FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool
- Thread starter badbob
- Start date
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I don't understand.
This is WITH the consent of the person who owns the cell phone with the mike being turned on? Or WITHOUT the consent of the person who owns the phone? In any event, if it's supported by a search warrant, in turn supported by probable cause, I've got no problem with it.
This is WITH the consent of the person who owns the cell phone with the mike being turned on? Or WITHOUT the consent of the person who owns the phone? In any event, if it's supported by a search warrant, in turn supported by probable cause, I've got no problem with it.
This is without the consent of the cell phone user. Most Cell providers have the ability to remotely access your phone as well. This is why it is a good idea to have a notification that sounds when the phone is powered on and keep it turned off when not in use (besides your battery will last longer).
45RackerTracker
New member
Your landline at home can also be used this way. The mike on the home phone is superb and can pickup whispers in the next room. SW is used that calls your home but silences the ringer, auto answers, and then the fun begins. Of course all these toys can and do abuse your civil right to privacy. We're all being watched and heard.
Yeah right
cow mutilations are up too. If they had some federal employee watching my every move they would drop dead after one week from boredom. "reporting in, he is still sitting there by that damn computer looking at the firingline forums"
Anyway, the way they are using this is about the same as following the guy around with a directional mic. Just it is more selective on who it hears and no one has to follow the guy.
A cell phone's interface shouldn't hide whether it's transmitting, ever. I respect the power of law enforcement to legitimately tap phones when they have probable cause, but that doesn't give them the right to ask cell phone manufacturers to build bugging features into cellphones.
M14, the bugging "feature" works even when phones are turned off. That's sort of scary and sort of cool, but if a cell phone has that feature, I think it should be available to the phone's owner.
Note that this "feature" was only used after conventional bugs and wiretaps didn't work. Intelligence agencies may use it all the time, but law enforcement probably doesn't.
But, as bad as this is, the cat is out of the bag. There are obvious countermeasures: cell phone signal detectors and/or jammers, monitoring battery life, and putting your cell phone in an ammo can when not in use. Or simply removing the battery. All criminals and anti-government activists are now on notice that cell phones are basically bugs, and should be treated accordingly. The mafia is notorious for not keeping up on the latest government surveillance techniques.
M14, the bugging "feature" works even when phones are turned off. That's sort of scary and sort of cool, but if a cell phone has that feature, I think it should be available to the phone's owner.
Note that this "feature" was only used after conventional bugs and wiretaps didn't work. Intelligence agencies may use it all the time, but law enforcement probably doesn't.
But, as bad as this is, the cat is out of the bag. There are obvious countermeasures: cell phone signal detectors and/or jammers, monitoring battery life, and putting your cell phone in an ammo can when not in use. Or simply removing the battery. All criminals and anti-government activists are now on notice that cell phones are basically bugs, and should be treated accordingly. The mafia is notorious for not keeping up on the latest government surveillance techniques.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Without consent you say?
Well, ok, suppose Lucky Luciano is the target, and badbod is the known associate of Lucky, and the feds think they can get info from an incriminating conversation between Lucky and badbob or between Lucky and Vinny while badbod is in the room; and the feds get a warrant supported by P.C. without badbob's consent. I submit that it's still an unreasonable invasion of BADBOB's privacy, because the warrant doesn't extend to him.
So I would support the measure only provided that there was an accompanying rule that nothing which badbob says can be used against badbob, UNLESS it's said during the course of a conversation between badbob & Lucky. In other words, PC only extends to Lucky let's say, and the feds want to hear Lucky admit to Vinny that he ordered the hit on Jimmie the Squealer, right? The feds tap badbob's phone, hoping that he will be in the same room as Lucky & Vinny when Lucky self-incriminates. But then, during the "tap", badbob tells Tony that badbob extorted Hapless Sal - the feds in that situation ought not to be able to use that to prosecute badbob for the extortion. BUT, if OTOH, Lucky tells Vinny AND badbob, good riddance to Jimmie the Squealer, glad I ordered that whack - good job, badbob, I hear you're a maestro with the baseball bat, then that OUGHT to be able to be used against badbob (and Lucky too), because it was uttered BY the target, against whom P.C. existed, and could be considered "plain view" at that point as to badbob. Or if badbob SELF-incriminates during a converstion WITH Lucky, but not in a conversation Tony or anyone else, then that too should be admissible in a prosecution against badbob. See whut I mean? Otherwise, the gov't could simply do and end run around PC as to badbob, by simply claiming that badbad is a known associate with someone against whom the judge agrees they DO have P.C., and then tapping his phone in this manner and using that tap against badbob - with no P.C., this is a 4A violation, IMO.
Well, ok, suppose Lucky Luciano is the target, and badbod is the known associate of Lucky, and the feds think they can get info from an incriminating conversation between Lucky and badbob or between Lucky and Vinny while badbod is in the room; and the feds get a warrant supported by P.C. without badbob's consent. I submit that it's still an unreasonable invasion of BADBOB's privacy, because the warrant doesn't extend to him.
So I would support the measure only provided that there was an accompanying rule that nothing which badbob says can be used against badbob, UNLESS it's said during the course of a conversation between badbob & Lucky. In other words, PC only extends to Lucky let's say, and the feds want to hear Lucky admit to Vinny that he ordered the hit on Jimmie the Squealer, right? The feds tap badbob's phone, hoping that he will be in the same room as Lucky & Vinny when Lucky self-incriminates. But then, during the "tap", badbob tells Tony that badbob extorted Hapless Sal - the feds in that situation ought not to be able to use that to prosecute badbob for the extortion. BUT, if OTOH, Lucky tells Vinny AND badbob, good riddance to Jimmie the Squealer, glad I ordered that whack - good job, badbob, I hear you're a maestro with the baseball bat, then that OUGHT to be able to be used against badbob (and Lucky too), because it was uttered BY the target, against whom P.C. existed, and could be considered "plain view" at that point as to badbob. Or if badbob SELF-incriminates during a converstion WITH Lucky, but not in a conversation Tony or anyone else, then that too should be admissible in a prosecution against badbob. See whut I mean? Otherwise, the gov't could simply do and end run around PC as to badbob, by simply claiming that badbad is a known associate with someone against whom the judge agrees they DO have P.C., and then tapping his phone in this manner and using that tap against badbob - with no P.C., this is a 4A violation, IMO.
I think that's unnecessary complication.
The courts generally allow any evidence collected during legal surveillance or searching, regardless of whether the discovered evidence was specified on the warrant. As long as warrants are issued properly, there's very little potential for abuse. If warrants are handed out like candy, incidental bugging of third party conversations is the least of our problems.
I just want to be able to take a cellphone and use it as a bug, since they're clearly capable of that. Why should the FBI and CIA get to have all the fun?
The courts generally allow any evidence collected during legal surveillance or searching, regardless of whether the discovered evidence was specified on the warrant. As long as warrants are issued properly, there's very little potential for abuse. If warrants are handed out like candy, incidental bugging of third party conversations is the least of our problems.
I just want to be able to take a cellphone and use it as a bug, since they're clearly capable of that. Why should the FBI and CIA get to have all the fun?
From what I've heard they hack into phones, blank out the screen so you don't know what it's doing and call themselves with it. Then it's just like your phone was on and connected to the feds. Also, supposedly razr phones are the most popular for doing this on (as well any probably any bluetooth phone). Now bigwig execs are getting in the habit of removing their batteries from their phones.
DonR101395
New member
It's been done for many years in the military SIGINT community. As for commercial encryption devices they can get around those fairly easy. Who do you think they got the technology from...............maybe the same folks who are using the bugging devices?
invention_45
New member
If you are concerned about such bugging, here's how to stop it.
Cell Phones:
Put your cell phone in your microwave oven and close the door. Try to call it from your regular phone. It should not ring unless the oven is leaky.
If the oven is leaky, replace it. If not, whenever you don't want to risk being bugged via your cell phone, stick it in the microwave and close the door. The oven is designed to prevent the escape of microwaves, so your phone can't send out any sort of signal. Just don't forget and turn the oven on.
Land Lines:
Go to Radio Shack and buy a cheap $14 phone that has an actual BELL in it, not a chirp. A mechanical bell. Or try to find an old Bell System regular touch tone (or dial) phone. Take all other phones off your line and chuck'em. As long as the old-fashioned phones are on the hook, a mechanical switch disconnects the microphone from the line. Nobody can listen to anything.
Or just unplug the phone when you aren't using it and let voicemail take your calls.
Cell Phones:
Put your cell phone in your microwave oven and close the door. Try to call it from your regular phone. It should not ring unless the oven is leaky.
If the oven is leaky, replace it. If not, whenever you don't want to risk being bugged via your cell phone, stick it in the microwave and close the door. The oven is designed to prevent the escape of microwaves, so your phone can't send out any sort of signal. Just don't forget and turn the oven on.
Land Lines:
Go to Radio Shack and buy a cheap $14 phone that has an actual BELL in it, not a chirp. A mechanical bell. Or try to find an old Bell System regular touch tone (or dial) phone. Take all other phones off your line and chuck'em. As long as the old-fashioned phones are on the hook, a mechanical switch disconnects the microphone from the line. Nobody can listen to anything.
Or just unplug the phone when you aren't using it and let voicemail take your calls.
invention_45
New member
I have heard, though this could be baloney, that some phones contain an internal battery separate from the battery you can remove. I can think of a couple reasons for this, so maybe it's true, and maybe not.
More realistically, you oughta watch what you say after you hang up a flip phone. They have a little plastic tab that detects when you flip open or closed. Lately, I have been unable to answer my flip phone without tapping it a little, until I saw the switch. It probably just got dirty after over a year of use. Now I just poke on the switch and it answers. But when I hang up, what happens? So, if you're one of those people who has to talk to those you don't like and you are in the habit of cussing them after you hang up, watch out.
Edward429451
Moderator
"What happened?"
"I blew up the building"
"Why?"
"Because you made a phone call"
The more technology you use the easier it is for them to track you...
(Enemy of the State)
Checked your shoes lately?
"I blew up the building"
"Why?"
"Because you made a phone call"
The more technology you use the easier it is for them to track you...
(Enemy of the State)
Checked your shoes lately?
I can't even immagine the Government or Police EVER listening to call made by "avarage" citizens. It would take countless people to monitor the calls only to hear people asking "OH, and get a gallon of milk too" "Honey, I am on the way home" etc, etc. These techniques are used on suspected terrorists, with good reason, underworld members and generally unsavory characters. I doubt that any of us in here qualify for phone tapping. If I do,, they better get the REALLY BIG box of No Doze.