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.

66 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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!

    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Re:Why is this illegal? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Capital offense? You are obviously an idiot.

    11. 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.

    12. 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?

    13. 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.

    14. 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!
    15. 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.

    16. 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".

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

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

      You dont have to smoke it bro.

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

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

    22. 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?

    23. 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.

    24. 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.

    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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."

  2. 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
  3. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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"
    4. 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"
  4. 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 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.

    5. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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/
  8. 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.

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

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

  10. 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..."

  11. 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 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"
  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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 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"
  15. 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....

  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.

  20. 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.