Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wants to know if cell-site simulators, also known as Stingrays, have the potential to interfere with mobile communications, and he's asked the FCC to share any research it has done into the matter. In a letter sent to Chairman Ajit Pai today, Wyden asked what steps the agency had taken to ensure the devices -- which track mobile devices by mimicking cell towers -- don't interfere with the communications of targeted and non-targeted devices or calls to 911, specifically. "The FCC has an obligation to ensure that surveillance technology which it certifies does not interfere with emergency services or the mobile communications of innocent Americans who are in the same neighborhood where law enforcement is using a cell-site simulator," he wrote.
Wyden asks for information about any testing conducted by or required by the FCC regarding the disruption of communications and if no tests have been performed, he wants to know why. Along with 911 call interference, he also asks about the potential disruption of wireless internet access, effects on the battery life of mobile devices as well as interference with Real Time Texting devices, hearing aids, cochlear implants and Wireless Emergency Alerts.
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security informed Wyden that it found what appeared to be Stingrays in Washington DC, though the agency failed to say how many they found evidence of, who might be operating them or why. In his letter to Pai, Wyden said that DHS also told him that it doesn't conduct any tests of the cell-site simulators it uses, nor does it fund outside testing of communication interference. He added that the Department of Justice refused to provide any publicly accessible information on the matter.
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/26/senator-fcc-stingray-interfere-911-calls/
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 27 2018, @05:46PM (3 children)
Does the use of stingrays interfere with the conscience of a moral person? Of course it does.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @06:49PM
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" It was a shout of pleasure, one which echoed loudly throughout the room and rendered all who heard it speechless. There was but one person present in the room from which the sound originated: A man named Timham. Naturally, Timham had been the one who had shouted. But why? A boy.
A naked little boy was lying down on his stomach. What's more, bruises and fresh blood covered the child's body, and his anus was wide open as though it had been violated just moments ago. However, that was not the true reason that Timham had shouted in pleasure; the true reason lied in what was within the boy's anus. They squirmed, they wriggled, and they violated. Pinworms.
The little boy had numerous pinworms squirming all over and within his anus. This discovery greatly excited Timham, who was a big fan of pinworms. The man was such a fan of them, in fact, that he was slurping them up directly from the boy's anus as though they were spaghetti noodles. "Hollops yuiped!" Timham screamed in delight. The elated man continued to feast for hours and hours, his ravenous hunger never being satisfied...
The boy would later die from his grievous wounds and rot away, but the pinworms would be with Timham forever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:32PM (1 child)
Overseeing moral is not the FCC's job.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:12PM
That was not the question that I asked. Would you care to try again? Are you acquainted with morality? A simple yes or no will suffice, for the present.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday June 27 2018, @06:15PM
FCC response: "We'll have to get back to you on that"
We anticipate having an answer within one quarter of a galactic rotation. Thank you for your patience.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @07:09PM (4 children)
I'm not sure who else pays attention, but Senator Wyden really has my respect for technology. I have yet to hear a single position he has which I disagree with. That's not to say there are none, but the 10-ish things he's taken a stand on that I've heard about I am in complete agreement with.
He's probably the only politician who, if he said "___ is a good thing" or "___ is a bad thing" in contradiction to what I thought, it would seriously cause me to investigate further and figure out if he's correct or incorrect.
The next time people say "all politicians are all the same, throw up your hands and give up," remember that people like Wyden exist. Democrats and Republicans are not all the same... (Moreover not all Democrats and not all Republicans are the same, either.)
Disclaimer: I actually think that this is political posturing, and purely an anti-Stingray thing. The Democrats are very not-in-charge right now, and moreover, this is a "National Security" issue so any tests or things wouldn't be open for public discussion anyway. That being said, the things a person postures about are not 100% meaningless, either.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday June 27 2018, @07:17PM
I've noticed and I'm sure other Soylentils have:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:soylentnews.org+wyden&cad=h [google.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:28PM (2 children)
I read the headline, and immediately my brain went to "haha, crazy old man, he thinks the interwebs is tubes." Then I read a bit further and, oh, this guy actually gets it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @11:20AM (1 child)
But why would the headline "Senator Asks FCC If Stingrays Can Interfere With 911 Calls" make you think he was a crazy old man, unless you're one of those who are out of touch with technology yourself...
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday June 30 2018, @03:37PM
Because, given senators' previous track records on these things, it would not be entirely ridiculous to a) leap to that conclusion before even reaching the word "stingrays" and b) assume that it was a question about actual stingrays.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday June 27 2018, @07:11PM (16 children)
It's akin to Wiretapping or putting listening devices in your house. There really needs to be a warrant for the specific person and only their information should be gathered. Anything else is invasion of privacy.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 27 2018, @07:39PM (13 children)
I'd go the other way. It's more like listening to the neighbors while they're screaming so loud you can hear it from your bedroom. If you're broadcasting a signal to everyone in the vicinity, you've gotta expect someone might hear it. If you need it to be private, you need to invest in the proper infrastructure and architecture to encrypt and secure that transmission. Instead of merely asserting that one specific group of people isn't allowed to listen, how about holding the providers liable for any and all damages caused by lax security practices? With punitive fines applied such that implementing better security would generally be the cheaper option. Then we get secured not just against law-abiding federal agents, but also against criminals as well as less trustworthy feds (although I suppose that's a bit redundant).
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:36PM (2 children)
Unfortunately it's been firmly established that that is not the way it works. Satellite broadcasters beam their programs through my property 24/7 but if I intercept them without permission I'm still a criminal.
Good for the goose; good for the gander.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:47PM (1 child)
I bet the satellite broadcaster's signal is encrypted.
The Goose and the Gander have compatible ports so that no special adapters or dongles are required for compatibility.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Arik on Wednesday June 27 2018, @10:07PM
All broadcasts are encoded in some form or another, doesn't mean I can't easily read most of them if I want to.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:46PM (3 children)
That sounds nice if you're thinking is stuck in the analog era of an AM or even FM modulated signal on a carrier wave.
GSM and no doubt LTE are far more sophisticated that that. The transmission in both directions is digital. Encrypted. Assigned to a specific frequency and time slot that constantly changes according to information known to both the base station (eg tower) and mobile set (eg, cell phone).
In other words, it is no small task indeed to attempt to isolate, capture and listen to a particular person. Even with a warrant.
The mobile sets only talk to base stations that it is authorized to talk to. Prioritizing base stations based on economic cost. (eg, An AT&T phone will prefer an AT&T base station, unless it must roam and use another carrier's tower -- in which case which one is the cheapest to connect to right now.)
A Stingray must jump through an enormous amount of hoops to trick a mobile phone into connecting to it.
I have offered two theories on SN before (multiple times) that this works either by:
1. using stolen crypto keys / credentials
2. using knowledge of some vulnerability in how this sophisticated system works
In either case, if the "secret sauce" of Stingray were known then every teenager would have a Stingray -- and the credentials would be revoked / changed. In the case of (2) it may take years to move everything to a newer version of a protocol that does not have the vulnerability. The reason I believe either (1) or (2) are the case is because of the EXTREME secrecy of Stingray. At first, they wouldn't even admit it existed. The mere mention of it in court would be enough to not prosecute and let the accused go free. Later is was parallel construction to avoid bringing up Stingray in court. (Parallel Construction: a euphemism for a conspiracy to commit perjury before the court by lying about what the actual evidence was and how the investigation was conducted, denying the defendant crucial evidence.)
The SIM card contains tamper proof private keys so that the SIM can sign something to prove to the base station that this really is the actual SIM given to the authorized account holder / service subscriber. The SIM is no doubt involved in working with the base station to establish a session key for encryption of this particular call or transaction with the base station.
"Broadcasting" and "Listening to a broadcast" are so far removed from the reality that it is just wrong.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @11:37AM (2 children)
I dunno why you got modded so high for posting so much bullshit and misinformation.
What the Stingray does is it pretends to be a much closer cellular tower (your "base station"). So your phone connects to it in preference to other towers.
From then on the comms aren't encrypted. The encryption if any is between the phone and the tower. It's not like you're getting endpoint to endpoint encryption by default.
So all your texts are plaintext to the Telco (or the FBI/etc pretending to be the Telco), similar for your voice.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:15PM (1 child)
I would be glad of you correcting any misinformation. Especially my two THEORIES on why the extreme secrecy behind Stingray such that entire prosecutions are flat dropped. That Everyone who even hears about Stingray has to sign extreme NDAs, etc. Please enlighten.
That one single sentence which I quoted, can EASILY be interpreted to suggest that anyone can casually listen in on a cell phone conversation, or pluck text messages out of the air. If that is so easy, then please do explain.
Your message I am replying to seems to concede that there is at least encryption to the base station (eg, Stingray). But you don't refute the sophistication it would require to implement the various layers of protocols including management and assignment of which frequency and time slot the next packet should be sent in. Every packet changes frequency and time slot. Thus both the base and mobile must be very frequency agile, re-tuning to a different "channel" constantly.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @08:29AM
A cellphone tower has to do the exact same "sophisticated" thing. There no need to "jump through an enormous amount of hoops" - if your "tower" aka stingray is "nearer" the phone will connect to your tower.
There's no end-to-end encryption. After the tower/"tower" the telco (or your fake) has the plaintext. Where they can do stuff like: https://www.gl.com/trauemulation.html [gl.com]
I'll give you your point 2 about "knowledge of some vulnerability", there might be exploits that could convince more phones to stop using their current station ASAP and so reconnect to the "nearest" station (your stingray). BUT it's not 100% necessary if you're willing to breach regulations to make your "tower" look "nearer".
The stingray has to be a tower at one end and be multiple phones when talking to a real tower. But that's not really a huge problem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 27 2018, @08:47PM (1 child)
There IS an encryption layer, Stingrays specifically subvert this.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:17PM
Exactly. And HOW it is done is very sophisticated. The fact of the extreme secrecy surrounding stingray suggests that either a vulnerability/exploit or stolen credentials / keys are part of the magic of stingray.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Wednesday June 27 2018, @11:14PM
Well, yes, if the neighbors are screaming in code from their shared secret codebook, except that stingrays are not listening to a conversation in the eavesdropping sense; they are impersonating cell towers and saying "Hello, I am $your_carrier, what do you have for me, whom you can totally trust?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:31AM (2 children)
Actually, no. Stingray is not a passive listener. It has to become part of the connection in order to listen in. It actively tricks cellphones into connecting through it. So it's more like you hooked the neighbor's phone line up to a line simulator and quickly patch their calls in to the real network so they don't notice, then listen in.
But since stingray is also indiscriminate, it's like you did that to every phone in the neighborhood.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday June 28 2018, @08:01PM (1 child)
Which an individual would spend a very long time in prison for doing.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Friday June 29 2018, @07:06AM
Exactly. That brings up a great criterion. If a private citizen would go to jail for doing it, a warrant is required.
Further, the stingray must not even display information for any person not named specifically in the warrant, including indicating their presence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rigrig on Wednesday June 27 2018, @09:37PM
Even if everyone agreed with this, I imagine courts might be less inclined to grant warrants for the use of technology that is publicly known to endanger the lives of everyone in the area.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @07:22AM
It's closer to going to the post office and reading through everyone's mail. Which, btw, no warrant would cover.