestic spying without warrant in the USA, and the UN Kofi Annan spying incident, and the claimed kidnapping of Greek citizens by US & UK agencies.

    1. Re:I think it was CIA by mpe · · Score: 1

      Plus I know a few Ericsson switch engineers and they are all US or UK contract staff which rules out China or Russia to me (but maybe that has changed, maybe Ericsson use Russian staff now?) and Turkey Cyprus or Albania, forget it! Where would they get switch engineers from?

      I don't see how there being from Britain or the US rules out any of these possibilities. It isn't even necessary for whoever set things up to know who the ultimate "customer" was.

  52. Re:Too bad -UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Koronias issued a statement saying the company removed the spyware immediately after it was located, and informed the competent state authorities.

    UPDATE: breaking news: Koronias spent hours looking for competent state authorities and could not find any. therefore, they informed the usual incompetent state authorities.

  53. M.I.T by Delifisek · · Score: 0

    No
    Not yours
    Ours...

    --
    [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
  54. True, but... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    It depends which single phone line was bugged in the US embassy. If it was the mailroom, that's one thing. If it's the ambassador, deputy chief of mission, or - perhaps - a phone to even the operator it's interesting.

    A lot of "walk-ins" occur at embassies by people wanting to give information. Tapping the operator's phone and monitoring who calls would certainly be of use to counter-intelligence investigations.

    Also, would only contract staff be able to work on those switches? Could anyone else have done it?

    Like I said - the CIA's definitely high on the suspect list. I agree entirely. But it just seems a bit premature to jump to that conclusion.

    In any case, it looks like I said something that could possibly be construed as not Anti-American, and was thus modded down. Such is /.

    1. Re:True, but... by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

      "A lot of "walk-ins" occur at embassies by people wanting to give information. Tapping the operator's phone and monitoring who calls would certainly be of use to counter-intelligence investigations."

      Because it's such a long shot. Your assuming a person will defect from the monitoring country, that the spy will call just 1 Embassy (not any other government or USA consulate), that the defector will call ahead of time instead of just walking in, that you will learn enough to be useful and that (since Greece is an Allie!) he just won't walk into the police station or simply travel to any other schengen zone country. It's not plausible to me.

      "Also, would only contract staff be able to work on those switches? Could anyone else have done it?"

      I am assuming its an Ericsson switch engineer, which means it will typically be a contract staff or employee of Ericsson. The switch isn't on a public network, so the 'outside' hacker thing makes no sense. The switch doesn't know who has what telephone number, the billing system does that, and so how would they know which phone numbers to bug?
      Switch engineers aren't usually local guys, Ericsson busses its own staff and rents them to telcos on big hourly rates.

      So that means (by emlimination) a country with an extensive intelligence agency (Russia/USA/UK/FRANCE/ISRAEL), able to place someone in Vodaphone capable of being hired as a configuring Engineer for Ericsson switches (UK/USA), and spies on just 1 phone in US embassy (USA).

      It does seem to look like CIA. I wouldn't be suprised if its the tip of the iceberg. Those switch engineers work all of the world, not just Greece, EMEA, Asia, even USA included.

    2. Re:True, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Like I said - the CIA's definitely high on the suspect list. I agree entirely. But it just seems a bit premature to jump to that conclusion."

      Like if it wasn't, the NSA doesn't spy another million ways on foreign powers?

            The problem here is the world needs a "privacy policy" with enforcable penalties and methods to test accountability. Since this is unlikely to be forthcoming anytime soon always assumme someone is not always listening---but someone is always recording your personal data somewhere. This captured data is used to create a personal profile in some database.

          I've been telling this to Americans for years but they just thought I was paranoid and that their laws protected them. Rubbish. Once you have secret organizations that play large scale military stakes (and kill people covertly), spying on a citizen is a trivial matter. I think Americans are starting to wake up to this fact now though. It should be interesting to see if having a Stasi is more desirable than the occasional bomb.

            Your profile will be used against you in the future in one of these manners (unlikely to be a pro)

      A. if you run for office or are a big player and someone doesn't with you
      B. as part of a large scale attempt to engineer a society.
      C. possibly for criminal purposes at some point too (child porn, intellectual property, money laundering etc...)

      Not much us little folk can do to prevent all this without making some seriously large changes to our governments and how they are run. Personally I think the clowns in control of various nations today are all idiots and amoral cutthroats judging how they end up always deciding things at the end of sword.

      For now our only real hope from TIA is open source (full disclosure) software plus hardware that is manufactered in a transparent manner (to prevent the firmware backdoors surely part of our computers today) I don't trust large companies or government as far as I can throw them with regards to this issue.

          ~ for the archives :)

    3. Re:True, but... by ChePibe · · Score: 1
      "Because it's such a long shot. Your assuming a person will defect from the monitoring country, that the spy will call just 1 Embassy (not any other government or USA consulate), that the defector will call ahead of time instead of just walking in, that you will learn enough to be useful and that (since Greece is an Allie!) he just won't walk into the police station or simply travel to any other schengen zone country. It's not plausible to me."

      Forgive the late response, but I just came across this and wanted to post something.

      Since this took place in Athens, let's use an example from there. Perhaps you are unfamilar with the case of William Kampiles. In 1978, Kampiles, the son of Greek immigrants to the US, stole the manual for a then Top Secret and unknown (to the USSR)KH-11 reconnaissance satellite from the CIA. He sold the information to the Soviets for a mere $3,000 (he certainly wasn't the brightest kid on the block - the information in that book was worth millions) and hoped to get back in the CIA's good graces by selling himself as a double agent. Instead, he was given a 40-year prison sentence, which he is presently serving.

      So, there you have it - in the same city even. It's not just the monitoring country one has to be concerned with. Walk-ins will travel half-way across the world to make a drop.

      As far as wiretapping the embassy's switchboard/operator's line, the FBI did the same thing to the Soviets in the US for years during the Cold War. Many "phone-ins" thought they could evade the 24/7 surveillence of the building by FBI counter-intelligence by calling up the Soviets and arranging a meeting elsewhere. The FBI frequently intercepted the calls and acted as the operator, transferring the caller to an FBI agent who would give the caller bogus information and later apprehend him/her.

      You must understand, you don't literally "walk in" to an embassy. As someone who has worked in an Embassy overseas, I can tell you that security is extremely tight and it's not just a matter of literally walking in for anyone. You must make an appointment, and you will probably not get by the guards with a smile on your face and by simply saying, "I have some information for you." Anyone with half a brain would also assume the embassy is also under surveillence and would rather not have their photo snapped as they walk through the door. Keeping the main operator's phone line under surveillence helps you know who's walking in. It's not just common sense - it's an established MO.

  55. Re:Acceptable, no? - PLEASE MOD UP by causality · · Score: 1

    The AC makes a great point about complacency and how power grabs are sold to the public. Apparently his or her use of sarcasm was the sole reason for being modded down, in which case the "punishment" does not fit the "crime".

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  56. Technician suicide confirmed but corelation denied by sperxios10 · · Score: 1

    Yes, the suicide hapend in 8 March 2005. But the officials deny any correlation with the tapping events. http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text?c=112&id=948 56912> (in Greek) Here is a diary of the whole story: spring-summer-winter of 2004taps were working. That summer was when the Greek Olympic Games took place. 7 March 2005: Taps discovered and were immediately deleted as command by mother Vodafone, England .one day after the taps were found by Vodafone, and 1 day before reported to government officials. 9 March 2005: The technician who worked in the company from 1995 and had specialty in mobile systems security. 10 March 2005: The taps were reported to Greek PM. 11 March 2005: The taps were reported the government and judicial officials. 3 January 2006 The whole story goes public.

  57. Technician suicide confirmed but corelation denied by sperxios10 · · Score: 1

    reposting due to bad format...
    ------

    Yes, the suicide hapend in 8 March 2005. But the officials deny any correlation with the tapping events. http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text?c=112&id=948 56912> (in Greek)

    Here is a diary of the whole story:

    * orked in the company from 1995 and had specialty in mobile systems security, commits suicide. 10 March 2005: The taps were reported to Greek PM. 11 March 2005: The taps were reported privately to the government and to prosecuteors. 3 January 2006 The whole story goes public. Edit Comment Name sperxios10 [ Log Out ] Subject Comment

    reposting due to bad format

    Yes, the suicide hapend in 8 March 2005. But the officials deny any correlation with the tapping events. http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text?c=112&id=948 56912> (in Greek)

    Here is a diary of the whole story:

    spring-summer-winter of 2004taps were working. That summer was when the Greek Olympic Games took place.

    7 March 2005: Taps were discovered and were immediately deleted as commanded by mother Vodafone, England .

    9 March 2005: A technician who worked in the company from 1995 and had specialty in mobile systems security, commits suicide.

    10 March 2005: The taps were reported to Greek PM.

    11 March 2005: The taps were reported privately to the government and to prosecuteors.

    3 January 2006 The whole story goes public. Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Post Anonymously Allowed HTML


      • URLs http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL Important Stuff * Please try to keep posts on topic. * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment

        spring-summer-winter of 2004taps were working. That summer was when the Greek Olympic Games took place.

        7 March 2005: Taps were discovered and were immediately deleted as commanded by mother Vodafone, England .

        9 March 2005: A technician who worked in the company from 1995 and had specialty in mobile systems security, commits suicide.

        10 March 2005: The taps were reported to Greek PM.

        11 March 2005: The taps were reported privately to the government and to prosecuteors.

        3 January 2006 The whole story goes public.

  58. Anyone with real knowledge about phone tapping? by portforward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I once heard a story about someone who claimed that they were being listened to. This person says that he heard an odd "clicking" and other bizzare noises when he was talking on his home land line. When he complained to the phone company, the repairman said his phone was wired really weird. He claimed that it was wired through to the company he used to work for. This was in the mid-nineties. I don't really trust the word of this person, but I would like to know if this has any validity.

    Now, thanks to the wonder of Slashdot, I can ask multiple people who may know something about this.
    1) Is this story believable?
    2) Do you hear "clicks" if your phone line is being tapped?
    3) Can any private organization arrange to have another wire leading from another phone?

    1. Re:Anyone with real knowledge about phone tapping? by SecureTheNet · · Score: 2, Informative

      I once heard a story about someone who claimed that they were being listened to. This person says that he heard an odd "clicking" and other bizzare noises when he was talking on his home land line. When he complained to the phone company, the repairman said his phone was wired really weird. He claimed that it was wired through to the company he used to work for. This was in the mid-nineties. I don't really trust the word of this person, but I would like to know if this has any validity.

      1) Is this story believable?
      Somewhat. It would be possible to bribe someone in the phone company to set this up. Alternatively, someone with enough skill could hack into the local switch and set this up themselves, but in that case there would more than likely be no noises on the line. Kevin Poulsen had a setup similar to this. He hacked into his local switch, switched a radio stations phone lines to an office, and had the lines forwarded from there to the original office. He was able to cut off the incoming lines at the right time and be the magic caller to win cars, cash and other items.

      2) Do you hear "clicks" if your phone line is being tapped?
      If the phone company taps a line by order of the government, you will not hear any clicks or other noises, and you will have no way of knowing your phone is tapped. On the other hand, if it is an amateur tap, such as a tape recorder aligator clipped to the network interface on the outside of your house, you may hear some clicks.

      3) Can any private organization arrange to have another wire leading from another phone?
      This setup is possible to pull off, and if the company had a tape recorder attached to the line it could explain the clicking noises, such as when a voice activated recorder starts and stops recording. Sounds like a case of industrial espionage, maybe your friend was working for one of his ex-employers competiters? If that's not the case, I don't see why someone would go to all the trouble to set something like this up. Legit story? I don't know. Technically possible? Yes.

      --
      SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
  59. In the U.S. by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1
    the government taps you...

    In Greece? The U.S. government taps you again...

  60. I doubt that it was CIA, or Mossad, or KGB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt that it was CIA, or Mossad, or KGB; simply because this tap was relatively clumsy. Anything that a technician investigating some other problem can stumble upon and go "what's that? Hmm, let's take a look..." fits into that category.

    I suspect organized crime, most likely the Russian Mafia. They don't have the same level of resources as the big spy agencies, but they do have some very clever people working for them. The most likely purpose was to collect information that could be sold to interested third parties.

  61. Fasten your seatbelts! by WheelDweller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you think this is news, it'll shudder you to your core to know that...brace yourself...the UN is also completely bugged. Been that way since the start.

    A lot of you zombies think it's some good-hearted organization for finding lost puppies, but part of the Iraq-war intel came from there. And it stretches back all the way....I suppose to the Bay of Pigs or so.

    It's not new; it's just new to you...part of how the world has always worked. Don't panic.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    1. Re:Fasten your seatbelts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, I am offering a special 2 for 1 sale on tin foil hats... made with real Tin!

      Thanks,

      WheelDweller

  62. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Now, for the truly paranoid, consider how much of that stuff is made in China these days.

    Now, for the truly paranoid, consider how much of that stuff is designed in US or allies of the US who have a track record of systems like Echelon, have the technical sophistication to design and install such devices and are intent on establishing a global hegemony via any means necessary.

    All this China is going to cause the sky to fall is kinda getting old, paranoid and slightly offensive. How did the (peaceful) Japan-threat go? China will get more powerful (along with Europe, India, Russia and Brazil), but their growth rate will level off, just as Japan did.

    Sure, it is possible that China is engaged in some massive spying operation (and you shouldn't dismiss it), but on balance of probabilities, this Slashdot comment is far more likely to pass through multiple US-controlled spying devices. Let's keep things in perspective.

  63. you my friend by xmodem_and_rommon · · Score: 1

    You, my friend, no nothing of encryption. I am by no means an expert, but let me educate you a little.

    Current synchronous algorithms (e.g. AES, Blowfish) are exceptionally secure. 256-bit AES, for example is rated as secure enough for top secret information, stuff that neds to stay encrypted decades into the future.

    As a quick test, i just AES-256 encrypted a 10MB file using my celeron 850. It took about 5 seconds. There is absolutely no reason why any recent pocketpc can't encrypt/decrypt a VOIP call on the fly.

    The only problem with synchronous algorithms is key exchange. Both parties need to have the same key, and therefore need to have a way to communicate unintercepted.

    This is where asynchronous algorithms come into play. An asynchronous algorithm has two seperate keys for the encrypted data: The public key, and the private key. The public key can only be usd o encrypt data, and the private key can only be used to decrypt it. So: Alice gives Bob her publi key. Bob uses the public key to encrypt his AES-256 key, and ten send this back to Alice. Alice then decrypts this using her private key, and then alice and bob can have a secre VOIP conversation.

    Sounds complicated? A similar procedure takes place in a matter of seconds whenever you connect to an SSL website.

    So in conclusion, effective encryption technologies are available to the masses. And ave been, for some time. For ayone who really cares, the technology is there to securely encrypt any communications you want.

    If anyone wants some links to some apps, let me know.

    1. Re:you my friend by mpe · · Score: 1

      The only problem with synchronous algorithms is key exchange. Both parties need to have the same key, and therefore need to have a way to communicate unintercepted.
      This is where asynchronous algorithms come into play. An asynchronous algorithm has two seperate keys for the encrypted data: The public key, and the private key. The public key can only be usd o encrypt data, and the private key can only be used to decrypt it. So: Alice gives Bob her publi key. Bob uses the public key to encrypt his AES-256 key, and ten send this back to Alice. Alice then decrypts this using her private key, and then alice and bob can have a secre VOIP conversation.


      Note that Bob does not need to use the same AES-256 key one could be randomly generated by his phone when he calls Alice and deleted from the memory of both phones when the call ends. If Bob's phone were to have a single AES-256 key stored in it would be possible for anyone who could get their hands on Bob's phone to decrypt all his calls. Using a transient key means that that an evesdropper has to brute force every call.
      To make things more difficult for evesdroppers there's nothing to stop the phones negotiating multiple keys and changing key every so often.

  64. For all who posted a reply titled "Who cares" by Kalashnikov_BXL · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is the following: 1)Replace the word "Greek" by US in the title 2)Realise that the USA president's phone calls are monitored by an external intelligence agency. 3)Rethink about your initial reply.... 4)It does matter. Not for the sake of national security(of any country), but for the sake of everyone who wants some decent level of privacy and believes in the basic principles of democracy. P.S. Does my expression of the above make me a potential terrorist? I guess I'll know in a couple of hours when they come for me...

  65. Foreign countries SHOULD be bugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The political background is that Greece is notoriously corrupt and pro-terror.

    A domestic Maoist/Marxist terror group ran for more than twenty five YEARS unchecked, their actions included assassinating US officials at the Athens Embassy, murdering journalists, and others. They ran unchecked because they paid off the Security Services, and had in some cases married into the Security Services.

    Greece and Athens Airport has been known for decades as terrorist central. Muslim terrorists are allowed through Athens with no counter-terrorism actions (including notorious terrorists who have masterminded the murder of Navy Diver Robert Stethem and the Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of wheelchair bound US citizen Leon Klinghoffer). Greece's semi-official attitude towards terrorism is extremely lax and they can no more be trusted to stop terrorism than Mexico can illegal alien and drug smuggling across the US border.

    Greece is probably the #1 place in Europe to bug, the governments there have ALWAYS been in bed with terrorists.

    Fussing about bugging Greece is like fussing about bugging Saudi or Pakistan or Iran. They are foreign countries and if not our active at-war enemies now then certainly overtly hostile to our interests and with a long history of playing footsie with terrorists.

    Oh, and any significant economic or political target is bugged here in the US by hostile nations. Better believe the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Indians, Russians, and French bug the hell out of places of interest. Get real, this is how the world works.

    1. Re:Foreign countries SHOULD be bugged by dandraka · · Score: 1

      > The political background is that Greece is notoriously corrupt and pro-terror.
      [...]
      > They ran unchecked because they paid off the Security Services
      [...]
      > Greece's semi-official attitude towards terrorism is extremely lax
      [...]
      > Fussing about bugging Greece is like fussing about bugging
      > Saudi or Pakistan or Iran

      Get your facts (and your mind) straight. Quick.

      > if not our active at-war enemies now then certainly overtly
      > hostile to our interests

      While this is easily proved false, I suppose that anyone "hostile to your interests" should be expecting a bomb anytime soon, right ?

      Geez. Glad you're not the one responsible for pushing any bomb-related button.

      --
      Dimitris
  66. Re:A few questions for Bush by stupidfoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your sig:
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.

    Those crazy super religious communists and facists! Killing all those millions of people in the name of Jesus! The mass murders of the 20th century, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc etc all were religious zealots!

    Oh... wait a second. Erhh...

  67. People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is common knowledge in Greece that the Americans did it (probably CIA). Even from by just looking the list of the people who were tapped (which was given to the public) it is obvious. Also the government revealed the GSM cells that were used by the eavesdroppers and guess what, at the center of the cells is the American Embassy.

    Basically the goverment said something like "hey, we know who you are but we don't want to hurt our relations to the US".

    And yes it is a big deal. Unlike the US, in Greece (and other countries) if somebody was tapping you without you being accused of a specific crime then it makes headlines.

  68. Made in the US? Vodafone? by j_w_d · · Score: 1

    I'd think a foreign government would have to be bloody daft to accept any sort of tech built in the US where any sensitive communication is going to take place. I don't think so. Vodafone is headquartered in Newbury, UK. So, Mr. Bond, don't bother to dissemble. And BTW, what WERE you doing with those communications? I thought of handicapping a book on the selection process.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  69. No. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Anarchism is absence of government, not absence of money. Well, absence of fiat money comes with absence of government, but money fared perfectly well before governments monopolised it.

    1. Re:No. by Sub+Zero+992 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Anarchism is absence of hierarchy, of rulers. By extension this means no government, and equally it means no capitalism. Try www.infoshop.org for more education.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
    2. Re:No. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      I don't see why you think capitalism needs government (unless you confuse it with present-day mercantilism), but what I was referring to in my post was the notion of anarchism being absence of money and trade, which is ridiculous. The only thing the government provides for trade and capitalism is fiat money, and that isn't really a benefit.

    3. Re:No. by Sub+Zero+992 · · Score: 1
      Well, "Property is theft", a slogan by whom many regard as the father of anarchism, "Pierre Proudhon." Capitalism is based entirely upon the right of individuals to hold the kind of property which can be used to produce profit. Anarchism is a political ideology which rejects all hierarchy, even the hierarchy which the business owners exert on their workers. To reduce anarchism to "absence of government" is childish, it ignores much of the moral and economic foundation which the 150 year old tradition of modern anarchism is steeped in.

      Without the state, capitalism would not, could not exist in any form. The state is required to enforce property laws, to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

      "nowhere has the system of 'non-intervention of the State' ever existed. Everywhere the State has been, and still is, the main pillar and the creator, direct and indirect, of Capitalism and its powers over the masses. Nowhere, since States have grown up, have the masses had the freedom of resisting the oppression by capitalists. . . The state has always interfered in the economic life in favour of the capitalist exploiter. It has always granted him protection in robbery, given aid and support for further enrichment. And it could not be otherwise. To do so was one of the functions -- the chief mission -- of the State." [Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, pp. 97-8]

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
    4. Re:No. by Sub+Zero+992 · · Score: 1

      Please read this before deciding to continue or abandon the discussion:
      http://jla.anarchist-platform.org/content/view/229 /27/

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
    5. Re:No. by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      All right, after reading that I understand your point. I had based my definition of anarchy on the wiktionary definition, without being aware of the political movement.

    6. Re:No. by Sub+Zero+992 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for graciously conceding the point.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
    7. Re:No. by mpe · · Score: 1

      The only thing the government provides for trade and capitalism is fiat money, and that isn't really a benefit.

      The things government can provide which are of potential benefit are standard weights & measures and enforcement of contracts.
      The former is explicitally in the US Constitution as a government function. Anyway fiat money is in no way essential to government anyway.

  70. Re:A few questions for Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bingo, hitler was a devout christian, where do you think he got the idea for his swastica from?

  71. to find out who did it by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    just have a look on the list of names of the persons that were spied upon, it is publicly available on the mainstream media.

  72. headlines? by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    I am surprised that this story made headlines. In the age of electronic and wireless communications one should assume that all conservations are monitored, without exception (the only limiting factor being the cost, which is not that high nowadays). Just read some books of former spies and you can quickly understand that no small country is safe from spying. Today, saying that a politician's phone was tapped is like saying that Windoze is full of bugs. Expected news is no real news, and I cannot believe all the hype appearing on Greek media. It seems to me like Greeks are not accustomed with modern surveillance.

  73. suicide, destruction of software by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    It is worth noting that only one of the three cellular network operators in Greece was providing services to the people whose phones were tapped, and that a day before the company notified the prime minister, one of the managers of that company was found burned in his house (reported as a suicide). The press also says that the company completely destroyed the surveillance software detected in its systems.

  74. For those interested... by trandism · · Score: 1

    Since i'm living there, I'll try to give some info as packed as possible...
    104 phones of 46 people were targeted for 10-11 months approximately (April 2004 - early March 2005)

    the list of these people's name was publiced on Thursday (2nd February 2006)..
    It includes: the prime minister, minister of defence, major of athens, high officials, an attorney, lawyers of political prisoners, human rights activists, well-known anarchists and radical leftists, one al jazeera journalist, arab businessmen and journalists that covered the war on Iraq.

    On 7th March 2005, a high Vodafone executive discovers the suspected software running on certain phone-lines... On 8th March the same man shuts down the suspected software. On 9th March the vice-president of the IT department of Vodafone is found hanged in his house.. It was considered a suicide.. Next day, on 10th March 2005 Vodafone informs the greek government..

    On Thursday 2nd February 2006, a newspaper reveals the whole thing.. Some hours later, greek governement confirms what the newspaper writes.. Greek minister of public security gives a 3-hour press conference.. During that conference, he reveals that those who used the suspected software were in an area surrounded by 4 specific antennas in the center of athens.. That area covers around 1 square kilometre.. There are few houses, some hospitals, some schools in that area, but most importantly the US embassy as well as the British embassy..

    The Greek public here is certain that the US secret services are the guilty..

    That is a tight summary of what has been revealed here, hope it enlightened you in some way

    --
    www.lemonodor.com A mostly Lisp weblog
    1. Re:For those interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, only one of the phones tapped belonged to the US embassy (this probably prompted the rather misleading title of the original post). In fact, it turned out that it was assigned to the greek police officer in charge of the greek police squad guarding the embassy. The only link I can find stating this is in Greek, sorry.

      http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text?c=110&id=193 60816

  75. LOL. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Haven't you seen people do something like the following:

    Give you a bunch of cards saying "pick a card any card, but just one...".

    It doesn't matter which card you pick, your choice already has been predetermined.

    This is especially true in the US, since the top US politicians need lot of money to get anywhere in politics (unlike in some other countries where this is regulated, and so it is a bit harder).

    The various companies (or rich) will sponsor (pick) the politicians from _any_ of the parties, who they think have a chance AND will support their goals. Politicians who don't support their goals don't get money.

    Of course there are still differences between the parties, but over time, the companies will tend to get what they want - those who support them rise to the top, and those who don't stay stuck at the bottom.

    According to opensecrets.org,for the 2004 election, Bush received and spent USD300+ million, and so did Kerry.

    The other four presidential candidates in the running (excludes those who dropped out) received and spent less than USD 8 million.

    The really rich usually aren't that stupid, they know a bit about "investing".

    Of course I could be wrong, and the past US governments have not consistently favoured the rich and powerful...

    Even if it hasn't yet, given the design/architecture of the US election process and system, I think you'd eventually get a plutocracy.

    --
  76. Unbelievable. by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Suicide... complete destruction of the software used.

    Move along, nothing to see here...

    Yeah right...

    --
  77. Communique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out this one:

    Communique of Antiauthoritarian Movement about the surveillance scandal

    Communique of Antiauthoritarian Movement about the surveillance of telephones of its members: Grigoris Tsilimantos, Argiris Mouratidis, Attila Ihtiar and Marina Meintani (who used to be a member of the antiauthoritarian newspaper "Babylonia")

    The recent events, about the "discovery" of a surveillance network which was installed in the software of the mobile-phone company Vodafone, are coming to confirm with the most loud way that the "Big Brother" consists a necessary condition and not an error of the global established regime.

    This necessary condition has neither rules nor borders in order to impose a new model of human being, the model of the totally controlled and absolutely transparent individual to those who process the power and the authority mechanisms, whose spearhead is the USA. First targets are, and they are going to be in the future as well, all of them who belong from this side, the side of the Resistance.

    No one has any illusions about the fact that this entire surveillance network was not installed only for spying on 100 phones. For a series of decades the N.S.A. is the global ear and the global eye (whose local shop is the OSAC which is stationed in the USA Embassy in Athens), the application of the Echelon program, the Shegen Agreement, the terrolaws and the recent EU agreement for the constant and permanent surveillance of all the communications means of millions of citizens, all these consist the greedy beast of the authority control.

    But the real sense of this case is that they must receive a response by the community of all who are part of the social struggles, a response by the people who don't compromise and refuse to sell out their existence and dignity to the mechanisms of authority, to the bosses and to the state. In this category belong the three imprisoned social fighters Aspiotis, Karasarinis and Kalaitzidis.

    As about the surveillance of the prime minister Karamanlis and his council of governmental ministers by the same network who was spying on our comrades, we have to declare only this: Cronus is still eating his children!

    DIGNITY - SOLIDARITY- RESISTANCE

    Greece, 03/02/2006
    Antiauthoritarian Movement

    [ Cronus, a figure of greek mythology whose name may derive from the verb kreno, which means 'to exercise sway', 'to reign over', 'to govern', the son of Uranus and Gaia and the youngest of the twelve Titans. His wife was also one of the Titans, since he married his sister Rhea. Their offspring were Demeter, Hestia, Hera, Hades, Poseidon and Zeus. Once Cronus had castrated Uranus, he and his wife Rhea took over the throne of dominance over all beings. But not all was well for Cronus, as he believed that his fate was to be overthrown by one of his own children. To prevent this from happening he began to swallow his newborn, taking them at birth then swallowing them whole, in order nobody to be able to threat his authority. ]

    http://www.resistance2003.gr/en/news/story.php?id= 92