Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #7880 > unrolled thread

[CM] more on Stingray: 2 articles

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [CM] more on Stingray: 2 articles RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-06-12 18:39 +0000
    Re: [CM] more on Stingray: 2 articles Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-06-12 21:50 +0300
      Re: [CM] more on Stingray: 2 articles Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-06-13 14:55 +0000
        Re: [CM] more on Stingray: 2 articles Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-06-13 19:19 +0000
          Re: [CM] more on Stingray: 2 articles Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-06-13 21:49 +0000

#7880 — [CM] more on Stingray: 2 articles

From the «either no one spies, or we all do» department:
Title: Stingray: Two Stories
Author: janrinok
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:48:00 -0400
Link: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/06/11/1810219&from=rss

StingRay in the UK: British Invasion of Privacy

takyon[1] writes:

Stingray[2] cell site simulators (IMSI catchers[3]) have been discovered in
London according to an investigation by Sky News[4]:

Sky News used software made by GMSK Cryptophone, a German security company,
to look for the tell-tale signs of Stingray activity. Over three weeks, Sky
News discovered more than 20 instances in London. The CEO of Cryptophone,
Bjoern Rupp, said: "The abnormal events that Sky News had encountered can
clearly be categorised as strong indicators for the presence of IMSI catchers
in multiple locations."

Sky News has published its complete data logs here[5] [50MB+]. This is
believed to be the first direct evidence of Stingray use in the UK.

In November, The Times reported that the Metropolitan Police Service, the
UK's largest police force, was using Stingray technology, citing anonymous
sources. And according to The Guardian, the Metropolitan Police paid £143,455
for the surveillance equipment in 2009.

Despite repeated Freedom of Information requests, including by Sky News, the
Met neither confirms nor denies that the force uses IMSI catchers. Asked
directly about the force's use of stingrays by Sky News, Bernard Hogan-Howe,
the Met commissioner and the UK's most senior police officer, said: "We're
not going to talk about it, because the only people who benefit are the other
side, and I see no reason in giving away that sort of thing. If people
imagine that we've got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry
about, I would reassure them that it's impossible."

Keith Bristow, the director-general of the National Crime Agency, also told
Sky News: "Some of what we would like to talk about to get the debate
informed and logical, we can't, because it would defeat the purpose of having
the tactics in the first place. Frankly, some of what we need to do is
intrusive, it is uncomfortable, and the important thing is we set that out
openly and recognise there are difficult choices to be made."

Bruce Schneier on Increasing Use of Stingray

kadal[6] writes:

Bruce Schneier has an article on increasing use of Stingray[7]:

[Stingray] is the code name for an IMSI-catcher (IMSI = International Mobile
Subscriber Identity[8]), which is basically a fake cell phone tower sold by
Harris Corporation to various law enforcement agencies. (It's actually just
one of a series of devices with fish names -- Amberjack is another -- but
it's the name used in the media.) What is basically does is trick nearby cell
phones into connecting to it. Once that happens, the IMSI-catcher can collect
identification and location information of the phones and, in some cases,
eavesdrop on phone conversations, text messages, and web browsing.

There are dozens[9]of[10]these[11]devices[12] scattered around Washington,
DC, and the rest of the country run by who-knows-what government or
organization. Criminal uses are next.

He has been remarkably consistent about his main point:

We have one infrastructure. We can't choose a world where the US gets to spy
and the Chinese don't. We get to choose a world where everyone can spy, or a
world where no one can spy. We can be secure from everyone, or vulnerable to
anyone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Submissions: Stingray in the UK[13]  Schneier's View[14]

Read more of this story[15] at SoylentNews.

Links:
[1]: http://soylentnews.org/~takyon/ (link)
[2]: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/04/28/0123248 (link)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSI-catcher (link)
[4]: http://news.sky.com/story/1499258/fake-mobile-phone-towers-operating-in-the-uk (link)
[5]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Kg8JC-9TqnN245SU1rT2Q3VDg/view (link)
[6]: http://soylentnews.org/~kadal/ (link)
[7]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/04/the_further_dem_1.html (link)
[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_mobile_subscriber_identity (link)
[9]: http://www.wired.com/2014/09/cryptophone-firewall-identifies-rogue-cell-towers (link)
[10]: http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/02/who-is-putting-up-interceptor-cell-towers-the-mystery-deepens/ (link)
[11]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/researchers-try-to-pull-back-curtain-on-surveillance-efforts-in-washington/2014/09/17/f8c1f590-3e81-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html (link)
[12]: http://gizmodo.com/phony-cell-towers-could-be-intercepting-your-data-1629478616 (link)
[13]: https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=7761 (link)
[14]: https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=7080 (link)
[15]: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/06/11/1810219&from=rss (link)


--
Posting to comp.misc, sci.misc, and misc.news.internet.discuss

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#7881

> [Bruce Schneier] has been remarkably consistent about his main point:
>
> We have one infrastructure. We can't choose a world where the US gets
> to spy and the Chinese don't. We get to choose a world where everyone
> can spy, or a world where no one can spy. We can be secure from
> everyone, or vulnerable to anyone.

For the governments of the world, the choice is obvious: spy on
everyone. The nukes will keep foreign adversaries at bay. For the local
citizenry, nukes are ineffective so you need to be able to spy.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7889

On 2015-06-12, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>
>> [Bruce Schneier] has been remarkably consistent about his main point:
>>
>> We have one infrastructure. We can't choose a world where the US gets
>> to spy and the Chinese don't. We get to choose a world where everyone
>> can spy, or a world where no one can spy. We can be secure from
>> everyone, or vulnerable to anyone.
>
> For the governments of the world, the choice is obvious: spy on
> everyone. The nukes will keep foreign adversaries at bay. For the
> local citizenry, nukes are ineffective so you need to be able to spy.
>
>
> Marko

How long before some government or other decrees that not carrying a
mobile phone handset, switched on, is 'suspect' and then a little later
'illegal'?

I'm sure that those who most need to know such things are already
familiar with the reasons and timing for leaving their mobile phone on
the bus or letting it fall off a bridge or be stolen.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7895

On 2015-06-13, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
> How long before some government or other decrees that not carrying a
> mobile phone handset, switched on, is 'suspect' and then a little later
> 'illegal'?

Once implants are available it will only be a matter of time before
they are mandated. It will be sold to the public as being "convenient"
and "fun."

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUa3np4CKC4

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

  NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7896

In comp.misc Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2015-06-13, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
> > How long before some government or other decrees that not carrying
> > a mobile phone handset, switched on, is 'suspect' and then a little
> > later 'illegal'?

> Once implants are available it will only be a matter of time before
> they are mandated. It will be sold to the public as being
> "convenient" and "fun."

>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUa3np4CKC4

Sadly, they likely won't need to be mandated.  Most of the lemmings
will just submit for the promise of being able to 'auto update their
facebook wall with their comings and goings'.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web