Slashdot Mirror


Feds Can Locate Cell Phones Without Telcos

schwit1 sends along an Ars Technica report covering the release of documents obtained under the FOIA suggesting that the Justice Department may have been evading privacy laws in their use of "triggerfish" technology. Triggerfish are cell-tower spoofing devices that induce cell phones to give up their location and other identifying information, without recourse to any cell carrier. "Courts in recent years have been raising the evidentiary bar law enforcement agents must meet in order to obtain historical cell phone records that reveal information about a target's location. But documents obtained by civil liberties groups under a Freedom of Information Act request suggest that 'triggerfish' technology can be used to pinpoint cell phones without involving cell phone providers at all. The Justice Department's electronic surveillance manual explicitly suggests that triggerfish may be used to avoid restrictions in statutes like CALEA that bar the use of pen register or trap-and-trace devices..." The article does mention that the Patriot Act contains language that should require a court order to deploy triggerfish, whereas prior to 2001 "the statutory language governing pen register or trap-and-trace orders did not appear to cover location tracking technology."

199 comments

  1. Just one question by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, patriot act, rights violations, unecessary power, etc etc...

    Where can I get one?

    --
    Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    1. Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find it at... Walmart!

    2. Re:Just one question by peragrin · · Score: 1

      odd none of the other presidents who wiped their ass on the bill of rights needed those points.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Just one question by ijakings · · Score: 1

      Yeh but bush isnt a very competent president. His methods and plans lack the... finesse of his predecessors

    4. Re:Just one question by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "odd none of the other presidents who wiped their ass on the bill of rights needed those points."

      Ok...everyone here that thinks Obama will "right this wrong" and will shit can this program raise your hand.

      Anyone?

      Anyone?

      Bueller?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Just one question by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Yeh but bush isnt a very competent president. His methods and plans lack the... finesse of his predecessors

      I don't know... at least one of his predecessors had less finesse. I mean, that SOB actually got caught! Amateur.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Just one question by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      Less finesse? Bush has been caught, repeatedly, and for much worse than Watergate. He has not been prosecuted, not because he has skillfully evaded detection but because his crimes are so terrifying, and his accomplices [Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Perle, PNAC, Sauds] are so shady. Is that what you consider "finesse"?

      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
  2. Feds can track my cell phone... by Super+Dave+Osbourne · · Score: 0, Redundant

    any time, I just flushed it down the toilet. Trigger this fish tracking...

    1. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

      any time, I just flushed it down the toilet. Trigger this fish tracking...

      Dude, your septic tank is only 50 feet from the house.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Super+Dave+Osbourne · · Score: 0

      Most of the modern world is now on city treatment, no ceptic here at all.

    3. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by PerfectSmurf · · Score: 1

      I assume you're making this claim on a per person basis? On probably any other basis most of the modern world is rural and is no-where near close enough to a city to be connected to a sanitary sewer.

      --
      I smurf everything and everything I smurf is perfect.
    4. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Super+Dave+Osbourne · · Score: 1

      rural != modern

    5. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

      Well that depends, if the cell phone doesn't sink to the bottom and it is neutrality balanced then then cell phone will run out of the into the leach field and then it will be further than 50 feet out. However since feces are conductive it will short out once inside the septic tank and there will be no signal. Trust me on the shorted cell phone and feces... just don't who's cell phone it belonged to.
      Well here is a sample:
      http://www.wccca.com/unintentional_cellular_9.htm

    6. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      And he said that most of the modern world is rural.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    7. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      So what? Posting here is done from people, not patches of land.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Actually, with the urbanization of Africa, South America, etc, and the rise of the superghettos, most of the modern world is now urban. Of course, much of that urban space is not served by sewer systems.

      This was the year that the urban population of the world exceeded the rural population.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    9. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      rural != modern

      Well, you're comparing traits on multiple axis, but to your point, individualistic remote living requires a higher level of technology than living in cities does. We probably went hunter/gatherer-tribes -> cities -> 'modern' agriculture -> rural individuals, though there's debate about which came first, cities or agriculture. n.b. sanitary sewers are rather new in the history of cities.

      More concretely, you'd have a hard time arguing with the farmer running giant gps-guided irrigation robots or my friend who has linux boxes with webcams as shepherds, that rural != modern, but really any rural home is going to be packed full of technology to make life more enjoyable.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by narcberry · · Score: 1

      Well, doesn't this mean there are government broadcasts? Doesn't this mean we could detect and track these illegal probes?

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    11. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Most shacks in the woods don't have a municipal sewerage system -- I guess the parent made assumptions about where you live based on the quality of your attempt to be funny and/or clever.

      P.S. Congratulations on misspelling "septic" while replying to a post where it was spelt correctly.

    12. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

      I wonder how a sceptic tank works.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    13. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by ldbapp · · Score: 1
      (rural != modern) != (rural == !modern)

      Please follow the law, De Morgan's Law.

    14. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around here the septic systems are lying idle as the snowbirds have sealed up their lake cottages and headed south to their winter homes in CA or FL and those are connected to mainline sewers

    15. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we're going to take the opinion of a guy who can't spell septic correctly (and thus apparently not using a modern enough browser to have a spell check -- "ceptic" fails mine) in the process of REPLYING TO A POST CONTAINING THE WORD.

    16. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Just in case you weren't making a joke about the spelling :)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_tank

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    17. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, but thanks anyway :)

    18. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      time bents in campaigns, so rural people are ages late? that would explain those pesky amish

    19. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REPLYING TO A POST CONTAINING THE WORD.

      You seem religious, would you like help with that?

    20. Re:Feds can track my cell phone... by MarkGriz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder how a sceptic tank works.

      Isn't a sceptic tank the opposite of a think tank?

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  3. That explains it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I saw a poorly disguised cell tower in a shark suit just yesterday.

    I said it had to be a cop.

    1. Re:That explains it! by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      Candygram!

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:That explains it! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh, Candlejack?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  4. batteries ftw by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    step 1, remove batteries.

    or get a potato chip (mylar) bag and stuff it inside. (who know that the movie "Enemy of the State" would be so handy).

    1. Re:batteries ftw by Zymergy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Removing batteries only protects from the active 'pinging' replies.

      The potato-chip bag only works if the mylar plastic's aluminum layer is sufficiently thick to act as an effective Farady Cage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
      Just as RFID tags do not require batteries to give disclose their location and unique identifiers, modern cell phones also have similar functionality batteries or not...

    2. Re:batteries ftw by mobby_6kl · · Score: 5, Funny

      >step 1, remove batteries.*

      *Does not apply to iphone owners

    3. Re:batteries ftw by Anpheus · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, most cell phones have one and only one battery.

      And for low power EMF (cell phones) even very thin cages can be used, I wouldn't be surprised if most aluminum foil were more than sufficient.

    4. Re:batteries ftw by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      For your Faraday cage to be effective, it has to be very conductive. The higher the resistance, the worse it works.

      A thin layer of metallised Mylar is not going to attenuate the signal very much. Certainly not enough to prevent my receiving a call just now. I even tried sealing the end with aluminium tape (which, btw, is much better than duct tape for almost everything, especially ducts).

      If you want to make sure some piece of electronics isn't transmitting/in a position to be heard, there are only a few tools that are up to the task. If you're in a hurry: hammer. If you want to be sure: nuke from orbit.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:batteries ftw by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      It won't do squat. Get an ESD nickel bag from uline.
      http://www.uline.com/BL_52/Static-Shielding-Bags-Reclosable

      Then test to see if I'm correct. Failing that wrap it in aluminum foil.
      http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol_321.php

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    6. Re:batteries ftw by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wouldn't be surprised if most aluminum foil were more than sufficient.

      And to think people laughed at me when I put a pocket in my tinfoil hat!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    7. Re:batteries ftw by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      For your Faraday cage to be effective, it has to be very conductive. The higher the resistance, the worse it works.

      Pringles can? Gotta love a dual-use cantenna.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    8. Re:batteries ftw by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Grocery store aluminum foil would certainly suffice, but the foil on a chip bag might be too thin.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    9. Re:batteries ftw by Facegarden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just as RFID tags do not require batteries to give disclose their location and unique identifiers, modern cell phones also have similar functionality batteries or not...

      Umm... no they don't? That's BS.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    10. Re:batteries ftw by Fastolfe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just as RFID tags do not require batteries to give disclose their location and unique identifiers, modern cell phones also have similar functionality batteries or not...

      Do elaborate, please. RFID does, in fact, require power. It's just that that power is provided by the reader when in proximity to the tag. Are you suggesting there are RFID tags embedded into "modern cell phones"? Or something else? If you're suggesting that cell towers have the ability to blanket a region with an electric field capable of getting all of the cell phones to respond (loudly enough) to a "ping" for their location, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS. So what is this "functionality" that you claim allows cell phones to be identified and located without a battery?

    11. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've found that a very simple Faraday cage, capable of blocking cell-phone signals, can be made out of about 6 layers of aluminium foil - on each side of the centre of the bag - and duct tape.

    12. Re:batteries ftw by megamerican · · Score: 2, Funny

      And to think people laughed at me when I put a pocket in my tinfoil hat!

      Is that a tinfoil hat in your pocket, or are you just exercising your 4th amendment rights?

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    13. Re:batteries ftw by IorDMUX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just as RFID tags do not require batteries to give disclose their location and unique identifiers, modern cell phones also have similar functionality batteries or not...

      I am a cell phone designer, and a phone reporting *anything*, even just a handshake, to a tower thousands of meters away takes significant power.

      It is possible that the little coin cell battery in most phones could handle the receiving of a signal, and then wake the phone up and have it reply with the main battery, (though to the best of my knowledge we don't let phones do that [and yes, I design power systems]), but if the main battery isn't there, that's a no-go.

      Passive RFID is a completely different batch of apples than active cellular communications. Passive RFID has a maximum range of around 10 meters (phased array antennas notwithstanding, but seriously...). You would need a specially designed phone to use some sort of active RFID when the battery is removed, and we don't make those.

      Now, this isn't to say that I'm not pissed at the Feds for doing something like this--perhaps even more so than the average user. I can see how they are taking advantage of perfectly innocuous and functional code and systems designed by my co-workers to agreed standards, and then using those standards to make our customers lose their privacy.

      *sheesh*

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    14. Re:batteries ftw by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RFIDs also have a much shorter transmission range than cell phones, this is the price they pay for being powered by the RFID reader that reads them. I seriously doubt cell phones are capable of doing anything similar, and even if so, it would be limited to about the range of an RFID reader. If someone was using it to track your cell phone, you could turn around and ask them to please kindly go away.

    15. Re:batteries ftw by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I always thought those so-called foil chip bags were just plastic with some silver non-metal coating, so the consumer would think they stay fresher. But I guess a microwave tells a different story.

    16. Re:batteries ftw by Tiger4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some cell phones work INSIDE a closed elevator box. Creating a good shielded enclosure is not a casual thing to do.

      The only way to be sure, besides nuking from orbit, would be to seal up the phone, then call it. If it doesn't answer, you have *probably* got it right. But no guarantees.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    17. Re:batteries ftw by narcberry · · Score: 1

      Let me tack on;
      Illegally.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    18. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In California they deployed the FasTrak RFID system for payment on bridges and other tollways. At first they promised not to use it to track movement, and then later of course they changed their mind because it's just too convenient to resist. So now they track an individual ID's movement for the purpose of measuring traffic congestion, and you can opt out by putting the badge in a supplied mylar bag when not in use at a toll booth.

      We got a new car, and just for fun I decided to get a free ride across the bridge before I get my license plate. For semi-plausible deniability, I held the FasTrak badge up but kept it *inside the mylar bag* as I passed, and of course it registered anyway.

      Now maybe they aren't lying about the traffic congestion monitoring, maybe the antennae for that purpose aren't strong enough to scan right through the mylar bag like the toll booth ones do. All I'm saying is that if someone is determined, a mylar bag isn't going to stop them.

      [Later I crossed again, and had the badge in it's bag in the car but not near the windows, and got my free ride. Woohoo! Enough rebellion for me, I'll pay my fair share next time. Probably.]

    19. Re:batteries ftw by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not. Even multiple layers of aluminum foil will not block a cell phone signal. The best thing is to get a cell phone jammer, but those are often not readily available. Second is a faraday cage, but those are expensive and not really convenient. Third are EMF bags, which look like static shielding bags, but work slightly better, but realistically those don't work very well either.

      --
      Qxe4
    20. Re:batteries ftw by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      One, have you actually tested this (I'm curious and would like to know) and two, cell phone jammer? As in, it would advertise your position to anyone scanning those frequencies?

    21. Re:batteries ftw by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "In California they deployed the FasTrak RFID system for payment on bridges and other tollways. At first they promised not to use it to track movement, and then later of course they changed their mind because it's just too convenient to resist. So now they track an individual ID's movement for the purpose of measuring traffic congestion, and you can opt out by putting the badge in a supplied mylar bag when not in use at a toll booth."

      Well, there is a simple way around all of this.

      Pay cash when you take toll roads/bridges. Don't sign up for the FasTrack thingy....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:batteries ftw by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes I have tested it.

      You are probably right, with the right tool it would probably be easy to find the location of the blocker, but for debugging purposes, nothing works better. Although I believe they are illegal.

      --
      Qxe4
    23. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we know that you do not work for the NSA?

    24. Re:batteries ftw by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Pay cash when you take toll roads/bridges. Don't sign up for the FasTrack thingy....

      Yeah, but the trick there is that they start jacking up the cash prices. So you -can- pay cash, but you rapidly reach the point where you are paying double or even triple. Good way to soak the tourists who can't say squat, while the local voters don't really object (they all sign up to the system, so they are shielded from the price increases).

    25. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our new toll road scans all license plates. You can't pay cash, instead they send the car owner a bill.

    26. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, step 1 is selling your cellphone. Landline FTW.

    27. Re:batteries ftw by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      designed by my co-workers to agreed standards

      most of those standards were specifically weakened for "the Feds" requirements (basically that meant USA & France over the interests of Germany if I remember right). It's a) clear that it's not really the cell phone industry's fault since they wouldn't get approval otherwise b) clear that "everybody" in some sense knew about this otherwise the weakening wouldn't have been done.

      A very specific change made in the UMTS standard from GSM is to require that the phone verifies the network. Without that it's always been possible to intercept. The change is pretty useless at present, since all UMTS phones include a GSM radio and very few can be forced into 3G mode.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    28. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...now you know why the iPhone batteries are soldered in. Pretty soon only terrorists will use phones with removable batteries...

    29. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, you should have provided a proper voice and signaling data encryption system.

    30. Re:batteries ftw by penguinchris · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just so you know, here in Southern California, where the FasTrak system the parent mentions is, most toll roads that I'm aware of do not take cash. You must have the FasTrak, or presumably they will photograph your license plate and you will pay a hefty fine.

      Here it's different than most places, of course; there are usually alternate routes you can take just as easily that don't have a toll. It'll just take you a little longer; the main difference being that the free route will have our notoriously heavy traffic or be jammed all the time, while the toll road you'll presumably fly through.

      They dynamically adjust the toll depending on traffic level, to make sure the toll road is always operating at or below reasonable capacity. There are electronic signs at various points before the exits to these roads that tell you the current toll so you can decide to go that way or not. I've seen it go up to over $15 on the one near my house!

      When I lived in New York (I just moved out here a few months ago) I had the EzPass for the NY Thruway, which was a little more nefarious. To get to any other city in New York in a reasonable manner, you have to use the Thruway, which is a toll road. I'm sure a whole lot more people in New York have EzPass than people in California have FasTrak. Of course, there are a lot more toll bridges and stuff in New York, which the EzPass also works on, which makes it, again, even more useful/essential than FasTrak since there aren't a whole lot of toll bridges around here (I can't think of a single one off the top of my head, while I regularly used them back in Buffalo.)

    31. Re:batteries ftw by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The best thing is to get a cell phone jammer, but those are often not readily available.

      Someone else has pointed out that by running a mobile phone jammer, you're effectively carrying around a beacon that shouts "Over here!" on the 2.4 (or whatever) GHz band.

      But I'm wondering if you're talking about the basic cellphone jammers, or the sophisticated ones. The basic ones simply blast out 2.4GHz white noise at high enough amplitude to be the loudest thing on that channel for [however far around]. These are obviously not hard to spot ; equally obviously, they tend to eat batteries.

      The more sophisticated ones put out signals saying the radio (GSM or CDMA/TDMA or whatever other systems are still in use in your area) equivalent of "Hello, I'm your friendly neighbourhood cellphone tower ; who're you?" ; then, when they get a radio bite, they reply as if they're starting to set up the network connections ... and never complete the job. That's obviously a lot more sophisticated - you're essentially looking at most of the computing/ radio sophistication of a mobile phone tower ; so it's going to cost quite a bit - maybe even more than the guts of a mobile phone tower. But likely it's also going to be considerably more power efficient, so it may be feasible to run on batteries.

      For the sophisticated jammers, you're already a large part of the way to having a machine that can talk to J.Random Hacker's mobile, acquire the necessary information for tracking it, then pass on the billing/ calling/ routing/ network information to the mobile phone network (perhaps by masquerading as a mobile phone itself?) for any calls that it finds interesting.

      Cunning.

      This could be circumvented if there was encryption between every handset and every tower for every interaction. But retrofitting that to the existing networks ... no chance. If the spooks don't like it ... even less chance. Well that's my €0.02, anyway.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    32. Re:batteries ftw by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      They really ship elevators in a box ?

      Yes, but only ship-elevators.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    33. Re:batteries ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not. Even multiple layers of aluminum foil will not block a cell phone signal.

      I just tested aluminium foil (yes, UK spelling) and it blocks just fine. Mind you, this was "extra heavy danish grill foil" produced for the Coop corporation :-)

      What was interesting is that when no call could be made, I left an SMS for my phone and slowly unwrapped the foil. It did not need a lot of opening for the phone to contact the tower, but the foil clearly worked until then.

    34. Re:batteries ftw by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      I was so in the tinfoil hat mindset, I happened to post anonymously.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    35. Re:batteries ftw by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      So if it's got to the stage where someone cares about where I am, maybe abandoning the phone while it's still on is a better option.

      After all, a phone without batteries isn't much good for making calls.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    36. Re:batteries ftw by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Just so you know, here in Southern California, where the FasTrak system the parent mentions is, most toll roads that I'm aware of do not take cash. You must have the FasTrak, or presumably they will photograph your license plate and you will pay a hefty fine."

      So, how do they let people on these roads that might be visiting out there that wouldn't even know what a FasTrak pass is? If somone from out of town comes there driving through...they get a heft fine ?

      Geez....between all this toll crap....and the stupid restrictive pollution laws where you can't mod your car, etc....glad I don't live in CA.

      No toll roads where I live (they do have a couple of toll bridges around that I don't have to use, and those were an unusual site to me), and no sniff tests on cars/bikes. I prefer more freedom.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    37. Re:batteries ftw by redxxx · · Score: 1

      Just as RFID tags do not require batteries to give disclose their location and unique identifiers, modern cell phones also have similar functionality batteries or not...

      I'm pretty familiar with rfid. You don't have some sort of link to anything talking about passive/semi-passive tagging in phones, do you?

    38. Re:batteries ftw by jasmak · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... My Treo stops working whenever the I put my hand over the antennae or point the antennae downwards. Thus I am safe from this effect 1/2 the time! Woot! Damn I need a new phone.

      --
      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    39. Re:batteries ftw by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So I guess the trick is then, to get really thick aluminum foil. Good to know.

      --
      Qxe4
    40. Re:batteries ftw by Schz · · Score: 1

      I'm in agreement with the accidental AC. Two layers of aluminum (US this time) foil worked fine for me to block a call, and my SMS wouldn't go through until I'd pulled back an opening of about 1" by .2".

    41. Re:batteries ftw by Zymergy · · Score: 1, Informative

      As a HAM, I have met a few who have nifty gear able to tune into cell phones and their 'pings' or tower replies (from post-911 US cellphones) and a few of them have told me that there seems to be more than just pinging or tickling the towers going on. More than is needed to keep up the TX/RX channels open or for simply switching towers based on cell tower capacity and range to the handset.
      Others hinted that the removal of the battery does not fully prevent (post-911 US cellphones) from receiving radio frequency energy and replying uniquely (just like RFID tags do but cell phones have Much better antennas).
      Links that touch some on this topic:
      http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8068
      http://jya.com/cell-track.htm
      http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/37748res20081112.html
      http://allgpstracking.net/gpstracking/index.php/gpstracking/2006/03/12/how_gps_works_gps_tracking
      http://ezinearticles.com/?Cell-Phone-Location-Tracking-Information&id=782355
      http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21442821-Cell-phone-location-tracking-without-telcos-help
      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081116-foia-docs-show-feds-can-lojack-mobiles-without-telco-help.html
      http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/digital_fortress/cell_phones.html
      http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3945496.ece
      Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but because RFID tags cost only a few cents each, why would similar capability NOT be incorporated into the chips of modern cell phones. Tear down an RFID tag, it is just a very very small semiconductor chip paired to a set of antennas between layers of opaque plastic tape an a sticker backing.
      (NOTE: In college, we had fun by carefully removing discovered RFID tags and 'repatriating' them onto different and unrelated merchandise at our local Wal-Mart Supercenter... good times..... not to be confused with the old tried and true bi-metallic strips that loss control departments use which set off the door antenna loops that we all walk through. But sticking one of those to your buddy's jacket made for a good laugh...)

    42. Re:batteries ftw by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      A couple of alternative solutions:

    43. Re:batteries ftw by fataugie · · Score: 1

      OK, fine Mr. killjoy....

      TWO bags!

      Really, even if one bag isn't thick enough to totally block the signals, it surely diminishes it.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    44. Re:batteries ftw by JaBob · · Score: 1

      A Faraday cage is not expensive - not by a long shot... any contiguous metal mesh or solid works as long as the gaps in it are a certain threshold below the wavelengths that you're trying to block. Just make sure the damn thing is totally enclosed (don't leave a big window in it) and that the whole thing can electrically talk to the rest of itself. If you want to be fancy, then ground the damn thing. I helped set one up for a grad student studying protein interaction with a very expensive, very sensitive galvanometer - 15 bucks worth of copper screen from McMaster Carr and poof - no noise in the signal.

    45. Re:batteries ftw by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's true, but I was thinking of something like this

      --
      Qxe4
    46. Re:batteries ftw by JaBob · · Score: 1

      Hey... could you send me some of whatever you've been smoking (i bet you get some quality stuff down on the island)?
       
        Seriously though, that room to me is something akin to selling 'cable elevators' to audiophiles. It's somewhere between overkill and voodoo. Whenever you need RF shielding, read up on the physics, do the math, and go for whatever works the cheapest. I wonder how much of that $79k varies, with the recent price of copper and all. I know copper's a great conductor and all, but hell... even shipping on that beast has to be enormous. Besides... the Faraday cage relies on the skin effect, so it makes me wonder if copper plated aluminum or pvc would do the trick. It might keep people from trying to steal your room to sell for scrap.

    47. Re:batteries ftw by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      They let ships in elevators these days?

      Yes they do. Now you know the reason for the expression:
      "I won't go down with this ship".

      --
      She made the willows dance
    48. Re:batteries ftw by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They are useful if you have lots of big equipment, like cell tower simulators, that you want to have inside. Or if you want to personally be inside along with your equipment. I don't know why they are so expensive, it does seem like a bit much, and I've never paid for one personally, but they do exist (also, as you say, you might be able to get them cheaper elsewhere. I didn't check on that). They are cool, though.

      --
      Qxe4
  5. I wonder if this is why my cell phone has by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    ONE time, but some of the sites i log into have ANOTHER time. Time in another time zone that I DID NOT SET on those profiles. Fuckers! (if it's them...)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    1. Re:I wonder if this is why my cell phone has by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh it's probably them. I also blame the Feds for the slowness of Javascript on Slashdot, and I think that the CIA are probably responsible for the sporadic failures of my DSL. And those NSA satellites are causing my CPU fan to buzz noisily. FUCKERS! Why don't they just take the data directly from the phone company, like every other government?

    2. Re:I wonder if this is why my cell phone has by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's because they want the public to THINK the courts are working, and that the government spies are having to bust their asses to do their jobs. But, they probably are 5 steps ahead, but then get outed. I wonder if anyone else is outing that Predator/drone/RPV that (almost) nightly buzzes/hovers over Glen Park BART Station with such a loud buz that it is annoying as hell. The police i talked to say they know nothing of it. They recommend I write the police chief/commissioner/city mayor.

      Whatever nutcase dreamed up the drone surveillance (probably watching gangsters from LA/OC, or Salvadorian or Nicaraguan or Chilean/whomever cartel gangsters in the area, or just for gunshot triangulation, who knows?) seems to have thought that placing it OVER the GP BART building or near the freeway would mask it. But, the fucker is LOUD, and i can hear it adjusting power when coping with the local temperature and wind changes. The noise sweeps up the hill, unmolested by the thousands of homes. It may be quiet directly beneath it, but it's not at all quiet along the ridges and up the hill. They should buy a quieter model, or lose their permit to fly. Fortunately i don't have a brown-out gun, or i'd terminate it (without bragging, of course, lest i face jail/prison), not because of spying, but because that fucker makes it hard to sleep without the use of earplugs from ~~ 1030PM to ~ 0230...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  6. With the more advanced phones.... by Bomarc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can a program be written to notify if it's information is being 'given' out? Anyway, this is one more reason to NOT get one (cell phone). I was finally going to break down, and get one. With this report, it one more reason to just say no.

    1. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyway, this is one more reason to NOT get one (cell phone). I was finally going to break down, and get one. With this report, it one more reason to just say no.

      Well, if you're planning on the overthrow of Western Civilization or other misdemeanors, good idea.

      If you just want to talk to people, perhaps this isn't such a problem.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell phone providers probably wouldn't like that. Any false positives that showed up in your logs would just be revealing the "fault lines" in their network. Using the "real identifiers" is a last ditch effort by a network to identify a phone it doesn't have in it's databases.

    3. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by bhtooefr · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing is, you don't have control over the GSM/CDMA radio - it's controlled by a completely separate processor, and get access to the microphone, speakers, and a serial link to the main processor, so that the processor powering the phone's OS doesn't cause spurious radio transmissions.

      Some data goes back and forth, yes, but you probably won't be able to tell when it's doing this versus a legit cell tower connection...

    4. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by pithen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, what is the problem with gradually eroding civil liberties and ever increasing surveillance of the populace. Why don't we just throw the Constitution right in the garbage while we're at it?

      All in all, its almost as much a problem as this "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" attitude that we're seeing more and more.

    5. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      I think that you missed the point. The point here was not that we should give up our rights and freedoms because of "if you have nothing to hide, then who cares" mentality, but that this guy should get get on the bandwagon and get a cell phone.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    6. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Facegarden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can a program be written to notify if it's information is being 'given' out? Anyway, this is one more reason to NOT get one (cell phone). I was finally going to break down, and get one. With this report, it one more reason to just say no.

      What? No, this is a reason not to vote for people that don't understand basic civil rights. The cell phones are not the problem. Do you also not have any bank accounts, a car, any credit/bank cards, or any taxable income? Because if someone wants to track you, there are plenty of ways.

      You seriously don't own a cell phone? On purpose? I mean, i know some people can't afford them, but you're telling me that you can afford one (i'm assuming that part) but you choose not to buy one because... what? Because the government could be tracking you?

      I know that tracking people against their will is absolutely NOT okay, and we need to vote for people who will help put a stop to things like that, but realistically, do you ACTUALLY think someone has any reason to track you? I have a huge respect for civil rights and i very much think we should vote for people who do too, and we need to fix all of the laws that trample over these rights that have been passed lately, but when it comes down to it, for day to day stuff i'm not worried. Realistically, i can ditch my phone and buy a handful of prepaid phones, or stop using them at all, when i decide to overthrow the government. Till then, day to day, i absolutely don't think it's a reason to avoid owning a phone... what the hell do you do that you think is so important?
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    7. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by PPH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who needs a program? Just set your GSM phone near an FM radio. Every time the damned thing checks in with the tower, the radio starts buzzing.

      There's an outfit that makes a little LED gadget that flashes whan your cell phone goes active, receiving a call, etc. These also flash a little when the phone contacts a tower.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, what is the problem with gradually eroding civil liberties and ever increasing surveillance of the populace. Why don't we just throw the Constitution right in the garbage while we're at it?

      hey... now you have a President Select that will do that for you! Congrats.

    9. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Why not have a program ? It could log every tower, geo-locate and pin point their positions, then upload the details to a central server. Then everybody would know where every tower was. Those that weren't owned by a cell phone company would soon stand out.

    10. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is one more reason to NOT get one (cell phone)

      In the US, you can buy a prepay phone for cash, buy time cards for cash, and activate them over the phone. At least, so far.

      Of course, they still have a record of every number the phone ever called, or has been called from. And maybe of the phone's location whenever it is turned on (+/- 100 yards or so).

      I leave mine turned off most of the time, anyhow. If I want to make a call, I turn it on. Near as I can tell, when it's off it doesn't talk to the tower (off, the battery life is measured in months; plus when it's on I can hear when it handshakes with the towers over my computer speakers, and I don't hear those burps when it's turned off). Apparently some phones will talk to the tower even when off, but it doesn't seem like the cheapies used for prepaid service do (at least the cheap Nokias and Motorolas I've had).

      No, I don't have anything to hide. But why make the secret police's job any easier?

    11. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why don't we just throw the Constitution right in the garbage while we're at it?

      In practice, hasn't Bush done that already?

    12. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      I think that you missed the point. [...] this guy should get get on the bandwagon and get a cell phone.

      And that would, in your parent's mind, equate to giving up his rights to privacy in practice due to underhanded governmental practices. How do you make yourself accept that? "I've got nothing to hide"?

    13. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by janrinok · · Score: 1

      You seriously don't own a cell phone? On purpose? I mean

      No, what on earth would I want a cell phone for? I have a landline telephone that gives me very cheap phone calls throughout N America, Europe and elsewhere. Such a deal is not offered by any cell phone that I know of. When I am traveling, I do not want work colleagues calling me up - I work at work and the rest of my time is my own. You might be surprised, but life can go on even without your favourite cell phone being in your pocket.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    14. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      When I am traveling, I do not want work colleagues calling me up - I work at work and the rest of my time is my own.

      Ah, so no friends then? I don't know if you realize this but cell phones are excellent for, you know, interacting with friends. You seem to think they are work-only devices? If you have a cell and your work colleagues keep calling, you could always just, um, *ask* them to stop. I keep my phone on me so i can call a friend and stop by for dinner, or so that someone can reach me if they'd like to do something - without having to drive all the way home only to find out that my friend wanted to get dinner near my work, but was unable to reach me before i left the office.

      Man, that sounds pretty terrible, i can see why you wouldn't want a cell.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    15. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by blaeks · · Score: 1

      I have everything to hide! :)

    16. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, this is one more reason to NOT get one (cell phone). I was finally going to break down, and get one. With this report, it one more reason to just say no.

      Right on, I'm the exact same way and every time I get close to breaking down and getting one another story like this shows up somewhere and I say screw it because I don't want to be carrying around a tracking device/government spy tool. It's sad how most sheeple think that they *need* to have one of these things...

    17. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Ah, so no friends then?

      If he had any, do you think he'd still be here?

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    18. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      All in all, its almost as much a problem as this "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?" attitude that we're seeing more and more.

      I don't think this is a new attitude. Most people just don't care because it's not affecting them. As soon as someone is personally affected, then that is when you'll see them rise up to fight whatever said thing is.

      Unfortunate fact of the matter is, very few people care about anything outside their own realm of short term comfort and happiness.

    19. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea, assuming that each tower has an unspoofable unique ID. The tower ID would only have to be unique within a certain geographic area, since if anyone cloned a remote tower, the s/w could easily be set up to tell you that you've contacted a tower that should be many miles away.

      In fact, the FCC might already have a database (although not publicly available) of tower ID/locations.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    20. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can a program be written to notify if it's information is being 'given' out?"

      I can give you a very simple algorithm:
          If the phone is on, the information is being given out.

      The cell phone exchanges location information with the tower all the time; it needs to know which tower to talk to and how much power to use whenever it is on.

      As an aside, I saw an Apple ad on tv the other day. Their selling point? An app that automatically records your location and sends it to everyone in your address book (who also bought that app for their iPhone). Think I've seen programs to do that a few years ago for a Nokia phone with GPS. Still a spooky idea.

    21. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is President-Elect, you uneducated piece of shit

    22. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      And an outgoing incumbent who's already done it.

    23. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      If you're at all concerned about the Feds being able to locate you while you're using your phone, then a landline is probably not what you should be using.

    24. Re:With the more advanced phones.... by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Ah, so no friends then?

      Of course I have, and they are all perfectly able to call me on my landline. Why would I want to talk while driving to or from work, or in the theatre, or anywhere else for that matter?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  7. WTF good is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't they have to know in general where I was with my cell in order to even setup this device? And good luck picking me out of the traffic jam as I and a hundred others yak away.

    1. Re:WTF good is that? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      exactly, how is this information traceable? A cell phone company bills thousands of people, the information is verifiable to use in court because lots of people and companies touch the data. While these devices can find you if they're looking for you, there's no way to use them in court, no third party verification. It would be good if they were trying to follow you or to catch you, for somebody to do physical surveillance, but as far as proving you were at a location, like with company info, it's just a somebody's word they saw a number blip.

  8. Rule of thumb by BountyX · · Score: 1

    If it goes through the air, it can be tracked and located. This includes, to some extent, information that originates on the wire, but is then sent into space.

    --
    Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
  9. this is news? by DM9290 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The sentence "Courts in recent years have been raising the evidentiary bar law enforcement agents must meet in order to obtain historical cell phone records that reveal information about a target's location. But documents obtained by civil liberties groups under a Freedom of Information Act request suggest that 'triggerfish' technology can be used to pinpoint cell phones without involving cell phone providers at all. " is weasily.

    How does triggerfish lower the evidentiary bar required to authorize law enforcement to use special sensing technology to search for a cell phone?

    --
    No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    1. Re:this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are kidding right? You don't even have to RTFA to get this, just the abstract!

      Its getting progressively more difficult for law enforcement to get the data they're looking for from the telcos, so instead they're going around the telco's by setting up fake cell towers.

    2. Re:this is news? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      How does triggerfish lower the evidentiary bar required to authorize law enforcement to use special sensing technology to search for a cell phone?

      Because a using a triggerfish means they don't need to produce a warrant to a third party before executing the warrant. This leaves a big opportunity for a compliant judge to issue a predated warrant after the fact.

      It's not that I think telcos are going to act in the public service by refusing to comply with non-warrant requests... it's that there are now negative ramifications for doing so. Instead, the executive branch can sidestep that check on the system, and we are supposed to believe, based on our trust of the system, that no triggerfish searches are being done without a warrant.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:this is news? by digitalchinky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The theory, in Australia at least, is this: (With some background info)

      I first heard about these kinds of devices in 1997. (From a tin foil hat kind of person) At the time they were said to be the size of a regular briefcase and were used largely in airports or places where interesting people might be seen nearby. The reason for their use was simply to ID a specific handset of interest, tie it to an individual, then do the actual grunt work via all the little black (beige really) boxes installed at various exchanges around the country.

      So how does this legally work? Backing up a few years earlier than this, a law was enacted (somewhere around 1994/95) that allowed the "government" to do 'domestic non communications signals' - in human speak this amounted to a free for all on in country transmissions that don't convey 'communications' intended to be understood or received by a person, or transmissions that are of a one way nature - things like beacons, RADAR, navigational aids, and, conveniently enough, your regular old mark 1 spoofed hand held cell tower. The astute reader will correctly surmise the wide ranging scope of such a law. One can easily envision situations where traffic analysis is of infinitely more value than any intelligible message content.

      My guess is that similar legal word plays exist in the US.

    4. Re:this is news? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      but this is a mobile, non-documented technology, so the information gathered would be hearsay, not enough to be evidence and not enough for a real warrant. Nice to follow somebody around so they don't run away, but crap as proof if you're trying to gather evidence of a crime unless you can catch them in the act a little more quickly.

    5. Re:this is news? by number11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but this is a mobile, non-documented technology, so the information gathered would be hearsay, not enough to be evidence and not enough for a real warrant.

      You're kidding, right? All they need to get a warrant is to tell the judge that the request is "based on information and belief" or due to "a reliable informant". The judge is unlikely to ask hard questions, even less likely to go back and check afterward to see if what they were told was true, and unheard of for there to be any consequences (to the police) for fudging the truth in asking for the warrant.

      Maybe it can't be used as evidence in a court of law, but they can use it to find other evidence that is admissible.

    6. Re:this is news? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      suggest that 'triggerfish' technology can legally be used to

      There's a word missing. It doesn't lower the evidentiary bar, it's just a possible way to commit unconstitutional spying.

    7. Re:this is news? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Its getting progressively more difficult for law enforcement to get the data they're looking for from the telcos, so instead they're going around the telco's by setting up fake cell towers.

      This does NOT lower the evidentiary bar to obtain a legal search.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    8. Re:this is news? by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Because a using a triggerfish means they don't need to produce a warrant to a third party before executing the warrant. This leaves a big opportunity for a compliant judge to issue a predated warrant after the fact.

      If you have a complaint judge who is willing to break the law for you, then he can issue a bogus warrant before the fact just as easily. The police can claim they received an anonymous tip.

      When you have the executive branch and the judicial branch of government both colluding together to screw you... give up. You're fucked Leave town.

      It's not that I think telcos are going to act in the public service by refusing to comply with non-warrant requests... it's that there are now negative ramifications for doing so.

      But we are NOT talking about non-warrant requests. We are talking about warrant requests. And specifically the evidentiary bar.

      the legal ramification of police using their own cell phone tower without a warrant is that no one is legally allowed to simply operate a cell phone tower. You need a license to operate that kind of equipment and the police don't have them.

      if you are talking about cops and judges breaking the law.. well we are going off in a seperate direction and the only solution is to abolish the police and the courts.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  10. This Was In HBO's The Wire by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    McNulty and Co. used "trigger fish" to collect info after the Barksdales moved to disposable cell phones. The devices would collect info without the use of pen registers and obviated the need for a lot of paperwork such as search warrants.

    But this is like going through the trash. It's clearly an end-run against privacy laws, but I don't see where the deviousness is. If you carry a cellphone around that emits radio waves, you probably don't have a great expectation of privacy if you leave it on all the time. And it's not like the triggerfish are recording the conversation.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    1. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nigga, please.

    2. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by garett_spencley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you carry a cellphone around that emits radio waves, you probably don't have a great expectation of privacy if you leave it on all the time. And it's not like the triggerfish are recording the conversation."

      Maybe I'm underestimating the average individual, but I'm not so sure that the "normal" person would see it that way.

      Anecdote: I'm taking a driver's ed course and the instructor was casually asking where everyone goes to school / does for a living. I told her that I'm in online advertising and she said "ah so you're the guy to ask about computer problems".

      Most people don't have a clue when it involves electronics or radio waves. When I tell people that they can be located via their cellphone, even when they're not using it (and some cases when it's turned off), they don't believe me.

    3. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      This isn't like going through the trash at all. Besides, where are your manners? This is Slashdot, and the decision to opt for a trash analogy instead of a car analogy is just plain rude.

      This is like you're driving down the highway, listening to tunes and shit, and some dude on the side of the highway is using x-ray vision, man, X-RAY VISION, to look at the driver's license in your wallet to see who you are...

      Except he's got a bunch of machines to do it for him, and get this -- with three machines, he can not only see who you are, but he can also see exactly *WHERE* you are, dude. He's all violating Heisenberger's Uncertainty Principle or something... and the worst part is, he can ALSO tell if you're alive or dead *before* he gets a warrant, so he's violating the fundamental laws of physics not once, but twice.

      Put that in your trashcan.

      Besides... The Wire? As a source of tech knowledge by a Slashdot reader? What is the world coming to?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by maxume · · Score: 1

      People say that the world is coming to a T. I think it is coming to an O. Or maybe an F.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But this is like going through the trash. It's clearly an end-run against privacy laws, but I don't see where the deviousness is. If you carry a cellphone around that emits radio waves, you probably don't have a great expectation of privacy if you leave it on all the time.

      If it is illegal to receive broadcast signals like satellite television, then logically this sort of interception should be illegal too.

      And it's not like the triggerfish are recording the conversation.

      No, they are going one step further. Recording the conversation would be simply passive - in this case they are gaining unauthorized access to a computer (the one in the phone).

      A similar goose and gander comparison comes to mind - if it is illegal for joe blow to gain unauthorized access to a computer, then it should be illegal for the government to gain unauthorized access to a computer.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Heisenberger?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't think that's right. Triggerfish (the fake tower) doesn't give you call detail information, at least the way it's described. In The Wire, they were able to map what disposable phones called which other disposable phones, and you'd need call records from the telco for that.

      Plus in the show, they did in fact get a warrant for that, however dubious, whereas apparently for triggerfish, the feds don't need a warrant to invade your privacy because -- Oh look! Sparkle-pony fairy dust! Pretty!

    8. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Heisenberger?

      I'm not sure, but I think they have the best burger of all time ... or not, I haven't checked yet.
      I've heard it's a bit gamey, like rabbit, or some other small mammal.

    9. Re:This Was In HBO's The Wire by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Funny

      The show actually used the term "trigger fish" when referring to the devices. Apparently, they were sitting in a storage room somewhere, a part of a federal grant that none of the other police officers had the sophistication to use. The Baltimore PD wanted to borrow a trigger fish from the FBI when the FBI agent said, you have one! We gave it to you.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  11. Patriot act by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article must be in error. Bush passed the patriot act to allow this to happen without warrants, not to impose the need for warrants, right?

    1. Re:Patriot act by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of the new definition of what is covered. By grouping this technique in with other surveillance techniques, the bar went from none to low.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    2. Re:Patriot act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you fucking retard, he didn't. However, since the law is classified, you get a lot more out of making shit up then believing the people who know. So go keep worshiping Obama.

  12. Can it be rescinded by Bulk Executive Order 1? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Cause I'd like to see a giant rollback on that one, and a restoration of our innate civil rights and liberties, thanks.

    1/20/2009 - the day America is BACK!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Can it be rescinded by Bulk Executive Order 1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Barack will not change America in the way you're hoping.

    2. Re:Can it be rescinded by Bulk Executive Order 1? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have no idea as to what I'm hoping, Comrade.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Can it be rescinded by Bulk Executive Order 1? by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      Pass the vodka.

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
  13. I saw the Patriot Act mentioned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I didn't RTFA, I already knew..

  14. WARNING... by retech · · Score: 1

    Looks like we're going to need A LOT more tinfoil!

    1. Re:WARNING... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't Saran Wrap work better?

  15. Triggerfish...? by AdamTrace · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder why they didn't use the Hawaiian name, "humuhumu-nukunuku-a-pua'a"...

    *shrug*

    1. Re:Triggerfish...? by cailith1970 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interestingly enough, that's the same interference sound that comes through my radio in the car when my phone rings... :)

      --
      I intend to live forever, or die trying. - Groucho Marx
    2. Re:Triggerfish...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder why they didn't use the Hawaiian name, "humuhumu-nukunuku-a-pua'a"...

      Do you mean humuhumunukunukuapua'a? It's confusing with the dashes.

  16. What happens if you don't even have a cell phone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have not carried a cell phone (on or off) for about a year.

    How will they find me?

  17. Re:Privacy is an antiquated notion. by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Privacy is not explicitly spelled out, though. I mean, there are the ninth and tenth amendments, but they're exactly the kind of thing you'd expect politicians to ignore due to their unambiguous, but unspecific language (and ironically, one of the more prominent "pro-privacy" rulings pretty much ignored the tenth amendment). Whittling at the weapons first, that's what's unexpected.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  18. I'll make this simple for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Look, this kind of thing will continue until the people say enough is enough. If you want this to stop, the only realistic course of action is to expose them.
    It's that simple. The courts won't stop them. The apathetic public won't. Their superiors certainly won't. The only way to stop them is to utterly and completely expose them, and leave them totally naked before the court of public opinion. You've got a camera and a computer right? Start using them. Conclusively prove what we've known all along -- that this isn't about stopping the terrorists, it's about pursuing a political agenda that hasn't really changed since the 1950s. Do that, and you'll be doing more to protect the average person's civil liberties than a hundred FOIA requests or a thousand injunctions, or a dozen oversight committees. Kill their reputation, make them a political liability and an embarrassment both domestically and internationally, and nobody else will want to touch them. They'll dry up under the bright lights of the camera.

    And stuff like this IS embarrassing, as it should be for every American. It shows just how far we've fallen; to the point now where China sits on the United Nations Human Rights Council and we do not. We have no international credibility right now. We need to rebuild our justice system, and it's gotta start by permanently removing the malefactors responsible for these decisions from the system -- they can go work in retail for all I care, but remove them from the criminal justice system and do it post-haste.

    1. Re:I'll make this simple for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first paragraph was good, but your second paragraph ruined the entire thing.

    2. Re:I'll make this simple for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second paragraph was good, but your first paragraph ruined the entire thing.

      Fixed that for ya!

  19. Why are cell phones so lame? by joekrahn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently, cell phones are designed to transmit everything they know: phone numbers, call logs, etc. Why are cell phones designed to be so insecure?

    Surely there are cell phones that are not so lame, unless the government is requiring anonymous access for snooping purposes.

    1. Re:Why are cell phones so lame? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Why are cell phones designed to be so insecure?

      For the same reason bank accounts, Web sites, etc. are. Not more than one user in a million cares.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  20. Re:What happens if you don't even have a cell phon by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

    The chip they put in your brain when you were an infant.

    Unfortunately, its removal will cause instant death.

  21. One word - Openmoko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Full access to the software stack. Implement the controls you want in the way you want. Complete control is at your fingertips.

    1. Re:One word - Openmoko by x102output · · Score: 1

      I thought most GSM radios were locked down as per FCC regulations. My friend bought a GSM radio module off of sparkfun a few years ago. It had a slot for the SIM card, antenna, audio i/o, and serial for control. It was completely packaged in a tight metal cage which made any tampering to the radio itself very cumbersome.

      Does the openMoko project use a completely custom radio? If so, I think that's illegal to use in the US. I could be wrong mistaken though...

  22. Re:Privacy is an antiquated notion. by megamerican · · Score: 1

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If that isn't privacy then what is?

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    The 10th amendment is pretty specific, but you are correct in saying that it is completely ignored.

    --
    If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
  23. Re:Privacy is an antiquated notion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whittling at the weapons first, that's what's unexpected.

    And the Spanish Inquisition, because no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  24. One more question by LinuxGeek · · Score: 1

    Can I call the feds when I get lost and find out where I'm at?

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
  25. Get an IMSI Catcher from Rohde and Schwarz by gd23ka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www2.rohde-schwarz.com/en/products/radiomonitoring/product_categories/signal_intelligence/overview/
    Click on the GC128 datasheet. They have a firmware for that device that turns it into an IMSI Catcher. There is
    also a portable suitcase version of the device.

    IMSI Catchers basically work by impersonating the cell tower of the network the subscriber is on, forcing his
    handset to it by protocol and higher signal strength and then (this is important) flipping whatever calls are
    made into non-encrypted mode. Some phones have a debug mode that will show you whether encryption is activated
    or not so if you're making a call and encryption is suddenly off - you know what to do at least I hope.

    Basically an IMSI catcher is a still a device that is used on the levels of industrial espionage or espionage
    by foreign services that don't have access to the normal national monitoring - which incidentally _all_ (cell)
    phone networks are hooked into. The claim US intelligence services are not plugged into their telcos and have to
    go outside for surveillance by using a device like this is what it is: Disinfo.

    1. Re:Get an IMSI Catcher from Rohde and Schwarz by citizenr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Something tells me they dont sell it in corner shops :) more like "agencies only" equipment just like Cell jammers in Poland.
      But no need for that, we are talking about localisation, not intercepting calls http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/18/1838222&from=rss
      http://www.pathintelligence.com/website-prodnserv.htm
      you can buy boxes from that company and build your own Triggerfish system (using cab fleet for example to cover whole city)

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    2. Re:Get an IMSI Catcher from Rohde and Schwarz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't find the "Buy Now" button on that site....

    3. Re:Get an IMSI Catcher from Rohde and Schwarz by kriston · · Score: 1

      To describe cell phone privacy an "encryption" mode is really stretching things.
      GSM uses a severely crippled encryption algorithm all the time, but it's by no means secure.
      CDMA uses a similar weak encryption scheme along with the fact that the CDMA connection's over-the-air symbols (that they call "chips") are jumbled up in ways that only the cell site and the handset agree to.

      Both are not secure and both are already circumvented.

      --

      Kriston

  26. Good by PPH · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can tell me where I left it.

    I eagerly await the application of this technology to my car keys.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Here is the real deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting AC for obvious reasons.

    These IMSI catchers DO require a court order for local and state governments to use and more importantly to present to the phone companies when trying to retrieve subscriber information. Common carriers will NOT hand over subscriber information on an IMSI without one and the standard for LE to show probable cause remains.

  28. This isn't necessarily a bad thing by failedlogic · · Score: 0

    I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Its hardly like the Feds are going to be spying on ordinary citizens.

    I don't see this method as catching persons of interest to national security (e.g. in this case spies with the KGB, etc). It will probably catch some AQ guys.

    The thing is, there are some people that are really sneaky. You suspect they are guilty but can't quite catch them. Usually the Feds have had to do some B&Es, install bugs, etc. There was a Mafia case on A&E where the FBI said that's how they got some evidence with a court order. Even if this isn't court ordered (below the radar), you can at least get some info on the where and when.

    It seems to me, this is also a weakness (intentional or otherwise) in the Cell Phone protocols and transmission methods.

    Frankly, if this takes some bad guys off the street, I'm a happy man.

    1. Re:This isn't necessarily a bad thing by Sneftel · · Score: 1

      I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Its hardly like the Feds are going to be spying on ordinary citizens.

      You're not very old, are you?

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    2. Re:This isn't necessarily a bad thing by akgooseman · · Score: 1

      I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Its hardly like the Feds are going to be spying on ordinary citizens.

      You're not very old, are you?

      Erm, there are plenty of old idiots, too.

    3. Re:This isn't necessarily a bad thing by Philotic · · Score: 1

      Did you catch his UID?

  29. Billing and e911 by pavon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As far as I know, phones don't transmit call logs. But the reason they transmit it's serial number and phone number and GSM IDs, is because they need to have a unique identifier to hand off call from one cell tower to another, and that ID must be traceable to an account in order to bill it properly. So you can't really opt out of this even if you controlled the hardware, although I suppose you might be able to filter the towers that the phone will talk to.

    The rest of the privacy invading features are intended to provided a more accurate triangulation for use with the e911 system. This could be evaded except it's against the law to manufacture/distribute a phone without e911 support.

    1. Re:Billing and e911 by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      they need to have a unique identifier to hand off call from one cell tower to another,

      that's true, but there is already a feature built into GSM networks which stops you from tracking with this. The actual number used to track you is a temporary local number (TMSI) and the IMSI isn't used in normal communications.

      there are definitely techniques which could protect against these attacks. You could encrypt everything between the phone and the local network and even encrypt all identity information even back to the home network.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    2. Re:Billing and e911 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense.
      The protocol is dead easy. A $3 PIC chip wired off the bus can be programmed to let rip/off random IMEMI/SIM number combinations.
      After finding airports or something that sell ROAMing numbers of foreign new arrivals, a spoofer will cost these opportunists plenty in dead cold leads.
      I suppose it is possible that a random number becomes an extreme interest target, and I suppose adding bias to middle east sim cards, will lead to lots of duff leads. Just remember to remove the battery before powing up again - give these airport dudes some real excitement.

  30. Re:fp by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

    Grr. Parent is about as on-topic as most posts below...

    The EFF has been suing AT&T for piping all our location information directly to the NSA, while Bush has claimed it to be perfectly legal. Can we stay on topic for a change? This is important.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  31. Hurry, France powa! by meuhlavache · · Score: 1

    Your feds don't have any right here, in France. Bleh!
    Sarkozy is a [This message was caught by Hadopi, the internaute is now banned from the Internet]

  32. What does it take with these people? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    whereas prior to 2001 "the statutory language governing pen register or trap-and-trace orders did not appear to cover location tracking technology.

    It shouldn't have to. What part of "surveillance of American citizens without judicial oversight is illegal" do they not understand?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:What does it take with these people? by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What part of "surveillance of American citizens without judicial oversight is illegal" do they not understand?

      I'd guess that they probably do understand that, where by "they" we presumably mean the top guys in the current US administration. But in their own words, such laws are "quaint" and "irrelevant".

      To put it in some sort of perspective, such laws have historically only been relevant when the government actually wants to take you to court, since illegally collected evidence is usually not accepted by the courts. But if they're interested in you for reasons other than getting you convicted and sent to jail (or exported or executed), then the legality of their actions really isn't a very interesting point. After all, you can't realistically expect to file suit against the surveillance agencies and win anything. If a violation of the law can't end up in court, how is the law relevant to anything?

      Yeah, we can post messages complaining about illegal government activities here and in other blogs. Lotta good that does.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:What does it take with these people? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      If a violation of the law can't end up in court, how is the law relevant to anything?

      You make some good points. Still, on general principle it's a good idea if the government abides by the law. Sure, in these cases their violations may not have a direct effect upon the individuals surveilled, but that's not always the case. Best to keep the pressure on, keep them toeing the line. If not, they'll eventually do something we will regret. That's pretty much the nature of government. Our government, at least.

      One of the big arguments against this sort thing is that it's usually not very specific. Fishing expeditions have long been looked down upon by the courts, because evidence discovered in an illegal search may very well lead to actionable evidence that otherwise would never have been found. Is that an acceptable way to operate? Courts usually don't think so, and the court (if it comes to that) will probably never be made aware of what originally tipped off law enforcement.

      Gets right back to the "if you've nothing to hide" mantra, I suppose. Problem is, in modern society none of us really knows for sure that we don't.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  33. Re:Privacy is an antiquated notion. by Peyna · · Score: 1

    The right to bear arms has been supplanted by the right to bare arms. Enjoy.

    --
    What?
  34. 3G by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 1

    Unlike older generations of phones, 3G GSM standard requires base stations to authenticate themselves. Finally, a reason to go out and buy that iPhone.

    1. Re:3G by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but there's a threshold on all those UMTS handsets in the US - All the UMTS providers already have a GSM network; the phones have a signal strength threshold that will switch them back to GSM.

      Throw that GSM radio and the software behind it in a van or thirty, drive around town until the thing pops up.

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. OK, you know its a bad thing when.... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

    It violates rights assured you under the Patriot act....

    Also, doesn't/wouldn't this constitue spoofing or man in the middle? Isn't that unlawful access to a network? or put another way, if I did it would they worry the legality before throwing my A$$ away? It also makes me wonder if acting as a proxy with such a device would evade the wiretap/recording rules.....

    any illusion of security at the cost of, oh, wait, maybe not.....

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  38. Re:Privacy is an antiquated notion. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    That is a more important right. A right to go about your business unmolested by the government, or capricious government employees. It is also a codified protection of your right your own property, the terms under which the government is authorised to violate are specified there and elsewhere in the document.

    The right to privacy, if it exists, is innate. Not really enumerated anywhere in the document, although it shouldn't have to be. Now the question of what happens when this right comes in conflict with others' rights, enumerated or not, is a matter for public debate, and possibly legislation.

    The 10th amendment might appear specific to you or I, but get five hundred thirty or so lawyers in a room, and suddenly things are a little more cloudy. Somehow everything ends up coming back to the interstate commerce clause...

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  39. Ed Norton, NYPD by westlake · · Score: 1
    Most of the modern world is now on city treatment, no ceptic here at all.

    That doesn't mean the camera clears every drain, filter, pump and trap. It would be - difficult - to explain why you can't call in a plumber when sludge backs up into your tub and toilet.

    The investigation also included checking more than two miles of sewers using underground cameras. Murder on Main Line

  40. IMSI-Catcher by guruz · · Score: 2, Informative

    By the way, since ages there is also a technique/device called IMSI-Catcher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher

    1. Re:IMSI-Catcher by blaeks · · Score: 1

      you got one? where can I get one? ...or I should read wiki to the end?

  41. if you know by blaeks · · Score: 1

    If you KNOW you are free. I you don't, you don't...

  42. Legally? In the UK *shops* are tracking this by RMH101 · · Score: 1
    see http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3945496.ece
    Shops track customers via mobile phone
    Signals given off by phones allow shopping centres to monitor how long people stay and which stores they visit.

    This is using the Path Intelligence mini cell box.

    Customers in shopping centres are having their every move tracked by a new type of surveillance that listens in on the whisperings of their mobile phones.

    The technology can tell when people enter a shopping centre, what stores they visit, how long they remain there, and what route they take as they walked around.
    The device cannot access personal details about a person's identity or contacts, but privacy campaigners expressed concern about potential intrusion should the data fall into the wrong hands.
    The surveillance mechanism works by monitoring the signals produced by mobile handsets and then locating the phone by triangulation - measuring the phone's distance from three receivers. It has already been installed in two shopping centres, including Gunwharf Quays in Portsmouth, and three more centres will begin using it next month, Times Online has learnt.
    The company that makes the dishes, which measure 30cm (12 inches) square and are placed on walls around the centre, said that they were useful to centres that wanted to learn more about the way their customers used the store.
    A shopping mall could, for example, find out that 10,000 people were still in the store at 6pm, helping to make a case for longer opening hours, or that a majority of customers who visited Gap also went to Next, which could useful for marketing purposes.
    In the case of Gunwharf Quays, managers were surprised to discover that an unusually high percentage of visitors were German - the receivers can tell in which country each phone is registered - which led to the management translating the instructions in the car park.
    The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) expressed cautious approval of the technology, which does not identify the owner of the phone but rather the handset's IMEI code - a unique number given to every device so that the network can recognise it.
    But an ICO spokesman said, "we would be very worried if this technology was used in connection with other systems that contain personal information, if the intention was to provide more detailed profiles about identifiable individuals and their shopping habits."
    Only the phone network can match a handset's IMEI number to the personal details of a customer.
    Path Intelligence, the Portsmouth-based company which developed the technology, said its equipment was just a tool for market research. "There's absolutely no way we can link the information we gather back to the individual," a spokeswoman said. "There's nothing personal in the data."
    Liberty, the campaign group, said that although the data do not meet the legal definition of 'personal information', it "had the potential" to identify particular individuals' shopping habits by referencing information held by the phone networks.
    The receivers together cost about £20,000 to rent per month. About 20 the units, which are unobtrusive, cream-coloured boxes about the size of a satellite dish, would be needed to cover the Bluewater shopping centre.
    Bluewater, in Kent, said it had no plans to deploy the equipment. A spokesman for Gunwharf Quays was not available for comment.
    Owners of large buildings currently have to rely on manual surveys to find out how customers use the space, which can be relevant to questions of design such as where the toilets should be located or which stores should be placed next to one another.
    Other types of wireless technology, such as wi-fi and Bluetooth, can be used to locate devices, but the regular phone network signal is preferable because it is much more powerful and fewer receivers are needed to monitor a given

  43. Re:Privacy is an antiquated notion. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    What about the right to arm bears?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  44. Spoof the snoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be clever if you could identify the triggerfish snoop, and spoof the responses to them.

    There must be a way to do this, with an open source phone.

  45. Re:fp by ronadams · · Score: 1

    Can we stay on topic for a change? This is important.

    You must be new here.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  46. Stallman by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    Isn't this what Stallman said? And people still rag on him around here.

    --
    SARAVA!
  47. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you jackasses cheating on your wifes and husbands are now TOAST!

  48. Re:Privacy is an antiquated notion. by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

    If that isn't privacy then what is?

    It's a very, very small part of the modern notion of what privacy means, and it doesn't actually address the current topic. Is your current location considered a piece of private information? The fourth amendment makes no such claim.

    From actually reading the text, you could make the case that the intent of the amendment was to prevent undue inconvenience, harassment, and the general inability of a person to go about their business due to searches and seizures, which at the time of writing would have been manual and laborious, and in the case of documents would have required seizure, where today copying would be sufficient. This is a far cry from modern surveillance, where the target may not even be aware of such activity.

    And anyway, if I'm not mistaken, the US constitution only covers government activity. You need separate laws to cover the actions of private entities. I don't know if these exist (I'm neither American nor a lawyer).

  49. What kills me is.... by fataugie · · Score: 1

    You can hardly get a clear call 5 out of 10 times, yet somehow they can track you?
    If I was paranoid, I'd say that the interference is introduced by bored technicians just for fun.....to screw with us.

    I can see some pimply faced CSR hitting a big red button to make a random call drop on the network and laughing with his looser friends waiting for quitting time.

    --

    WTF? Over?

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. RF transmitters can be found - story at 11 by NateTech · · Score: 1

    Who cares about TFA?

    If you carry *ANY* RF transmitting device on your person, you can always be found via traditional RF Direction Finding techniques.

    Period. Easy too.

    With modern gear and more than one receive site, this is passive, undetectable, and fast.

    Worrying about the Feds using this "spoofing" gear to get your cell phone to transmit a little more data to them, really misses the entire point.

    Carrying a transmitter means you can be found. End of story, full stop. The Feds have that gear too. Who cares?

    --
    +++OK ATH