FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

[JuanCarlos]

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.

What can, however, happen is the bar for who no longer qualifies as "average" can drop. True, they still won't be likely to eavesdrop on some random soccer mom's cellphone...but suddenly students who are part of groups critical of the government (note: "critical"...not terrorist groups or groups advocating the overthrow of the government) might find themselves becoming targets.

Also, you wouldn't need to monitor every call made about picking up milk in order to have a serious chilling effect on the people. Even monitoring a relatively small number of domestic phone calls by otherwise law-abiding citizens at random would be enough to instill a serious "Big Brother is watching" vibe on everybody. Helps quell dissent.

Now, I don't think we're there yet, or even close. But if you can't imagine such a thing happening, then you have a serious lack of imagination.


Now, as long as the technique in the OP is conducted under a valid warrant, I see no real problem. Using new (or modified) technologies is no problem as long as it's done with some level of oversight. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it impressive. Granted, it's the kind of thing that isn't going to work for long...but still, you take what you can.

 

[Gary Conner]

Yeah right cow mutilations are up too

Really. I haven't heard or seen any news reports regarding cattle mutiliations in quite a few years.

I thought the number of reports from ranchers of their cattle being mutilated had ceased several years back.

 

[invention_45]

I don't think we're there yet, or even close.

Have you noticed how extremely accurately your bank's word recognition system works lately? When I used mine 3 years ago, it was flawless. I never had to repeat anything.

I strongly suspect the authorities have voice recognition that works faster and better than the banks.

 

[Gary Conner]

This idea nowhere, fits the description of the IVth Amendment's requirement that the "place to be searched" be described in particular.

How can "everywhere" you go, followed by a roving microphone be a singular, particular place to be searched?

 

[JuanCarlos]

This idea nowhere, fits the description of the IVth Amendment's requirement that the "place to be searched" be described in particular.

How can "everywhere" you go, followed by a roving microphone be a singular, particular place to be searched?

If you define the place being searched as the location of the microphone, then it would simply be a non-static location. Much the same way a warrant to search a vehicle would be a non-static location, as the vehicle could be on any given street when they find it.

Yeah, it's a stretch. However, I'm not sure that this practice, provided there is a warrant allowing it specifically, is a violation of the spirit of the fourth.

 

[Gary Conner]

Well, I am 100 percent certain Juan Carlos, that it is NOT an allowed action as it was intended that we be "secure" in our "persons, houses, papers and effects."

If you do not know of a specific law being violated by use of that phone, then how can you CONSTITUTIONALLY tap it CONTINUOUSLY, from now until the end of time?

Haven't we had enough of this? When does this so-called Constitutionally allowed tap, get upgraded to requiring a constantly monitorable microchip implant?

Somewhere, big brother has to stop.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Well, I am 100 percent certain Juan Carlos, that it is NOT an allowed action as it was intended that we be "secure" in our "persons, houses, papers and effects."

If you do not know of a specific law being violated by use of that phone, then how can you CONSTITUTIONALLY tap it CONTINUOUSLY, from now until the end of time?

I wouldn't say a warrant to tap it in perpetuity would be Constitutional...however, a warrant of limited timeframe, possibly with other limitations, might be reasonable. At that point it's just saving the authorities the trouble of installing a bug. So say, for instance, you have intel stating there will be some sort of meeting at a given time...I can see issuing a warrant for a time period when it might be likely to record such a meeting. I don't know...like I said, it's a stretch.

I don't think it matters anymore regardless. Now that the news it out, any criminal with half a brain in his skull won't let this happen ever again...and the ones without half a brain would have gotten caught some other way. The only real use this will have soon is eavesdropping on law-abiding citizens.

Haven't we had enough of this? When does this so-called Constitutionally allowed tap, get upgraded to requiring a constantly monitorable microchip implant?

Somewhere, big brother has to stop.

Oh, I don't think we're there yet. I don't think we're even close.

EDIT: But I do agree we're moving in that direction, and I'm not necessarily happy about it. I'm just not sure how bad this particular situation is.

 

[tyme]

Even when it is powered off???
How 'bout if I remove the battery??

Read the article linked from the first post. The whole article. Declan McCullagh is a good tech reporter.
Then read this: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000202.html

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.

There is no extra battery that can be used to transmit. Transmitting takes a lot of juice, and some tiny little battery won't cut it. There is no room in modern cellphones for anything like that. If you're using some gigantic old cellphone, then maybe you want to take it apart and look for gadgets that shouldn't be there.

 

[FirstFreedom]

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.

No, I explained (perhaps not very well) why it's ripe for abuse. It allows prosecutors to make an end run on a warrant to start eaves-dropping away, if there's no exclusionary rule such as I described, in this way:

Mufasa has P.C. against him, from an informant, that he is plotting a terror attack. Cops go to judge; get warrant to surveil/search Mufasa's phone lines and stuff. Rightly so - it's supported by P.C. & warrant.

Now. If the rule allows the cops to allege that ANYONE under the sun is a "known associate" of Mufasa, then you know as well as I do (and everyone who's ever known how LEOs operate), since there is no new magistrate or judge "check" on the system after the original warrant, LEOs will expand this to everyone in a 30 mile radius with an arabic-sounding name that they have a hunch is involved with ANY crime, to get goods on them. Alla sudden, there are 26 guys named Muhammed, and 17 guys name Ali who are alleged to be "known associates" of Mufasa. So cops proceed to flip on the technological switch on all 43 mobile phones, to ostensibly monitor Mufasa. If they are not prohibited from using stuff against these 43 people UNLESS they are engaged in conversation with Mufasa, or a least in the same room as the target (thereby proving that the cops weren't lying or mistaken when they claim he's a "known associate"), then there is effectively NO LIMIT to how many people they can bug on a whim, with NO warrant or P.C., and thus make an end run around the warrant-needed-for-wiretapping rule. If there's one thing we know, it's that if it CAN be abused, it WILL be abused. Sure, there is a less complicated way to do it, and that is to flat-out ban the practice if it ain't the target's phone. But that rule unnecessarily hampers law enforcement, seems to me, whereas the more complicated, discerning rule maximizes law enforcement potential to gather info on the target, yet still has a check in place to respect the 4th amendment.

 

[cuate]

I Fear Not

Since I'n not a Branch Davidian, muzzlem, or any of that and my conversations on land line and cellphone would be quite boring to all
I must assume that the woods colt of the once great FBI under
J. Edgar Hoover would not be interested in my chatter.

 

[badbob]

Since I'n not a Branch Davidian, muzzlem, or any of that and my conversations on land line and cellphone would be quite boring to all
I must assume that the woods colt of the once great FBI under
J. Edgar Hoover would not be interested in my chatter.

I gather from the article that your cellphone is capable of eavesdropping on all your conversations, not just phone calls.

Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

badbob

 

[Optical Serenity]

Encrypted Phones already exist. Almost all are GSM unlocked phones, and both parties obviously need the encryption capable phone. The more expensive ones allow you to set the meta data that is sent to the GSM provider telling them what the model of the phone is. For example, one day, you are pretending to talk on a Motorola Razr, while the next, a Nokia 6200. Also, some allow you to even change the IMEI of the phone. Although most providers check for odd IMEI patterns.

Other than that, this is old news. Anyone who knows about two way radios in a trunked radio system knows that a dispatcher or radio admin can open up the microphone. In fact, if I'm on a call and don't respond as being ok, my dispatcher can open up my mic, and silence others to check on me.

No biggy, i could care less, my life is so boring any GS-15 pay-grade agent would fall asleep without a ton of coffee and vault.

 

[tyme]

Encryption won't help, but most cryptophones are made by smaller companies so they probably don't have built-in firmware "features" that let the network turn on the phone or prevent calls from being displayed. Particularly one that comes with sourcecode, which someone suitably motivated could probably create a build environment for and re-flash the phone. Like http://www.cryptophone.de/products/CPG10i/index.html

But buying something like that will probably get your phone tapped if customs notices it. They just can't turn it into a bug.

 

[Crosshair]

Just put your cellphone in a sound proof pouch when not in use. Of if you don't mind not recieving calls, put it in a Faraday cage pouch. However, most cell mics are crap. You simply can't make a good quality mic fit in the space they need to fit in. The battery life issue is the easiest way to detect it. I can also see a market in cell batteries that have a hardware "off" switch.

 

[buckster]

Yes there's a problem

Your phone has a computer in it. They call it with a software program.They can make it a two way speaker phone. Same with your computer, and the same with the speaker in your digital cable box. Oh yeah, been happening for years. Most recently, with the electronic voting machines. Take the battery out of your phone when FTF talking to Vinnie. Put it back in to check your messages or use a land line but with the same thing is going on there. What or who are they looking for, Bushes brain? They are listening to people wake up to their B/S.

 

[BillCA]

And, of course, y'all are aware that GM vehicles with ON-STAR can have their microphones turned on without you being aware of it, right?

Like most people, my conversations would be pretty dull. But that doesn't mean I like the idea of my cell phone being activated remotely. One answer is to place your cell phone in front of your radio or TV (especially when charging) so any taps get I Love Lucy rerun soundtracks.

People who are worried about their answering machine's mic, the speaker on their TV or cable box or other devices being activated only need to pay an electronics engineer to review the circuit diagram and/or consult with the manufacturer.

The real question is where do we (society) draw the line? There are military grade FLIR systems can can see through your drawn curtains or thinner walls or ceilings. If they're using the system to find a lost child, for example, and see suspicious activities is this the same as looking across an open field into your window using binoculars? I think not.

 

[constitution]

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?

theyre not the only ones that are doing this.


My supervisor informed me that the cell phones our employer gave us to use for our job has the same capability. He said that our employer has the right to listen to our calls,listen in to conversations through the mic and go back and replay all the conversations,it has a camera on it as well which after he told me this, was disturbing considering day to day things people do.I would not have ever believed it.


The phone never leaves the filing cabinet drawer now.

 

[revjen45]

The BOR was reduced to a pack of meaningless legal fictions a long time ago. The Constitution means whatever 5 (a majority of 9) of the Sacred Shysters say it means. Get over it or you can climb aboard the cattle cars to the gulag.