Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fake Mobile Phone Towers Found To Be "Actively Listening In" On Calls In UK

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-the-better-to-hear-you-with dept.

New submitter nickweller writes: More than 20 Stingray fake phone towers which can collect data from passing devices and listen in on calls have been discovered operating in the UK. The Metropolitan Police have refused to say who is controlling the IMSI catchers, also known as Stingrays, or what is being done with the information they are gathering. Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”

30 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. The key quote by DingerX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Keith Bristow, the director-general of the National Crime Agency, said: “Some of what we would like to talk about to get the debate informed and logical, we can’t, because it would defeat the purpose of having the tactics in the first place. Frankly, some of what we need to do is intrusive, it is uncomfortable, and the important thing is we set that out openly and recognise there are difficult choices to be made.”

    Translation: "It is important that we be completely transparent on this single fact: we are not transparent, and we will do bad things, because reasons."

    1. Re:The key quote by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Translation: Silence citizen we are above the law and not subject to the oversight of peasants like yourself.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  2. In other words... by NoKaOi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible."

    Sure, we're doing a lot of bad illegal shit, but we don't have time to do as much bad illegal shit as you think we are.

    Imagine if that logic were applied by a bank robber: Sure, I robbed the bank, but I didn't have time to steal as much money as you thought I did.

    1. Re:In other words... by jbrown.za · · Score: 2

      I know it's overused on Slashdot, but this really is a classic case of these aren't the droids you're looking for

    2. Re:In other words... by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because the fact is, our standard police forces can't deal with the things they're meant to be dealing with as is, hence why certain things have become defacto legalised because they don't have time to deal with them.

      The idea that they've then got time to dick around doing something like mass spying on top makes little sense.

      Any such spying would typically be carried out by the security services, or by one of the new pseudo security forces that are effectively national police agencies like SOCA or whatever name they're going by nowadays.

      So frankly I believe Hogan-Howe, I don't think it's his guys doing this, I think he's probably exactly right when he says it's nothing to do with him and his force. I think they genuinely have neither the resources or the will to do this.

      That doesn't mean it's not another branch of the government of course, and it most likely is. When he refuses to comment it's probably because he knows it's nothing to do with him and doesn't want anything to do with the political debate of who is doing it or the rights and wrongs of it.

      Frankly, whoever approached the met to ask who is operating them approached the wrong person. It's like asking the chief of a hospital why some members of parliament support homeopathy. How the fuck are they meant to know why they support what they do and vote for what they do? it effects them but they have no real control over it, nor can they say why the MPs think or do what they do. It's a question best put to the MPs themselves, not some unrelated chief of a hospital.

    3. Re:In other words... by gsslay · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But isn't it reassuring that the first thing stopping them doing surveillance that comes to Sir Bernard's mind is the lack of resources? Not things like legality or moral justification?

      Lack of money; the police's new moral compass.

    4. Re:In other words... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't be mislead about the lack of resources to violate privacy on a massive scale. They may not have operators actively listening to every call, monitoring every URL accessed and every form submitted, but they certainly can capture all of that data. They certainly capture all the metadata, and that's where the real danger lies.

      For example, they like to see who is visiting an area by collecting the IMEIs of all phones that connect to their fake tower. Say there is a political event, or a protest or some other gathering of people they dislike. They record every IMEI that was anywhere near it. Then when the next one happens they do the same thing and compare the two lists, eventually creating a master list of known dissidents and unfortunate people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Whenever they have the opportunity they match the IMEI up with an identity. If they ever examine a phone they make sure they get the IMEI. They also like to try to tie it up with things like car number plates and patterns of movement. The information is shared with other police forces, and stored indefinitely.

      The police are building vast databases on everyone. The DNA database, for example, includes millions of innocent people. We must keep up efforts to get these databases wiped, permanently, and the people who built them brought to trial and punished.

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

    "If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”

    I'm confused. 20 Stringrays in the U.K. And no one should worry because the Chief of Metropolitan Police says they don't have the resources to do as much intrusion as "they" worry about. If that's right - how much less intrusion? Is that because of the 20% budget cuts - or because his area of command is not the entire U.K. (London only, excluding The City of London)? Or maybe because the Metropolitian Police don't have primary access to the Stingray traffic? Is that because the story is wrong - or is one of those Stingrays in The City of London? Is this just bullshit or maybe a ploy to increase funding so that the level of intrusion is something to worry about e.g. if it weren't for the budget cuts he could implement his plan for "total war on crime" and "total policing".

    Given the past accuracy of some of the statements from his office I'm still cynical.

  4. Re:What Is Being Done by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

    The Brits should treat those bogus cell towers the same way they treat speed cameras.

  5. Possible! by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.

    Based on the fact that there are 20 operating Stingrays I would say that not only is it possible, but you have actually put your resources to good use doing exactly as much intrusion as we're worrying about.

    1. Re:Possible! by Roodvlees · · Score: 2

      Yea this totally proves it's not only possible, they've been doing it for years!

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    2. Re:Possible! by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Way to intentionally try and mislead readers!

      824,297 is the total number of cellular sites opensignal has data for, ON THE PLANET.
      It is estimated all operators in the UK have around 23,000 cell sites (including microcells).
      There appear to be between 100 and 150 TOTAL sites in London.

      So no, they could catch a fair bit of all of the trafic in say Central London with those, lets
      say one per embassy zone, a couple around Parliment, one for the Queen, etc - they could
      drag a nice little bit of data for their colonial cousins with those..

      Oh, wait, how foolish of me, they are only used to fight active terrorist groups who are working
      to kill us all! how easy to forget.

  6. Re:Use a cellphone booster? by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone here can comment on using a cellphone booster to nullify stingrays?

    No. Because most Stingrays (IMSI catchers) work on 2G - those that work on 3G and 4G play man-in-the-middle (use encryption to "beat" those). If you mean can I get a better antennae so that when I've set my phone to only use 3G I can still get a signal most of the time - then yes (I just did). If you mean you want to boost the 2G reception then you'd need to find a way to only connect to your own boosted 2G connection - which is problematic to say the least. How do you ensure it is not boosting a Stingray? How do you legally run a booster? (I don't know the relevant law on amplifiers in the U.K. - in Oz we have to buy them from carriers, which is expensive as well as an act of faith). i.e. the way to "nullify" Stingrays is only use 3G and use encryption (if you use encryption then you can use any mobile protocol, which makes your "booster" redundant). Better to get a stronger signal with a better antenna than boost a weak one using an active repeater/amplifier (most mobiles have crap reception). Were you planning on lugging the repeater everywhere?

  7. They refuse to say who's listening, etc by Roodvlees · · Score: 2

    They probably don't really know. It's probably anyone in the UK or US with a security clearance or who works on the system as an engineer. And what they are doing with it? Who knows? It certainly seems like the politicians don't care, they only care about fake protections against terrorism.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  8. Translation by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said: "If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”

    In other words, "
    If people think we're trying to screw them as much as possible with the limited resources we have, I would reassure them we are."

  9. Re:What Is Being Done by johanw · · Score: 3, Informative

    First you have to find them. Fortunately there is software for that: on a rooted Android, use https://github.com/SecUpwN/And... and https://opensource.srlabs.de/p...

  10. Wrong authority by johnjones · · Score: 3, Informative

    The metropolitan police are not responsible for GSM interference

    Doing so legally they would be run by Government Communications Headquarters ( GCHQ)
    It matters not most UK communications are intercepted quite legally by the NSA and shared back to UK.

    They are most likely test towers or towers created by individuals illegally

    The British have always allowed intercepts legally

    Regards

    John Jones

    1. Re:Wrong authority by coofercat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hmm... test towers...?

      I use Llama to turn on my phone's wifi when I get near home. I live in a village, so I would assume there can't be more than a handful of cell towers in range of my house. The thing is, I have found I'd get home and my wifi wasn't on, so I get Llama to 'learn' the area, and all is well again until the next time. I think I got to 23 cell IDs before I cleared them all and then started from scratch. Over a period of a few months, I've got 22 in there right now.

      One thing Llama doesn't do is tell you when a cell ID was last seen - but in the absence of better information, does anyone know what could be going on here?

  11. Let me guess... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm assuming that their ever-so-coy stance on whether or not the stingrays are their stingrays would evaporate rather quickly if somebody were to climb up, cut one down, and make off with it...

    Feds have this funny habit of suddenly getting really possessive of things that previously didn't exist if you start touching them.

  12. Post-democracy by qaz123 · · Score: 2

    Democratic institutions are still in place but freedoms are constantly shrinking

  13. "We do all these for the children" by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We do it for the Children

    We strive all days and all nights to keep you and all your children safe

    You can trust us, we are good people

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  14. Re:What is a republic? by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The time France had a king was in the 1800's

    How come you guys still allow draconian bullshits in your lawbooks??"

    Look who's talking.Did you ever check your own laws?
    Here are a few:

    It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
    It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
    It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
    In New York, adultery is still a crime.
    Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
    In Alabama putting salt on railroad tracks may be punishable by death. ...

  15. A Question of Trust - RIPA review. by auric_dude · · Score: 3, Informative

    “A Question of Trust”, the report of my Investigatory Powers Review under DRIPA 2014 s7, was laid before Parliament today. It is available here in print and web accessible versions, together with the accompanying press release and (so far as the authors were willing for it to be published) the evidence submitted to the Review in writing. https://terrorismlegislationre... which may be of interest to some who are viewing this thread.

  16. Criminal towers? by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was publicly demonstrated not long ago that it's possible to listen into a given persons GSM calls relatively easily with cheap, consumer grade, equipment. If there's a bunch of these impostor towers knocking about and the police's position is that it's not them using them then I'd quite like them to be making an effort to find out who they do belong to ASAP. Shrugging and saying “we don't have the resources to bother tapping your phones” is not an acceptable response even if it's true.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  17. Break one and see what happens by Bruce66423 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that there is a defence to a charge of criminal damage of preventing a crime - as demonstrated in the damage done to some jets on their way to an oppressive regime, break one and see who complains. The TLA that emerges will be upset, whilst the defence you proffer will force a discussion of their actual use in a court

    Rather you than me...

  18. Re:What is a republic? by shortscruffydave · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
    It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
    It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
    In New York, adultery is still a crime.
    Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
    In Alabama putting salt on railroad tracks may be punishable by death. ...

    That's my plans for the weekend shot to s**t then....

  19. Re:What is a republic? by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why should adultery not be a crime. We place such a high importance on marriage rights apparently that being free to enter that institution with anyone you wish is now being considered a basic human right. If that contract is so sacred that nobody should be denied it, than are not those who violate the integrity of harming society?

    When prosecuting murders killing the person who was cheating with your spouse generally makes it a crime of passion and frequently is used to justify reducing the charges to second degree murder or even down to manslaughter. So obviously adultery poses a significant danger of triggering of provoking other serious crimes like battery and murder.

    Its the frequent cause of dissolution of homes which negatively effects the development of children.

    The list could go on. I think there is clear pattern of harm to society at large resulting from adultery. It SHOULD be a crime. If you are concerned about being and adulterer don't marry.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  20. Re:What is a republic? by msk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Marriage should be a matter of contract law, not criminal law. Anything dictated on government terms is Big Government, which the Republicans allegedly eschew.

  21. Where are the apps by HiThereImBob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What surprises me most is that we haven't seen a comprehensive software solution for this yet. Sure, i've seen an implementation or two that only work on specific chipsets with Android, but where is the app that detects these stingrays, notifies all users in the area then triangulates the devices position and tracks it's movements using crowdsourced data? Maybe even an option to shutoff your phones radio or broadcast nonsense identification until it's gone.

    It seems to me that if turning one of these on aways resulted in nearly instant identification of the vehicle carrying it, this nonsense would end pretty quick.

  22. Re:What is a republic? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Making it Contract Law, means that marriage is no longer a "civil right" as such. If it is a civil right, then it is in the realm of criminal law, and thus eligible for criminal penalties for those that violate those rights. Having an affair is a violation of the civil rights of the partner, as it is a direct cause of harm to that right. I would even suggest that having an affair is a crime, even if ALL parties are consenting to it, for the same reason one cannot consent to being a slave or being a human sacrifice, as those things we have deemed harmful to our society in general.

    The problem here is that certain people want things, until it is inconvenient, and then they don't want those very things they petitioned for. We cannot simply say something is legal (or illegal) while it is convenient and then turn around and toss it aside when it becomes inconvenient.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.