Slashdot Mirror
Listen to Cel phones live on the Internet?
An anonymous reader sent us this link (note
that it is a shoutcast feed). Essentially, it is scanning
open airwaves for cell phone calls, and rebroadcasting them over
the Internet. Now I'm curious- is this invasion of privacy legal
or just proof that we all ought to be encrypting everything? What
do you think?
This is why I use GSM.
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
The Secondary domain is registered to an American company. This does not mean that eggshell.mudservices.com is in the US. I also tried this, and found the same results, but decided that it's impossible for ARIN or the Internic to know exactly where each IP or Domain REALLY points...
Then again, you are probably right. The server probably IS in the USA..
It is your problem to protect yourself. The government doesn't protect you. They only step in after you catch the terminal end of a 7.62x54R boat tail round to the head, by trying to apprehend the schumck who pulled the trigger. If you think the government protects you sir, you need a reality check. And that people don't take any precautions against snipers, speak for your self, I work underground. :-) (of course on a day like today I would gladly trade my at-work-sniper-protection-system(tm) for a nice large window, but alas it can never be ...)
Now, you have only the rights you were nerously allocated by the current democratic system, not what you think you have, no matter how these rights sound reasonable it sounds for your mind. By not appreciating the written law, your gnorance would end you up in jail. There are no slashdot, computers, the Internet, girls, cinema, good food and many many other useful things there. Take it easy.
You are quite WRONG. A right is NOT granted by the government. That would imply it could be taken away by the government. A right is something you are born with. (Like life, liberty, etc. you see where this is going? You can go look it up yourself. The document is rather well known.)
I've also seen it argued that a law that can never be enforced (pretty hard to reliably monitor who's receiving what) isn't really a law, but that gets rather messy.
...
gotta go hack some 1750A, till later
/dev
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
Posted by Reitzel:
Sure it's illegal. So what? Did Newt a lot of good to bitch about it being illegal.
You want privacy? Encrypt it.
Just think of it as a condom an the age of electronic AIDS.
No. My digital cell (GSM) was $30. (My company sells them, it was at cost.) It retails for $50 normally, without a service contract, free with one.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Even if you have a trauma plate that can stop it, the kinetic energy that the bullet has can still crack your ribs.
LK
I feel your pain. I'm in the dallas area (carrollton) and I get many of the same problems. I have a friend who works for Sprint and he was able to explain the problem to me: as I understand it, the towers for Sprint's "digital network, built from the ground up" were actually purchased from another company. To save money and increase the network area, rather than adding more towers, Sprint turned all the transmitters all straight up as opposed to down toward the ground, resulting in HUGE footprints that all interfered with each-other. Now Sprint denies this whenever I ask them, however If you complain about dropped calls with a full signal indicator, they will generally give you a small air-time reimbursement, however I have yet to see any actual improvements in service. As soon as I get a raise, I'm switching to AT&T or SWBELL.. Those Nokia phones are the shit. Anyone have any input on the quality of those providers?
"I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed shrink is our friend." --Jack Handey
It is easy to listen to an analog cellphone call. The scanners that are available at Radio Shack may require a few minor adjustments, but instructions are available. Most people believe that the risk of being arrested for listening into the conversations of others is very low. If you are using a cellphone, take reasonable precautions against scanners. So, the reasonable conclusion is that you should not assume that cellphone calls are secure.
Sorry, You've got this backwards. Any cordless phone, (there may be an exception on 900mhz), is LEGAL to listen to, while it is illegal to intercept ANY cell or pcs calls. Most cordless phones operate on what the FCC has branded a public home freq. I don't know the proper FCC regulations on 900mhz though. Any one who says it is legal (in the united states) to listen to cell phone calls does not know what they are talking about.
My Sprint PCS phone has two "privacy" settings, normal and enhanced. I don't know if that means encryption... I'll have to bug customer service and find out.
You should be jittery. I don't use them.
My friend and I once built a scanner to listen to the cordless phones around my apartment complex.
Fascinating stuff, and frighteningly easy.
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
The server is actually eggshell.mudservices.com,
theoretically owned by a company that rents out
accounts on a collection of linux servers to people
for the purpose of MU* hosting. Someone probably
decided to rebroadcast this shoutcast stream on
their account, along with running a mud or
whatever. Doubtless they will be surprised when
mudservices pulls their account, not having
realized that there would be anything wrong with
running a shoutcast server (I think that accounts
on providers like that generally share computers,
depending on how much they pay, so the person is
probably violating some sort of rule in the
agreement they signed)
Granted I don't want people listening in to my phone conversations (although 99.99% of the time I don't say anything that I would really care if someone else heard), and thus my cordless phone uses spread spectrum stuff. However, how can you make it illegal to listen to a broadcast that is *everywhere*? What if I developed an organ that allowed me to sense radio transmissions? Would *I* be illegal? The radio transmissions are going right through me and you and everyone else! Banning the sale of recievers that can pick up these frequencies is pointless. I am in favor of the laws that prohibit disclosure, but not the ones that ban listening. I don't want people to listen to me, but I am also aware of how ridiculous it is to say that you can't listen to the signals that are passing through the air all around you. In summary, listen, but don't tell, although that sounds about as ridiculous as don't sense the radiation passing through your body...
-Cheetah
In europe, and probably other parts of the world, we already use digital cellphones, on the GSM net. I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know, you cannot intercept a GSM call, unless you intercept it at the time the call is first made. After that, the encrypted signal key is changed at such a rapid rate, that only the two end-points of the phone-call is able to decrypt the signal again, having the keys. This is all done with a digital SIM card, that each phone has, and which is unique. You can also store phone# and such in the SIM-card, and thus transfer the data from phone to phone. Each SIM also has 4 sets of codes, one pair of regular, and one pair of Unlocking keys (4 and 11 numbers), and a SIM will not work anymore if you enter the wrong number 3 times in a row etc. (You need to use the unlock key to make it work again). :)
It might not be 100% perfect, but it is a secure and good way to do phonecalls throughout europe.
Analouge cellphones ? Thing of the past here
I believe that intercepting cell phone calls is illegal in the US. RF scanners aren't allowed to be sold that are tunable to cell phone frequencies and haven't been salable for some time. Scanners sold prior to this prohibition aren't supposed to be used for monitoring cell phones either. However there are lots of people that are quite willing to break the law. Hence encrypting your cell phone traffic is a good idea if you value your privacy.
I liked AT&T... a emphasize liked though... Here in College Station/Bryan AT&T is being "bought out" by Houston Cellular. While I used to have Long Distance for free anywhere in Texas, Houston doesn't offer that, and they charge the same amount. I'm pretty ticked about it, and I am not switching to Houston Cell. Prior to that, I've had excellent service.
Time flies like an arrow;
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
What about *International* calls? Is it illegal to intercept a cell phone call from Canada from within the US? What about vice versa? Can canadians intercept US phone calls legally? And what about calls from airplanes in neutral zones? And of course, what about intercepting calls from outer space (satellite spying)? It seems like we're in for a lot of international legal problems as countries get closer in terms of travel and more and more connected in terms of communications. Maybe some day there will have to be a system of international law...
My scanner seems to be able to scan the 806mhz - 956 mhz range, but I can't listen to the 175 - 406 mhz range or the 513 - 805 mhz range... Anyone know why? Is this because of the Govt/FCC regulations, or is this a cheap scanner (Radio Shack 50 Channel)?
People need to realize that nothing is totally private. Anything which has a distance greater than zero between point A and point B has the possibility of being intercepted somehow. Thus, the focus must shift to making it as difficult as possible to decode the intercepted transmissions.
Unfortunately, I can't read that page. But I can tell you its easy to take an old Motorola bag phone, read the "Motorola Bible" about the test mode, and you have a scanner. Look it up on the search engine of your choice and start listening. You can also transmit and adjust power levels too. How do cellular technicians track this kind of abuse?
Needless to say, this is why I got a digital phone. It might not be secure, but its not as easy to eavesdrop! The only complaint I have is the audio quality is barely audible, especially when talking to another digital cell phone. Is the poor audio quality just my location or does it plague certain types of phones?
According to the whois server at ARIN, the nameless IP address on the web link reverse maps to:
Internet Unlimited (NETBLK-IUINC4-FASTNET)
3894 Courtney St, Suite 150
Bethlehem, PA 18017
US
Netblock: 206.245.158.0 - 206.245.158.255
Since this is within US borders, the Communications Act of 1935, prohibits the divulging of private radio transmissions without consent of the parties involved. Even the sweeping anti-freedom amendments to the Act in 1986 and 1994 aren't needed to point this web site out as being illegal.
Free speech does not allow one to break the law.
If he's doing it as an act of civil disobedience, it's still illegal, even if he's morally right. The law and the right thing to do are not always equal.
My son told me about listening
to phone calls on the upper
channels of UHF. He probably
read about it on the Pesky Internet.
We have tried it several times. It does
work.
They do it all the time whenever they access an https site. Sometimes, they even know it's secure because the browser pops up an information box telling them.
I do wonder if it isn't possible to have digital phones at least automatically encrypt when connected to a (compatible) digital phone.
Of course, then one has to consider encryption technologies that can survive the phone-D/A-slight analog noise-A/D-phone sequence that many cell phone calls go through. Not a trivial matter.
Like I said, encryption is a good idea. I don't expect cellular conversations to be safe, at all, from anyone with dishonorable intentions. But, what is the use to anyone of publicly broadcasting my messages? Forget stolen information, that could just be downright embarrassing, plus it opens up my private information to people who might not have found a way to get it before. This broadcasting site is just ludicrous.
--Carl
Rainbow Technologies is one of many possible places to start for real encryption.
IIRC, digital cellphones use spread spectrum technology which is an effective pseudoencryption method for protecting against casual dial spinners.
Crap. The current laws are like saying a guy can walk into a room and yell at a certain volume, and anyone who listens to him is breaking the law. We have a half-assed communications system... we need to FIX it, not make silly laws about it.
--
It used to be that as long as it traveled through the air, and onto (and into) your property, you had the right to monitor any and all radio communications, and that includes phone conversations. You were prohibited from divulging what you heard to anyone, but you could listen to your heart's content. That all changed a few years ago when the old-guard cellular industry successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law criminalizing monitoring radio waves that carried cellular phone calls.
This was a major blow to freedom! For the first time ever, the "land of the free and the home of the brave," "with liberty and justice for all" had gone and done what only the Godless Communists were supposed to do. Thank God the Internet came along!!!
Regardless of the correctness of this new law, rebroadcasting transmissions heard third-party is a definite no-no. And it really has nothing to do with invasion of privacy. It's more about protecting big business than protecting personal conversations.
Mr. Natural -- Cat Herder
I know about that... But AFAIK, the 800 - 900 mhz frequencies were the cell phone ones. For some reason, they work (without modification). I was interested in what frequencies the scanner couldn't get and why... Thanks anyway.
Remington .17's...
nuthin' but chunks!
'cuz those are TV freqs... Most scanner manufactures assume you already have a TV, I guess...
Yeah, what he said! Radio waves know no boundaries (excepting maybe RFI shielding...) They propagate according to the laws of physics, not Congress, or any other legal body.
That means when you talk on your cell or cordless phone, you are BROADCASTING. Making it illegal to listen to signals that are all around us violates basic common sense, is technically inept and a horrible legal precedent.
Can anyone present a good reason why the responsibility and legal burden of radio privacy should fall on the *listener*? Especially in this day and age when encryption is relatively cheap.
Bottom line is, it wasn't cheap *enough* for the cell phone companies, so they have permanently scarred our legal landscape with stupid laws that try to ensure their customers' privacy by mandating that you and I plug our ears. This of course allows those same companies to now tell their customers that their conversations are safe and private. The Internet equivalent to this silliness would be decreeing it illegal to read a special hierarchy of Usenet newsgroups containing private messages in cleartext, and then mandating that all newsreaders be rendered incapable of reading those sacred groups.
Meanwhile... Last time I checked, it was illegal to curse on a cell phone, by order of the FCC. Would that perhaps be because they understood that radio is inherently a broadcast medium and that anyone might just tune in? How does that fit with a law that prohibits one from listening to an unscrambled analog broadcast?
It used to be quite easy too. Anyone with an old TV that goes up to UHF channel 84 can tune cell bands. Many older scanners receive cell or can be readily modified to do so. Now it's getting difficult to buy even high-end RF test equipment that doesn't have the cell band blocked out. stupidstupidstupid! Although, "unblocked" radios are readily available from distributors in Canada, where apparently the cell phone companies have been unsuccessful in purveying such collossal legal stupidies.
What really frosts my shorts is that at some point, analog cellular will be long gone, but this #$@#! law will live on, leaving a f$#$ing crater in radio reception capabilites for years to come.
Why do I care? Well, it's certainly not because I get my jollies listening to people talk on the phone. Most of what you would hear on a scanner is about as exciting as watch paint peel and it's been a few years since I bothered with it in any meaningful way. As an occasional scanner listener and ham (N3HAZ), it's a matter of principle and "technical purity" for me to expect that laws covering technical matters have at least some tenuous basis in rational thought.
Harumph!
-cw-
-- Charlie Wilkinson Freelance Deity - Fire & Brimstone in Stock - Smiting While-U-Wait!
...remind me to say hi to all the people listening on #DWC.
I don't know about you, but I find this all very interesting, from a legal, social and a technical point of view. There are so many questions opened by stuff like this that I just can't help but be awed by them all.
Personally, (IMO) in the end I think that DWC is doing us all a favor by raising the issues brought up by this. Cell phones are not a new thing, and it just goes to show how naive most people are towards technology.
It's amazing how gullable we all are.
Right. Part of the reason for this is that a wide variety of household devices use the same portion of the spectrum. Cordless phones and cordless baby monitors, for example. Since I don't want my telephone conversations rebroadcasted on the neighbor's baby monitor, I use a 900Mhz cordless phone. It's digital and encrypted.
I'm not plotting a coup or conducting drug deals, but I still value my privacy.
on sony japanese radios (the ones sold in japan -- not in the US) you can listen to the police, cordless phones etc. directly. they have a broader FM range than do the radios sold in the US (these are the normal AM/FM/SW band radios..not a special scanner radio)..
Okay, I'll concede that point. I guess we can't legislate this away, nor would that be right given the nature of cellular broadcasting. Not that the yelling analogy is great -- I *can't* ignore someone yelling, while it's pretty easy not to scan for cell phones. Still, someone ought to give the people making these public broadcasts the message that that sort of thing isn't acceptable (not to me, anyway). It's not like they're provinding a "public service", or anything. If they can't be shut down forcibly, they ought to do it voluntarily. In my opinion, at least. I just can't see a good reason for listening to other people's phone calls...
--Carl
More likely is that the servers got Slashdotted.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
[ I seem to remember that PCS is GSM based ]
:-)
PCS == GSM, only PCS uses 1800 MHz instead of 900MHz.
Disclaimer: I could be wrong here.
If you yell to someone across a field, you are broadcasting, even if your intention is that it should be a private conversation.
:o)
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I accept your arguement, but do not agree with it.
When I shout to someone, I am forcing all those within ear shot to listen. When you transmit something on a narrow frequency band, the excuse of "I couldn't help but overhear" looks a little shaky.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that if you have to take any action, make any effort to overhear me, then you are purposefully eavesdroping, and so are invading my privacy.
I should probably add that, on reflection, I realise that outlawing it probably wouldn't be enforceable. However, just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it right.
(Conversely, there are pretty strong arguments for certain illegal acts to be legalised. The US crypto export rules strike me as moronic, as do the ones concerning the export of supercomputers. Large sections of the Criminal Justice Act here in Britain should also be ripped out and burned...:o) )
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I can't believe no one noticed this:
"Wouldn't you be outraged to find your conversation broadcast?"
All cell phones broadcast conversations - how else could it work. I think a better question would be
"Wouldn't the general public be outraged to learn that cell phones broadcase conversations into public airwaves?"
Cell phones are the equivelent of shouting across a room full of people. The problem is that most people *assume* that they are safe (the salesperson would probably tell you it was secure but most don't even think of this). How many people assume that email is private? should it be illegal for SA to read "private" email that is spooled on their machines?
Sooo many people refuse to give their credit card over shttp but they will on a cell phone. The public needs to understand just how insecure cell phones are and cell companies need to take responsibility to inform customes and take action where needed (ie offer real encryption for those making sesitive phone calls)
sorry bout the rant
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
If you're having a discussion about anything even remotly sensitive on a cell phone - you're insane.
;)
I don't consider my Orange PCN phone secure.
I live in Cheltenham UK, about 3 minutes walk from GCHQ btw
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
1) Some wealthy teenager gets caught listening to cell calls.
2) His parents can afford a really great lawer that playes the censorship card to convince the jury that her/his client was just listening to a public broadcast (which he/she was)
3) Cell companies, in a effort to keep public trust, implement encryption. However, because all the noise the US gov. has made about strong encryption - the cell companies just use trivial encryption that is easily broken (ie xor with some constant value, etc).
4) Someone on the net develops and releases code that can decrypt this trivial encryption.
5) Cell companies, again in an effort to keep conversations secret, lobby and get a law passed in Congress prohibiting the unauthorized decryption of "private" data. However, since it is *possible* (but not very usefull) to decrypt a message in your head or on paper - this will have set the precidence for making laws agains certian types of thought.
fun
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
Dumb Americans.....
It should only be able to decrypt it if it has the right key.
:-)
GSM has got this right for a long time. (Of course the GSM crypto is apparently pretty poor, they won't even publish the alorythms).
[ I seem to remember that PCS is GSM based ]
Does anyone still use analog phones?
206.245.158.45:8000
205.180.59.135:8000
24.113.10.32:8000
216.65.9.2:8000
216.32.166.89:10062
- - -
while test 1
do
mpg123 http://206.245.158.45:8000
done
There is (IIRC) language in the communications act as amended that says something about the intent of the communicating parties. It is unlawful to intercept communications intended as point to point. Communication intended as a broadcast is not protected (obviously it is legal to listen to your local FM station!). It is also legal for non-licensed persons (all of this is in the US, beyond basic ITU rules regarding amateur radio, I know nothing of these things in other countries) to listen to, for example, two CB'ers or two radio amateurs talking because these are known and intended as broadcast media.
Also IIRC it used to be legal for licensed amateurs to monitor the entire spectrum, including the then RT bands (pre-cellular radio telephone), and, by extension, cellular and cordless phone traffic, but these privledges were specifically revoked in one of the sets of amendments somtime in the last 10 years. (Don't remember when).
Personally, I have always felt that if you want to keep something secret, keep your mouth shut. I do not think that anyone communicating by radio using some simple form of modulation (AM, FM, PCM, USB/SSB, etc.) should have any reasonable expectation of privacy. You can pass all the laws you like, but you can't prevent the interception of signals.
I'm an amateur radio operator. I drive around with a dual-band transceiver in my car (145MHz and 440MHz). Hams on these bands use FM modulation, just like a bunch of analog devices including (non-digital) cell phones. In urban areas there are so many transmitters all over the place that I often experience a phenomenon called "intermod" (intermodulation) which occurs when two radio carriers with wide separation in frequency happen to "beat" at the frequency I am monitoring (the difference between the two transmitter's carrier frequencies is equal to the frequency I am monitorning). If the conditions are right, my radio will then rectify the carrier and the demodulator will try to make audio out of the mixed signal. Often the result is gibberish, but often I hear two crystal clear conversations. This is an accident of physics. I doubt I could be prosecuted, since design of my radio tries to avoid this (lots of band pass filtering and such) and I had no intent to monitor anything I ought not to monitor. Nevertheless, I often hear ten and fifteen seconds of "private" conversation.
BTW, every time someone else buys a minivan and a cell phone, the problem gets worse. More transmitters on more frequencies equals more combinations that yield intermod. RF pollution is a semi-serious problem! (Cell phones are better for this than many systems, because the transmitter power levels are so small compared to more traditional methods of area-wide radio).
So, while the laws are pretty tight, you still shouldn't expect privacy. Even so, rebroadcasting cell phone conversations are something I think they would try to send you jail for...
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
.308 or 30-06 rifle bullet will also punch right through most types of body armor. Even if it doesn't make it through it would probably shatter your ribs and puncture a lung anyway.
>>Going with your line of argument, they would point out that it's YOUR problem to protect yourself, get an armor suite, bodyguards, don't go out at all.
Speaking as a man who has body armor... No, his arguement is akin to this... Let's say that it becomes illegal to view a nude body that doesn't belong to your child or spouse. If you walk around naked, must it be my obligation to look away or should you put clothes on?
I say it's the latter.
While we're at it, let's make it illegal to be rude. Let's make it illegal to have blue eyes.
The security of your communications is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Just as safe driving, and good nutrition are your responsibility.
Back to the body armor thing for just a moment. Most types of ballistic armor are rendered useless by a broadhead hunting arrow. A steel
LK
"So this person is clearly breaking the law."
Clearly, that is, if the Internet has been held
by the court to be a broadcast medium. Has it?
Cite please.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
If I make a fone call, I don't expect to be monitored, but then again, I don't expect not to. Whenever you speak into a phone, it's not just the person on the other end that hears you, it's also the phones on both ends and all the conductive media in between. If your conversation is soooooooo important, don't go using a technology that broadcasts what you say in all directions.
Personally, I find it pretty amusing...
Yes, most PCS phones broadcast encrypted digital signals.
However, how good the encryption is, is another matter altogather.
If it's not a criminal offense to listen in on the airwaves, is it one to actually then decrypt the transmissions?
____________/\ ____________ \/
This particular site is just using common or garden analogue scanners. American/Canadian mobiles are still analogue (can you imagine that! No international roaming, loads of static- it must be like still living in the 80's).
If US/CA citizens are stupid enough to broadcast their private conversations on an open channel, that's their look out. They can have all the laws they like but it doesn't change the fact that analogue transmissions are no more private than standing on top of a hill and shouting (and what kind of idiot would draft a law that makes it illegal to own a pair of ears?).
I too live near Cheltenham and I take your point about GCHQ. However if GCHQ have a need to listen in to anything, no matter how it is transmitted or encrypted, they will. GSM or GPO, PCN or PGP it makes no difference. The most obvious way of doing this is by being present at the time of encryption or decryption, or by stealing the key physically, NOT by doing the maths. That's why we still pay our spies- to break in to places, plant bugs, and steal things.
The question is... do they WANT to be listening in to your or my lives? The answer I'm afraid is that they have loads more important things to do.
I know enough people there to know that, on the whole, they're an okay bunch of people. Sure there must be more than a few maneovolent bad apples but on the whole, they're good guys.
If you are going to worry about people hacking GSM or PCN then you are going to go very, very mad.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Thought I'd pop in a few facts on GSM.
First of all GSM is not encrypted, the codes mentioned above are just for accessing the SIM card and GSM-network. GSM is, however, hard to intercept, because it uses severely compressed data, and because GSM-network cells are quite small, so a lot of hand-off's and frequency changes take place.
(a hand-off is when you move from cell to cell, essentially from one network antenna to another network antenna)
NMT is a thing of the past in Holland. The phone companies have stopped offering NMT services, moving all their clients to GSM. Losing NMT isn't a big loss tho, the better sound quality and the ability to travel thru numerous countries without losing your network connection make GSM a far superior system.
Actually there is a GSM network in the U.S. covering some of the major cities. (NYC comes to mind). Unfortunately the U.S. network operates on different frequencies from the rest of the world so you still need a different phone there.
Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"
beauty is only a light switch away
Hi evilandi - love the name! :D
It's not living in GCHQ's back garden (I can see the top three floors from my back bedroom) that make me scared, I know they've got better things to listen to than me discussing how many tins of cat food I've got to get on my way home, it's people who get an Orange, or the like, and belive that the conversation is secure. Belive it or not, I've overheard people quoting their credit card numbers over both analogue (I'm also a ham - M1AXR) and whilst overhearing in cafes.
I make it a point not to discuss anything that I wouldn't be prepared to shout across a crowded room over any form of telephone. I'm not paranoid, and I've got nothing to hide but that won't stop me taking every reasonable step to ensure my privacy.
yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
You are so stupid, so stupid this can't even be a troll. Think about it like this
You are one person with one gun, bad guys are legion with many guns, what are you chances in a country with guns?
Think about it -- if you're making a phone call, cellular or not, do you *expect* to be monitored?
Gee, here I am speaking into an unencrypted radio transmitter. Uh, yeah, I guess I do expect to be monitored. Kinda like if I stick my hand under a running lawnmower I expect to get it whacked off.
Wouldn't you be outraged to find your conversation broadcast?
That's what the phone was designed to do. Broadcast my conversation. Hopefully to a cell site, but just as the lawnmower doesn't know fingers from grass, the transmitter doesn't know a scanner from a cell site.
Humanity has a long history of taking advantage of people who don't understand the basic underpinnings of a technology (there are still folks trying to push "free energy" machines). Ignorance gets you burned - evolution in action.
one can listen to cordless phones on AM radios, if one is close enough
It looks like this might have been a grey area, at least under Federal Law.
0 34.html
That was the purpose of the Wireless Privacy
Enhancement Act. It was supposed to make this illegal.
I can't find if this past or not though. Any body know?
It's mentioned a few place including here:
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/print/970804/inwk0
If that radio signal passes through my body I have a right to receive it (bcause I'm already receiving it.), I don't give a crap WHAT the law says. If you want to keep your conversation private, that's YOUR problem. Go digital, go analog scramble, I don't care. It's your problem.
/dev
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
You say that digital cell phones are still really expensive... I beg to differ. You can get a digital cell phone for free from some providers (i.e. Sprint, Ameritech, GTE, etc.)
I've got a PCS phone, so if someone is listening to my transmission, doesn't it just sound like modem noise to them? Or am I missing a step?
-- All hamsters are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Socrates was a hamster.
From Pulp Fiction:
"Are you talking on a cellular phone? Who is this. I don't know you. I'm hanging up the phone now. Prank caller prank caller!"
My old TV picks up cellular phone calls all the time. It's hard to see how it could be illegal for me to tune into channel 4, sit back, and listen to a cell phone call from johny jockstrap asking mom for more tution money cause he blew his on crack. If that's illegal then tapeing somebody's conversation with a hand held recorder is illegal too. Hell, evesdropping on somebody else's conversation would be 'invasion' of privacy.
The data is in the air, regardless of wether it's RF (cell phone) or audio (vocal conversation). When you broadcast your thoughts to everybody, your rights to privacy end.
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
Well it looks like the servers just went down a couple minutes ago. I bet someone called the wrong (or right depending on your point of view) person and the government caught up with whoever was doing it.
I work at a _very_ large cellular component company, and we squeeze 6 digital call's into 1 frequecy. This is why phone companies like cellular to much more
This seems to be a no-brainer to me. It doesn't surprise me that listening to cell calls is illegal, but real criminals with something to gain from this sort of eavesdropping aren't putting up a web site advertizing what they're doing. If someone really wants to listen to unencrypted broadcast traffic (whether it was intended as point-to-point or not) they will. The solution is not another unenforceable law; instead people need to take reasonable precautions when they're using part of a public spectrum. I agree that it is ethically wrong to intentionally listen in on a cell call, but the bottom line is that the real bad guys are not going to stop, and there isn't a good way to catch them right now.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
"Roadrunner and Tweety are eating cake. The eagle is on board."
Hey. It works for the Army.
it is illegal to intercept the frequencies, but dealing with those listening on the internet is kind of foggy.. are people who stream the shoutcast broadcast in any way responsible for their actions? I'd assume so, but anything similar hasn't been defined in laws anywhere (to my knowledge)
./ this morning..
this has been going on for a few days now, actually.. a lot of people were catching onto it last night, and its interesting to see the story on
- K
I'm fairly sure this was made illegal by a law passed recently (after some congressman's cell calls were taped? I can't remember).
But it does make a good point about the need for encryption, doesn't it?
This feels closer to "art" or "civil disobedience" than an illegal act... Actually, if the "artist" billed it as an art form commenting on the silliness of the crypto restrictions, would that make this protected speech?
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer!
--
Mike
Um....let's have strong ciphers too please. 2048-bit keys (or 128Kbit for that matter) doesn't do you much good if your algorithm is ECB XOR.
And, for the nonce, the current China dustup is basically the result of crappy policy and implementation at the human level, which--like key management problems--can affect any organisation no matter how great your crypto technology is.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the broadcast done from the Holland, MI area (yes, where /. is from) done by some of the people who hang out on EFnet's #linuxwarex? I heard some scanning like this done by someone there about a year ago, except that was streamed with RealMedia stuff...
Much better than they would be if I didn't have a gun.
Ask the albanians how they felt about not having guns.
--
Clear, Dark Skies
Legal or not, this sort of thing should not be happening. There should be some idea of reasonable expectations out there. Think about it -- if you're making a phone call, cellular or not, do you *expect* to be monitored? Wouldn't you be outraged to find your conversation broadcast? Well, to those who would broadcast others' conversations, think about the other guy for once. Besides, if someone on a cell phone calls someone on a normal phone, the other guy's privacy is threatened and he doesn't even know it.
I hope whoever is doing this gets shut down, pronto...
I think broadcasts like this are a great argument for encryption, though, even if it should be unnecessary. I know it'll be a long time before I talk about my world-domination conspiracies over cellular telephone.
--Carl
My prof at UW in my new media communications class (CMU 300) stated that listening in to a "wireless" (PCS or cell) conversation is legal--supposedly because it traverses public airwaves. (Fortunately, most PCS services are encrypted.) On the other hand, listening in to a home "cordless" phone conversation is illegal, because it constitutes a tap on a wire line connection.
If you go to #dwc on effnet, you'll see that the scanner is in Vancouver, Canada. Cell phone scanners are not illegal there.
> Or it could be the GOVERNMENT people
> talking about the LATEST AND GREATEST
> NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY.
Um, no. I don't know which HBO movie you get
your information from, but they're not that
stupid. Sensitive information isn't discussed
even over a normal landline, much less a cel
phone.
Now, if you actually walk into a lab and start
shootin' the breeze, then yeah, many times they
ARE in fact that stupid. But they don't go
jabbering over the commercial airwaves.
I for one say, sure, use encryption. There are
going to be crooks out there trying to listen in.
But don't blow it out of proportion and start
insinuating that shoutcasts might be responsible
for compromised classified data. Puh-leeze.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I don't have Shoutcast, so I was not able to listen in on this. My prediction is that within a few hours, the Slashdot Effect will call so much attention to it that the site will be removed.
This isn't too big a deal for me. Granted, I value my privacy and don't want to be intruded upon but it would not surprise me if I found that people were listening in. When people first found out that it was easy to listen in on cordless-phone conversations people were concerned but that didn't deter the masses.
This is just one more thing to remind us that there are no guarantees of privacy. If more people knew what paper trail was associated with their card purchases and how companies sell customer/patient information, privacy would be much more valued.
-Clump
That's one way to do it, but it's a fair bit of work, and never foolproof.
The other option is to make sure you never say/write/transmit anything that you wouldn't want the rest of the world to hear/read/etc.
Perhaps as difficult for some people as the former, but certainly a viable option.
Personally, I have nothing to hide.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Yeah, it was a Washington (ST) rep, Jim McDermott (sp), who did it. He got in trouble by the House as well...
What license part do Cell phones operate under the US? I guess I'm of the "if you don't want people to hear it then encrypt it" routine. Security by obscurity, ala stupid laws like in the US for Cell phone conversations, are...well...stupid.
Does that then make it illegal to go around sniffing for and listening to old portable phone sets? Those aren't technically cell phones, which I thought the law specifically named as being "protected". Does it ban me using a parabolic mic to listen to otherwise "private" conversations from public areas (what is the fix for this, learn to code verbally in Navajo or Aramaic)?
Several people have posted messages to the effect that once you transmit your conversation, it's in the public domain and fair game. Several other people have also pointed out that certain combinations of hardware and conditions make it possible to accidently receive these "private" communications. These have been used to argue that you should either encrypt your transmission, or accept the consequences.
I disagree.
I do believe that there is a difference between actively scanning the airwaves, looking for conversations to listen in on, and passively having them "thrust" upon you. However, I also believe that, no matter how you come by the information, you certainly shouldn't try to use it.
Of course it shouldn't be illegal to own a TV that, under the right conditions, picks up peoples's 'phone conversations. That's like overhearing a conversation down the pub, or on a train, etc. What should be illegal is recording that conversation, or using your knowledge of it for your own purposes.
Actively trying to intercept a transmission, however, is an invasion of privacy, and should be illegal. Just because I've transmitted the conversation, does not mean that I intend it to be for just anyone to listen to. As far as I am concerned, I have made a "point-to-point" transmission from my 'phone to his.
I see the situation as being akin to that of email - okay, so I know that it doesn't go directly from my computer to the addressee's, and that it can be intercepted on it's journey there, but it shouldn't be.
It saddens me to think that the day may well be fast approaching when we must all encrypt every communication we make, or risk it being somehow exploited and used against us, or even just held up for all the world to see.
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If I recall correctly that the ultra-secret group that got together to determine the algorithm used a 32 bit key... but the first 16 digits were zeros...
That was shown by some grad students a few months back, anyway.
Good Fast Cheap. Pick any two.
This may be a good time point out that www.policescanner.com is still going strong.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Actually, my first digital PCS cell phone cost $100 almost two years ago (now costs $50) on month to month with no signup/disconnect fees. Service is available in major metro areas in the U.S, but in rural areas, it's pretty useless (although dual mode PCS+cellular phones are also available).
I doubt that local law enforcement can listen on these effortlessly because of the relatively expensive equipment required. But it's not encrypted, and if the feds are listening, there's little I can do about it.
The somewhat nice thing is that it's probably just as easy for a gov't agency to legally tap as a land line, but it's more difficult to do so illegally because of the decoding equipment involved.
The problem with good encryption, as has been mentioned on previous /. threads, is that joe-bonehead-point-and-drool-windows-moron can't do it. Sure it's fine for those of us who at least have the mental capacity of a monkey with a typewriter, but things would be inherrently more secure if lower lifeforms also used encryption -- that would keep those of us who are using it now from getting singled out for sniffing.
:) I can't encrypt something that i want somebody to read if they can't decrypt it.
The other problem is that since almost none of my friends can do pgp, i'm stuck with 2048-bit signatures.
Not that I would like it happening to me. Actulay, stuff like this is why I still don't have one. I get jittery about my cordless phone at home...
-------------------------------------
Digital has been plagued with bad digital to
digital voice quality for some time, especially
TDMA ANSI-136 (AT&T, SBC and others). They
squeeze three digital calls into the same space
used by one analog call, so you have a bit rate
about 8 kbps. Since most systems do A/D - D/A -
A/D - D/A a lot of information is lost.
Twoo things are happening that makes this better,
better vocoders through so called ACELP and some
systems also try to eliminate the extra D/A - A/D
steps.
CDMA technology is supposed to be better, thanks
for more dynamic use of the spectrum (this is
Qualcomm phones, Sprint PCS, Ameritech, Airtouch)
GSM (Powertel, PacTel owned by SBC) has a higher
bit rate, about 13 kbps and has better vocoders
as well, so usually the queality is better.
Just short a couple of pins on the external connector on a cool new PCS phone and *presto*, you have a scanner for the unscannable PCS band. So what if the signal is digital? The phone has the circuitry to decode it. This is not an issue confined to traditional analog cellular.
It doesnt matter at all... just post the link on /. It'll be hit so much no one will be able to access it.
yeah, its a scary idea... but shouldnt we expect these things to happen by now?
Privacy? i wish.....
Who cares ? Ever read the Fondation books from Asimov ? War is not the only way to invide a country - culture, religion or economy is a more effective one, albeit slower. They eat at McDonalds or KFC, watch Titanic and listen to M. Jackson... by the time they get powerfull enough they'll have the same crappy "culture" as the US and have no reason to fight anymore (especially if that means not seing the next Titanic : vangeance of the mutant fish).
Let me point out some very important things here:
1. There is no way to prove that those broadcasts are real. As far as you know, it could be two people faking coversations to make it sound like it is real.
2. The source of the broacast is canadian. For some reason people are blaming the rebroadcasters. What did they do? All they are doing is rebroadcasting a transmission. How do you know it wasnt a music station that just started playing cell phones one night? Are the rebroadcasters at fault for that? please.
3. Not much to talk about if the tranmission ORIGIN is in a country with no laws for that, so people try to blame the rebroadcasters cause the rebroadcast server is in the US. give me a break.
4. The government could care less, and the FCC is too slow.
Just like the cocaine that was up on e-bay. It wasnt e-bays fault they were selling drugs, they were just the innocent middle man.
keep it going!
Here in Australia, the old, unencrypted analogue cellular network is being shut down at the end of the year; for the past few years, digital (GSM) phones have been promoted pretty much exclusively, with very competitive deals. (You can get a $10/month contract, with a free (albeit low-end) handset from any carrier.) Plus, here you don't pay for incoming calls, so everybody and their dog has a mobile.
:-/
We may have idiotic politicians passing cretinous censorship laws and killing the local Internet industry, but at least we get cheap, relatively secure digital mobile service...