Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept.

In a story that should interest anyone involved in on-line security the Canadian Press reports that:

The chief executive of a Vancouver-based company appeared in a Washington state court on Thursday in the first U.S. case in which a company has been targeted for providing criminal drug cartels with the technology to evade law enforcement, the U.S. Justice Department said.

Phantom Secure CEO Vincent Ramos was indicted, along with four of his associates, on charges related to providing criminal organizations with cellular phones and encrypted networks to coordinate the shipment of illegal drugs around the world.

"Phantom Secure allegedly provided a service designed to allow criminals the world over to evade law enforcement to traffic drugs and commit acts of violent crime without detection," said FBI Director Christopher Wray in a statement.

CNBC suggests that Phantom Secure was selling "hacked" BlackBerry and Samsung phones:

The people behind a company that hacked Samsung and BlackBerry phones to make them more secure, have been indicted for allegedly conspiring with drug cartels to help them evade law enforcement and sell narcotics.

Phantom Secure, a Canada-based firm, sold Samsung and BlackBerry devices that had been modified with a higher encryption. This made it difficult for the authorities to trace drug traffickers.

Phantom Secure's web site does say that:

We are a law-abiding company that is permitted to deliver encrypted communication services to our clients in order for them to protect their communications, without having the ability to decrypt their communications. Our service does not require personal information and has no back doors.

In providing such a service we do understand that there will be a very small number of people that may use our service to do activities we do not support. We do not condone the use of our service for any type of illegal activities and if known we will terminate the use of our service without notice. Considering this, requests for the contents of communications may arise from government agencies, which would require a valid search warrant from an agency with proper jurisdiction over Phantom Secure. However, our response to such requests will be the content and identity of our clients are not stored on our server and that the content is encrypted data, which is indecipherable.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:06AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:06AM (#654003)

    The crypto wars are still on, and it's still a battle of the (potentially) opressed against the (potential) opressors. The first (two-fronted) battle was availability. The second battle was usability. The third, current, battle is broad acceptance.

    This incident is a fallback to the first war, by people who didn't get the notice that they lost.

    Lest you forget: even though it is incomprehensible to many of us here, most(!) people will gladly trade stability over freedom. The Romans called it "Bread and Circuses", and they were very capable judges of human behaviour.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:40AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:40AM (#654007)

    Same AC here:

    This reads like an actual drug case, not a crypto case.

    After having read the affidavit (a sworn statement by an FBI agent - decide yourself whether he's manufacturing evidence) here's the central points:
    1. Phantom Secure has extremely good tradecraft, and it's customers are no dummies either (which is legal...)
    2. Law enforcement across several nations has not yet identified a single customer *not* being associated with drug trafficking (which could be simple incompetence, sampling bias, randomness, ...)
    3. Phantom devices have been used for actual drug trafficking (which was foreseen as possible in the company's mission statement and is always a problem with secure communications)
    4. The accused *was told personally* by an undercover agent in very explicit terms that drug stuff would be taking place over the phones

    Points 1-3 are usually spun into a classic crypto-wars argument ... but not this time. The CEO was acutely, personally aware that he was helping drug runners (while not being aware they really were undercover agents) in at least one case.

    So in my opinion they are busting him with all due justification. Police have been doing there work in exactly the way which we regularly demand around here: good, old-fashioned investigation.

    I applaud the police for their work, keep it up, keep us safe! Thank you!

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:08PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:08PM (#654029)

      Points 1-3 are usually spun into a classic crypto-wars argument ... but not this time. The CEO was acutely, personally aware that he was helping drug runners (while not being aware they really were undercover agents) in at least one case.

      In that case, I'd like to ask if every gun manufacturer should be held liable for crimes committed with their guns. After all, they are also personally aware that they are helping criminals. How about crowbar manufacturers? Or Tor developers and liability for the dark web?

      Being aware that your products are being used by criminals should not be enough for liability. If the company was actively working with drug cartels, promoting their products as tools for criminals, or had specific knowledge that a particular sale will be used for crime, it's a different story.

      4. The accused *was told personally* by an undercover agent in very explicit terms that drug stuff would be taking place over the phones

      Here's where that "specific knowledge" part comes into play. Was the statement believable, or was it something like "duuude, I'm totally using this to sell drugs, it's wicked"? And how did he respond?
      A) "Great, keep up the good work, here's your phones."
      B) "We do not condone our product being used for crime."
      If he was told that phones were going to be used for crime, believed it, and still sold them to be used like that, prosecute the bastard. Is that what (allegedly) happened?

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:57PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:57PM (#654061) Journal

        Gun dealers *can be* held liable for murder. You run a gun shop or pawn shop in an inner city ghetto. Dude stumbles into your shop, and hollers, "I gotta kill some sumbitch - gimme something cheap, and something deadly!" And, you proceed to sell him a cheap, lethal weapon for the express purpose of killing someone.

        Forget about all the guns laws. Forget those laws that make sense, as well as those laws that are nonsense. You have just aided and abetted a murder. Your ass is grass, and the cops are the lawn mower.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:45PM (#654102)

        Here's where that "specific knowledge" part comes into play. Was the statement believable, or was it something like "duuude, I'm totally using this to sell drugs, it's wicked"? And how did he respond?
        A) "Great, keep up the good work, here's your phones."
        B) "We do not condone our product being used for crime."
        If he was told that phones were going to be used for crime, believed it, and still sold them to be used like that, prosecute the bastard. Is that what (allegedly) happened?

        From the Affidavit, section 25: RCMP undercover officer who'd been posing as drug dealer, and asking Phantom Secure personnel to delete evidence on a seized device after "learning" the police had arrested the owner. This section doesn't look very good for the specific knowledge defence. Quoting Directly from the Affidavit:

        RCMP: “So he picked up the load (of drugs) and I think he’s been arrested and I need, there's a lot of evidence and fuckin' shit on my Blackberry"
        Phantom Secure; "Yeah"
        RCMP: "I need that evidence gone, ASAP."
        PS;"You wanna wipe both of them?
        RCMP; "Yes"
        PS: "Okay then"

        Annoyingly the PDF is just a text scan, so I had to retype it, but you get the gist.

        Full thing here: https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/03/13/vincent-ramos-arrest.pdf [regmedia.co.uk]

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:51AM (1 child)

    by Bot (3902) on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:51AM (#654011) Journal

    I dunno if this is a win for the enemies of crypto.

    I mean, crypto did not prevent a police op to jail baddies. That is, you can permit crypto and operate in the real domain, where crimes actually happen.

    Sure, crypto enables criminals. So does money and banks, and weapons, and politics, and lawyers. So, apart killing all lawyers which is a no brainer, what else shall we ban?

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:11PM (#654067)

      Independent discussion forums obviously only harbor terrorists. Otherwise the users would be on Twatter and Failbook like fair, honorable folk.

  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 19 2018, @03:42PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday March 19 2018, @03:42PM (#654954) Journal

    Which is why the Roman Empire still exists, eh?

    Sorry, that was too easy and inaccurate. But if you buy into Maslow's hierarchy of needs [wikipedia.org], the need for food is physiological and primary. The circuses element is trickier, but it might fit into social belonging, or a sense of safety (See, you can be entertained so you're safe!) In any event, where does a desire for freedom fit on that scale? Unless you can convince someone it's better to starve and be free, or be bored and free, only those who have been fed will want freedom.

    --
    This sig for rent.