Slashdot Mirror


Mysterious, Phony Cell Towers Found Throughout US

Trachman writes: Popular Science magazine recently published an article about a network of cell towers owned not by telecommunication companies but by unknown third parties. Many of them are built around U.S. military bases. "Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption. ... Some interceptors are limited, only able to passively listen to either outgoing or incoming calls. But full-featured devices like the VME Dominator, available only to government agencies, can not only capture calls and texts, but even actively control the phone, sending out spoof texts, for example."

50 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. They used to be called UHF TV tuners by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We could listen to AMPS cell phone calls by tuning to the high UHF channels and tuning between channels... Ahhh anyone remember the joy of pressing the outer tuning ring and going back and forth???

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      I discovered it wasn't as much fun as listening to the CB in small towns.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahhh anyone remember the joy of pressing the outer tuning ring and going back and forth???

      Worst pick-up line ever.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Funny

      Picking up phone calls over TV tuners is one thing. Buying and installing a product with a name like "VME Dominator".

      One of those can happen by innocent mistake. The other sounds ... well, not so innocent.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    4. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      I still have my JRC NRD-525. Man that thing would pick up anything. Cell phones, baby intercoms, cordless phones, military radio, etc etc.

      Too bad so much is encrypted now.

    5. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      That's what SDR is for!

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    6. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Funny

      So it would be ok if they renamed it "VME Fluffy Bunny"?

    7. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by SumDog · · Score: 2

      My buddy in high school had a police scanner and as we were driving around we could ocasionally pick up cellphone calls, but only one half of them. It really sucked when we got the boring half.

      "Yep...uh huh...yea...What time?...I'm free tomorrow...yea....uhuh....what?...gotcha..."

    8. Re: They used to be called UHF TV tuners by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Oh, that ... it morphed into Facebook.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    9. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ahhh anyone remember the joy of pressing the outer tuning ring and going back and forth???

      Worst pick-up line ever.

      Any pickup line that works is an effective pickup line.

      Though in hindsight, using, "Gimme a waitress, hold the dressing," successfully at the IHOP should have set off some warning bells...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    10. Re:They used to be called UHF TV tuners by ulatekh · · Score: 2

      Though in hindsight, using, "Gimme a waitress, hold the dressing," successfully at the IHOP should have set off some warning bells...

      Or my personal favorite..."Can I have a side of you with nothing on it?"

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  2. Around or on top of millitary bases? by m00sh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article says ...

    What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases.

    The summary says ...

    Many of them are built around U.S. military bases.

    Way to slant the summary to make it look like Chinese towers rather than our towers.

    1. Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? by SpzToid · · Score: 2

      This is a good article, as before I had no idea such sophisticated rogue towers were such a threat all over the US.

      So when Goldsmith and his team drove by the government facility in July, he also took a standard Samsung Galaxy S4 and an iPhone to serve as a control group for his own device.

      ”As we drove by, the iPhone showed no difference whatsoever. The Samsung Galaxy S4, the call went from 4G to 3G and back to 4G. The CryptoPhone lit up like a Christmas tree.”

      Though the standard Apple and Android phones showed nothing wrong, the baseband firewall on the Cryptophone set off alerts showing that the phone’s encryption had been turned off, and that the cell tower had no name – a telltale sign of a rogue base station. Standard towers, run by say, Verizon or T-Mobile, will have a name, whereas interceptors often do not.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    2. Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they indeed are Chinese (or otherwise foreign) spy towers, and so easily detected (the authors of the article didn't seem to have a hard time finding such towers), there's something terribly, terribly wrong with your homeland security.

    3. Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd give the US military more credit than that. They wouldn't place their own interceptors directly on their bases, but nearby. Else, how would you have plausible deniability?

      It is likely that the military doesn't need deniability. Many FCC rules don't apply to the military. It is quite likely that they they can legal operate their own cell towers. Similar exceptions are made for prisons, which can operate their own cell towers to keep inmates from making calls from smuggled cell phones.

    4. Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a good article, as before I had no idea such sophisticated rogue towers were such a threat all over the US.

      It is common. Where I live, in San Jose, California, our police department was caught illegally monitoring phone calls by operating a Stingray, which mimics a cell phone tower. Of course no one was punished or disciplined, and certainly no one lost their badge, because, hey, they are cops, and boys will be boys.

    5. Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "right on top of" is an American English colloquialism meaning "really close by", usually in terms of a pursuit, but sometimes with stationary objects.

    6. Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is likely that the military doesn't need deniability. Many FCC rules don't apply to the military.

      military, like other federal agencies are "licensed" and freq coordinated by the NTIA and there databases are not publicly available like FCC general menu reports. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/Gener...

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    7. Re:Around or on top of millitary bases? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are US towers designed to track people who visit military sites. If some potential terrorist visits a few different military sites to do reconnaissance with their phone they can be flagged up in a database somewhere. As a bonus whoever owns those towers gets to monitor all the calls, texts and data going through them. They probably like to keep an eye on military personnel too, in case any of them are traitors.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Sponsored post by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a thinly veiled ad for a supposedly "secure" cell phone.

  4. Clearly these towers were designed to find and by jpellino · · Score: 4, Funny

    intercept non-approved communications about kjhfgdt kans hwwpfu alowk nh ar akhde.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  5. Re:Where did the linked to article go? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 2

    The link above works fine for me. It links to a PopSci article. Here is the url I get to.

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  6. Article full text by gargleblast · · Score: 5, Informative

    Source.

    Mysterious Phony Cell Towers Could Be Intercepting Your Calls

    Wed, 08/27/2014 - 11:00

    Unencrypted Connection Les Goldsmith Like many of the ultra-secure phones that have come to market in the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks, the CryptoPhone 500, which is marketed in the U.S. by ESD America and built on top of an unassuming Samsung Galaxy SIII body, features high-powered encryption. Les Goldsmith, the CEO of ESD America, says the phone also runs a customized or "hardened" version of Android that removes 468 vulnerabilities that his engineering team team found in the stock installation of the OS.

    His mobile security team also found that the version of the Android OS that comes standard on the Samsung Galaxy SIII leaks data to parts unknown 80-90 times every hour. That doesn't necessarily mean that the phone has been hacked, Goldmsith says, but the user can't know whether the data is beaming out from a particular app, the OS, or an illicit piece of spyware. His clients want real security and control over their device, and have the money to pay for it.

    To show what the CryptoPhone can do that less expensive competitors cannot, he points me to a map that he and his customers have created, indicating 17 different phony cell towers known as “interceptors,” detected by the CryptoPhone 500 around the United States during the month of July alone. Interceptors look to a typical phone like an ordinary tower. Once the phone connects with the interceptor, a variety of “over-the-air” attacks become possible, from eavesdropping on calls and texts to pushing spyware to the device.

    “Interceptor use in the U.S. is much higher than people had anticipated,” Goldsmith says. “One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina and he found 8 different interceptors on that trip. We even found one at South Point Casino in Las Vegas.”

    Who is running these interceptors and what are they doing with the calls? Goldsmith says we can’t be sure, but he has his suspicions.

    “What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases. So we begin to wonder – are some of them U.S. government interceptors? Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?” says Goldsmith. “Whose interceptor is it? Who are they, that's listening to calls around military bases? Is it just the U.S. military, or are they foreign governments doing it? The point is: we don't really know whose they are.”

    Ciphering Disabled Les Goldsmith

    Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption. Whether your phone uses Android or iOS, it also has a second operating system that runs on a part of the phone called a baseband processor. The baseband processor functions as a communications middleman between the phone’s main O.S. and the cell towers. And because chip manufacturers jealously guard details about the baseband O.S., it has been too challenging a target for garden-variety hackers.

    “The baseband processor is one of the more difficult things to get into or even communicate with,” says Mathew Rowley, a senior security consultant at Matasano Security. “[That’s] because my computer doesn't speak 4G or GSM, and also all those protocols are encrypted. You have to buy special hardware to get in the air and pull down the waves and try to figure out what they mean. It's just pretty unrealistic for the general community.”

    But for governments or other entities able to afford a price tag of “less than $100,000,” says Goldsmith, high-quality interceptors are quite realistic. Some interceptors are limited, only able to passively listen to either outgoing or incoming calls. But full-featured

    1. Re:Article full text by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the typical smartphone is designed to protect the baseband OS from the front-end OS, and not the other way around. If that baseband OS has full access to memory/IO and it is subverted, then you're talking about a rootkit detection problem from inside the rootkitted OS, and that is always tricky to do. The major vendors don't even try.

      The solution security vendors like Blackphone and such pursue is to contain the baseband OS. For FCC reasons they probably still have to protect it from the front-end OS, but there is no reason that the firewall can't go both ways. Instead of giving the baseband CPU full access to memory/IO, they just partition up the phone so that it is like two computers in one box with a tightly-controlled interface between them.

  7. This does not bother me by eclectro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that these towers are found next to military bases speaks volumes.

    The military needs to there own version of everything to make sure things work in times of national crisis, emergency, or security. They need to have their own infrastructure to insure communications. They need to control their communications around bases and know who is saying or doing what. They need to be able to anticipate attacks. Nobody should have any expectation of privacy on or next to a military base.

    Quite frankly, I'm glad to see this.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:This does not bother me by flayzernax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, yeah, but the military can damn well make sure their hardware only interfaces with other military hardware, not your cell phone, and not prioritize your civilian traffic over their 'emergency, auxilary, or military channels'.

      This is just more and more slippery goose shit for the sauce.

    2. Re:This does not bother me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody should have any expectation of privacy on or next to a military base.

      The civilians living next to the military base expect the military to defend their freedom to expect privacy. Otherwise the military is not doing the job that the civilians are paying for. That is how civilized society functions, the military answers to civilian authority.

      You are welcome to relocate to a military dictatorship if you want. There are plenty to choose from. Do not bother coming back.

    3. Re:This does not bother me by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that these towers are found next to military bases speaks volumes.

      The military needs to there own version of everything to make sure things work in times of national crisis, emergency, or security. They need to have their own infrastructure to insure communications. They need to control their communications around bases and know who is saying or doing what. They need to be able to anticipate attacks. Nobody should have any expectation of privacy on or next to a military base.

      Quite frankly, I'm glad to see this.

      Last time I checked, my constitutional rights didn't get suspended inside a casino in Las Vegas... did you miss that part? Many were on bases, but not all or even most. If the military wants to control their own communications they are welcome to start their own cellular network, they could even use these towers and then have their staff roam to other networks when they weren't near a base.

      The only reason they are doing this is to intercept the calls of us citizens which is both illegal and unconstitutional. Your imaginary safety is not worth my constitutional rights. This sort of surveillance is exactly what the constitution was created to protect us from. It's not some weird esoteric thing the founders could never have anticipated like Machine guns or Abortions. This is the government listening in to the private correspondence of citizens for the sole purpose of security. That's expressly and unarguably forbidden legally, constitutionally and every other way you can think of.

    4. Re:This does not bother me by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      Maybe there are different things going on, like maybe the military bases have their own separately-powered communications that are sort of legitimate, and the interception near the casino is more on the shady side (with a supposedly good reason like "make sure nobody is using cellphones or video to cheat the casino").

      I think you're overreacting to the threat from the government. I'm not worried about military surveillance around military bases, because I don't have to go driving near military bases (and besides, it's a clearly signed MILITARY BASE, of course they've got security); I'm more worried about PRIVATE surveillance from anybody who can afford one of these systems.

    5. Re:This does not bother me by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2

      There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy. This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive. (You do know that's what your cell phone does, right?)

      In the U.S. your right to privacy, to the extent you have one, is granted by statute. Your constitutional right to be secure in your person keeps the government from reaching into your pocket, not from listening to your public ramblings.

      If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to public conversations, he gets to. If you don't want the government listening to your conversations, the solution is for you to make them secure by means of having them in private rooms and/or with encryption (from both a legal and a technical standpoint). The government doesn't have to implement your fantasies...

    6. Re:This does not bother me by Feces's+Edge · · Score: 2

      There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy.

      The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.

      This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive.

      Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking to. It's not public just because it's transmitted in the clear, and people like you with a such a privacy-hostile mentality are the cause of things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping in general.

      If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to public conversations, he gets to.

      Not if We The People say that that is not okay and punish the government if it does such things. We can place any limitation upon the government that we want.

    7. Re:This does not bother me by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2

      The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.

      And by the same logic the government can't stop you from driving your car on the public roads or from selling narcotics on the corner.

      This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive.

      Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking to. It's not public just because it's transmitted in the clear, and people like you with a such a privacy-hostile mentality are the cause of things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping in general.

      I will choose to "fuck off" behind closed doors. You apparently want to fuck off in the street and expect everyone else to turn away or go to jail. If you want to post your conversations in public places, then you can't reasonably expect them to be private, even under the color of your warped sense of morality. (Let me help you to notice the obvious: there is no wire to wiretap where a cell phone is used.) I'm not hostile to privacy at all: I am hostile to idiots like you who won't take it upon yourself to understand the law and protect yourself under it.

      If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to public conversations, he gets to.

      Not if We The People say that that is not okay and punish the government if it does such things. We can place any limitation upon the government that we want.

      Well, "we the people" have not said that in the Constitution or anywhere else that I know of. You're living in a fantasy. If you care about your privacy, then take the responsibility upon yourself to protect it and stop pointing the finger and an institution that is apparently acting legally.

    8. Re:This does not bother me by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy.

      Yes there is. It is contained in implications of and the relationships between the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments. See Griswold v. Connecticut for more details.

      No, there isn't. The case law you refer to defines aspects of privacy in the "penumbra" of other rights. Now, I can define any term I want to any way I want to and, if it appears in a Supreme Court case, it instantly becomes "the law" to those who want it to be. The "right to privacy" that Griswold discusses is the right individuals have to control aspects of their lives (such as the use of contraception). Griswold does not grant any right to keep the government from peering in your open windows, following you around town or reading your postcards you put in the mail.

      Perhaps the most supportive case you have is Mapp v. Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup... ... and that says that the government can't invade your SECURED residence to collect evidence. If you leave the information or the evidence in the open (as you're doing when you broadcast your cell phone conversations), you aren't protected by that decision. If you walk out to the street and shout a message to the world, there is no "right to privacy" granted by the Constitution you can use to keep anyone from hearing and recording it.

      May I suggest to you that the flaw in your lack of "privacy" lies in the technology, and not in the law as it presently stands? Do you want privacy? Then demand it from your communications carrier, or see that you implement any necessary encryption yourself.

  8. Re:Where did the linked to article go? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're not trying to open this link on a phone near a military base, are you?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Not towers by VerdantHue · · Score: 2
    The article doesn't say they are towers. It says that, to phones, they look like towers. Presumably, to people, they don't look like towers.

    Interceptors look to a typical phone like an ordinary tower. Once the phone connects with the interceptor, a variety of “over-the-air” attacks become possible, from eavesdropping on calls and texts to pushing spyware to the device.... Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption.

  10. Where did the linked to article go? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    A few news sites and tech sites have:
    "Android security mystery 'fake' cellphone towers found in U.S." (28 AUG 2014)
    http://www.welivesecurity.com/...
    Fake, phone-attacking cell-towers are all across America (Sep 1, 2014)
    http://boingboing.net/2014/09/...
    "The fake "interceptor" towers force your phone to back \\down to an easy-to-break 2G connection, then goes to work"
    "..the baseband firewall on the Cryptophone set off alerts showing that the phones encryption had been turned off, and that the cell tower had no name a telltale sign of a rogue base station."
    Fake cell phone towers may be spying on Americans calls, texts (September 03, 2014)
    http://rt.com/usa/184636-fake-...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. owner by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    The price has dropped to city, state and federal budget level for some of the tower like products.
    The problem is more people now understand just how their low cost cell phone works as a gps becon, text, photo, calls list and voice, voice print collector.
    The costs for voice systems like this in Ireland, South America where mil only historically. Now any regional, city, gov with funding can have a go at years of "warrantless surveillance".
    The only issue is the upgrade to next gen costs and keeping details away from press with local FOIA like requests for city and state budgets.
    Forcing 2g only signal use was the old news, now the next gen is ready for todays cell users in real time (beyond location tracking).
    As 2g is removed in a few years, the new warrantless cell surveillance products are been made ready.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. "Phony" cell towers? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this article some kind of joke I don't quite get?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  13. Somewhat on topic. by AbRASiON · · Score: 4

    Can I just say,

    From the mouths of ANYONE who isn't an American.
    STOP FUCKING GEO-REDIRECTING LINKS FOR FOREIGNERS YOU ASSHOLES.

    Jesus christ fuck me gently it's the worst god damned thing to do on any web page, I think it might actually be worse than "this content is not available in your region" - because at least it takes us (mostly) to what we wanted.

    http://www.popsci.com/article/...
    takes me to
    http://www.popsci.com.au/?src=...

    Thanks dipshits.

    1. Re:Somewhat on topic. by NoMaster · · Score: 2

      Get around stupid geolocation redirects like that by using Google Translate as a proxy. Simply tell it to 'translate' the original URL from Arabic* to English.

      (* or almost any language that doesn't use the Roman alphabet.)

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  14. Re:sensationalism, ahoy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Learn to use encryption and quit your whining.

    What if you have to talk to a normal person, and they don't have a clue about encryption? Encryption requires technical knowledge at both ends of the phone call. Even if you use encryption, "they" can still see who you are calling and how long you talk.

  15. All in all... by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

    ...it's just another brick in the wall.

    For some reason people aren't breaking out the hammers. It's as if they just don't care, or fail to understand the implications at least, of all this surveillance and monitoring.

  16. homeland security (wasRe:Around or on top of mill) by sowth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they...so easily detected...there's something terribly, terribly wrong with your homeland security.

    And this is news....how? This is the same government which brought the TSA, and they are certainly useless.

  17. Makes me feel old by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    The kids today need to learn the lessons we did when the operator could very obviously listen in to every call and would sometimes even break in and say something. The technology has changed but the capability is not just still there, it's easier. Never say anything on a phone that you would hate to see in a newspaper (or on a blog) - that most definitely includes credit card numbers.

    1. Re:Makes me feel old by bughunter · · Score: 2

      Never say anything on a phone that you would hate to see in a newspaper (or on a blog) - that most definitely includes credit card numbers.

      That goes for the camera, too. Don't take photos with your phone that you would never want revealed in public.

      I would have written the same thing last Friday, but the whole fapocalypse thing last weekend underlines the risk. Unless you encrypt it yourself, your data isn't secure, not on the cloud, and not even on your own phone.

      (So, can we just assume that the purpose of these towers are to collect nude photos of celebrities?)

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  18. Android IMSI-Catcher Detector (AIMSICD) by sociocapitalist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like Apple has built in detection from IOS 5 (though being Apple it might well have an off switch for legal intercept type applications):
    http://9to5mac.com/2011/06/07/...

    And it looks like some developers have gotten together to do something for Android with a project called Android IMSI-Catcher Detector (AIMSICD)
    https://secupwn.github.io/Andr...
    http://seclists.org/fulldisclo...

    Has anyone tried this?

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:Android IMSI-Catcher Detector (AIMSICD) by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      If I recall correctly, this doesn't detect stingray, because stingray looks like any other cell tower.

      It seems that stingray is an imsi-catcher so unless there's a way for law enforcement to disable the notification (which I said may be the case in my original post) I think it should work.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Do you have any more specific info on it?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  19. Re:sensationalism, ahoy by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    Learn to use encryption and quit your whining.

    If you read the article, the interceptors hack into the baseband processor (that's not the phone OS-- it's the system that controls the radio system in the phone), and switch the connection "from 4G down to 2G, a much older protocol that is easier to de-crypt in real-time. But the standard smart phones didn’t even show they’d experienced the same attack."

    So you may think you're using encryption, and stop whining. But although your phone says you are encrypted, you have been switched to a breakable encryption, which is to say, no encryption at all.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  20. Data, data everywhere ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... and we can't find out who built the towers and who paid the freaking bill?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  21. Cities are tracking people by cellphone by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 2

    Cities like Chicago are installing cellphone tracking devices to monitor pedestrian traffic. http://readwrite.com/2014/09/0... http://articles.chicagotribune... There's one at the top of a light pole in front of the Board of Trade on Jackson St. It looks like a small, black, round trash can.