digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool - CNET News.com

news.com.com — Agency used novel surveillance technique on alleged Mafioso: activating his cell phone's microphone and then just listening.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JimMessenger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"...two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations."

    I'm sure they'll claim that those recordings are inadmissible because of attorney client privilege?
    • Nichevo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24You just know that this capability is in XP, Vista and Google too...

      Regarding rights, I am sure these men are "suspected terrorists" under the ever growing definition, they have no rights. Soon no one will.
    • JenadaeX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23sadly they can just patriot act them if they really want to...
    • XaNtHa, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Wow, what a crazy world we live in where people have to remotely activate cell phones to listen to conversations!?!?! This is pure B.S... What info do they except to get? Geez... I hope that the F.B.I finally comes to their senses and stops this pure crime.
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Jim: I suspect they would use the information from the bugging to catch them red-handed at something rather than for incriminating words.
    • Pile, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Good luck hearing much from my crappy cell phone mic (Treo)

    • monkeychewtoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@ XaNtHa
      "What info do they intend to get?"
      We're talking about the Mob here, so I'd guess... money laundering, murder, corporate fraud, embezzlement, perjury, bribing... should I go on? The NSA wiretapping innocent Americans was unacceptable, but the FBI wire(less)tapping a mobster's phone? That's what the FBI is freaking for, man.
    • jesushouston, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2JimMessenger,

      The atty-client privilege does not protect conversations in furtherance of a crime.
    • artofwar420, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Wire Tapping aint no secret, I see a bunch of public phones wiretapped near my downtown, it clearly says "taped by the U.S. govt." I'll post pics, when I go there again, it's near a Burger King.
    • badave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@artofwar

      Go take a pic of that sticker. I'm going to take that and put it on my work phones. Chaos will ensue, hopefully.
    • hriwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4artofwar, I think you will find that those stickers are "fake"

      http://www.crimethinc.com/a/cards/28_med.gif
    • sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Watch the interesting movie The Listening (Italian: In Ascolto), that is about this type of listening to active phones. Here's the imdb info: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427461/
    • mrFREEZE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5""What info do they intend to get?"
      We're talking about the Mob here, so I'd guess... money laundering, murder, corporate fraud....."

      Umm... the question still stands. Have you ever heard a connected guy on the phone? Sounds something like this:

      guy1: Hey, did you take care of that thing?
      guy2: The Jersey thing?
      guy1: No, the other thing; the Lamont thing.
      guy2: I got our fat friend to take care of it.
      guy1: Good.

      (end of conversation)
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sounds suspicious to me. "take care of" I shudder to think of what that means. You can tell it's the mob and if the FBI listens enough, what they're going to do. This is how they break terrorist communications.
    • ch33sehead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I read that as

      "Nextel cell phones owned two alleged mobsters"
    • jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@mrFREEZE - "Have you ever heard a connected guy on the phone?"

      So, I see you've watched The Sopranos.
    • mrFREEZE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1meh, i lived in staten island and left in 2000. haven't been back since. but whatever.
    • t3st3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your right to privacy no longer exists.You're assumed as terrorists by default.If this is what called democracy, I'm do not need it, thanks.

      Hey, big brother, hands off from my privacy, and do not hide your evil intentions under "child porn" and "terrorists" standard phrases.

      P.S. from tech point of view at least Nokia and Siemens can update firmware remotely.So nobody can hardly warrant you what exactly being uploaded to your phone.Nokia allows to operator to change phone settings remotely as well.So, your freedom to make decisions and privacy is history.Now corporations and big brother will make decisions instead of you.You can now safely shut down your brain: it it no longer needed.
    • t3st3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But please remember: FBI can easily listen at least all your mobile talks at wired part of cellular systems.So, there was never privacy in cell networks at all.
  • h3yrick, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Holy crap that's cool.

    Sounds like the attorney might be in hot water too. If he goes down all bets are off.
    • mrmontrose, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Not cool i love technology, but I fear privacy is dead. Consider the current administration, I wonder how often our government does this to "suspicious" people in this country with out anyone knowing.
    • theuber1337, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The NSA doing this to innocent Americans is unacceptable. The FBI doing it's *job* by tapping the mob and catching these criminals is a completely different subject. This is not new, bugging suspected criminals has been done as long as there was recorded tape.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@theuber

      Read the IVth amendment. Do you seriously think a warrant could be written for this kind of thing that actually meets the common sense reading of the IVth?
    • jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@williamdyer - Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment. What is the problem you find with the FBI, with probable cause, getting a warrant?

      "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."
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What part of "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." do you not understand?

      Does the warrant really describe "Everywhere this person goes?" Does is describe "every person they are near enough to hear?"

      Warrants like that are illegal *****. Everyone who has violated the Constitution while in a postion of power should be put on trial and then shot.
  • diggtard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Can't wait for this to be over used by Hollywood in Law & Order and shows like CSI.
    • XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I allready saw this used on CSI: NY about a month ago, and I am not sure that wasn't a rerun allready.

      Police have had the ability to turn on cell phones remotely for a long time, most people just don't know about it. Think about the good side: some emergency happens, someone calls 911 on their cell then it gets deactivated for wome reason, the police can reactivate it and get back in contact with the people in trouble.

      Everything can be used for good OR evil.
  • erotocrat, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19I wonder what would happen if someone were to do this to the President's cellphone and posted the conversation online. There would be calls for his resignation.
    • patrickbwells, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15What? You think that the President of the United States uses Sprint? Or maybe he has a prepaid tracphone.
    • dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Aren't there already people calling for his resignation?
    • bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You're watching way too much Prison Break
  • Frayed_Knot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's enough to turn one into a complete freakin’ Luddite.
    • lucaq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2me likey smash machiney
    • FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's enough to turn one into a complete freakin’ Luddite.
      by Frayed_Knot 2 hours ago

      Sadly, yes. This is why I use a pre-paid phone card, on a phone that was bought with cash. I'm actually really boring and don't do anything illegal, but the increasing loss of privacy nowadays just bugs the beejeeshus outta me. No, I DON'T want to live in a fishbowl, thanks.

      And to any who think this lack of privacy will only be used against suspected criminals, I say this. You are assuming that each and every government or corporate exployee who has access to your information is never petty, vindictive, malicious, unethical, undertrained, or unprofessional EVER.

    • nick123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2FushBuck, Consider this: The phone that you paid cash for, say at wal mart where they take a photo of every transaction (look up :-) )? the phone ID that is linked to that transaction with a timestamp and your photo that can then be linked to the video survailance with the same time stamp following you out to your car where your license plate is visible and can be checked against state records showing who you are, where you live....
  • Frayed_Knot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery;
    • Mambo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I imagine it wont be long until people start carrying modified phones that have a button to physically disconnect the battery when its not in use.
    • anonydigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"to physically disconnect the battery"
      better yet, the microphone.
    • Alex.w, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"better yet, the microphone"
      - What if they turn the camera on? My phone has two cameras now, front and back, they'd get a good look around my deck :P
  • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25This is 100% true. Also, the bugging software can be activated, and the bugging conducted over the mobile service provider's network without the service provider knowing it. This is a requirement of "Lawful Intercept" capability in mobile network equipment.

    Don't believe it? Read it for yourself: http://cryptome.org/3gpp-li-docs.htm

    How do you like your "land of the free" now?

    On top of the "secret" specs for this stuff are further layers of "double secret" specifications each equipment maker provides depending on to whom they are selling the network equipment.
  • Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Meh, old new about the cell phone thing. What I want to know is did the authorities have a warrant. Or is this another instance of the Unpatriot Act being used for means it was not meant for.
  • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3tumbleweed? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427461/
    if your paranoid remove the battery while not in use...
  • Flametndo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Why cant FBI give people some privacy?

    • monkeychewtoy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Not if those people are in the Mob, sorry.
    • theuber1337, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The ignorance in this one is astounding. It was the mob, it was a warranted bug, this is not new, this is not unethical.
    • flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Are you modders retarded? You think the FBI should give the mob privacy?
      Why even bother trying to track them at all?
    • Alex.w, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I think they should be left alone to do what they please, its not like they're hurting any one.
    • t3st3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) because they're bastards
      2) because they're serving government and government afraid too much you'll have something against it.
      3) because it is easier to be cheater than just do your work in lawful manner.
      4) because crime is easiest thing to do, doing job in lawful manner requires some real efforts to catch criminals.And FBI, police, ... are lazy enough :)

      Actually, FBI abuses their power so much that it become a bunch of criminals itself.As for me, I'm afraid and dislike them as much as terrorists and criminals.Law should be equal to anyone - there is no "god-like" humans even if they serve governments.Our ex-USSR KGB is bunch of suckers compared to FBI.
  • dstywho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Nextel phones are annoying enough with their walky talky. This is just one more reason not to get a nextel phone.
    • jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4don't want to be grammar nazi but the spelling is "walkie talkie"
  • inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4HOW IS THIS NOVEL? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST 20 years? The Feds always taps phones this way when they need more than just the phone calls. Just google "on-hook telephone tap" and you will half a million results showing you how to modify an ordinary phone to become a microphone after it's hung up. There's plenty of examples of doing this on cellphones too.
    • msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yeah, but with land lines, I could generally see if a phone was in the room, and could avoid it if I wanted. Now, anyone who has a cellphone (which is practically everyone, including myself), is carrying a potential wire for the feds. I have no issues with it when they had to get warrants to listen to people, but now that thats no longer the case, it's a concern.
    • ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You have to actually modify the phone. In this case it can be done remotely, without the phone even so much as turning on it's screen.
    • jfossboss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1gahhh, nevermind
  • m00dy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/20/world-tracker-turns-anyone-into-a-cellphone-spy/

    http://www.spycatcheronline.co.uk/index.php?cPath=52
  • m00dy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3oh yea and this is what I was looking for....

    http://www.global-security-solutions.com/GSMPassiveCellularInterceptor.htm
    • radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not the same thing. With that device you can spy on cellphoen conversations, but you can't turn on the microphone remotely, while the phone is off.
  • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Everyone calm down. The feds HAD a warrant. This is not a law change, just a equipment change. The people the were going after are mobsters (they murder people) It is great that we are able to take them down.

    If you are afraid of this happening to you, never do anything that justifies a warrant, and it wont happen.
    • Mambo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4As far as I know, his lawyer did nothing that justifies a warrant. He, however, did associate with people that might justify a warrant.

      This is actually pretty scary. Hang out with the wrong crowd, and your phone might be tapped to listen in on them.
    • cranium, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9The problem is, this administration (and probably future administrations) does not give a crap about warrants.
    • Archimboldo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3"The people the were going after are mobsters (they murder people) It is great that we are able to take them down."

      Tell that to the American Criminal Liberties Union. They're probably already planning their defense of the poor mobsters, assuming they're not too busy suing other people.
    • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Then maybe you shouldnt hang out with the wrong crowd
    • monkeychewtoy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@ Mambo
      Association with the Mob is something that justifies a warrant.
    • monkeychewtoy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Sorry, didn't edit fast enough.
      @Archimboldo
      The American Civil Liberties Union will in all likelihood not touch this case since it was completely legal, and has been for some time. The FBI has been using taps and informants to crack down on organized crime since before they officially recognized its existence. We're talking about an almost 90-year-old tradition at this point, and the ACLU hasn't contested it yet.

      Also, I can't wait until someone violates your civil liberties and you go crawling on your hands and knees, begging the ACLU to represent you.
      Okay, so that's a gross exaggeration of what may or may not happen, but still. Makes me happy.
  • thunderer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Just as long tool doesn't get passed off to homeland security...
  • EmailAddress, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wow.... i was listening to a talk show on XM and this caller, or maybe guest, mentioned that the government can listen in on you through your cell phone... even when it's OFF!
    I heard this a little more than a few months ago and I thought this dude was some nut case..... but it's true is seems :-x

    Switching to the more modern phones gets you the more modern bugs..... hmm.. Cingular wanting everyone to switch to GSM.....
    • t3st3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, phone has some parts powered ON even if it appears powered off.How it is possible it switched ON by just usual button?Phone has to handle keypress, power up other parts and go boot further.How you think alarm works when phone is off?So, with properly adapted firmware it still is possible to listen you even if phone appears to be off.
  • MannyHills, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I would wonder how much battery power it uses when its just being used as a wiretap. It still needs to send your entire end of the conversation so it would seem to use a lot. I would get suspicious if my phone battery all of a sudden lasts for less than half the time it did previously.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It would use about the same power as a phone call. Perhaps a bit less since the display is not powered up.
  • ChillyEli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If this technology is already implemented in cell phones, couldn't a hacker develop a system to do it also? Or is it carrier specific?
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is activated through the LI interface at the telephone network. The operator console for LI is in an FBI office.

      This CANNOT be detected by the telco's own technicians. So Nextel was in fact correct when they claimed not to know about this case of bugging.

      The typical design requirement for LI is to be able to intercept at least 1% of traffic. In most cases, the actual capacity is much higher.

      Comforting? No? Welcome to the soft cage, you wealthy comfortable sheep.
    • t3st3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is much more easier for officials and FBI but still not impossible.Most phones have heavy protections against their software modifications by hackers (actually just to prevent people from unlocking locked cell operators phones, not to ensure your security of course).However reasonably skilled hacker still has chances to bypass protections since nothing is perfect.Cell operator and FBI can just upload your phone with trojanized firmware remotely.And as long as it is "official" software, protection system will TRUST this software and will pass it.But will YOU TRUST to your phone?So, once again, security protects everything but not your ass...

      Actually, that's example of how trusted computing works.
  • johnpaul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's not clear to me how they "activated" the mic on the cell phone. Can they just do it to anybody's cell phone, or did they somehow have to intercept the actual phone and modify its components?

    The judge's opinion reads, "In a renewal application dated February 6, 2004, the
    government sought, and Judge Jones in due course granted, authority to
    install a roving bug in Peluso's cellular telephone."

    They got permission to INSTALL a device that allowed them to do this.

    Further, the opinion reads:

    "In January 2005, Peluso agreed to cooperate with the government's
    investigation. At that point the government removed the listening
    device in his cellular telephone and Peluso began recording
    conversations with family members consensually by wearing a
    microphone."

    Interesting. Technology offers some very democratizing effects, and some very troubling potential developments as well.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, they can do that to almost any cell phone.

      Remember how we all thought the government would NEVER listen in to our phone calls without a warrant?

      How do you know they are not listening in to our homes using our mobile phones?
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Where else in history can we look and see microphones in our homes that the government can listen into? Oh yeah, the Soviet Union.

      Look, this technology is bad. Its use in this case was apparently legit but the fact that we have technology around us that have these secret eavesdropping functions is a big problem. On*Star, Lojack, Cell phones, EZ-Pass toll systems are all great help to our lives but the double edge sword is that our government can use these against us and there isn't any recourse because they can just claim "national security" and get any challenge thrown out of court.
  • Phssthpok, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0@Archimboldo

    [[Tell that to the American Criminal Liberties Union. They're probably already planning their defense of the poor mobsters, assuming they're not too busy suing other people.]]

    or defending drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh!
  • drumguy12345, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The real question is, "how long until they use the cameras too?" who doesn't want millions of roaming security cameras...
    • wizgha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So that's my phone's battery has been draining quickly, recently.

      (Edit: I'm an idiot and I didn't read the next comment in line)
  • dys2k6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2you would think he would notice his battery draining quicker than usual.
  • mebob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Think how easily something like the could be miss used, or possibly exploited by others.

    I think it's all the more reason to move to no proprietary networks and open phones like the Green Phone. Not to say, it would necessarily eliminate it but it's definitely a good path for many reasons.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bad news: The nasty software is down in the TI SoC that runs the GSM stack on GreenPhone. Try getting an open source GSM stack. Ain't happening. If you want privacy, run Linux on a PDA and use encrypted VoIP.
  • cornfry182, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16As it clearly noted, it takes nothing more than a simple software push over the wireless network to the specified cellphone in order to silently activate the mic on the phone. It even said RAZR's and the like are especially susceptible. Gee, almost EVERYBODY I know has a RAZR... these damn cell-phone companies just seem to GIVE them away these days... get out your tin-foil hats guys....

    I'm sorry, but this just does NOT sit very well with me. I see a few comments about "I hope the FBI comes to their senses and stop this crime" etc etc. I think it's painfully clear that the FBI and other intelligence agencies are very much at the tip of their senses... They fully realize the power at their hands. And we now know Bush and his lackeys are doing this sort of thing behind the scenes without even the courts knowledge every single day --Who's to say this cellphone tapping isn't part of their program? Frankly, I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

    Also, take note that this is a little different from them tapping our landlines, which they've had the capability to do for years (though never legally without a court order, as they're doing now). At least when they're tapping our regular phones, it's only when you're on a phone conversation. As this article states, this cellphone thing allows them to hear our conversations even when we think our phone is off, when we're not even thinking about the possibility having our private conversations listened to.

    DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE HERE SEE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THIS AND THE IMPLICATIONS IT HAS ON OUR PRIVACY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE??????

    How long until we find out that M$ has set up the same type of system in their latest OS, to allow the feds access to anyone's computer, or that they're doing this with Onstar systems in peoples cars (which are, essentially, glorified cellphones operation on standard GSM networks), etc etc etc. I realize that the last sentence is HIGHLY, HIGHLY speculative. That is the point. Honestly, very very honestly, if you had seen a post yesterday claiming that the FBI was tapping our mics in our cellphones, and that everybody better watch out, but there was no CNET story behind it, there would have been a major flood of "F**K YOU TIN-FOIL ASSHAT CONSPIRACY THEORIST" messages all over the comments. Today, it's a different story. So lets think about the possibilities of the future, at least in passing. They're already doing this sort of thing with surveillance cameras and mics on the street in major cities across the country, and the world, which has seen plenty of mainstream coverage. Is all of this really necessary?

    Of course this is only for "terror prevention" *rolls eyes*

    PLEAAAAAAASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE before you digg this down, please read it carefully. I have not said ANYTHING that has not been a top story in mainstream news in the last few months, and anything speculative I have marked as speculation. This is NOT a conspiracy rant. It's simply my feeling on the implications of mainstream current events, and my fears of the possibilities associated with them based on the history of man abusing power. Nothing more, nothing less. Being an American, in this day and age, we are no strangers to our leaders ABUSING power. It's not really a stretch to worry about them being able to turn on our cellphone mics at will.

    Thanks
    • mrmontrose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When I see talk about our liberties being reduced because we are in a war with terrorism I am often reminded of a quote from one if our founding fathers Ben Franklin:

      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    • 60days, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not a linux/OSS fanatic by any means, but I seriously think this is where open-source software (and to some extent, hardware) will be needed most in the future. As increasing networks allow for greater top-down control and surveillance, they also allow for greater collaboration and bottom-up design and security. It's the only realistic way I can think of to balance the accelerating powers in the hands of the elites (governments, companies), or indeed for us to have any substantial expression of our will in these areas (since so many of the powers lie outside of our ability or 'right to know' and hence react democratically or economically).
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's why I refuse to get a cell phone. That and it's an unnecessary expense.
  • archemedes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I guess this means I should never talk out loud about the atomic bomb I'm building in my garage.
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Or anything at all because if the government decides you're a 'terrorist' they can lock you away for the rest of your life without any chance of a trial. Ah.. freedom never tasted so good.
  • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pfffft.....

    I've said for YEARS that you HOPE your phone is off when you hang up. The display is dark, the keypad is off, but who is to say it's actually off? Hell, I used to say the same about analog house phones. It's on the cradle, but the mic could still be active. Just takes a little hardware change.

    Now if I can only get my mom to activate Keylock - Her phone has called me from her purse a few times.
  • mitrebox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Although the article got it right; its title is wrong.

    If the microphone is active (and anyone is listening in) while the phone is not in a call (although still receiving/transmitting signal to the cell network) then the phone is bugged not tapped.
  • kurish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2WHY DO YOU THINK CELL PHONES HAVE BECOME SO CHEAP AND PERVASIVE
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3MAYBE IF YOU SHOUT, THEY WILL STOP LISTENING?
    • kurish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Hey, I thought it was a point worth trying to shout above the din, here on the butt end of a digg.
      • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You may have a great point but people don't really take it seriously when it's in all caps.
  • johnstar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I use a T-Mobile prepay 10 cents a minute anonymous! ***** anyone who thinks they can spy on me!
    • C0D3R, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If the T-Mobile prepay telephone is in your name, you are certainly spy-able.

      If the T-Mobile prepay telephone is not in your name, or is in a fictitious name, you have no legitimate expectation of privacy. In that case all of your telephone calls and the telephones location can be recorded at any time.

      That case is the same using fake ID to rent a hotel room. When doing so, you have no legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room. (See U.S. v. Cunag or California v. Leon)
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@C0D3R

      Yeah, that sounds like a free country. Would you send your kid off to war to defend a government as scummy as our's? Would you want your kid involved in enforcing laws as scummy as our's?
  • kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I bet more people will be turning off their cell phones when not in use after they hear this.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ahem. RTFA. And remember to remove the battery.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I bet more people will be removing the battery now. I will. As far as land lines? They don't have batteries...but why tap a land line, no one uses those anyway!
  • xhadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GSM phones are also vuneriable to this, While I was working for NATO in Germany we had our security guys do a demonstration of this explaining why we had to remove our batteries and turn in our phone whenever entering a securied area.

    I was stuned at how easy it was for them to do this however at the time (3 years ago) they had to be in pretty close proximity I guess this has changed now.
  • gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3READ: "The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him."

    This is for anyone who didn't read the article and feels like they have an obligation to post about something they know nothing about.
  • baugles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Good god, you people believe anything you read, don't you?

    Hahaha, if you think the mafia actually uses cell phones to communicate in this day and age... you're sorely mistaken. I mean, I'm sure they use em, but not for business.

    I bet the FBI didn't get ***** on em.

    Plus, if this was even true, I don't think they'd be reporting on it...
    • xhadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the tech is real. Everything else is what you want to believe. If you don't believe it then don't but do a little research on the tech... Heck Google it. Like I said above I have seen and heard it in action. Look at any company or government organization that has top secret security polices and you will find that they believe this to be true by making it mandatory that no cell phones are present in any Secret or Top Secret Meetings under and circumstances. If they believe it.... shouldn't you?
  • jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wow, you people that, because you don't like how you THINK the US fights terrorism isn't what we should be doing, think we shouldn't be fighting organized crime. And apparently, if you've seen an episode of The Sopranos you know how "connected" guys do business. And apparently, you're experts on how to build a case against organized crime bosses. You must think that there are legions of people sitting listening to everybody's phone and cell calls. GET A CLUE! And don't flatter yourselves ... nor water your time removing your cell phone battery. Nobody ... nobody cares about your calls. This is no different than bugging a land line, an office, or a car. If it's done with a warrant, as this was, it's legal, and it has been for years. Despite your paranoid fears of this Administration, you should feel safer that the good guys are out there investigating and prosecuting criminals. I haven't given up one bit of liberty. I deserve both liberty and safety. I count my blessings that I was lucky enough to be born in the US where I get both.
    • vguard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2There are no terrorist...it's all a hoax. You've been conned.

      Hope you enjoy goose stepping!
  • vguard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The FBI and the mob work for the same paymasters and play for the same team. Sure they have their public "disagreements", but it's all for show. Doing it to the Mob makes it more palatable to the general public. It's just a matter of time till it's OK for the Average Joe.

    Sadly, many of you seem to think this is "OK". Well, guess what? You've been scammed, yet again.
  • badapplestudio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Why do you people steal Slashdot headlines and go looney for hours...

    At least the discussions there have some intellectual merit...
    • Changa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
      I posted this before Slashdot did... How can we steal a headline from Slashdot before Slashdot?

      What I wanted to know about this story is how they did it.

      When my cellphone is transmitting it gets hot and the battery life goes down quickly.

  • ahagen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A frequent comment to this story has been "Cell phones have no backup battery."

    The following web site states that Nokia cell phones have a backup battery. It says it can be accessed by pressing *3370#.

    http://soundmoneytips.com/article/21457
  • shinon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O61YfvPZGJs
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.