Cellular phone and Text Messages?

La_casper

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 23, 2001
Messages
837
Location
ILLINOIS
i know the cellular phones can be taped and i believe traced....
but i am curious to know, can a text message sent phone to phone...can it be taped/traced/intercepted?
casper
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
how nice. our privacy is shrinking more and more. whats next? incriminating evidence over the internet, even if just posting on message boards?
 
it is my understanding that many telephony modules offer triple DES encryption (hardware/formware implemented)...
 
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.
 
Originally posted by themagicbean:
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.

Thats true because the piggy *driving* down the street won't have anything to do with monitoring a tap warrent.. It's the communications majors who have been doing this kind of thing for 20 years that you have to worry about.
Here is the best thing to say about phone tapping and drugs -- If you are selling drugs and there is a tap warrent issued, you might as well be already busted.
 
Conspiracy:
If you are selling drugs and there is a tap warrent issued, you might as well be already busted.
Amen.
The point I was trying to make was that many people concern themselves with cell communication because of the fear of being overheard (no warrant situation); in that situation they would have nothing to worry about if they were TMing.
 
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
 
Originally posted by Computer_collector:
how nice. our privacy is shrinking more and more. whats next? incriminating evidence over the internet, even if just posting on message boards?
It's not that our privacy is shrinking, its that we no longer have any privacy (and haven't had in a while). What you are feeling is early enlightenment to that fact that you have no privacy.
Besides, we only cherish our privacy when we have something to hide. If we focus on rediscussing the legalities of our favorite substances, maybe then we wouldn't have to worry about getting caught ordering half a g over the phone?
*shrug*
I dunno... I'm just talking shit.
 
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.
 
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.
 
SgtD82: It is used primarily for anti-terrorist/espionage activities!! Why the fuck would you develop an agency to intercept cell phone calls when you can call up sprint and they will do it for you?
 
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 ]
 
how nice. our privacy is shrinking more and more. whats next? incriminating evidence over the internet, even if just posting on message boards?
I think the point of the law is that if your not doing anything wrong then you've got no reason to worry. The only people who are really against these sorts of laws are those who are or have the inclination to break them.
 
Originally posted by 5ht:

It's not that our privacy is shrinking, its that we no longer have any privacy (and haven't had in a while). What you are feeling is early enlightenment to that fact that you have no privacy.

Totally agree!!!!! Don't know how true this is but someone told me that in an average day, you are spotted by over 100 CCTV cameras!!!
Now, I agree with things like this in moderation to increase the safety of the public, but when it gets to the point where you get NO privacy, I think its getting a little unfair...
 
Originally posted by housefreeeek:

The only people who are really against these sorts of laws are those who are or have the inclination to break them.

This totally false. I'm sure that there are many citizens that do not have anything to hide or any reason to worry about incrimination that do not like their privacy invaded by the govenment.
 
Top