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."
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).
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!
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?!
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.
"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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.