U.S. Marshals and Their "Dirtbox" Declare the 4th Amendment Dead

«§Harry§»

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
48
Huffington Post said:
]U.S. Marshals and Their "Dirtbox"[used in drug investigations] Declare the 4th Amendment Dead
Posted: 11/16/2014 11:50 am EST Updated: 11/16/2014 11:59 am EST


Has anyone seen the 4th Amendment recently? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't know about you, but it surely seems to have gone off the way of a New York Mets pennant. Last night, while being interviewed on Coast to Coast AM (broadcast on 570+ stations in several countries), a show usually good at uncovering all kinds of extraterrestrial phenomenon, we just couldn't find it anywhere. What we did find was a trending story by the Wall Street Journal that the Justice Department, sans any warrant or reasonable cause, is doing something that even makes the NSA's methods of operation pale in comparison.

Ok, not really. It is hard to justify an NSA that eavesdrops on the cellphone calls of free world leaders who are our allies. But really - under the guise of "locating cell phones linked to individuals under investigation by the government," the US Marshals Service, with direct permission from the Justice Department, is spying on all of us.

Using "Dirtboxes" that act like fake cellphone towers, the Marshals are flying planes around areas that cover "most of the US population." These boxes trick our phones into reporting in - essentially telling the box who we are and where we are. And they've been doing this since 2007. Whoa.

Crazy, isn't it? I admire our awesome law enforcement men and women, and appreciate their efforts to safeguard us. But we have carefully established protocols and processes to help law enforcement officials track the bad guys. They can go to courts and get warrants; they can directly request information from phone companies about established or suspected criminals and their activity, and more. Yet "the program cuts out phone companies as an intermediary."

It is also quite unclear whether the Marshals are getting court orders to search for the phones they are tracking - yet regardless of any court order; the problem is that they are tracking nearly all of us in this effort to track a few. I am a technologist, and this is utterly preposterous. It smacks of the days when Google drove around the world while building Google Maps and conveniently stole most of our passwords to our wireless networks while gathering other personal information that had nothing to do with Maps.

As citizens of a brilliant democracy with careful checks and balances written into our legal oracles, we must recognize these privacy infringement wake-up calls - and rally around our missing Constitution. This great country is designed to protect law-abiding citizens and privacy is an inalienable right. Yesterday I was at the Privacy Identity Innovation 2014 conference in Palo Alto (the heart of technology innovation), and heard James Dempsey (a key member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which is in charge of oversight of the nation's counterterrorism programs) say the following about the NSA's telephony spying program: "The Section 215 Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, after 13 years of spying and data collection, has not uncovered one bad guy that we did not already know about."

It is time for some alchemy - let's stand up as Americans, for the greatness of America, and resurrect the 4th Amendment! (And if we get really lucky, perhaps simultaneously the Miracle Mets will also find their way back to the pennant trail:)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weinstein/us-marshals-and-their-dir_b_6159216.html
 
A manufacturer of super secure cell phones started mapping the locations of cell phone towers as their phones connected. They discovered many locations in the United States had devices spoofing service providers and intercepting cell phone traffic in mass without individualized warrants. These fake towers were centralized in the areas of United States military bases.

The local police also have Stingrays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker#Secrecy). Neither the local legal system nor citizens can obtain accurate information on these devices, the A.C.L.U. has attempted and the U.S. Marshals seized the information they obtained.

I wouldn't find this information disturbing if the government was transparent on this issue. My concern is also amplified because the information obtained in dragnet surveillance is particularly valuable in social manipulation, this country has ten times more people in prison than necessary, and there is no good explanation for how so many A mericans became guilty of crimes. I'll post later with the link on the military base cell phone tower zombies.
 
The article I mentioned

Popular Science said:
Mysterious Phony Cell Towers Could Be Intercepting Your Calls

Like many of the ultra-secure phones that have come to market in the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks, the CryptoPhone 500, which is marketed in the U.S. by ESD America and built on top of an unassuming Samsung Galaxy SIII body, features high-powered encryption. Les Goldsmith, the CEO of ESD America, says the phone also runs a customized or "hardened" version of Android that removes 468 vulnerabilities that his engineering team team found in the stock installation of the OS.

His mobile security team also found that the version of the Android OS that comes standard on the Samsung Galaxy SIII leaks data to parts unknown 80-90 times every hour. That doesn't necessarily mean that the phone has been hacked, Goldmsith says, but the user can't know whether the data is beaming out from a particular app, the OS, or an illicit piece of spyware. His clients want real security and control over their device, and have the money to pay for it.

To show what the CryptoPhone can do that less expensive competitors cannot, he points me to a map that he and his customers have created, indicating 17 different phony cell towers known as “interceptors,” detected by the CryptoPhone 500 around the United States during the month of July alone. (The map below is from August.) Interceptors look to a typical phone like an ordinary tower. Once the phone connects with the interceptor, a variety of “over-the-air” attacks become possible, from eavesdropping on calls and texts to pushing spyware to the device.

“Interceptor use in the U.S. is much higher than people had anticipated,” Goldsmith says. “One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina and he found 8 different interceptors on that trip. We even found one [in the vicinity of] South Point Casino in Las Vegas.”
Who is running these interceptors and what are they doing with the calls?

Who is running these interceptors and what are they doing with the calls? Goldsmith says we can’t be sure, but he has his suspicions.

“What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases. So we begin to wonder – are some of them U.S. government interceptors? Or are some of them Chinese interceptors?” says Goldsmith. “Whose interceptor is it? Who are they, that's listening to calls around military bases? Is it just the U.S. military, or are they foreign governments doing it? The point is: we don't really know whose they are.”

Interceptors vary widely in expense and sophistication – but in a nutshell, they are radio-equipped computers with software that can use arcane cellular network protocols and defeat the onboard encryption. Whether your phone uses Android or iOS, it also has a second operating system that runs on a part of the phone called a baseband processor. The baseband processor functions as a communications middleman between the phone’s main O.S. and the cell towers. And because chip manufacturers jealously guard details about the baseband O.S., it has been too challenging a target for garden-variety hackers.

“The baseband processor is one of the more difficult things to get into or even communicate with,” says Mathew Rowley, a senior security consultant at Matasano Security. “[That’s] because my computer doesn't speak 4G or GSM, and also all those protocols are encrypted. You have to buy special hardware to get in the air and pull down the waves and try to figure out what they mean. It's just pretty unrealistic for the general community.”

But for governments or other entities able to afford a price tag of “less than $100,000,” says Goldsmith, high-quality interceptors are quite realistic. Some interceptors are limited, only able to passively listen to either outgoing or incoming calls. But full-featured devices like the VME Dominator, available only to government agencies, can not only capture calls and texts, but even actively control the phone, sending out spoof texts, for example. Edward Snowden revealed that the N.S.A. is capable of an over-the-air attack that tells the phone to fake a shut-down while leaving the microphone running, turning the seemingly deactivated phone into a bug. And various ethical hackers have demonstrated DIY interceptor projects, using a software programmable radio and the open-source base station software package OpenBTS – this creates a basic interceptor for less than $3,000. On August 11, the F.C.C. announced an investigation into the use of interceptors against Americans by foreign intelligence services and criminal gangs.
An “Over-the-Air” Attack Feels Like Nothing

Whenever he wants to test out his company’s ultra-secure smart phone against an interceptor, Goldsmith drives past a certain government facility in the Nevada desert. (To avoid the attention of the gun-toting counter-intelligence agents in black SUVs who patrol the surrounding roads, he won't identify the facility to Popular Science). He knows that someone at the facility is running an interceptor, which gives him a good way to test out the exotic “baseband firewall” on his phone. Though the baseband OS is a “black box” on other phones, inaccessible to manufacturers and app developers, patent-pending software allows the GSMK CryptoPhone 500 to monitor the baseband processor for suspicious activity.

So when Goldsmith and his team drove by the government facility in July, he also took a standard Samsung Galaxy S4 and an iPhone to serve as a control group for his own device.

”As we drove by, the iPhone showed no difference whatsoever. The Samsung Galaxy S4, the call went from 4G to 3G and back to 4G. The CryptoPhone lit up like a Christmas tree.”

Though the standard Apple and Android phones showed nothing wrong, the baseband firewall on the Cryptophone set off alerts showing that the phone’s encryption had been turned off, and that the cell tower had no name – a telltale sign of a rogue base station. Standard towers, run by say, Verizon or T-Mobile, will have a name, whereas interceptors often do not.
Some devices can not only capture calls and texts, but even actively control the phone and send spoof texts.

And the interceptor also forced the CryptoPhone from 4G down to 2G, a much older protocol that is easier to de-crypt in real-time. But the standard smart phones didn’t even show they’d experienced the same attack.

“If you've been intercepted, in some cases it might show at the top that you've been forced from 4G down to 2G. But a decent interceptor won't show that,” says Goldsmith. “It'll be set up to show you [falsely] that you're still on 4G. You'll think that you're on 4G, but you're actually being forced back to 2G.”
So Do I Need One?

Though Goldsmith won’t disclose sales figures or even a retail price for the GSMK CryptoPhone 500, he doesn’t dispute an MIT Technology Review article from this past spring reporting that he produces about 400 phones per week for $3,500 each. So should ordinary Americans skip some car payments to be able to afford to follow suit?

It depends on what level of security you expect, and who you might reasonably expect to be trying to listen in, says Oliver Day, who runs Securing Change, an organization that provides security services to non-profits.

“There's this thing in our industry called “threat modeling,” says Day. “One of the things you learn is that you have to have a realistic sense of your adversary. Who is my enemy? What skills does he have? What are my goals in terms of security?”

If you’re not realistically of interest to the U.S. government and you never leave the country, then the CryptoPhone is probably more protection than you need. Goldsmith says he sells a lot of phones to executives who do business in Asia. The aggressive, sophisticated hacking teams working for the People’s Liberation Army have targeted American trade secrets, as well as political dissidents.

Day, who has written a paper about undermining censorship software used by the Chinese government, recommends people in hostile communications environments watch what they say over the phone and buy disposable “burner” phones that can be used briefly and then discarded.

“I'm not bringing anything into China that I'm not willing to throw away on my return trip,” says Day.

Goldsmith warns that a “burner phone” strategy can be dangerous. If Day were to call another person on the Chinese government’s watch list, his burner phone’s number would be added to the watch list, and then the government would watch to see who else he called. The CryptoPhone 500, in addition to alerting the user whenever it’s under attack, can “hide in plain sight” when making phone calls. Though it does not use standard voice-over-IP or virtual private network security tools, the CryptoPhone can make calls using just a WI-FI connection -- it does not need an identifiable SIM card. When calling over the Internet, the phone appears to eavesdroppers as if it is just browsing the Internet.

Update (9/6/2014, 4:10 p.m. ET): Following the publication of this story, Goldsmith claimed that an interceptor was detected near the vicinity of South Point Casino in Las Vegas (he couldn't verify it was on the property). His quote has been edited for clarity.
http://www.popsci.com/article/techn...-cell-towers-could-be-intercepting-your-calls
 
I encrypted my phone last night but the NSA could probably find me in a sec turn on my mic or camera...it would be cool to have one of these phones...but I'm not on the el xhapo status ha...
 
People have already dropped phones. Couriers run messages now.

Good job Captain America, the real terrorists aren't on your radar anymore.

But you don't care, because this is all about monitoring the people to maintain control.
 
But you don't care, because this is all about monitoring the people to maintain control.

QFT.. They have been saying one thing and doing the exact opposite forever, its just we all know about it now. I don't understand the level of paranoia these control freaks have and thats saying something because I used to get quite paranoid.
 
QFT.. They have been saying one thing and doing the exact opposite forever, its just we all know about it now. I don't understand the level of paranoia these control freaks have and thats saying something because I used to get quite paranoid.

Because when your power is predicated on a lie, then maintaining the status quo of the lie is the primary task, seconding even the use of power.

The modern power structure is quite obfuscated and relies on multiple levels on one way power access, thus providing insulation at multiple levels.
 
"True privacy is the art of not being noticed."
-- Japanese proverb

Interpreting the US constitution nowadays has a lot in common with Jewish rabbis interpreting the Torah nowadays, or interpreting any ancient set of laws, principles, or guidelines in the modern world. In all such cases some major technological advances we now live with were not extant or even anticipated at the time they were written, and modern interpreters are faced with a reverse anachronism. The best they can do is speculate on what the essence, spirit, or authorial intent of the original work was, based on not only the work itself but commentary and historical application ever since. Then they'll use this to further extrapolate on what applications to novel situations are most consistent with the original guideline. The problem is, of course, that extrapolations are bound to vary, depending who you ask. And there comes a point at which they vary so much, provoking such disagreement among interpreters, that it becomes germane to ask whether the original guideline is even relevant or helpful at all to this new, unforeseen situation.

In the days when the Constitution was drafted, "information" could be neatly equated with "personal property", because it was indisputably tangible (paper or animal skin), and could not be copied without the copier (a person) physically having it. Freedom of unlawful seizure of personal property most certainly did cover information, then. It's a lot harder to argue that digital information is entirely yours. Courts have routinely defended the idea that information you create and send using machines you don't own is decidedly not yours, but the property of the owner of the machine. Try bashing your boss on the company computer at work and then suing to retain your job, if you don't believe me. But even copies of the digital information you create on via your phones, computers, and interactive TVs are immediately and necessarily created (by machines, not humans, mind you) on machines and mediums that are indisputably not yours. You own it and the owners of any and all mediums that contain copies own it, in the most liberal interpretation.

Oho, you say, but digital communication like texts, e-mails, and phone calls can be likened more closely to face-to-face conversations than to ink on paper, when we're interpreting old privacy laws. I don't think that's so easy to defend philosophically (it has properties of both, and is in many ways neither). But even if it could be defended soundly, I don't think would help privacy lovers. After all, the Constitution gives no provision for privacy of the spoken word. Yes there is freedom of speech. But there is no protection from the very real consequences that can result from someone overhearing what you say out loud. Eavesdropping is not a crime, and never has been. It's always been incumbent upon anyone who says anything out loud to ensure they're ready to bear the social and legal consequences that may follow from anyone within earshot hearing it. You the speaker are expected to bear the burden of ensuring your spoken word does not travel so far, in the wrong company, that adverse events result from it, to you or anyone else.

In this way, to the advantage of any spy (government, corporate, criminal, or otherwise), intercepting messages sent with devices using radio waves is as legal and legitimate as sticking your head out a window in a city and paying attention to what people are shouting in the streets. It's nosy. But it's not illegal. If you don't want people listening in, it's up to you to speak in code words or a foreign language in the streets, or to encrypt your digital communications well.

Your landlord doesn't need to promise you walls and hallways that keep your neighbors from hearing your conversations, and vice versa. Likewise, manufacturers of digital communication media have no obligation to promise your communications freedom from interception once they've left the devices you own. You the privacy-loving consumer want it? You need to demand it, dammit! Digital media manufacturers and merchants have plenty of incentives to not keep the information you create or send private. We the consumers need to create the market counter-pressure, by refusing to buy and use devices that sell us out.

Until then, I am very, very wary of what I say, write, or send digitally. I have reason to believe I am a "person of interest" to powerful groups that would be happy to ruin my life if I said too much and they could prove it was me who said it. This is not me being paranoid -- I have traveled abroad to (and speak the languages of) countries that my home USA is not particularly chummy with, I have dangerous liberal progressive and anti-system political beliefs, I have a job that is "held to a higher standard" "in the interest of the public safety", and I am married to someone who has been actively investigated by the FBI (and also fits the prior 3 statements I just made about myself!). If I'm ever going to say something that could get me on the radar of some authority willing to lock me up or ruin me, I leave my cell phone in my car and take a walk somewhere secluded in the countryside with the person. And even then I speak as vaguely as possible, ask the other person not to have their cell phone with them, and not to say my name. Privacy is no one's responsibility but my own. And I take it very seriously.
 
Top