FEDS EAR HUSTLING ON UR CELL PHONES?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 27, 2002
2,093
103
0
47
#1
Any truth to this you all think?

Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache
CNet
Saturday, December 2, 2006

update: The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

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.


Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.
The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone.

Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

While the Genovese crime family prosecution appears to be the first time a remote-eavesdropping mechanism has been used in a criminal case, the technique has been discussed in security circles for years.

The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call."

Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone."

Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spyware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone--all without the owner knowing it happened. (The FBI declined to comment on Friday.)

"If a phone has in fact been modified to act as a bug, the only way to counteract that is to either have a bugsweeper follow you around 24-7, which is not practical, or to peel the battery off the phone," Atkinson said. Security-conscious corporate executives routinely remove the batteries from their cell phones, he added.

FBI's physical bugs discovered
The FBI's Joint Organized Crime Task Force, which includes members of the New York police department, had little luck with conventional surveillance of the Genovese family. They did have a confidential source who reported the suspects met at restaurants including Brunello Trattoria in New Rochelle, N.Y., which the FBI then bugged.

But in July 2003, Ardito and his crew discovered bugs in three restaurants, and the FBI quietly removed the rest. Conversations recounted in FBI affidavits show the men were also highly suspicious of being tailed by police and avoided conversations on cell phones whenever possible.

That led the FBI to resort to "roving bugs," first of Ardito's Nextel handset and then of Peluso's. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones approved them in a series of orders in 2003 and 2004, and said she expected to "be advised of the locations" of the suspects when their conversations were recorded.

Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit (p1) and (p2) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." That phrase could refer to software or hardware.

One private investigator interviewed by CNET News.com, Skipp Porteous of Sherlock Investigations in New York, said he believed the FBI planted a physical bug somewhere in the Nextel handset and did not remotely activate the microphone.

"They had to have physical possession of the phone to do it," Porteous said. "There are several ways that they could have gotten physical possession. Then they monitored the bug from fairly near by."

But other experts thought microphone activation is the more likely scenario, mostly because the battery in a tiny bug would not have lasted a year and because court documents say the bug works anywhere "within the United States"--in other words, outside the range of a nearby FBI agent armed with a radio receiver.

In addition, a paranoid Mafioso likely would be suspicious of any ploy to get him to hand over a cell phone so a bug could be planted. And Kolodner's affidavit seeking a court order lists Ardito's phone number, his 15-digit International Mobile Subscriber Identifier, and lists Nextel Communications as the service provider, all of which would be unnecessary if a physical bug were being planted.

A BBC article from 2004 reported that intelligence agencies routinely employ the remote-activiation method. "A mobile sitting on the desk of a politician or businessman can act as a powerful, undetectable bug," the article said, "enabling them to be activated at a later date to pick up sounds even when the receiver is down."

For its part, Nextel said through spokesman Travis Sowders: "We're not aware of this investigation, and we weren't asked to participate."

Other mobile providers were reluctant to talk about this kind of surveillance. Verizon Wireless said only that it "works closely with law enforcement and public safety officials. When presented with legally authorized orders, we assist law enforcement in every way possible."

A Motorola representative said that "your best source in this case would be the FBI itself." Cingular, T-Mobile, and the CTIA trade association did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Mobsters: The surveillance vanguard
This isn't the first time the federal government has pushed at the limits of electronic surveillance when investigating reputed mobsters.

In one case involving Nicodemo S. Scarfo, the alleged mastermind of a loan shark operation in New Jersey, the FBI found itself thwarted when Scarfo used Pretty Good Privacy software (PGP) to encode confidential business data.

So with a judge's approval, FBI agents repeatedly snuck into Scarfo's business to plant a keystroke logger and monitor its output.

Like Ardito's lawyers, Scarfo's defense attorneys argued that the then-novel technique was not legal and that the information gleaned through it could not be used. Also like Ardito, Scarfo's lawyers lost when a judge ruled in January 2002 that the evidence was admissible.

This week, Judge Kaplan in the southern district of New York concluded that the "roving bugs" were legally permitted to capture hundreds of hours of conversations because the FBI had obtained a court order and alternatives probably wouldn't work.

The FBI's "applications made a sufficient case for electronic surveillance," Kaplan wrote. "They indicated that alternative methods of investigation either had failed or were unlikely to produce results, in part because the subjects deliberately avoided government surveillance."


Bill Stollhans, president of the Private Investigators Association of Virginia, said such a technique would be legally reserved for police armed with court orders, not private investigators.
There is "no law that would allow me as a private investigator to use that type of technique," he said. "That is exclusively for law enforcement. It is not allowable or not legal in the private sector. No client of mine can ask me to overhear telephone or strictly oral conversations."

Surreptitious activation of built-in microphones by the FBI has been done before. A 2003 lawsuit revealed that the FBI was able to surreptitiously turn on the built-in microphones in automotive systems like General Motors' OnStar to snoop on passengers' conversations.

When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored.

Malicious hackers have followed suit. A report last year said Spanish authorities had detained a man who write a Trojan horse that secretly activated a computer's video camera and forwarded him the recordings.
 
Nov 20, 2005
16,876
21
0
42
#2
cell phones being tapped is pretty known. although this is a good article to learn how the fbi does some of its surveillance.

~k.
 
Nov 27, 2002
2,093
103
0
47
#3
I know one my homies got busted because something to do with his cellphone an that when he did the shootin they pin pointed his location at the time.
So he told me bro if you ever do a jale leave ur cell home or turn it off .
 
Apr 16, 2003
14,731
1,361
113
google.com
#5
HEAVYMETALGANGSTER said:
I know one my homies got busted because something to do with his cellphone an that when he did the shootin they pin pointed his location at the time.
So he told me bro if you ever do a jale leave ur cell home or turn it off .

This has to do with phones being E911 or gps enabled. Your phones can help you get located in case of an emergency and also allows you to have gps applications such as VZ Navigator with verizon wireless.
 
May 1, 2003
6,431
25
0
53
#8
I know how it's done!

I made a thread about it a while ago.
http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=203007&highlight=bluetooth
First view this video link. It shows the process of a Nokia Bluetooth phone being hacked. And yes you can modify a USB Bluetooth adapter to scan for devices up to a mile away with a clear line of sight. But in this video the phone is right next to the Laptop with a standard USB Bluetooth adapter.

Video Here:
http://irongeek.com/i.php?page=videos/bluesnarf1

Tools used in video:
This is a live version of Audior(Linux) that can boot and run the entire OS from the CD-ROM. In other words ...you don't have to install anything...except a wireless card and a bluetooth adapter. There is a patch for this ISO though...I have to find it.
Auditor Security Collection (ASC)
http://www.remote-exploit.org/index.php/Auditor

The newest version of Auditor...is now called Back|Track. the execution code you saw in the video may be slightly different on here...but not much.
http://www.remote-exploit.org/index.php/BackTrack


Browse the forums for a day or two to read through the posts. Other people's questions will help a lot...that way you don't have to sound like the noobie.
The forums seem to be down at the time of this post..but should be back up shortly.
http://forums.remote-exploit.org/

Everything but the USB adapter for Bluetooth and a wifi card is on the Auditor or Back|Track ISO ...it fits on a cd rom. This disk right here is why I dont use wi-fi or bluetooth. Most dangerous software in the world. So I suggest you only use it on your personal network:)
another small article!
BlueSnarf

The BlueSnarf attack is probably the most famous Bluetooth attack, since it is the first major security issue related to Bluetooth enabled devices. BlueSnarf has been identified by Marcel Holtmann in September 2003. Independently, Adam Laurie discovered the same vulneralbility in November 2003 posted the issue on Bugtraq and got in touch with the respective device manufacturers.
Method

In order to perfom a BlueSnarf attack, the attacker needs to connect to the OBEX Push Profile (OPP), which has been specified for the easy exchange of business cards and other objects. In most of the cases, this service does not require authentication. Missing authentication is not a problem for OBEX Push, as long as everything is implemented correctly. The BlueSnarf attack connects to an OBEX Push target and performs an OBEX GET request for known filenames such as 'telecom/pb.vcf' for the devices phone book or 'telecom/cal.vcs' for the devices calendar file. (There are many more names of files in the IrMC Specification). In case of improper implementation of the device firmware, an attacker is able to retrieve all files where the name is either known or guessed correctly.
Links

thebunker.net - Adam Laurie's page about the BlueSnarf attack
http://trifinite.org/trifinite_stuff_bluesnarf.html
 
Dec 9, 2005
11,231
31
0
41
#18
ITS FREAKS said:
i heard of that!
that fools a joke.
if i ever see him, imma knock him out. fags like that make real white rappers look bad.


You could look at it like that. Or you could praise him for making you're stuff look that much better...

:siccness: :siccness: :siccness:
 
Nov 18, 2004
407
0
0
#19
That's exactly what happend 2 yours truly. They've BEEN able to do this and tha technology has been available since car phones. Unfortunatley (and I found this out tha hard way) your voice is no longer considered your own personal property once it can be heard. Likewise Breathalizer tests don't require a warrant because upon exhaling those chemicals which were once stored inside your body (and thus inadmissible) then enter into the 'public' atmosphere. Strangely enough, Sign language cannot incriminate you.