Cellular phone and Text Messages?
- Thread starter La_casper
- Start date
DrGonzoESQ
Bluelighter
I don't know about the technology.....but legally this would require a warrant. But, I don't see why under the right circumstances a the police couldn't get a warrant to do this, same expectation of privacy as you have with a cell phone.
Whether or not this CAN be done technology wise, I have no idea. Haven't seen it.
Whether or not this CAN be done technology wise, I have no idea. Haven't seen it.
Yes, text messages sent phone to phone can be read back.
The phones don't simply talk to each other. Your phone sends the message to a server at the phone exchange via the normal phone network. From there it's parsed, routed, and transmitted back out to the receiver.
All messages are logged, as well as originating and receiving phone numbers. How long they are kept, I do not know.
The cell phone companies do not record voice conversations unless specifically requested to do so. However, a record of each call is kept - who called who, when, and for how long.
Note: Call blocking does not stop that record from being created. Joe the Meth Dealer might not be able to tell which number you're calling from, but the phone company knows you called Joe.
The phones don't simply talk to each other. Your phone sends the message to a server at the phone exchange via the normal phone network. From there it's parsed, routed, and transmitted back out to the receiver.
All messages are logged, as well as originating and receiving phone numbers. How long they are kept, I do not know.
The cell phone companies do not record voice conversations unless specifically requested to do so. However, a record of each call is kept - who called who, when, and for how long.
Note: Call blocking does not stop that record from being created. Joe the Meth Dealer might not be able to tell which number you're calling from, but the phone company knows you called Joe.
Conspiracy Kid
Bluelighter
I have yet to see a signal sent from one device to another device that couldn't be intercepted somehow.
In 1994 Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Digital Telephony Act (18 USC 2510-2522). The Act's purpose is to provide law enforcement officials with assurance that they will be able to "tap" or have access to the content of any communications incorporating new digital technology. These digital transmissions include both voice communications transmitted in digital format as well as transmissions of text and data between computers using a modem.
Traditionally, law enforcement agents accessed telephone communications by tapping the line and simply listening in on the conversation. However, digital communications services generally convert telephone conversations and other transmissions to a digital code that is impossible to "listen in" on. The Digital Telephony Act requires all telephone companies to make digital communications available to law enforcement officials in the same way that traditional voice transmissions are currently accessible.
This law specifically states that it does not alter or expand the current ability of investigators to conduct a wiretap. It merely allows them to access digital communications in the same manner as voice communications once a legal wiretap has been authorized. Furthermore, telephone companies are not required to decrypt encrypted (i.e. scrambled) communications unless the telephone company itself provides the encryption service. Finally, the federal government must reimburse the telephone companies for many of the modifications necessary for compliance with the law.
In 1994 Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Digital Telephony Act (18 USC 2510-2522). The Act's purpose is to provide law enforcement officials with assurance that they will be able to "tap" or have access to the content of any communications incorporating new digital technology. These digital transmissions include both voice communications transmitted in digital format as well as transmissions of text and data between computers using a modem.
Traditionally, law enforcement agents accessed telephone communications by tapping the line and simply listening in on the conversation. However, digital communications services generally convert telephone conversations and other transmissions to a digital code that is impossible to "listen in" on. The Digital Telephony Act requires all telephone companies to make digital communications available to law enforcement officials in the same way that traditional voice transmissions are currently accessible.
This law specifically states that it does not alter or expand the current ability of investigators to conduct a wiretap. It merely allows them to access digital communications in the same manner as voice communications once a legal wiretap has been authorized. Furthermore, telephone companies are not required to decrypt encrypted (i.e. scrambled) communications unless the telephone company itself provides the encryption service. Finally, the federal government must reimburse the telephone companies for many of the modifications necessary for compliance with the law.
Well put. And just to reiterate my point, those text messages are not sent directly from your phone to somebody elses. They take the long way, and the messages ARE logged.
Don't text-message anything you wouldn't say if a cop were standing next to you, listening.
Don't text-message anything you wouldn't say if a cop were standing next to you, listening.
Computer_collector
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,456
how nice. our privacy is shrinking more and more. whats next? incriminating evidence over the internet, even if just posting on message boards?
themagicbean
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Messages
- 455
People! Chill!
Text messages, if the cops have a warrant to tap, will be less safe because of the way they are sent. HOWEVER if the cop does not have a warrant the text message is safer because the piggy driving down the street won't hear anything he can understand should he happen to tune into your frequency.
Text messages, if the cops have a warrant to tap, will be less safe because of the way they are sent. HOWEVER if the cop does not have a warrant the text message is safer because the piggy driving down the street won't hear anything he can understand should he happen to tune into your frequency.
Conspiracy Kid
Bluelighter
themagicbean
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Messages
- 455
Conspiracy:
thank you all....i actually just posted this as a opinonated question anyways...i do not sell drugs nor to have amy plans too.
i was actually reading a old article as too when the whole OJ Simpson/ecstasy story went around and they said they had tapped so and so's cell phone, so this is what got my thinking.
now does the same hold true for people with the nextel/2-way radio jobies???
casper
i was actually reading a old article as too when the whole OJ Simpson/ecstasy story went around and they said they had tapped so and so's cell phone, so this is what got my thinking.
now does the same hold true for people with the nextel/2-way radio jobies???
casper
5ht
Bluelighter
Conspiracy Kid
Bluelighter
good point man!!
I would avoid the text messaging. There is a distinction in the law between "header" information and content information. Originainally this was applied (as one poster noted) to allow the police to get the records of who you have called for how long easily, perhaps without even a warrant while to actually listen in on your calls required significant evidence.
Unfortunately this standard has been misapplied in modern digital communcations. It has occured (don't know the outcome) of the police regarding the subject header of the email as part of the header type information (so they could nail you for an email with the subject: want to buy meth?...or at least get enough evidence for a full search without much evidence at all). I have no idea how this has been applied to cell phone information but I would be carefull. It would be quite possible that a judge would let them introduce the text of an SMS message with no warrant whatsoever (or be very lenient about granting one).
Also the fact that it is digital is irrelevant...the police don't actually go out and monitor cell phones with radios they force the phone company to do it for them.
In general judges are old people, the newer and unexplored the medium of information exchange is the less legal protections you are likely to have.
Unfortunately this standard has been misapplied in modern digital communcations. It has occured (don't know the outcome) of the police regarding the subject header of the email as part of the header type information (so they could nail you for an email with the subject: want to buy meth?...or at least get enough evidence for a full search without much evidence at all). I have no idea how this has been applied to cell phone information but I would be carefull. It would be quite possible that a judge would let them introduce the text of an SMS message with no warrant whatsoever (or be very lenient about granting one).
Also the fact that it is digital is irrelevant...the police don't actually go out and monitor cell phones with radios they force the phone company to do it for them.
In general judges are old people, the newer and unexplored the medium of information exchange is the less legal protections you are likely to have.
As for the types of signals that can be intercepted...I know the US for sure but probably other countries have agencies set up whose main goal is to learn how to intercept, decode, and tap into new forms of communication. Granted this is supposedly used mainly on anti-terrorist and spy activities...but it can be used on anyone. No form of communication is safe from tapping or monitoring.
I'm not saying that there aren't easier ways of doing it. My point is that for every new form of communication used, there are agencies who are going to learn how to exploit every aspect of that technology. There's no limit on how they can use this knowledge. Feel violated????
[ 26 May 2002: Message edited by: SgtD82 ]
[ 26 May 2002: Message edited by: SgtD82 ]
housefreeeek
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 417
sMiLeYcHrIs
Bluelighter
