Department of Justice Harvests Cell Phone Data Using Planes

Tyketto writes The US Department of Justice has been using fake communications towers installed in airplanes to acquire cellular phone data for tracking down criminals, reports The Wall Street Journal. Using fix-wing Cessnas outfitted with DRT boxes produced by Boeing, the devices mimic cellular towers, fooling cellphones into reporting "unique registration information" to track down "individuals under investigation." The program, used by the U.S. Marshals Service, has been in use since 2007 and deployed around at least five major metropolitan areas, with a flying range that can cover most of the US population. As cellphones are designed to connect to the strongest cell tower signal available, the devices identify themselves as the strongest signal, allowing for the gathering of information on thousands of phones during a single flight. Not even having encryption on one's phone, like found in Apple's iPhone 6, prevents this interception. While the Justice Department would not confirm or deny the existence of such a program, Verizon denies any involvement in this program, and DRT (a subsidiary of Boeing), AT&T, and Sprint have all declined to comment.

Comments

About time for a Free baseband processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a database of the cell towers a phone *should* see in a given region (it should be possible to crowdsource that) should make it possible to throw an alarm if a cell tower with suspicious characteristics "appears" at some spot.

For that, we'd need reasonably documented baseband processors.

Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem. But why neglect the technical tools?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[arth1]

Of course, political involvment is the more adequate approach to a political problem.

According to the US constitution, arms is the correct approach to governmental oppression.

But far be it for me to advocate the constitution, because that's illegal...

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Charcharodon]

You are forgetting about the Pre-pre-amble to the Constitution aka the Declaration of Independence. It has a few things to say about the rule of government and the rights and responsibilities of the people.

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.......But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[mrchaotica]

The U.S. Constitution was written by people who had just violently overthrown their government, who were quoted saying things like "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." If the American Revolution were happening today, King George would be calling them "terrorists." And you think the 2nd Amendment somehow doesn't suggest using force against government oppression?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[pla]

Nowhere does it mention the Declaration. Go ahead, try citing it as legal authority in a courtroom and see how far it gets you, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

Don't confuse "legal" for "ethical", Mr. Rules Lawyer.

All people have a right - An obligation - To resist an oppressive government to the greatest extent possible. For some people, that means voting. For some, it means running for office. For some, it means running issues ads. For some, it means stalling paperwork as a low-level clerk in some office deep in a government building. And for some... It means preparing for when, not if, all the lesser options fail to achieve the desired result.

FWIW, I don't think we've reached that point - yet. Getting harder and harder not to notice that the asshats in Washington seem intent on getting us there as rapidly as possible, however.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[SuricouRaven]

The problem with this approach comes from trying to define 'oppressive.' You may like the idea of a clerk misplacing the paperwork required to authorise the use of force on peaceful protesters, yes. But elsewhere, another clerk has decided that the government has no right to 'redefine marriage' and is quietly smuging the ink on the appropriate applications to make sure gay couples don't get processed. Both would view themselves as the heroes, bravely risking their job to fight against a government exceeding lawful authority.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[SuricouRaven]

The meanings of words change over time. This all gets confusing. A text with multiple meanings tends to reflect the reader's own views back upon them. Just look at what diversity of religious denominations may exist while sharing a common holy text.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[smooth wombat]

It is quite apparent you have never read the words of the guy who wrote the Constitution, James Madison, because in both The Federalist Papers and in his own writings, he makes it very clear that the state shall have a listing of people to call up in case of invasion or insurrection and that these same lists would be used to insure the people could properly use their weapons.

In fact, this was the exact process put in place during Colonial times because how were you supposed to call up the militia if you didn't know who had a weapon? Just shout and hope people showed up?

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[dunawayc]

You are mis-interpreting the phrase well regulated incorrectly, I believe. It has nothing to do with regulations, or something that is regulated. In this context, in 18th centurty english, the phrase well regulated means properly functioning or working well. A clock that keeps good time was said to be well regulated (i. e. working well). So the amendment could be read as:

A properly functioning militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[DeputySpade]

Militia still meant militia though, and not everybody.

It means just about everybody.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

US code Title 10, Section 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In other words, just about everybody.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[dgatwood]

You are mis-interpreting the phrase well regulated incorrectly, I believe. It has nothing to do with regulations, or something that is regulated. In this context, in 18th centurty english, the phrase well regulated means properly functioning or working well. A clock that keeps good time was said to be well regulated (i. e. working well).

Although on the surface, that statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct), it is a bit disingenuous when folks stretch that definition to imply a lack of rules. It is difficult to imagine any complex system that would qualify as well-regulated in the "functioning properly" sense without also being well-regulated in the "has a specific set of rules or constraints that govern its operation" sense. So by definition, your definition implies the other definition.

For example, any properly working mechanical clock has hardware that controls its speed. In fact, the term "regulator clock" came into common use long before the Constitution was written and during the period, and was a household term by the late 1700s. It got its name because of the escapement regulator that governed its operation. So "well-regulated", even in the 1700s, could not realistically have be interpreted to imply an absence of governance—quite the opposite, in fact. In the context of clocks, the primary meaning of the term in that era would have been "precision", not "properly functioning". Precision, in turn, demands some form of either internal or external regimentation.

Re:About time for a Free baseband processor

[Safety Cap]

Sure they don't sell bombers and guided missiles, but then if we ever get to that point, there won't be much of a military left for the gov't to use against us, because they are US.

LOL. It is so cute when someone who has never served brings out the "they'll never attack US citizens!!! DERP!" line.

Here's how it goes down. First, the military brass will come up with some disparaging name for the citizens who are the new enemy, just as they did for every other war:

"Haji" is the troops' term of choice for an Iraqi. It's used the way "gook" or "Charlie" was used in Vietnam. "From 'Gook' to 'Raghead'"

Next, the citizens (the bad ones) are depicted as subhuman. (The government will also direct the news to depict the new enemy as dangerous psychopaths, so the average citizen will not join in the revolt.)

Final step: 6-round burst, every time. Change barrels every 10 minutes.

"individuals under investigation"

[QilessQi]

i.e., "everyone".

Re: "individuals under investigation"

[rmdingler]

"everyone" will be translated into something grotesquely governmental like subjects of interest, which will include you if your cousin's niece's hairdresser's brother-in-law took a Middle Eastern Studies freshman course.

Boeing cooperating with the government is like my son cooperating with me and taking out the garbage. I'm his biggest source of income.

Cellphone reception issues?

[Tyr07]

I'm not exactly against them catching criminals, but how often has someone receive shitty cell service and 'drops' because of these fake towers?

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[arth1]

I'm not exactly against them catching criminals, but how often has someone receive shitty cell service and 'drops' because of these fake towers?

If they have caused just one 911 call to fail or be delayed, someone needs to be pilloried.
The end does not justify the means.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[Shakrai]

When I go hiking, I bring a cell phone without a SIM card, expecting it to work for 911 calls, without anyone being able to contact me.

That's a dangerous assumption; it may work to call 911, but even if you're able to call 911 they won't be able to call you back if the call should get dropped. You can call back of course, but you have no guarantee that you'll end up talking to the same PSAP, never mind the same 911 dispatcher. Additionally, without a SIM card the phone won't even try to connect to a network until you attempt to place the 911 call, which will delay your 911 call for seconds or even minutes. CDMA phones work a little differently, they'll connect to networks on the preferred roaming list even if service has been deactivated, so they may be a better bet for a 911-only phone, though I'd still be loathe to rely on a deactivated phone.

If you're going hiking you really should carry a working cell phone. You might even consider investing in a personal locator beacon, because real hiking is going to take you miles away from cell reception. Of course, neither a cell phone nor a PLB is a substitute for having the equipment and skills to save yourself, or at least to survive for the hours or days it will take help to arrive.

Re:Cellphone reception issues?

[bugsy37]

In 1982 the Justice Department tried to tally the number of Federal Criminal laws. After a full two years of investigation among 50 titles and 23K pages of law, they approximated 3,000. However, they could not come up with an exact count because of the breadth and depth of the source material. 32 years later the situation is almost certainly worse.

In 2013 Federal Agencies issued 3,659 final rules. A violation of any of which could tie you up in court for years trying to resolve.

A real-world example: a drug company in the course of making its product was creating as a byproduct: pure water. They wanted to dump it into a nearby body of water, even going to far as offering to precisely add salt to avoid disrupting the salinity of the body of water. The EPA refused saying it was industrial waste, even though chemically it was saltwater, nothing more.

Part of the theory behind the rule of law is that the common man has to be able to understand the rules in which he operates. Otherwise one is living in an environment which is functionally equivalent to ex post facto law creation. IE the Red Queen can sentence you if your existence falls under her gaze and displeases her. Right now in the United States there are so many laws and rules that even experts in a particular field cannot say with certainty if a person is in compliance.

Dumbed down for ... who?

[arth1]

Not even having encryption on one's phone, like found in Apple's iPhone 6, prevents this interception.

WTF does this statement have to do in TFS? There cannot possibly be any slashdotters ignorant enough about technology to think that encryption of a device would have any impact on the radio signals?

I really miss /. - where did it go?

4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

Unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm sorry, but this is blanket surveillance, without warrant, probable cause, or oversight.

At a certain point, the court needs to weigh in on this, because DoJ and the rest of law enforcement are completely ignoring the Constitution, the law, and pretty much everything else.

Why is this not landing these clowns in jail?

When your government becomes hostile to your rights, it's time to become hostile to your government.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[ganjadude]

since when has this admin (or the last for that matter) given a flying fuck about the 4th amendment (or constitution in general?)

Re:4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

Sadly, when 9/11 happened, they pretty much decided that the niceties of the Constitution and the law were far too dangerous to allow, and went straight to the fascism.

Essentially, the terrorists won, because they've more or less caused governments around the world to start ignoring our rights.

Now it's security at any costs, and since we're already tracking you, we'll pass that onto law enforcement and teach them how to hide the source of intelligence. Oh, and we'll share it among a bunch of other countries, and secretly enlist the corporations to hand over their data.

So, now we'll monitor everything you do, using laws we said we'd only use for terrorism, and then have the police perjure themselves to make it look like they obtained the information legally.

Papers please, comrade.

I wonder how long before they no longer feel the need to give us the illusion of freedom?

Re: 4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

People try to hide the fact that this is the doing of Obama and his cronies.

Some of this was started by Shrub. Some of this had been in the works for years before 9/11. Much of this was legalized in the days after 9/11 as everyone was in a panic. Some of it has been expanded since.

Now, all of the advisers are saying "gotta do this". All of the spy agencies are saying "fuck it, we're doing it anyway, even if we do have to lie to Congress".

When you create a climate of paranoia and hysteria, and suddenly decide your founding principles are optional ... this is what you get.

There have been people who have wanted these powers for decades. And one day they got handed the best justification for it they could hope for.

Yes, Obama has failed to stop it. But he didn't initiate it.

And, quite frankly, I suspect a lot of people welcome this crap with open arms because they believe this shit will keep them safe from the terrorists.

When your population is reduced to cowering in fear, they tend to back a lot of things they can't see the consequences of.

Re:4th Amendment ...

[gstoddart]

No 9/11 didn't cause anything. This has been going on for ever just not to the "right" race. 9/11 just caused it to apply to all races.

I do not disagree.

But 9/11 caused the passage of the PATRIOT act with very little thought for the consequences, and moved the "security at any cost" mentality into the daylight. And that was the one which gave them the keys to the kingdom to pretty much do anything they wanted.

Before 9/11, they had to at least pretend. After, they can do anything they want to in the light of day.

Re: 4th Amendment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As some comedian said recently, "the home of the brave" does not really fit anymore.

And we used to make fun of my paranoid friend

[NotDrWho]

I used to have a friend who was convinced that the CIA was flying around in black helicopters spying on everyone. Guess I owe him an apology. He just wasn't thinking big enough.

"Lap dog press"?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I find it interesting that we're getting great investigative journalism out of places like The Wall Street Journal - reread the name if you don't see the irony - rather than the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. What ELSE do you guys know about that you haven't revealed yet?

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[blackiner]

Nobody who was paying attention voted for Obama because of his anti-surveillance promises. The moment he voted for telecom retroactive immunity it was clear he wasn't about "Change" at all. I don't know why people were so easily fooled by his charade, just looking at his voting history would have made it all very clear.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[gstoddart]

He had one job - roll back what someone else initiated - and he utterly failed.

I seem to recall a period of time where the Republicans more or less shut down government as they threw a major temper tantrum.

How'd those past couple of mid-term elections go for the current pro-surveillance party (D)?

Are you honestly claiming that support for this crap doesn't enjoy support in both parties?

Because I'm afraid I'm going to call bullshit on that one. I'm not hearing Republicans saying this should stop.

BOTH parties are supporting this crap.

Re:Is there anything Obama CAN do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Far from everybody were fooled by his charade. Many of us voted for him because the thought of Sarah Palin as Vice President was even worse and revealed a critical flaw in John McCain's leadership (while others were voting against McCain proper,) others were hoping to keep Republicans out of power period, and the next election, fielding Romney, was an even worse choice. So, no hope for change whatsoever and a desire to pick the lesser of two oligarchs.

If we're insistent upon an only-two-viable-party system, I wish to God the Republicans would field Presidential candidates who aren't worse fucknuts than the Democrat party candidate.

Federal Laws

[Terry Pearson]

People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.

I suppose people either just assume it is true, or they know details but do not want to get too sidetracked... This video may help explain which laws we break daily: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

On a more on topic note, StingRay devices cover a broad range of uses. Some simply harvest unique cellular IDs, while others do much more to intercept communication and emulate legitimate towers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Awful, but ultimately not worth the effort?

[Shakrai]

And if they do use one, wouldn't it be a throwaway they would get rid of after a short period?

That doesn't provide as much protection as you'd think it would. Criminals generally operate in a defined geographical area and it's rather trivial to look at the base stations serving that area to look for new devices popping onto the network. You then examine the numbers that those devices are calling; the game is over as soon as one of them places a call to a number that's already on your watch list. The Times Square would be bomber was caught this way; he used a burner phone that should have been untraceable but made the mistake of calling a number that he had previously contacted from a phone that was known to the authorities.