Slashdot Mirror


Feds Bust CEO Allegedly Selling Custom BlackBerry Phones To Sinaloa Drug Cartel (vice.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Motherboard report: For years, a slew of shadowy companies have sold so-called encrypted phones, custom BlackBerry or Android devices that sometimes have the camera and microphone removed and only send secure messages through private networks. Several of those firms allegedly cater primarily for criminal organizations.Now, the FBI has arrested the owner of one of the most established companies, Phantom Secure, as part of a complex law enforcement operation, according to court records and sources familiar with the matter. "FBI are flexing their muscle," one source familiar with the secure phone industry, and who gave Motherboard specific and accurate details about the operation before it was public knowledge, said. Motherboard granted the sources in this story anonymity to talk about sensitive developments in the secure phone trade. The source said the Phantom operation was carried out in partnership with Canadian and Australian authorities.

115 comments

  1. Can you imagine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The source said the Phantom operation was carried out in partnership with Canadian and Australian authorities.

    I'm trying to imagine the accent of a kid raised by a Canadian mother and an Australian father.

    1. Re:Can you imagine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good on ya, eh, mate!?

  2. Why is this illegal? by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Cartel members buy toilet paper, tacos, beer and car window tint too. Selling things to a criminal is not, itself, a crime. Just because encryption can be used in concert with a criminal act does not make encryption a criminal act. The important part of this article is where the FBI seeks to use Phantom as a whipping boy for its "safe" and "good" crypto agenda.

    Phantom then installs Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) software to send encrypted messages, and routes these messages through overseas servers, the complaint alleges.

    If you want to stop drug trafficking and end cartels, you can stop trying to outlaw trapdoor math functions and start overhauling the century old criminal code that made a drug safer than aspirin a capital offense.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:Why is this illegal? by Black+Diamond · · Score: 1

      Well if you'd read the article you would know that they actually market these phones for criminal uses.

      It's not as simple as our phone is super secure, they went as far as outright telling people they designed it for illicit use.

    2. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh OK. So because they actually designed for illicit use then the encryption and lack of camera and mic is illegal.

      What they SHOULD have done was market the phones for use for clergy. "Officer, these phones were designed to take remote confessionals. Now fuck off and may the Lord be with you!"

    3. Re:Why is this illegal? by bogaboga · · Score: 0

      Selling things to a criminal is not, itself, a crime. Just because encryption can be used in concert with a criminal act does not make encryption a criminal act.

      Dude, selling stuff to criminals so that this stuff, once used as intended, they commit a criminal act, is in itself criminal I guess. If you sell a knife to a criminal so that this criminal can stab someone, you then become part of the problem that must be stopped

    4. Re: Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure thing it is a clear proof of criminal intent to switch off the spying functions or the phones. Honest people have nothing to hide and thus will not mind being constantly wiretapped and photographed and geo-tracked.

    5. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't want to stop drug trafficking and end cartels, they just want to stop drug trafficking and cartels that they do not control and profit from.

    6. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not as simple as our phone is super secure, they went as far as outright telling people they designed it for illicit use.

      Which is why FBI, CIA, and NSA members should never travel abroad. Tor was designed specifically for the illicit use of supporting dissidents and facilitating their own anonymous clandestine activities at home and abroad. Too bad Germany doesn't try pushing for the extradition of the NSA chief for their spying on Germany's Chancellor. Of course, no doubt the US would have reason to extraditing in kind for Germany's head of BND. *shrug*

      Seriously, though, yea, you shouldn't explicitly facilitate explicit use. Shame the FBI can't track down drug dealers, though. As in, it's oddly the case they know of these Cartels, what they do, and the names/faces of their leaders but can't seem to actually arrest anyone significant. Going after these phones isn't likely to substantial shift them away to insecure communication channels because all the tools are there and "super secure" phones that don't cater to cartels exist. It'd seem wiser to acknowledge the reality and adapt. Easier said than done, of course.

    7. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cartel members buy toilet paper, tacos, beer and car window tint too. Selling things to a criminal is not, itself, a crime. Just because encryption can be used in concert with a criminal act does not make encryption a criminal act

      racketeering conspiracy to conduct enterprise affairs, as well as conspiracy to distribute narcotics, and aiding and abetting.

      Pretty sure if you knew the toilet paper and tacos were going to be used in the commission of a crime, then yah, you are fucked. These charges wouldn’t apply if they were simply selling things that bad dudes happened to buy.

    8. Re:Why is this illegal? by azcoyote · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. I agree with bogaboga. Some common-sense moral evaluation can tell us that this is immoral, and from there we can infer that if it isn't illegal, it probably should be.

      It's immoral for at least the following reasons:

      • The seller has full knowledge of what the item will be used for.
      • The seller markets the object with the direct and clear intention that it should be used for the commission of crimes.
      • The seller should be aware that such crimes involve immoral actions, including harm of persons and even murder. ("should" because even if the seller does not directly know, this is what is called "vincible ignorance"--an ignorance that he easily could rectify and which is therefore his own fault.)

      Cartel members buy toilet paper, tacos, beer and car window tint too.

      If a person sells toilet paper to a criminal to wipe his behind, that is not immoral. In fact, providing a basic necessity like medical aid to a criminal could even be a morally good act if done for the sake of the person's human dignity and not for the sake of continuing their crimes. If you happen to see someone marketing toilet paper to a criminal so that he can murder someone with it, then you can go ahead and call the police on him.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    9. Re: Why is this illegal? by nnull · · Score: 1

      We should arrest the developers of pgp and ssh too. Then force them to weaken all the encryption and watch the fireworks when the Chinese hack every computer in the US. Great times ahead!

    10. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that's even worse, you then get suspected for cheese pizza.

    11. Re:Why is this illegal? by schnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cartel members buy toilet paper, tacos, beer and car window tint too. Selling things to a criminal is not, itself, a crime.

      I'd suggest reading TFA, which is actually both less sensational and more damning than the cheap clickbait Slashdot version.

      The short version is that they arrested the CEO of a company which proactively markets its services to criminal organizations. The company performs perfectly legal activities: they mod phones to remove camera, GPS, web browsing, etc.; add secure messaging software; and then operate a remote Enterprise Mobility Management server that the phones are connected to so they can manage remote wipe/lock/whatever. That second half is the problem: it's not a "fire and forget" operation of just selling a modded phone. It's doing the EMM bit of acting as the IT department of criminal organizations ("call us to wipe your phone if your dude gets arrested") knowingly and willingly, to the extent of the CEO saying "we made this for drug traffickers."

      Long story short: you're right, selling legal stuff to criminals that they use for illegal activity: not a crime. But marketing your services specifically to be used in illegal activities: yes, a crime.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    12. Re: Why is this illegal? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If you build strong encryption because you are a curious sort, that is not immoral.

      If you want to help people keep the powers that be from filching through your papers without a warrant, that is not immoral, even if it makes warranted searches difficult.

      If you want to keep dissidents in dictatorships free, that is heroic.

      If you create encryption so common crooks can get away with it, that isn't.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Why is this illegal? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      They don't want to stop drug trafficking and end cartels, they just want to stop drug trafficking and cartels that they do not control and profit from.

      Bingo.

      Additionally, what made this company a target was not that they sold secure phones to drug cartels. The US government works to prop up drug prices for the cartels and protect their markets. US leaders receive kickbacks through offshore accounts while simultaneously creating a drug-addicted and violent society too focused on surviving in the chaos and getting the next fix to be politically-active and push back against expanding government authoritarianism. If that CEO and his company would have stuck exclusively and quietly to selling to cartels only, he/they would most likely still be in business and free of charges.

      He/they had the bad judgement to sell cartel-worthy secure phones to regular law-abiding people. It was the part of his quote "...we sell to them (the cartels) too " which got him in hot water, but not for the cartel sales, that's just the justification being used to take down this company. The US government didn't spend the billions on that Utah data center and all those locked government rooms at the major network backbones just to see it all made almost useless by the widespread use of strong encryption by the public.

      The US is dangerously close to the tipping point of falling into full-blown fascism.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    14. Re:Why is this illegal? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Capital offense? You are obviously an idiot.

    15. Re:Why is this illegal? by fafalone · · Score: 2

      Well I don't know about this case specifically yet, but prosecutions like this tend to revolve around specific knowledge of clients and intended purposes. It's not illegal to sell a secure phone, but when a guy comes in and says 'I represent x cartel will these phones help me evade law enforcement and can you customize them further to help me with that', you're on the hook if you don't refuse the sale.
      And you know, you talk about I presume marijuana reform, but the real key critical component to reducing problematic drug addiction, ODs, gang violence, and wiping out the cartels is realizing that you have to also provide regulated legal access to drugs that are actually dangerous. It saddens me that all the progress made with pot has turned out to be based entirely on the fact it's extremely safe, rather than a broader recognition that if your policy objective is to minimize the harm of a dangerous but recreational and in demand substance, you must legalize, because prohibition at any level only increases the harm of an already harmful substance. Personal use quantities of even heroin and cocaine are decriminalized in Portgual for example, and while the rest of the world has seen the harm from these substances explode, it's declined there.

    16. Re:Why is this illegal? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      This is from the Us criminal code, USC 1807:

      "To obtain a federal forfeiture, the Government must prove the forfeiture and the connection between the property and the crime by a preponderance of the evidence. Forfeiture may be applicable to property that is traceable as proceeds of the offense, that facilitated the offense, or that was involved in money laundering. All claims of interest or ownership in the property, such as property owned by third parties, are resolved in a single trial."

      The principal that a vendor is responsible for abuse performed with their goods when it could be reasonably foreseen seems clear. The reasoning that a device has legitimate functions and that a vendor could not reasonably be held responsible criminally or civilly for selling it breaks down when the function of the device is primarily criminal. We see this in my workplace for network monitoring tools: is this tool designed for packet sniffing and doing man-in-the-middle auditing of private information? Do we have the authority to do that, or would we be violating various privacy laws by sniffing the traffic? Do we want to be vulnerable to demands that we turn that information over to local governments?

    17. Re:Why is this illegal? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Marijuana = safer than aspirin.

      Large scale cultivation of marijuana carried the death penalty under US law, even without a proven death involved. Note that this provision has never been tested in court, and might be struck down if anyone is sentenced under it. US courts tend to frown on the death penalty for crime not involving murder.

    18. Re:Why is this illegal? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The short version is that they arrested the CEO of a company which proactively markets its services to criminal organizations.

      HSBC provided banking services to terrorists - actual, blow things up and kill people terrorists - and no CEO went to jail for that.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know criminal codes, however I'm betting if falls under 'aiding in the commission of a crime' or thereabouts.

      It isn't like the cartels only after receiving the phones, started breaking laws. Which is likely why assisting them is considered illegal behavior.

      It's likely a little great circumstance, but probably chargeable under criminal code.
      Now whether the prosecution could make it stick and get a conviction? The courts will see.

    20. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TOR was originally a project to develop a secure communications network for the Department of the Navy. When it failed to meet the intended goals the entire project was handed over to a public trust to administer. The precursor to the Internet was another government project that started off as project to create a redundant network capable of remaining viable even if large segments were destroyed in a war or natural disaster. It was the data packet protocols and supporting routing technologies developed in this particular effort that played a key role in making the Internet possible. The government also handed these project results over to the public sector before closing down that project.

      "Too bad Germany doesn't try pushing for the extradition of the NSA chief for their spying on Germany's Chancellor"
      And what makes you think Germany is not spying on US Presidents and anything else they deem important? If you notice one day the German government was whining about NSA activities and spouting their usual shrill outrage which defines not only Germans but Europeans as a whole. The next day the German intelligence services took the Chancellor aside to tell her she best shut the fuck up because they were doing the same fucking thing. And push come to shove the US has all the incriminating evidence they would ever need to out German intelligence activities all over the world. The European proles would be so upset when faced with the reality that everything they accuse the US of doing is being done in their own countries. On top of that it wasn't the NSA or CIA collecting data on German citizens it was the German intelligence services who were compiling that information and sharing it with the US when asked. The Europeans have been so busy with their favorite hobby of complaining about the US that they have given their own intelligence agencies a free pass. And meanwhile the EU along with their ignorant proles are demanding all European citizen data be stored on European servers to prevent the NSA or anyone else from accessing that information. Never mind that physical server locations mean absolutely nothing to a nation state looking for that data. The typical European solution to protecting their data would be to make sure there is no Internet connection into their data centers. Never once realizing a data center with no network connectivity is pretty much useless. Hell the US was able to exploit the most secure computer network in Iran just to have a little fun with the centrifuges. This was a "data center" surrounded on all sides by the Iranian military with no outside connectivity and they were still got exploited.

    21. Re:Why is this illegal? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      yours not the child should be modded up. The article pretty much states that phantom was complicit with the cartels even offering to remote wipe if they needed it. It is one thing to market a phone, quite another to be complicit in its usage. The summary is not very good about making the point of just how involved phantom was. But given this is /., no one reads the article.

    22. Re: Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do as I say, not as I do.

    23. Re: Why is this illegal? by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      Your moral distinctions are non-actionable and largely irrevelant, because it is technically impossible to create encryption that is secure in the first three use cases but somehow magically cannot be used by common crooks. Of course, you shouldn't knowlingly deal with the Sinaloa cartel, but that has nothing to do with what goes on in your brain while you "create encryption".

    24. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, one thing is sure, there is no need to spy on the current US president, because he will change his opinion in the flick of an eye anyway and his general mindset is easy to infer from his retarded twitter posts.

    25. Re: Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must be just one cartel that is allowed to sell drugs - federal government.

    26. Re:Why is this illegal? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Wow!! You want to start taking the little pink pills next time, the ones you are using aren't helping.

    27. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TOR was originally a project to develop a secure communications network for the Department of the Navy.

      If by "secure communication network" you mean "for open source intelligence gathering", then yes. For the same reason, the US government continues to fund in large and meet with the TOR maintainers/developers to further refine TOR towards their needs, address potential leak concerns, etc. TOR is still very much a US Government project, even if its been taking out of their direct control to presumably dissuade any concerns of a direct conflict of interest.

      And what makes you think Germany is not spying on US Presidents and anything else they deem important?

      Why do you think I said there'd be calls to extradite the head of Germnay's BND (somwhat? equivalent to US's NSA) as well? The main difference, of course, is that the US was caught because of leaks, but we can only reasonably presume on Germany's actions.

      If you notice one day the German government was whining about NSA activities and spouting their usual shrill outrage which defines not only Germans but Europeans as a whole. The next day the German intelligence services took the Chancellor aside to tell her she best shut the fuck up because they were doing the same fucking thing.

      I didn't realize America was Europeans. I mean, I guess it fits. Seriously, the whole "shrill outrage" defines politics in general. As for the latter part, do you have direct evidence of this or are you just presuming? Yes, of course Germany does the same thing. If Germany didn't, BND and the like would be incompetent. One would tend to argue, though, it's also incompetent to be outright caught or outed doing it.

      The European proles would be so upset when faced with the reality that everything they accuse the US of doing is being done in their own countries.

      You mean like how Americans where upset when it turns out that the US readily tortured people? Yea, funny how people with some sort of morality might complain when they're government does sick or twisted stuff. Of course, this is just slut shaming. The spying on Heads of State of different countries doesn't really compare.

      On top of that it wasn't the NSA or CIA collecting data on German citizens it was the German intelligence services who were compiling that information and sharing it with the US when asked. The Europeans have been so busy with their favorite hobby of complaining about the US that they have given their own intelligence agencies a free pass.

      Do you have evidence to back that up? Because it's my understanding that it works the exact opposite way: various intelligence agencies of the west spy on each other and then share it to circumvent each intelligence agencies laws that prevent spying on their own citizens. There's little reason for them to spy on their own citizens and potentially get into political hot water when they have four other countries doing it for them.

      And meanwhile the EU along with their ignorant proles are demanding all European citizen data be stored on European servers to prevent the NSA or anyone else from accessing that information. Never mind that physical server locations mean absolutely nothing to a nation state looking for that data.

      Read above. The real point, btw, is so that EU members can apply their laws to the data instead of having to contend with situations like MS, Google, etc challenging the legality of it precisely because the physical servers aren't in the EU. Intelligence gathering has little to do with it because, as you say, clandestine agencies either don't care about the borders if they're international; or they'll use loophole around them if they're domestic.

      The typical European solution to protecting their data would be to make sure there is no Internet c

    28. Re:Why is this illegal? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      I know this isn't the current "consensus", but how is inhaling (any) smoke more safer then aspirin? This canard sounds like the same propaganda that Phillip Morris used.

    29. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You dont have to smoke it bro.

    30. Re:Why is this illegal? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      It's a plant -- you can eat it or cook with it.

    31. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well someone has to. balance of power is important. laws are like bottlenecks and coding errors without write access to the ource code, that need to be worksed around. its the natural consequence of making something illegal. it shifts all the activity to the black markey without diminishing it n anythng other then reports. laws do not shape peoples behavior. laws are a sorting mechanism used to demonie those who who would dare to live free of the established ruling parties iron grip

    32. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selling things to a criminal is not, itself, a crime.

      It is if that thing is a controlled product, ie weapons and encryption technology being the leading two categories of 'things' that should be controlled to maintain quality of life.

      You can bleat on all you like about maths, but technology is a thing that has consequences, and responsible governance requires that those consequences be managed.

    33. Re:Why is this illegal? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Google also offers a remotewipe feature for all Android phones, and I'm pretty sure Apple offers the same for iPhones. Why aren't their CEOs sharing a cell with this guy?

    34. Re: Why is this illegal? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      How do we know Kirk didn't use "edibles" as an excuse to shoot his wife and get away with an insanity defense? Besides, alcohol makes people more violent on average.

      As far as the African student, people do stupid things on booze too. Can't make the world 100% safe.

    35. Re:Why is this illegal? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Google also offers a remotewipe feature for all Android phones, and I'm pretty sure Apple offers the same for iPhones. Why aren't their CEOs sharing a cell with this guy?

      HSBC provided banking services to terrorists - actual, blow things up and kill people terrorists - and no CEO went to jail for that.

      Easy. Apple, Google, HSBC offer their services to everyone. Any John, Dick and Harry can buy a phone and get those services. HSBC will do banking with anyone.

      This company specifically only dealt with drug dealers and cartels and the like. You couldn't buy a phone from them even if you wanted to (it would make sense to, but I'm guessing the support costs are much too high). And that's what got the CEO arrested - his services were specifically for evading the law. Had he marketed his services more generally, no problem.

    36. Re: Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    37. Re:Why is this illegal? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      If you make a phone that's secure and market it that's not illegal. If you have a drug cartel come and ask you to customize a phone just so they can evade the cops that's a different matter. I'm surprised how lazy the cartels are. They've got tons of cash, they can afford to hire some bright guys to come up with their own communication system. I'd keep all that in house anyway, you can't trust these CEOs not to sell you out.

    38. Re:Why is this illegal? by swb · · Score: 2

      Medellin refers to a time when one group controlled every aspect of the drug trade, providing a measure of order that we could control. And until somebody finds a way to convince 20% of the population to stop snorting and smoking that shit, order's the best we can hope for. And what you saw up there, was Alejandro working toward returning that order.

      Matt the CIA agent from Sicrario.

    39. Re:Why is this illegal? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Did you read the parent post before you replied? HSBC did not proactively market to terrorists. "Special savings rates for terrorists who blow stuff up."

    40. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what if he tells me he is going to use it to cut his stake. Unless he specifically says he using it for illegal purposes how can i be to blame.

    41. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is dangerously close to the tipping point of falling into full-blown fascism.

      Keep voting Republican and it will happen.

    42. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then STOP putting up Democratic candidates who poll worse than Genghis Khan and with none of his charm and warmth.

    43. Re:Why is this illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck all the gun sellers are not in prison yet then?

  3. Do you hate OCD people? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    organizations.Now

    You're missing a space after the period!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Do you hate OCD people? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Do you hate OCD people? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The "two spaces" thing has been dead since the birth of HTML.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  4. I would buy one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the moment I just have a dumbphone, and I entrust it with as little data as possible. I don't need the extra functionality provided by a smartphone.

    But be assured that I'd buy an extra secured smartphone if I ever needed one. This idea that people should get weaker security on purpose just to potentially make police's job easier is beyond grotesque.

  5. Should tell you something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Authorities don't appear to be worried if criminals use off the shelf smartphones. Hmmm.

    1. Re: Should tell you something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or off the shelf military-grade guns. The cartels sell drugs to Americans and Americans sell assault rifles and hand guns to the cartels. All part of NAFTA as far as I can tell.

    2. Re:Should tell you something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes they are, haven't you heard Wray's recent comments about encrypted smartphones? That's about off the shelf iPhones and Androids. They're trying to make reasons to force laws to be implemented, that will then force technology firms to give them the back doors into our encrypted devices.

      By the government's view, no citizen should be allowed to keep anything private from them. This is a fascist view, and very dangerous for everyone in the modern age.

    3. Re:Should tell you something by fafalone · · Score: 1

      It's entirely a different issue really. The whining about default encryption on commercial products is strictly about mass surveillance. Cartels are very very well funded, and the people at the top are far from the typical criminal; they are smart enough not to rely on default security, and will use software or devices that provides independent encryption ability.

    4. Re:Should tell you something by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      More that the standard US police malware pushed down onto any cell phone likes to turn the camera and mic on.
      What was once DROPOUTJEEP quality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is now a local police contractor malware on the cell phone method.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Should tell you something by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re independent encryption ability.
      That needs more effort to stop the feds from turning on the camera, mic at the OS level, not just keeping app level data encrypted.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. That CEO is a [reckless] moron by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How else would I call a fella who says the following to anyone?

    “We made it—we made it specifically for this [drug trafficking] too,”

    As he reportedly told undercover agents...

    One conclusion: "Moron."

    1. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How else would I call a fella who says the following to anyone?

      “We made it—we made it specifically for this [drug trafficking] too,”

      As he reportedly told undercover agents...

      One conclusion: "Moron."

      He may be an idiot but looking at this from a SIGINT point of view I have to ask myself: Why the hell did they arrest the guy? If they had a lick of sense they'd have flipped him, spiked the phones with some innovative spyware and then done the same to every single supplier of custom phones to the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, and Los Zetas, and Los Templarios, ... etc. They could not only be listening in on their comms, they could be tracking thousands of these bozos in real time mapping their smuggling routes, safe houses, factories, labs, ...

    2. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      It's possible that they did ask the CEO and that he declined. In countries with legal systems that have this flaw (most of them, I guess), it seems to be very common for authorities to blackmail people and force them into complying with demands that could not enforced legally.

    3. Re: That CEO is a [reckless] moron by nnull · · Score: 1

      Moral of the story? Be careful what you say around people, even sarcasm can be used against you.

    4. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when I could say something like "I'm sure they already did" with any degree of confidence. That was a long time ago.

      This might have caused some chaos in the cartel ranks as their secure communication system suddenly got turned upside down. But they probably already migrated to a superior CIA solution.

    5. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. The answer you're looking for is competence in the US Criminal Justice system, ala FBI, DEA, or even state and local authorities.

      I'm sorry but you're going to find an extreme lack of such a thing presently in America.

    6. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then they get blamed for working with the cartels by letting it slide. Same as when they let a CP site keep running to bust everyone using it because they know that all the users will just flee to the next site when they shut it down so it's not like they buy a whole lot out of killing it vs. catching the users.

    7. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by dave562 · · Score: 1

      He may be an idiot but looking at this from a SIGINT point of view I have to ask myself: Why the hell did they arrest the guy? If they had a lick of sense they'd have flipped him, spiked the phones with some innovative spyware ...

      IANAL, but my suspicion is that there are too many legal complexities involved in doing that. They would be tainting the evidence or something similar.

      Just look at all of the blow back over the Playpen operation and the spyware that was used there.

      That's the difference between law enforcement and the military. With law enforcement, there has to be some chance, however minute, that the actions taken are being done to eventually prosecute someone.

    8. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by will_die · · Score: 1

      At that point they are performing phone tapping. Don't know the rules for the FBI but from what we know about other agencies they can do it without a warrent provided they are outside of the USA and the person is not a US citizen.

    9. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell did they arrest the guy? If they had a lick of sense they'd have ...

      How do you know they don't already do this? Or do you you think the media has the fully complete version of events?

    10. Re:That CEO is a [reckless] moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else would I call a fella who says the following to anyone?

      “We made it—we made it specifically for this [drug trafficking] too,”

      As he reportedly told undercover agents...

      One conclusion: "Moron."

      He may be an idiot but looking at this from a SIGINT point of view I have to ask myself: Why the hell did they arrest the guy? If they had a lick of sense they'd have flipped him

      And if that CEO had any lice of sense, they would have said no right away. Sooner or later the drug cartels are going to realize they have been listened on (too many people being arrested, too many good plans going down the drain, ...) and then they figure out the phones have been tapped massively. At that point they come back to ask you some questions and you better be sure you give the right answers. These drug cartels aren't really going legit business. If they have to kill one CEO, it doesn't make the day a very special one...

  7. Making using encryption a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This will now be used as a reason to make all use of encryption, by anyone, into a crime. Be ready for the authorities to start arresting anyone who uses encrypted e-mail, or messaging, as well as encrypting their smartphones. The War on encryption is being escalated, we need to be ready.

  8. The fist... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

    The fist of the biggest bully in the world reaches worldwide.

  9. Re:Duterte by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Coca farmers are often poor peasants -- are you advocating napalming families who are just getting by?

    As far as Mussolini, he ended up strung up upside down, hanging from a gas station sign like a trussed turkey. "Hanged and quartered" by his own people. Hope that happens to many world leaders in the near future. Murderers like "Duterte Harry", and "Wannabe Stalin" Lukashenko would be good starts.

    In short, you Russian troll, feck off, get MRSA of the scrotum from a FSB-run hooker.

  10. Re:Duterte by mapkinase · · Score: 0

    LOL, liberal butthurt detected. Get lost, imbecile.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  11. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, authoritarian pig detected. Sad that even a tech site that used to border on the anarchist has been taken over by Putin's authoritarian trolls. It's 8pm in Moscow -- isn't it past your bedtime?

  12. You're missing the point of the American Drug war by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's a combination of back door racism and the American right wing attacking their political enemies. No, really, it is.

    The sad thing is that the proof and the history are out in the open an nobody seems to care. A few college kids might but they grow out of it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you advocating napalming families who are just getting by?

    We'll start with the cartel leaders. But if the 'poor peasants' don't get the message and grow something else, they are next.

  14. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not just legalize cocaine and marijuana? Either in moderate quantities is not particularly harmful -- what's wrong with people feeling a high? The "War on Drugs" is essentially a Puritanical war in pleasure, run by the descendants of religious zealots. The world would have been a better place if the Mayflower had hit rocks and the Pilgrims ended up as fish food.

  15. Re:Duterte by admin7087 · · Score: 1

    Murder is murder, whether committed by the state or not.

  16. legalize drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  17. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You both need to calm down. From your journals I can see that you're both Americans. The amount of hatred some people of your country spit at each other online has become pretty substantial. Bear in mind that destroying bridges is much easier than building them.

  18. They incriminated themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nothing would have stuck if they hadn't marketed it specifically for criminal activities and admitted as much to the undercovers. Of course, the feds did throw in a Sinaloa cartel witness to reinforce it. All this company had to do was watch their tongues with their shadier clientele and NOT tell people that it's expressly designed to break the law. Should have just said that "Well, technically it probably could be used for such purposes but Phantom Secure does NOT endorse such activity! If you need us to remotely wipe your phone and YOU MENTION law enforcement we will not interfere with their investigation..."

  19. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're assuming that anyone cares about the bridges anymore. Nah, let them fall into the river. The sooner Calexit happens, the better -- California would do amazingly as an independent economy, not burdened by endless war and not having to support ingrate red states via tax money to DC that never comes back home.

  20. Sign me up by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Hell, I'm not a criminal nor a Cartel member but the idea of a portable device without GPS, a mic or cameras that can send encrypted messages to anyone I wish sounds nice.

    Personally, I think all phones should have a hardware switch that disables the above forced features unless folks elect to opt in by enabling said switch.

    Our intelligence community would have an absolute cow about it though.

    Where can I get one ?

    1. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPS is not necessarily the best way to get precise location. The cell phone towers themselves provide some rough information, but Google, Apple, and a small number of third party vendors provide precise geo-location based on detecting wi-fi access points and the strength of their signals. It's part of how various cell phone apps provide precise location in downtown areas, though reflections and people relocating their wi-fi access points can make the mapping data churn.

    2. Re:Sign me up by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      A one time pad would ensure privacy. Start with encryption that actually works. Never reuse one time pad.
      Some type of "computer" to enter the encrypted message. Dont keep encrypted messages and plain text around. Dont keep decrypted messages around on paper.
      On spy did that in the 1940's as it was the way she was educated for crypto. When caught she had a book of past messages in plain text to read.
      Stay away from anything with a mic, camera, US branded software, OS made in the USA.
      The US brands should be considered to be wide open to all law enforcement globally as designed.
      Dont use anything with a mic, cam as that is what low cost police malware makes live and then keeps open on consumer brands.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  21. What happened to freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Should it really matter who I sell to or who I tell about products im offering? Can we can the sale of these devices to pharmeucital companies that make opoid products? Can we make sure "medical" marijuana dealers are not encrypting their traffic so we can make sure they really are legit?

  22. Aiding and Abetting by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

    Despite you being modded down, you're correct. It's aiding and abetting. The Uber driver who drove the Parkland shooter to the high school did not break the law. However, if somebody drove the Parkland shooter to that school in order to help him perpetrate the shooting, the driver would have broken the law, even though driving itself is not an illegal act. Slashdot people are so fucking stupid, often.

    1. Re:Aiding and Abetting by mysidia · · Score: 1

      However, if somebody drove the Parkland shooter to that school in order to help him perpetrate the shooting, the driver would have broken the law,

      And if they drove the Parkland shooter there having No Knowledge of his intentions, but marketed their Uber service generally as "a quick way to travel to or from potential crime scenes without attracting the attention of the police?"

    2. Re:Aiding and Abetting by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think that would count as aiding and abetting too. Especially if they then said that if their clients are arrested, they will remotely wipe the history of that passenger's trips to the gun store and site of the shooting.

  23. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't care about your feelings about me (kind of childish of you to write the above post) but I would like to mention that even if I were an idiot that would be irrelevant and would not change the fact that murdering people remains murder, no matter how noble the motive may seem to you. I'm sure that you have the capacity to figure that out by yourself upon sincere reflection. What you lack is the willingness to think about the topic.

  24. Whack-a-mole anyone? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    Law enforcement agencies have cracked down on other encrypted phone companies allegedly catering to organised crime over the past few years. In 2016, Dutch investigators arrested the owner of Ennetcom, whose customers allegedly include hitmen, drug traffickers, and other serious criminals. And then in 2017, Dutch authorities also busted PGP Sure, which also allegedly catered to organized crime.

    So they've been going after companies doing this for a while now.

    But also:

    Crucially, the complaint alleges that Ramos and Phantom were not simply incidental to a crime, like Apple might be when a criminal uses an iPhone, but that the company was specifically created to facilitate criminal activity.

    So if a company can make the case their wares are 'dual use' and they're not responsible for how it's used, they can keep making this stuff. Nice work FBI, you just taught everyone how to avoid you coming after them, or at least how to defend themselves in court. Oops.

    Of course we've been playing this game with a variety of technologies, the first that jumps to mind is BitTorrent, which is quite an impressive piece of technology that has some really great use cases. Alas, the biggest one is software/content piracy.

    In Ramos' case, he kind shot him self in the foot with his discussions with clients and undercover agents. They'll nail him to the wall for sure, but he's making a great example of what not to do if you wanna fill his shoes.

    1. Re:Whack-a-mole anyone? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thats why the GCHQ never went to court over Irish phone logs and other criminal decryption issues.
      The GCHQ never told the UK police and courts of their methods to listen into all of Ireland.
      UK police, courts, media, press could only guess at informants and spies having some role in UK special forces successes all over Ireland and in other nations supporting Ireland. The GCHQ only shared its collection results with the UK mil and Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch.

      What does the USA do?
      Tell the open courts all about their cell phone needs and related collection methods.
      When a nation has a working telco collection method, never go to court. Productive collect it all can stay secret for generations that way.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Whack-a-mole anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the successes against the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland were really all down to touts and penetration by the Security Forces. In the end everyone suspected everyone else was an informer. The IRA though were not idiots and were very security conscious regarding electronic communication which then basically meant telephone and radio. Not only did they protect their own communications but they managed to eavesdrop on military comms which came as a very rude shock : they had some very clever technical people.

    3. Re:Whack-a-mole anyone? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC thats why the GCHQ never went to the wider UK police and mil about its collection results and methods in Ireland.
      The GCHQ knew Ireland had generations of well placed supporters in the UK police, courts, telcos, legal profession, media, press and parts of the UK gov.
      So any results of phone and other communications detection stayed in the GCHQ, Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch and UK special forces.
      The UK even understood to use its own mil to do the collection and never trusted security cleared UK telco workers and UK police.
      Too many people all over the UK working for UK telcos and police could not be trusted with information about mil collection methods used in Ireland.

      Very different to the way the US police use open courts and the information that gets out to the wider public about real time cell phone collection methods.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  25. pfff i could do that my self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not hard to find the circuits and cut the wires to do this your self.

    2nd, you could easily setup your own SSH port tunneled comms p2p between two phones, not that hard.
    Dont use commercial chat apps, use a split screen real time bidirectional stream. aka YTALK.

    All this modern stuff typing, and hit enter is so lame. Just type in real time and see it.
    Better yet, dont send ascii, but use images, or better yet, use stylus to write , not type.

    They should have 'given away the special' tech for free, in return for buying dozens of their retail phones.
    Just like microsoft does, buy X to get Y free.

  26. Another win for the War on Drugs .. by najajomo · · Score: 1

    When are the going to go after the banks that facilitate the movement of the narcobucks through the banking system. After all it should be easy as they keep detailed records.

    1. Re:Another win for the War on Drugs .. by gtall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The banks are watched. There was a reporter who investigated the Zetas and their connections in the U.S. Their biggest problem is laundering their money. If the banks were bought off, they wouldn't have that problem.

      It turns out a good place for them to launder funds is the horse industry. Much of it is done though untraceable cash and personal communications. Rich idiots like to own horses that compete in races, but they do not want to let their fellow rich idiots know what horses they are going to use to enter races, so they buy and sell through intermediaries.

      Too bad Sessions and his merry band of illegal alien children chasers don't want to go after the horse people, rich people can fight back. Illegal alien children can't, so naturally he goes after them. I rather miss him in his Senate hearings where he'd always salt any panel of "experts" with dingbats who believed what he does.

    2. Re:Another win for the War on Drugs .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The banks are watched.

      You'd think that right? Go watch the Dirty Money episode 'Cartel Bank'. Then let me know when you're ready to go burn down your nearest HSBC....

  27. Buy one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can I buy one?

  28. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    napalming a small group could exponentially reduce overall suffering.

  29. Re:Duterte by gtall · · Score: 0

    Yeah, if you are a poor peasant, then you are relieved of any moral obligation not to fuck up kids in other countries. In the U.S., we call them Evangelicals, not peasants.

  30. Re:Duterte by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    If you want to un-fuck kids in the US, start by going after the Adderall and anti-depressant pushers.

  31. Re:Duterte by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    A kid in america can deccide if it uses heroine or cocaine.
    A peasent in south america can not decide not to take a farm job, first they may kill him for not tskkng the job and secondly his kids will starvve if he does not take the job.

    No idea why your mind is so fucked up that you don't know how retarded your drug policy is (and how retarded your south america 'monroe doctrine' was. Letting the CIA destroy every legaly elected government and leaving the land for the war lords and drug barons, now you ccomplain they sell drugs to your kids. Learned something? No ...)

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  32. Re:Duterte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > like Duterte does, or Lukashenko, or Mussollini.

    Or we can do what they do in Uzbekistan and boil alive our political opponents. We'll have lots of angry people willing to do what we say. Just think of the children.

  33. Re:You're missing the point of the American Drug w by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

    Ya know what I always find funny? The ones screaming about the drug laws being "raciss" have no problem with the gun laws which are really REALLY racist and in fact were written by such lovely people as KKK members!

    Protip: Any left leaners might want to watch "fear of an armed Negro" before they call for more gun laws, they got interviews with the ones that actually wrote the original gun laws and...damn, they aren't even subtle about how fucking racist they are, nor were they caring if you knew what their goal was, to make it so they could go stomp some black any time they wanted without worrying about the blacks being able to fight back, a "poll tax" for self defense as it were. Its one of the reason why they started with the Saturday Night Special", the original 38 special was a cheap and high quality self defense weapon...exactly what they did NOT want some black home owner to have when they kicked down the door.

    As for TFA? This doesn't have shit to do with left or right, or did you forget Obama expanding the spying and prosecuting whistleblowers? Its about control and those who wield that control, and they stay in power whether its a D or R in the puppet chairs. All those wonderful 3 letter agencies, they stay no matter who you vote for and its they who have seen their power grow ever stronger every decade...of course after what happened to the POTUS that said he would "break the CIA" I seriously doubt you are gonna find ANY politician with enough balls to attempt to stop the 3 letter gangs any time soon, even the ballsiest politician knows who can easily make you stop breathing.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  34. This article is absurd! by nnull · · Score: 1

    This article just stinks. Blackberry? Those went out of style long ago. This is just some sort of fear mongering article trying to make the FBI sound like they're in the right about encryption. There are plenty of other phone manufacturers offering completely secure phones with recent hardware and software. And of course the guy just happens to conveniently admit to selling mostly to the cartel. Next he'll confess to selling to ISIS too and we'll have that "Ah ha, see! This is why we have to break encryption!" moment.

    And to assume that the cartel in Mexico doesn't have the technical know how and skill to do this themselves, that they require an American company in the US to do this for them? Are we to assume the cartel is that dumb? Disabling the cameras, microphones, gps and installing encryption software on your phone is not difficult to do. The fact that they setup their own facilities to pack their product, we are to assume they can't start their own small facility to secure their phones for their own people?

    Meanwhile, the cartels are setting up number stations all over the place and using encrypted communication for a while, without the need of some American company to do it for them. They've had the technical know how, the sophistication, the engineers for a long time. Something doesn't add up in this article.

    1. Re:This article is absurd! by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > And to assume that the cartel in Mexico doesn't have the technical know
      > how and skill to do this themselves, that they require an American
      > company in the US to do this for them? Are we to assume the cartel is that
      > dumb? Disabling the cameras, microphones, gps and installing encryption
      > software on your phone is not difficult to do. The fact that they setup
      > their own facilities to pack their product, we are to assume they can't
      > start their own small facility to secure their phones for their own people?

      Android is open source. How difficult is it to do a build after removing the drivers for cameras, microphones, and gps?

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  35. Blackphone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So blackphone is illegal? They don't say "use this for criminal purposes" on their site, but you could infer that it's made so security and privacy oriented so that it could appeal to a criminal costumer base?

  36. Replicant.us by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    If you want to librefy/mangle your phone so that it de-blobs LineageOS to not rely on proprietary firmware, the Replicant project is it.

    Of course half the hardware mightn't work but RMS will be impressed. :)

    Then of course there's the Librem 5 phone which aims to use libre hardware as far as practicable.

  37. langauge is fun! by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    A phone without a camera or microphone...

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  38. I'm slightly interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't a company do something like this for the general public? This one still seems "locked down". Locked down will always be code for "the owner is treated like a security threat". What about a secure device based on android that is secure from the OWNERS perspective, not the provider. Then ANYONE can use it. Honest people who dislike anyone else being in control of their shit or being able to sell access to my shit to anyone poking around... or bad guys.