Slashdot Mirror
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:"
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.
now they are using Stingrays with cell phone towers attached to them?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
There are no limits to what a DIY-er kan buy in China. And with SDR (software defined radio) and open source GSM software, it takes relatively little effort to build one yourself. There's even a small GSM router (20-30 euros on evilbay) that's very popular for that sort of projects. It holds the GSM modem and Wifi, so you can easily control it from a laptop.
2 - Wall Street Journal article "'Stingray' Phone Tracker Fuels Constitutional Clash"
3 - another WSJ article about "Judge Questions Tools That Grab Cellphone Data on Innocent People"
Essentially, the "Stingray" sends out a signal pretending to be a cell-phone tower. Your cellphone thinks it's found a great super-strong tower nearby, detaches from the real cell-phone towers and bonds to the Stingray and attempts to communicate through it. Now, the DOJ (or whomever) has performed a Man in the Middle (a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack MITM ) attack on your cell phone's communication with it's cellular service company. It impersonates a cellular tower.
.
Here's an interesting point from the WSJ article:
... The best known stingray maker is Florida-based defense contractor Harris Corp. A spokesman for Harris declined to comment.
... Harris holds trademarks registered between 2002 and 2008 on several devices, including the StingRay, StingRay II, AmberJack, KingFish, TriggerFish and LoggerHead. Similar devices are available from other manufacturers. According to a Harris document, its devices are sold only to law-enforcement and government agencies.
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.
From the EFF article:
The Court therefore ORDERS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b); Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2703 and 3117; and Title 28, United States Code, Section 1651, that Verizon Wireless, within ten (10) days of the signing of this Order and for a period not to exceed 30 days, unless extended by the Court, shall provide to agents of the FBI data and information obtained from the monitoring of transmissions related to the location of the Target Broadband Access Card/Cellular Telephone...
What part of that do you think authorizes the DoJ to intercept everyone's calls while looking for the target device? It might be argued that the authorities were working as agents of Verizon, but it also might be argued that Pink Unicorns did the interceptions, and I don't think the court is going to accept either one.
It might be argued that the authorities were working as an agent for Verison to gather the information.
If the police have a warrant for Verizon, it tells Verizon what to do.
Otherwise, the police need a specific warrant for everything else they intend to do.
In other words, a warrant allows for [company] to act as an agent for the State.
It never(?) works the other way around.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The emails are dated "2011".........impossible. Bush left office in January 2009. Please backdate the emails to 2007.
Thank you
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
Search warrants stipulate what the authorities are looking for and where they can look;
In this case the "what they are looking for" is information about the suspect's phone and the "where" is in Verizon's records. They instead peeked at other people's communications, by eavesdropping in the neighborhood. So they didn't stick to either the WHAT or the WHERE.
Additionally, they didn't get a search warrant as they should have, but rather a lower order telling Verizon to be cooperative insofar as technical assistance. They didn't even get an supeona for Verizon to turn over records, only an order to provide tech support.
It may be that they a request for a search warrant would have been granted, but that's for the judge to decide. The Texas judge mentioned clearly would not have signed a warrant without first adding specific limitations to reduce or eliminate having other people's phones intercepted. That seems to be the case fairly often - a judge will restrict a warrant to a very specific place, time etc., or ask for further evidence, rather than completely denying or approving the request as first presented.
We need some geeks with USRP to sloppily intercept few members of appropriation committee phones "Enemy of the State" style.
That will get the ball rolling on those DOJ scumbags.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
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...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Umm no, an IME catcher emulates a cell tower and becomes a MITM for the phone's communications.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
25+ over? Yeah actually you can get thrown in jail for that. Reckless driving, reckless endangerment, they can dream up all sorts of things to tack on...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org