FBI using cell phone microphones to eavesdrop

By Eric Bangeman | Published: December 03, 2006 - 11:15PM CT 
 
Cell phones are capable of providing more information about us and our whereabouts than we usually realize. We familiar with the ability of cell phones to be used to track users' locations, but now the FBI has begun using them for eavesdropping—even when they are turned off.
 
US intelligence official: You get privacy when your definition matches ours 

The FBI's activities came to light in the course of the prosecution of two alleged members of the Genovese crime family. John Ardito and Peter Peluso had their Sprint Nextel phones tapped by the FBI in the course of their investigations, which itself is not unusual. The government went a step further in their case: not only were their phone calls recordded, but so were all conversations carried out in the presence of the defendants' cell phones.
 
US District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled last week that such "roving bugs" were legal under US wiretap laws. Investigators had asked for judicial approval for a roving bug during their investigation because the meetings allegedly conducted by the defendants took place in 12 different restaurants, in automobiles, on a boat, and a number of other places. Given the degree of difficulty involved in bugging the numerous locations, another federal judge overseeing the case approved the roving bug.
 
In his memorandum opinion, Judge Kaplan described the roving bug as a "listening device" installed in the defendants' cellular phones that functioned regardless of whether the phone was powered on. Many models of cellular phones, however, can have their microphones remotely activated via a download—even without the knowledge of the owners. That could be what happened with Ardito and Peluso's cell phones. It is also possible that the FBI installed a bug directly on the phones.
 
[B]We have known for some time that anyone carrying a powered-on cell phone can have their physical location easily tracked. Last year, a federal judge ruled that the government could use that ability to track US residents with minimal judicial oversight. Now we are reminded that carrying a cell phone enables the government—and others—[U]to listen to your conversations, even when you're not using your phone[/U]. [/B]
 
:thelaw: [B] wow![/B]

A speculation article. No factual evidence. Em, you take this stuff WAY to seriously sometimes. Where do you get your information from? 
 
"It CAN be turned on, via a download....They MAY have used this, but they could have tapped it...etc etc"

only n***a still hittin licks of his pager...
 
the only thing more rediculous than thinking this doesn't happen is to think that it just started. when i was in the streets i used to tell cats don't f**k with the nextel, but now everythings got gps. everything is tapped, somebodies always watching...

Its amazing how much of this "nonsense" is true.

Il keep the storys to myself.


Just becareful what you say over the phone and internet. Someone is watching everything, were in America so im not surprised shit like this is being used.

Do you even realize WHO they were phone tapping? The Genovese crime family. Are any of you part of Cossa Nostra? If not, then don't worry about it. If you are, then yeah, be skeptical. Are you doing anything that's going to get you tapped? Probably not. If you aren't a crime figure, a BIG ONE at that, you probably won't. 
 
Again, look at the quotation of the 'us intel official' It's not even a quote. No name given, that's a bold statement for the CIA to be throwing out there. 
 
Like I said, you are taking this too literal. Emerald, where was this even posted?
 
Also, about the whole 'watch what you say on the internet'. You know what I love about the internet? The anonymity of it. There is NO WAY to prove that I wrote this. Not unless very monitor is tapped with a camera, showing my face, and my fingers, typing these very words. Just because an IP address is linked to me, does not mean I was the one typing what was being said. Prove that in court. 
 
This 'article' was also 'published' about a year ago...so, if anything, they have even better taps now. Good luck hiding from the government watching you. You better just sell all your assets, take that money, and go live in the mountains, where no one will be able to find you.

u missed the point...its not about WHO (they bugged), its the fact that they CAN.  Im a huge privacy advocate. 
 
[URL]http://arstechnica.com[/URL] 
 
[I]In Regards to the internet....[/I]
 
[B]US intel chief wants carte blanche to peep all 'Net traffic[/B]
By Julian Sanchez | Published: January 17, 2008 - 06:40AM CT 
 
In a long profile published by The New Yorker this week (not yet online, but there's an audio interview with the profile's author at The New Yorker's site), Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell discusses a plan in the works to dramatically expand online surveillance. [B]As The Wall Street Journal sums it up, "in order to accomplish his plan, the government must have the ability to read all the information crossing the Internet in the United States in order to protect it from abuse." [/B]

The unfinished CyberSecurity initiative is in large part aimed at blocking attempts to attack the US' information infrastructure. "If the 9/11 perpetrators had focused on a single U.S. bank through cyber-attack and it had been successful," McConnell reportedly told the president and cabinet officers last spring, "it would have an order of magnitude greater impact on the US economy." 
 
While short on specifics, the New Yorker piece recognizes that any plan requiring the kind of authority McConnell envisions is apt to be a hard sell: "Americans will have to trust the government not to abuse the authority it must have in order to protect our networks, and yet, historically the government has not proved worthy of that trust." McConnell acknowledges that his initiative is bound to spark debate that will make recent wrangling over reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act seem like "a walk in the park compared to this." 
 
How broad are the powers needed to keep our servers safe? [B]According to the article, in order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'" [/B]
 
Sayings like that, says security guru Bruce Schneier, "are why the police aren't in charge; security and privacy are complimentary. Privacy is part of our security against government abuse. If they were really zero-sum, we would have seen mass immigration into East Germany." 
 
 
It is also worth wondering why such extensive authority is supposed to be necessary. Google may indeed "have records that could help in a cyber-investigation." So might a suspect's employer or school; we typically manage to acquire those records by means of warrants. It is not especially comforting in this context that the article in several pieces—including in the dubious anecdote that opens the piece—repeats without question the notion that a decision by the secretive FISA court last year imposed a requirement that a warrant be obtained before intelligence offers can look at any communications flowing through US switches, including those that both originate and terminate abroad. 
That would have constituted a massive change in the longstanding rules governing wiretaps, and it is nearly impossible to imagine how any court could reconcile such a demand with the wording of the FISA statute. But since the court declined to release the ruling in question, which concerned a modified, court-supervised version of the controversial warrantless wiretap program created after the terror attacks of 2001, it is impossible to know precisely what barriers to surveillance it raises. It is clear, however, that the sweeping Protect America Act passed as a response to the ruling went far beyond "fixing" the putative problem, significantly expanding government's capacity to surveil with minimal judicial oversight. 
 
The claim that "cyber-security" demands handing over such expansive authority looks like similar overreach. On the prevention side, it is not clear why the NSA is better equipped to handle attacks than the large financial institutions terrorists would target, which surely have ample incentive and adequate resources to secure their networks. And law enforcement has thus far been managing to conduct investigation into and prosecution of computer crime under existing rules. 
 
Even members of Congress don't appear to be getting a much more adequate explanation of which powers will be necessary for which reasons. The Journal cites Congressional aides reporting that legislators had learned more from media reports than from secret briefings on the initiative. Perhaps the hope is that lawmakers will cede whatever authority is requested, so long as it involves that confusing "series of tubes."

Now, the internet, and phone tapping, are two different things we're talking about. It's apples and oranges. 

Phone tapping has been around about as long as phones have been around. You used to have the operator 'tap into' someone's line, to call them. 

It's not that I didn't realize that it's not about who were tapping, or what they were  doing, but really, did you not think that it was possible to tap a cellphone? I'm sure it's been around a bit longer than this article even. 

Either way, I think you guys still might be over reacting, it's not like they are tapping everybody's phones. It would take too much manpower to be able to control the overseeing of the conversations to be able to do this. Even computers wouldn't be able to keep up due to differences in dialect alone, let alone the many MANY languages/dialects of languages, and spin offs of those. As soon as others were to find out about this other tapping form, i'm pretty sure you just have to come up with 'codes' for whatever you need to talk about if you were to need to use code language. 

The way I see it, is if you don't like the freedom you have in this country, gtfo. because you could be in a WAY worse situation right now.

GTFO? I pay for this shit. My contributions to the economy[SIZE=7] [B][U]far exceeds[/U][/B][/SIZE] the average person (as a military family and financial responsibilities based on income) and I resent [B]anyone[/B] calling for another American to GTFO. because they dont have valid points to back their statements. 
 
It's my job and responsibility as an American citizen to make sure the constitution is upheld with checks and balances in their proper places. yet, there are those who think its  your right to live free...but dont want to fight for it.  even worse are those who act as sheep.....
 
Its funny how people always say "Its the next guys problem/issue" when something doesnt effect them YET....they'll wake up one morning and not recognize the place they fell asleep in. 
 
Its NOT apples and oranges. Thats not the society that we live in anymore.
 
The point of the thread was about the ways a cell phone could be tapped. Having your cell microphone turned on is scary.....If they can do it, anyone can figure out how to do it.

You're right. That can be some scary stuff. BUT, like I said, as of right now, this situation could be way worse, living in a country with far worse standards, and making penny's compared to dollars, worrying if you will survive the next day.

Also, like I have previously stated, there is no actual evidence to back it up, as far as the phone tapping turning on through microphone thing.

Another point, that I have made, is that they probably have already moved on to the next thing, that's already one upped (so to speak) this phone tapping. 

After that, the internet thing, I have read in a couple other articles, like on msnbc.net etc, have stated that the internet 'watching' that they want to do has been shut down time and time again. Lawmakers have seen that this is TOO much into privacy. Shoot, we can do pretty much anything and everything online now. 


again, back to the wire tapping thing. it's not WHAT they can do, but IF they can do it. Legally.

[B] [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070921-telcos-seek-wiretapping-immunity-as-legal-pressure-mounts.html"]Telcos seek wiretapping immunity as legal pressure mounts[/URL][/B]

                         By [URL="http://arstechnica.com/authors.ars/binarybits"]Timothy B. Lee[/URL]                          | Published: September 21, 2007 - 10:13AM CT                         
                                                                                                                 Always eager to lighten the load of overworked bureaucrats, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has [URL="http://action.eff.org/site/DocServer/fcc_martin_letter.pdf"]volunteered its services[/URL] to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. In a Wednesday letter, EFF legal director Cindy Cohn urged Martin to heed Rep. Ed Markey's request for an investigation into alleged lawbreaking by the nation's largest telecommunications carriers. Noting that EFF has been deeply involved in the controversy from its outset, Cohn offered to assist Martin in investigating the allegations. 


  As we [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070913-fbi-accused-of-using-illegal-letters-for-illegal-information-requests.html"]reported[/URL] last week, Markey has been urging Martin to act for more than a year. Thus far, Martin has declined to launch an investigation, citing the risk that it could reveal state secrets. But in her letter, Cohn notes several recent developments that undercut those concerns. Administration officials have made several [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070823-what-state-secrets-national-intelligence-director-cops-to-spying-program.html"]on-the-record statements[/URL] confirming the existence of a domestic surveillance program and the involvement of major communications firms. And recent [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070727-federal-judge-allows-nsa-wiretapping-investigations-to-continue.html"]court decisions[/URL] have confirmed that the state secrets privilege does not preclude investigations by regulatory bodies. 
  The list of allegations continues to lengthen. There are now [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060908-7693.html"]several[/URL] [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070817-appeals-court-judges-scrutinize-bush-administrations-wiretap-arguments.html"]lawsuits[/URL] under way concerning the NSA's domestic spying program. In addition, [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070913-fbi-accused-of-using-illegal-letters-for-illegal-information-requests.html"]recent revelations[/URL] have suggested that major carriers turned over customer data in response to the FBI's "exigent letters" despite the fact that those letters are not authorized by statute. Cohn notes that EFF's intimate involvement in both of those controversies makes the organization ideally situated to help the FCC begin an inquiry. 
 Cohn quotes section 222 of the Communications Act, which says that telecommunications carriers may not "use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information" except as required by law. It appears that neither the NSA's domestic spying program nor the FBI's "exigent letters" were authorized by statute, suggesting that AT&T, Verizon, and other communications providers broke the law if they provided information to the government in response to such requests. 
 In his answer to Markey's initial letter last year, Martin argued that "the classified nature of the NSA's activities" precluded an FCC investigation. But in Wednesday's letter, Cohn emphasized that the FCC wouldn't need to probe the details of the NSA or FBI's activities; merely disclosing subscriber information to the government violates the law, regardless of what the government subsequently does with it. 
 In an ideal world, the FCC would make it a high priority to investigate allegations of repeated lawbreaking by companies under its regulatory authority. But it seems unlikely that Martin, a Republican who has already seen his share of controversy, will wade into an issue that could be both politically explosive and embarrassing to some members of his own party. Rather, the best hope for meaningful oversight lies with Democrats in Congress and with the courts. 
 [B]Telcos launch lobbying campaign[/B]

  Meanwhile, [I]Newsweek[/I] [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20884696/site/newsweek/page/0/"]reports[/URL] that large telecommunications carriers have launched an aggressive lobbying effort for a "get out of jail free" card. The Ninth Circuit [URL="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070817-appeals-court-judges-scrutinize-bush-administrations-wiretap-arguments.html"]heard arguments[/URL] last month about whether lawsuits against AT&T could go forward, and the court could hand down its ruling at any time. The judges hearing the case seemed skeptical of the government's argument that the state secrets privilege required that the lawsuits be dismissed at the outset. AT&T officials are afraid that an adverse ruling could put them on the hook for billions of dollars in damages. 
 The telcos' lobbying efforts are supported by intelligence officials in the Bush administration, who argue that without retroactive immunity, communications companies will be unable to participate in surveillance programs that are essential to national security. "It's not an exaggeration to say the U.S. intelligence community is in a near-panic about this," one communications industry lawyer told [I]Newsweek[/I]. 
  In Congressional hearings on Tuesday, assistant attorney general for national security Kenneth Wainstein argued that it's "fundamentally unfair" that a company providing information to the government "face tremendously costly litigation and maybe even crushing liability for having helped the United States government in a time of need." 
 But that seems backwards. If the laws now on the books impede activities that are necessary to protect national security, the Bush administration should have approached Congress with a request to change the law. The Bush administration and the telecommunications carriers seem to be admitting that instead, they simply ignored any laws they found inconvenient. If Congress now enacts legislation giving telcos blanket immunity for their past actions, the companies will have even less reason to comply with the law in the future. If Congress wants the law to have teeth, it cannot give companies a free pass for past lawbreaking.









Be worried about when they get that permission to use it freely. Not that they can do it. 




This is the reason WHY we have laws, that protect our privacy, and why they aren't already tapping everybody's phone already. 




Go vote on more privacy laws, shoot, get in to legislature and draft bills and try to make them laws, giving us more privacy. You are in America, you are an American, go do it. It's your right. Don't sit here and cluck when you could be laying the eggs.

Another little note, remember, the media likes to spice things up a bit. Don't trust everything you read, and the associated press is there for a reason. Any joe schmoe can write an article and 'publish' it on the net.

Guess I better get my tinfoil hat on.

There is speculation that remote microphone activation is plausible on certain models of cellular phones. Ooh terrifying. Exactly what the average person has to worry about.
Besides, even if it happened, I know nobody would be able to hear a thing I'm saying if I tried talking to someone with my phone in my pocket. Pretty much only hip-clip wearers and hands free people are affected. Worrisome for them I guess, but it's still a reduction of the population who could plausibly be affected.

Also, I'm willing to be there are hackers who figured it out just for fun [i]before[/i] the FBI. For this sort of thing I'm always skeptical, because the FBI has a staff who does what they get paid to do, the rest of the country has citizens who do what they feel like.

Anyways, I'll be sure to start discussing my plans for terrorist activity by passing notes now.

I certainly hope you arent refering to me as clucking and not laying eggs. Dont get this 'DriftGirl/MsEmerald' Internet shit twisted. I dont make posts about what im doing or have done, but I assure you that I stay active within our local political community and charities. Im not a 'Talker'.
 
If you want to debate on what it means and takes or what we've done to make America better, I welcome it ;) 
 
Its not about wearing tin foil hats, There are jus people who will go thru life with blinders on and assume that their best interest are always being fought for....when sometimes it just isnt the case.
 
the argument that 'you could live in a worse country' doesnt excuse the fact that we need to continually work on ours. People have sat with this attitude for years and the rest world is catching up....fast.
 
My Mom is over seas and wants to take a trip to visit the taj mahal. I told her to make sure they get their currence converted because they dont take US money anymore because our economy is so weak....thats the new America we live in. 
 
We live in times where its cool to have a 50k car...and not a home. :pat: 
 
so yeah, those 'words' dont hold the same weight as they used to. 
 
 
I post articles about laws in poor communities and privacy concerns. Most people dont care what happens in those communities( Im hella far from broke BTW :D ) but its where laws are being formed....without a fight or concern by those who think it doesnt affect them.
 
the point of this orig thread was the WAY it could be tapped....by anyone. Thats why the last paragraoh is in [B]bold[/B]

Don't take the clucking comment personally. Didn't mean it towards you in that way, just more of an analogy, of doing instead of talking. It was in no way a slight against you. Once you start 'abusing' another person, you've lost the argument. 

Why don't you post up this stuff on CL? There are WAY more people that would be able to contribute to an argument such as this. 

I mean, this is controversial stuff, and I now see what you are trying to get at, but I think I took this as another 'OMG look what the government is trying to do' thread, rather than 'hey if they can do this, i wonder who else can' ya know?