DOJ Often Used Cell Tower Impersonating Devices Without Explicit Warrants

Via the EFF comes news that, during a case involving the use of a Stingray device, the DOJ revealed that it was standard practice to use the devices without explicitly requesting permission in warrants. "When Rigmaiden filed a motion to suppress the Stingray evidence as a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the government responded that this order was a search warrant that authorized the government to use the Stingray. Together with the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU, we filed an amicus brief in support of Rigmaiden, noting that this 'order' wasn't a search warrant because it was directed towards Verizon, made no mention of an IMSI catcher or Stingray and didn't authorize the government — rather than Verizon — to do anything. Plus to the extent it captured loads of information from other people not suspected of criminal activity it was a 'general warrant,' the precise evil the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. ... The emails make clear that U.S. Attorneys in the Northern California were using Stingrays but not informing magistrates of what exactly they were doing. And once the judges got wind of what was actually going on, they were none too pleased:"

Comments

Hosts file corollary

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be nice if the user had some visibility and control over what tower their own phone connects to. A sort of "hosts file" white-list except not for IP addresses.

Re:Hosts file corollary

[femtobyte]

The $10,000 question, though, is whether the cell companies would simply hand over the full cryptographic keys to the government snoops, so the fake towers would be indistinguishable from the true. When your phone resolves 4 towers simultaneously with the same 1 identity, how does it choose the true one?

Re:Hosts file corollary

[citizenr]

GSM has no network authentication (only user authenticates to the network, network doesnt authenticate to the user).
3G/UMTS has authentication both ways and is mitm secure (in theory = if your phone is not broken)

Just force phone to only talk 3G and you will be secure.

Glad to know the judges are pissed

[raymorris]

I'm assuming "our office has been working closely with the magistrate judges in an effort to address their collective concerns" as a PC way of saying "a bunch of judges are PISSED!". That's good to know. I know that the two judges I know personally would be pissed if DOJ tried something like this with them, but it's good to know these judges are as well, and action is being taken.

Re:MITM attack: impersonates a cellular tower

[Anonymous Coward]

"law-enforcement and government agencies" -- this is a common phrase in American English, but is it a legal term with precise meaning? IE, are there "law-enforcement" agents that are not "government"; like does it include bounty hunters for instance? renta-cops? school security guards? Seems far too broad.

Harris Corp CEO

[Vinegar Joe]

My, my, my........

"Harris Corp. President and CEO William M. Brown was appointed to President Barack Obama's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee on Tuesday, Florida Today reports."

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/morning_call/2012/11/harris-corp-ceo-appointed-to-obama.html

Realtime voice encryption apps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smartphones are relatively powerful these days. So why aren't there any good realtime voice encryption apps? And if there are, why aren't more people using them?

A voice encryption app would make the kind of privacy invasion described in the original article a lot more difficult.

Re:MITM attack: impersonates a cellular tower

[Anonymous Coward]

The real enemy is the TV set. People don't feel safe, but they don't realize why. People are constantly screaming at each other, stuff is blowing up. If you watch the nightly news in any city you will think that everyone is a potential threat. If you switch stations after it is over, you will probably find a movie where the hero saved everyone by shooting people and/or blowing shit up.

Conclusion? They rapin errybody! You better get a gun and start making things right.

Re:MITM attack: impersonates a cellular tower

[Thruen]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this device doesn't work on just one phone, it'll intercept every phone in the area. Is there anything stopping everyone who was around it at the time from trying to take legal action for the illegal search of all of their phones? I am asking without even knowing if there's anything to do about illegal searches in any other case. A quick google has turned up plenty on what constitutes a legal search, nothing on what to do if you're searched illegally aside from getting the evidence thrown out. Any lawyers around?

Re:stingray phone tracking device

[BLKMGK]

Here you go!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU8hg4FTm0g

Thanks Chris - damned interesting talk :-) This also shows you how many phones may be attracted by such devices if there's no filter on the IME...

Re:MITM attack: impersonates a cellular tower

[BLKMGK]

You can place a filter on the IME but you have to know it first, in theory they would. chris Paget did a talk on this that was VERY informative that I found while researching SDR -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU8hg4FTm0g

What he did was actually legal but if he had wanted to he could've intercepted FAR more and his comments about jamming were also pretty interesting. It's not just voice you can grab either but text and data. Very interesting to see how it works but scary that it's apparently not as secure as it could be...