Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NSA, GCHQ Have Been Intercepting In-Flight Mobile Calls For Years (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: American and British spies have since 2005 been working on intercepting phone calls and data transfers made from aircraft, France's Le Monde newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing documents from former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden. According to the report, also carried by the investigative website The Intercept, Air France was targeted early on in the projects undertaken by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart, GCHQ, after the airline conducted a test of phone communication based on the second-generation GSM standard in 2007. That test was done before the ability to use phones aboard aircraft became widespread. "What do the President of Pakistan, a cigar smuggler, an arms dealer, a counterterrorism target, and a combatting proliferation target have in common? They all used their everyday GSM phone during a flight," the reports cited one NSA document from 2010 as saying. In a separate internal document from a year earlier, the NSA reported that 100,000 people had already used their mobile phones in flight as of February 2009, a doubling in the space of two months. According to Le Monde, the NSA attributed the increase to "more planes equipped with in-flight GSM capability, less fear that a plane will crash due to making/receiving a call, not as expensive as people thought." Le Monde and The Intercept also said that, in an internal presentation in 2012, GCHQ had disclosed a program called "Southwinds," which was used to gather all the cellular activity, voice communication, data, metadata and content of calls made on board commercial aircraft.

51 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Okay, so they've been spying by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Now what?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Okay, so they've been spying by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Now I guess we just wonder who else was listening in that hasn't admitted it publicly?

    2. Re:Okay, so they've been spying by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People can now understand the risk of having no anonymity or security on any device globally.
      So to take back privacy use a one time pad not created on the same device.
      Getting any from of anonymity is more tricky but at least privacy can be attempted.
      This is also important for journalists, members of the press. Phoning in a story, update or talking to a colleague or office after meeting a whistleblower, bureaucrat, politician or other contact might not be a very secure part of getting a story ready. Voice prints will ensure any comments get tracked.
      So the wider press, media, journalists now have a better understanding to not use any phone to chat about contacts.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Okay, so they've been spying by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      To get all voice prints in a quick look up index? Everything.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Okay, so they've been spying by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Now consider it normal.

    5. Re:Okay, so they've been spying by russotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What the majority of people complaining about a spy agency that actually spies need to do is realize no one really gives a shit about them or their mundane lives.

      That was before they started funneling information to law enforcement for the purposes of criminal investigations. So far it seems to be mostly drugs (but there's a lot of mundane people using illegal drugs), but in the future it could as easily be copyright violation, nanny tax evasion, underaged drinking (think your kids are smart enough to never mention it on the phone? If they are, what about their friends?), or zoning violations.

    6. Re:Okay, so they've been spying by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Now what?

      Intercept NSA/GCHQ communications and/or hack them back? DDoS all their IP ranges? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Crowd-source the gathering of any identifying data/biometrics of those working for NSA/GCHQ with phone apps and host an open/searchable database online? Why would they stop if there's no cost/push-back?

      They have to come to understand that spying on everyone as they have been will cause a backlash that will seriously impair their ability to do *actual* national-security duties.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:Okay, so they've been spying by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Intercept NSA/GCHQ communications and/or hack them back?

      That is the best solution so far. We have to gain access to the same tools. Make them feel the same pain. I hope that will happen, but we have to produce something a bit better than tabloid material...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. What do UK, USA, Aus, NZ, Can have in common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All 5eyes countries have moved to a more extreme surveillance regime over time.

    Take Theresa May, she was Home Secretary. For quite a while only women would be made Home Secretary, and we didn't know why. Then we found out about the mass surveillance of Britain done in secret and against Parliament wishes and the reason was clear. Online porn. Men surf porn, MPs do too.

    You can't have a boss with a weak spot being spied on by GCHQ. So the Prime Minister always chose a surveillance friendly women in the role of Home Secretary, who wouldn't rock the boat, and wouldn't be vulnerable to the surveillance.

    So David Cameron resigns, and she sort of works her way from the Home Office, into the Prime Ministers office. Did we elect her? No, she just sort of became the PM. None of the major political candidates wanted to stand, I wonder why, they would all know about the surveillance.

    And as PM she passes a new law, legalizing the mass surveillance they were already doing.

    So you can see how GCHQ's mass surveillance of Britain has affected the political makeup of Britain. Just by existing, they've made Britain into an authoritarian state with an unelected leader.

    And the same pattern is happening right across the 5 eyes nations. With leaders increasingly being pro-surveillance, extreme right, in power without a democratic mandate from the voters. Trump is just the latest of these.

    1. Re:What do UK, USA, Aus, NZ, Can have in common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Baloney. No one cares if a politician browses porn.

    2. Re:What do UK, USA, Aus, NZ, Can have in common? by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      All 5eyes countries have moved to a more extreme surveillance regime over time.

      Take Theresa May, she was Home Secretary. For quite a while only women would be made Home Secretary, and we didn't know why.

      I know why only women were made home secretary; it's because you are delusional. Before Theresa May only one out of the last hundred or so home secretaries was a woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:What do UK, USA, Aus, NZ, Can have in common? by Xest · · Score: 2

      Ironically that one female home secretary before Theresa May was also brought down by the fact her husband was caught buying porn using the MP expenses system. So you're right, there's zero merit in his porn theory.

      Not that I disagree with him that Theresa May is, and is acting like a defacto authoritarian dictator though. The fact she believes something as important as the terms for triggering Brexit shouldn't undergo parliamentary scrutiny is astounding. It's the single biggest change to British statute in 40 years and she thinks parliament shouldn't scrutinise the terms? She couldn't be more dictatorial if she tried.

    4. Re:What do UK, USA, Aus, NZ, Can have in common? by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      Boris give it a rest and stop chasing titty. As much.

      --
      The most dangerous drug
    5. Re:What do UK, USA, Aus, NZ, Can have in common? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I agree, though even with the Theresa May et. al. view of accepting the referendum results there are problems they're glossing over - Leave only won by 1.8%, but it's not clear that they can show all 51.8% prioritise immigration as their reasons for leaving, when prominent Leavers like Daniel Hannan say immigration wasn't the reason he wanted to leave I think it's entirely dishonest to make the case that immigration reform has to become before all else, even if we leave there's no evidence that a majority support leaving and screwing ourselves based primarily on immigration changes.

      But this is why parliamentary scrutiny is of fundamental importance, to challenge the idea that a vote to Leave in the referendum is a vote for Theresa May's cabinet to be the sole decider of what shape that takes even if that completely defies the democratic will of the populace.

      Even if you ran the referendum again, and even if Leave won again, which I suspect they wouldn't, I do not for one second believe you'd ever get a majority supporting exiting the European Economic Area even if we leave the EU, and yet that's exactly what they're proposing despite there being not even remotely near a majority for it. A substantial number of even the hardest Brexit voters still support the idea of remaining in the common market.

      Thus May's government simply cannot keep claiming they have a democratic mandate, they were given a mandate for one thing and one thing only - leaving the EU, they have no mandate to decide anything else beyond that regarding immigration, access to markets and so on and so forth. Democracy is also not a one time thing, so I also absolutely agree that any package should be put to the people in a second referendum with the option of rejecting it and staying in the EU - democracy is about giving people choice to decide, and people's views change. It's not democracy if you refuse to recognise that change, otherwise we could merely declare the referendum result invalid because people previously voted to join in 1972, if singular votes define things for all eternity then why not that one? The whole argument against a second referendum is fundamentally democracy denying, despite the argument they make that it's a refusal to accept the will of the people - finding out the will of the people on a rolling basis by definition cannot be classed as refusing the will of the people.

  3. Re:Eh by sexconker · · Score: 1, Funny

    There's no such thing as a slipper slope fallacy. It's truth. Alternatively, if you give a mouse a cookie...

  4. Re: Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if I'm the political opposition to the current power holders? More to the point, what if I'm the political opposition exposing the corruption of the current power holders who have control over a massive surveillance state?
    Do I have the right to be worried then?

    captcha: depends

  5. A lot longer than that, actually by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    This is only the current set of programs. The prior set had other names, and were data shared under other agreements.

    And, as always, you won't do anything.

    You never do.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:A lot longer than that, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well I will fight the power by turning OFF my cellphone during the flight!

    2. Re:A lot longer than that, actually by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Well I will fight the power by turning OFF my cellphone during the flight!

      Lol, it's not really going to help, even when not flying. Always assume any device you didn't design and build yourself is compromised, and even then you have to presume any encryption protocols are compromised if you yourself didn't write them, and the signal intercepts have already occurred.

      All you have going for you is being incredibly boring. The more boring, the better.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  6. Re: Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah you do. If left unchecked everything will wind up on the slope.
    You don't want to live in a world where everything, even innocuous things like hairstyle, are mandated by law. Because then we are stuck with super nazis who will put you in jail because one of your tires is inflated to 36 psi instead of the mandatory 35.
    When mundane things become a matter of law we are literally in hell.

  7. How? by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

    I have never been able to establish a connection while at cruising altitude. I haven't tried during takeoff or landing though.

    1. Re:How? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I have never been able to establish a connection while at cruising altitude.

      It makes you wonder how anyone could do it from an aircraft in 2001.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:How? by sbrown7792 · · Score: 1

      while at cruising altitude.

      Funny, I didn't know the twin towers were THAT tall.

    3. Re:How? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      while at cruising altitude.

      Funny, I didn't know the twin towers were THAT tall.

      or that cell towers were that fast.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re: How? by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      My phone worked fine on Japanese bullet trains, do we have any information on tower hand off at high speeds that isn't from the idiot fringe?

    5. Re: How? by sbrown7792 · · Score: 1

      Max cell tower range at the low end is 22 miles (depends on the technology)
      Cruising speed (probably faster than they were going, but hey, worst case) is ~550mph
      Putting it together, we get 2.4 minutes for a phone to be connected to a tower.

      Don't know how long a handover takes, but I'll bet its less than 30 seconds. Probably closer to 3-5 seconds, considering that's generally how long it takes the network to stand up a connection for you to make the call in the first place.

    6. Re: How? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      that isn't from the idiot fringe?

      Thanks for asking. I think the biggest problem with this that there has been no forensic investigation of the facts, evidence and conclusions drawn from them. In any case how this happened is irrelevant compared to the laws put in place to justify the surveillance state we have now. It's our reality, I accept that, but it doesn't mean I don't like to playfully tease out the dogmatic skeptics who are too mentally anemic to challenge their own assumptions for a few lolz.

      My phone worked fine on Japanese bullet trains, do we have any information on tower hand off at high speeds

      First, in the air a cell phone is relatively equidistant from *all* cell towers in range. This is substantially different from a cell phone call placed on the ground where the signal strength to your closest tower may be 10's of dB higher the the very next one. From the air, your cell phone signal would present as the same fractions of a dB at *all* cell phone towers in range.

      Second, you need cell hand off data of 2/3G network that was in use in 2001. Even on the ground, at 500 knots (roughly 800kph) a handover from one tower would be occurring as it was handing over to another. It is difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained with the network technology available in 2001.

      Third, tests of those networks revealed all cell connections to be dropped above 3000 metres thus difficult to expect such a connection to be maintained without the assistance of the aircraft and that technology was only introduced in 2004.

      Fourth, the range of the 3watt of transceiver power a cell phone has to transmit to connect to a tower is no more than the distance to the horizon on the ground, which is about 5km's, which is similar to a 3watt CB radio. With aircraft cruising altitude of 11km there is simply not enough energy in the transmitter to get to the ground even if you ignore the fact that an aircraft is a faraday cage AND their are two layers of aluminium between the transmitter and the ground.

      Fifth, US patent US 7965684 B2: Method and system of handoff for cellular networks only allows 2 channels and a handset would not be able to calculate the round trip delay to the next cell tower if they are all, or even mostly, equidistant. Therefore no hard or soft handover would occur, resulting in a dropped connection.

      The commission implies those calls were made from air phones which is in conflict with the witnesses who say they received cell phone calls.

      If you accept the official version then we aren't talking about cell phones at all. If you accept the witness statements, then you have to ask why the official report implies otherwise and if the characteristics of the network would allow cell phone calls at the time, speed and altitude the air traffic controllers reported these aircraft to be when the calls were made. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask those questions.

      It's the implications of the answer that skeptics don't want to deal with so it is understandable why they cannot accept the facts.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  8. Here's how many terrorists these spooks have found by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2, Informative

    ZERO.

  9. Re:SWhitA! by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    I thought that was because mgmt wouldn't let you have a heater under your desk to keep your feet warm.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  10. Intercept for Fun and Profit ? by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

    An astute POTUS with business acumen could use this capability to gather industrial intel and turn a tidy profit for himself !

    --
    The law is not an ass. No really.
  11. Re:Eh by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Were you born stupid, or was your intelligence drained out in college? Because why in the hell should American spies give a rat's tiny asshole about French Constitutional rights?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  12. Re:Operative Assumptions... by russotto · · Score: 1

    At this point (honestly well before it) its simpler to assume that any and all communications medium around the globe have been spied upon by the 5 Eyes coalition since at least the mid 80's when Bell and others began to coalesce and merge once more due to deregulation and a very friendly set of first-world government policies.

    Not the '80s. The late 1960's.

  13. Re:Eh by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Actually no one should care about any others rights. Correct? Why put exceptions on a rule? That makes the rule useless.
    I have the right of ANYONE else I deem fit.

  14. You say that like they haven't been.... by aristotheron · · Score: 1

    intercepting ALL calls for years.

    The ongoing damage control trying to convince you that you haven't been living in "gilded cage".

    You privacy is invaded for advertising! It's invaded for nation security!
    That is misleading.
    It's invaded so that you can be kept down "where you belong" by people who got fat off easy business and don't have the ability to compete with you if you are able to reach your potential and enter an even playing field.

  15. Re:Eh by Nutria · · Score: 1

    What???

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  16. Please - no mainline stories with classified info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please tell me that quoted NSA "internal document" was not classified. I'm not supposed to read US govt classified information except under specific conditions. Even if it's widely distributed or "public knowledge". Classified means classified. Publishing classified information right in the slashdot story stream where I could read it places me in a difficult position.

  17. Re: Eh by NotAPK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    " innocuous things like hairstyle, are mandated by law."

    Actually, at least if it's mandated by law it would be possible to know what the laws are, and even somehow change them. In the end, those are just "bad laws" and we already have plenty of those on the books.

    The *worst* outcome is when the "laws" are secret or unknowable and enforced arbitrarily. That's where mass surveillance is going. There won't be a law saying "visiting website XYZ is illegal", since if there was there would be an easy way to query the database and go door knocking to arrest everyone. No, it will be used in the opposite way: when you're being socially or politically "difficult" or even just successful: your data will be leaked to the press, you will be arrested on trumped up charges founded by surveillance data that are "too secret" to release to the public, and you will generally be shamed and tamed into submission. That is *not* a fair and open society based on the rule of law, and that is why mass surveillance is fundamentally wrong.

  18. Re:Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe France and USA are allies, or maybe because without the French, Americans would still be bowing to the British queen? Or maybe because people should respect people's right to privacy, whoever they are?

  19. Re: Eh by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    And yet if you don't have criminal activity to hide, you have no reason to worry about any supposed slippery slope, real or fallacious.

    It's not about what you have to hide, it's about what you have to loose.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  20. Re:Online consultation - for Canadians by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Thank you - please mod this up for our Canadian friends.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  21. You must be a Trumpist by wiredog · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since you seem to be very factually challenged.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
    1. Re:You must be a Trumpist by jittles · · Score: 1

      Since you seem to be very factually challenged.

      You make a very brazen assumption that they found him due to all of this domestic spying the GCHQ and NSA do. The article makes no mention of how he was found and killed. He may have been targeted and killed on accident. If it was a deliberate act, it is most likely that he was found via leaks on the ground. These terrorist organizations almost never use technology like cell phones, email, etc. They're very careful about it. The smart terrorists evade detection for years through these means. Just look at Osama Bin Laden. He was found by a CIA agent posing as a doctor in Pakistan, not by intercepts and spying in the US, UK, or any other country. I am more inclined to believe Patent Lover is correct - that they've found nearly zero terrorists of any significant value in this way. They can't even find clowns like the shoe bomber using all this illegal spying.

    2. Re:You must be a Trumpist by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What involvement did GCHQ have and was domestic spying or spying on calls made from aircraft of use in that case?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  22. Re:Eh by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    I guess your concept of 2 sets of rules has eluded you. Spies have different rules to follow than others, correct? Why? Because some group of assholes said it was ok.

    I guess it all whooshes right over you.

  23. GSM is an ancient, insecure protocol by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    In other news, the NSA and GCHQ have been spying on ROT13'd telnet connections!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  24. Re:Eh by Nutria · · Score: 1

    I guess your concept of 2 sets of rules has eluded you.

    Or you didn't explain yourself well.

    Because some group of assholes said it was ok.

    Are you a citizen of the world, or something?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  25. The original article by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Makes no claims that the NSA was intercepting calls made by those people in the US, nor GCHQ in the UK. Since Air France was targeted they may have been intercepting calls made anywhere in the world.

    This is, by the way, what NSA and GCHQ are supposed to be doing. Intercepting foreign (to the US and UK respectively) communications.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
    1. Re:The original article by jittles · · Score: 2

      Makes no claims that the NSA was intercepting calls made by those people in the US, nor GCHQ in the UK. Since Air France was targeted they may have been intercepting calls made anywhere in the world.

      This is, by the way, what NSA and GCHQ are supposed to be doing. Intercepting foreign (to the US and UK respectively) communications.

      Yes of course that is what those organizations should be doing. But we all know that they no longer restrict themselves to foreign surveillance. This means that if they were doing it against Air France back in 2005, they're now doing it in the US and UK now.

  26. Re:Eh by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    I am a citizen of me. Don't really give 2 shits what someone else thinks I am supposed to do. I can drive 50 miles west and find a different set of rules. I can drive 50 miles north and find another set. After a while you realize everyone just wants to be a control freak and you decide they can ALL fuck off.

    Peace out.

  27. Re: Please - no mainline stories with classified i by rikkards · · Score: 1

    I think the argument could be made in this case about intent. The OP was not intending to come across that material, if he actively went out looking for it that is a different matter.

  28. Re: Eh by brewthatistrue · · Score: 1

    > The *worst* outcome is when the "laws" are secret or unknowable and enforced arbitrarily.

    We are heading in that direction (if not there already).

    There are a bajillion laws and "ignorance of the law is no excuse", also there are various regulatory agencies that make regulations which have the force of law.

    There are so many laws that you are probably violating something that you don't know about, and some things you know about but figure no one will care about.

    "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."

    https://mic.com/articles/86797...

    http://wayback.archive.org/web...

    https://www.cato.org/events/te...