OSINT Analysis of Militia Communications, Equipment and Frequencies (wordpress.com)

An anonymous reader writes: On January 2, 2016, the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, United States, were occupied by armed members of rump militias in one of the longest-running law enforcement standoff in American history. The Radiomasterreport blog, using publicly available information, wrote an OSINT Analysis of Militia Communications, Radio Equipment and Frequencies. The research results has astonishing conclusions: far-right patriot militas openly carrying +3000$ AR15 rifles and US military body armour also use cheap 30$ unsecure chinese Baofeng walkie talkie radios with no encryption whatsoever. Any simple ham radio operator , police scanner owner, or even some folks with a Software Defined Radio can receive those militia communications.

Comments

Wannabe soldiers

[spiritplumber]

have no concept of operational security. And now to Ric Romero with the news!

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[OverlordQ]

Well a non-trivial number of these guys are former military and so during that time, they just had some poor asshole who carried the radio and even if they used it, they never had to worry about encryption, it was somebody elses job.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nidi62]

Patriots standing up for civil rights.

I didn't realize that setting fire to government land because they wouldn't let you use it for grazing was a civil right. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution. Finicum isn't a hero, isn't a martyr, he took up arms against the government of the United States. This was a modern day version of the Jon Brown Raid, and those that perpetrated it deserve the same fate as Jon Brown.

Also, I like how you complain both about how the police now have to wear body cameras in one sentence and then complain about them turning them off in another. Nice cognitive dissonance there.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[bobbied]

Look, to be fair, off the shelf radios with encryption are not easy to afford and are difficult to manage.

But that doesn't mean they don't have OPSEC here, it just means they don't encrypt the audio. There are other ways to obscure what you are saying enough that the listener may not be able to easily figure out what you are communicating. Using code names for things, altering numeric data in reversible ways all are easy to implement, don't require encrypted radios and provide a measure of OPSEC without the expense or logistical key distribution problems.

Besides, all the tactical information the government really needs would be observable even if they had encrypted radios. The problem is that once you hit that transmit key, it's like you are striking a match in a dark room and revealing your position no matter what you say. Tactically, knowing where things are is the most important, followed by knowing when they are communicating. Anything more is nice, but unnecessary if you are interested in making an armed assault.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Nidi62]

Further, the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire.

An "accidental brush fire" that happened to burn up evidence that the two men in question had committed numerous offenses related to poaching and was corroborated by a member of their own family. The two men in question also publicly stated that the people occupying the facility in no way spoke for them, and most of the locals, including local Paiute Indians, wanted the "protesters" to leave as well. As I said several times already, these people committed a modern day Jon Brown's Raid, committed an openly hostile act against the United States government, and should be treated accordingly.

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

>the occupation was a protest to violation of double jeopardy and persecution of a man for an accidental brush fire

No, there was no 'double jeopardy'. They were not convicted twice of the same crime. The sentencing judge failed to follow the legal sentencing guidelines, so the State appealed the verdict, and the appellate court imposed the legally mandated sentence. There was no 'double-jeopardy' happening here - that's just dishonest rhetoric perpetrated by morons who don't understand the law.

No, nobody got persecuted for 'accidentally' setting a brush fire. The criminal conviction was for INTENTIONALLY starting a fire on PUBLIC land for the purpose of hiding the evidence of illegal poaching of game animals from that public land.

Again, there is nothing to that 'accidental' story but more dishonest rhetoric perpetrated by morons with a political agenda of violent revolution and anarchy.

And REGARDLESS of the intention behind the illegal acts committed by these anarchists, if you point your weapon at, or charge at or in some other way threaten the police, bad things are gonna happen. Simple as that. It doesn't matter WHAT they thought they were protesting. When you threaten a policeman, you die. I'll bet you're ok with Mike Brown getting killed, and Eric Garner getting killed. Is that because they were black, and black lives do NOT matter to you?

Note carefully how the PEACEFUL and UNARMED protesters of the 'occupy' movement were beaten, maced, and otherwise abused by the police. Were you objecting to that? Or is that different because you didn't happen to agree with their 'cause'? Do you think if some group other than Bundy's Yall-Queida group had done the same thing that the FBI and police would have been so forbearing? If those 'protesters' were black, they'd be called 'armed criminals', and would have been removed from the federal property within 24 hours, probably in body bags. If those 'protesters' were Muslims, they'd be called 'terrorists', and also would have been gone long before now. If they were Native Americans or environmentalists, they'd have been labeled 'armed radicals', and also would have been killed or jailed weeks ago. But no, they're white good ol boys, so they get treated with kid gloves, and are called 'protesters' in the press, rather than the TERRORISTS that they are. There's your 'leftist' media. Not.

This is a classic example of 'white privilege'. For a cop to shoot a white person, the person has to be charging AT the cop. While black people are shot while running AWAY from the cop.
N_J

Re: Wannabe soldiers

[bkr1_2k]

The other thing that people seem to miss regarding these YeeHawdis is that they are idiots.

This is the problem with most conservatives. They're conservative because they're stupid.

And this is the problem with people who spout "left" or "right" instead of thinking for themselves. they over-simplify issues, generalize the "other" as "stupid" or "thoughtless" or just as a whole, rather than as thinking individuals, and they make themselves look like assholes.

The "left" and "right" are both wrong. Thinking about a subject on its merits (rather than because it's your side's point of view) is the only way to rationally and intelligent consider anything.

Re:Wannabe soldiers

[Cramer]

True. But the radios the US military uses don't have to obey any rules of any nation. They sure as shit don't listen to the FCC. Look up the specs on those fancy Harris encrypting radios they have everywhere. (I could go to jail for just holding one of those things. :-))

First, those chinese radios are, to the letter of the law, illegal in the US -- they violate MANY rules for GMRS and FRS radios; plus, if they're like the ones I have, they arrive with FM transmit enabled. Encryption is absolutely illegal; and the cost and complexity keeps it out of the market.

(as with all things, the loophole is encrypting things before it gets to the radio. i.e. WEP/WPA/SSL over WiFi, VOIP + TLS, etc. In short, the radio didn't encrypt it.)

Prohibited

[PPH]

Encryption is prohibited for amateur radio communications.

Re:Militia ?

[smooth wombat]

It's distinguished from terrorism because the tactics are a bit different - they almost never aim to directly create mass civilian casualties or property damage

This is what the FBI has to say about the definition of domestic terrorism which you will note does not include the need for casualties:

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

1. Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
2. Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
3. Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

18 U.S.C. Â 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

1. Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
2. Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including  930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and  1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).

Link for reference

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

So the takeover of an abadoned building in the middle of nowhere

Not really abandoned. Most likely it was just shut down for the season. The refuge contains a large breeding area for birds and is a major migration stop, with over 320 different species of birds. So it's busiest seasons are most likely spring, summer, and fall. At most they might see a few hikers in winter, so there's really no need to fully staff the park then.

But generally when an armed group takes over a building that is owned by the government it is generally called terrorism, yes. Some definitions of terrorism (important clauses bolded):

UN General Assembly: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d): Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

I'd say the bill fits, they need to wear it.

They got off easy

[Sir_Eptishous]

If you look at what the Hammonds have done over the last twenty years or so, what the "militia" up there has done, etc; These clowns got off easy.

Because they quote "scripture" and wear cowboy boots, they have gotten the soft approach from law enforcement, and everyone knows it.
Just imagine if something similar had taken place, except the "militia" was composed of African Americans, say, in Oakland or Memphis? It would have been a blood bath from the get go.

Also, why do these militia/patriot types think its their prerogative to use lethal force or violence to get what they want? WTF?!? That is what criminals do. Isn't this obvious enough?

Re:"Standoff"

[Nidi62]

Considering what happened to the Native Americans, why is this a surprise to anyone?

These constitution-loving folks seem to have forgotten exactly how the west was won.

"Well, I didn't think they'd do it to white people..."

You do realize even the local Paiute tribe wanted these idiots to leave, right? And that local ranchers actually already had grazing rights on the refuge. They even took down the fence of a local rancher to "help" him and he said he didn't even want them there either.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

And the violence committed was?

A group of people standing in your office protesting is a sit in. A group of people standing in your office protesting with guns is an occupation and a hostage situation. By entering the facility with weapons they made the implicit threat (and following statements such as Bundy's and Finicum's made it explicit) that you are willing to use those weapons. That's the violence.

Re: Militia ?

[Nidi62]

Who are the hostages in this situation?

Metaphor much? The possession of firearms takes this from a peaceful protest to a violent, forceful act.

Re: Militia ?

[TsuruchiBrian]

"All I did was point a gun at the shopkeepers head and say that I would murder him in front of his family if he didn't give me all the money in the register. I didn't commit any violence. I was just exercising my right to freedom of speech."