Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

How To Tell If Your Cell Phone Is Bugged

Posted by kdawson on Mon Dec 04, 2006 05:03 AM
from the your-shoe-is-ringing dept.
Lauren Weinstein writes to point us to his essay on the realities of using an idle cell phone as a bug, as a recent story indicated the FBI may have done in a Mafia case. From the essay: "There is no magic in cell phones. From a transmitting standpoint, they are either on or off... It is also true that some phones can be remotely programmed by the carrier to mask or otherwise change their display and other behaviors in ways that could be used to fool the unwary user. However, this level of remote programmability is another feature that is not universal... But remember — no magic! When cell phones are transmitting — even as bugs — certain things are going to happen every time that the alert phone user can often notice."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] FBI Taps Cell Phone Microphones in Mafia Case 274 comments
cnet-declan writes "We already knew the FBI can secretly listen in to car conversations by activating microphones of systems like OnStar. A new Mafia court case suggests that the FBI can do the same thing to cell phones. The judge's opinion and some background information [pdf] are available for reading online. The most disturbing thing? According to the judge, the bug worked even if the phone appeared to be 'powered off.' Anyone up for an open-source handset already?" From the article: "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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • How to tell (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:08AM (#17097160) Homepage Journal
    You could check the old fashioned way - slide off the back cover if an insect falls out you can be sure it is bugged.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2006, @07:34AM (#17097782)
      I tell my phone everything that is going on in my life. When I hear the FBI agent snoring, I know my phone is being bugged.

      Signed, /. reader
    • by gr8dude (832945) on Monday December 04 2006, @08:08AM (#17097996) Homepage
      There is another approach - take off the cover which protects the battery. Underneath the battery, you will see how two wires are connected. If the color of the wires is green, then you're bugged. Otherwise, if the wires are red - it's a bomb.

      Other colors are not defined by the standards, so if your phone has wires which are not green, nor red - you have a counterfeit phone.
  • Not a bug (Score:5, Funny)

    by JonathanR (852748) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:10AM (#17097164)
    It's not a bug, it's a feature!
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:14AM (#17097178) Homepage
    When cell phones are transmitting -- even as bugs -- certain things are going to happen every time that the alert phone user can often notice.

    For example, when using a Palm Treo 650, the phone will crash and reset often, and without notice.
  • by siliconeyes (154170) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:15AM (#17097184)
    Like a poster on the earlier story commented, why not simply connect one of those flashy LED thingies to your phone? My mom has them, and every time she's on a call, or even on an incoming SMS, the LEDs go berserk!! They don't even need batteries and power themselves off the cellphone radiation. Pretty foolproof method, IMHO.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      And as an added bonus all of the mafia dudes would know who is the most baaadass among them (from the perspective of the FBI) just by who's phone is always flashing in a epileptic inducing technicolored lightshow.

      Im sure they would love this.

      Does it sound like Capt obvious here just got his first mobile telephonic device? fta

      But if you're not on a call, and you hear a continuing rapid buzz-buzz-buzz in nearby speakers that lasts more than a few seconds and gets louder as you approach with your phone, well, the odds are that your phone is busily transmitting, and bugging is a definite possibility.

    • I can't use this method. I am talking on the phone with my imaginary friend all the time but I don't have to really make a call. Now everybody on the street will think I'm nuts if that LED thing won't blink.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Like a poster on the earlier story commented, why not simply connect one of those flashy LED thingies to your phone? My mom has them, and every time she's on a call, or even on an incoming SMS, the LEDs go berserk!! They don't even need batteries and power themselves off the cellphone radiation. Pretty foolproof method, IMHO.

      I would strongly advice against using them. They take some of the radiation energy to make them light up, which makes the phone think that the coverage is worse than it is which in turn

      • by drgonzo59 (747139) on Monday December 04 2006, @06:50AM (#17097570)
        You mean you can't string 10 millions LEDs around a phone and light up a whole city for free while you talk on your phone? Stupid physics laws!
      • *boggle* (Score:4, Informative)

        by Akardam (186995) on Monday December 04 2006, @10:06AM (#17099082)
        What, did you sleep through elementary physics and the principles of EM radiation?

        A cell phone is nothing more than a fancy radio with an omnidirectional antenna. That antenna, per its name, is going to radiate a certian amount of RF energy in all directions. RF that is radiated in the direction of the cell tower will be recieved by the antennas on the tower. RF that is radiated in any other direction will gradually be absorbed by the surrounding environment to no practical effect. So if your LED RF detector happens to be in the close vicinity of your cell phone when the phone is transmitting, it's going to be hit with RF that wouldn't have hit the cell tower anyway!

        The only possibly conceivable way that the LED RF detector could have any impact on the signal strength between the cell phone and the cell tower is if it was exactly in the path between the cell phone antenna and the cell tower antenna. The probability that this would occur is so small as to be trivial, and with the wide angle of radiation on most cell phone tower antennas, and the fact that there is usually more than one antenna for any direction, reduces the probability effectively to zero.
        • Re:*boggle* (Score:5, Informative)

          by Jamie Lokier (104820) on Monday December 04 2006, @11:51AM (#17100490) Homepage
          No, radio does not behave like that.

          The GSM radio wavelength is about 30cm which means that in effect all objects which affect the radio path, including the transmitter and LED receiver, are "blurry" in space to the scale of 30cm (this is an order of magnitude, not an exact value). The phone itself, and the distance from the LEDs, are much smaller than that. So the directionality of the radiation is nearly irrelevant to calculating how much is absorbed and transmitted.

          In other words, contrary to the parent post, the LEDs attached to the phone will be effectively on the radio path to the base station, no matter where they are attached on the phone.

          It's counterintuitive that you can have a radio signal between two small antennae at A and B, and something that's nearly in between but off by say 10cm affecting the signal between A and B, is though attracting the energy towards it (even bending the beam is possible). But that is exactly what happens. Waves are like that.

          It's more complicated than that, however, because the LEDs are also in the "near field" - the region where there may be a non-radiating component to the oscillating EM field around the phone transmitter. In this region, the LEDs could, if they are constructed to do so, absorb energy from the near field, and, depending very much on the phone design, potentially do it without affecting the radiated signal.

          Also, it is possible that they absorb some of the radiated energy but if they use very little power, not affect it very much.

          So we can't easily say what effect the LEDs will have on the transmitted signal, but the parent's argument about having to be "exactly on the path" to the transmitter, as in a straight line, is not correct.

          -- Jamie
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        What happens if the bug does *not* use the GSM network and is simply an old fashioned AM transmitter?

        TFA isn't about hardware bugs, but software that hijacks your phone to send signals clandestinely.

  • No content (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nasarius (593729) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:16AM (#17097190)
    The "essay" is nothing but speculation with a few facts, no references, and no actual testing or experience. I'm sure this is an amusing blog entry, but why is it on Slashdot? There's nothing to discuss.
  • Bug Detector (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eclectro (227083) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:30AM (#17097242)
    Put your cell phone next to your computer speakers. If it's transmitting you'll know it.

    Sorry FBI for killing your wiretap program.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      ...Sorry FBI for killing your wiretap program...

      I know you were trying to be funny. But I seriously doubt this will kill this wiretap program. Criminals are idiots. Most people are idiots. Take for example, this journalist [theatlantic.com] who bought an unencrypted al qaeda laptop. Or how about the regular stories of criminals using yee old delete command to delete incriminating evidence. The world will continue to turn, criminals will continue to use cellphones, and the FBI will continue to bug them.

      • Yeah, but some aren't. I had an interesting run in with some credit card scammers earlier this year. I got a call from my credit card company about 10 minutes after I bought lunch one day. It was from the fraud early warning system, which I'd gotten a few times now. These were usually due to me flying around the country, or taking extended road trips, or making very large purchases ($900 in appliances, $1500 in furniture, etc.). I wasn't too worried about it.

        This time, though, I it asked if I could verify a purchase for "theme park tickets," "appliances," and some other things. I told it no, and an amazingly easy 15 minutes later, my account was frozen, all the obvious charges were rolled back, and a new card was on the way, along with some paperwork for me to flag other charges that the CC company missed.

        The scammers had my old address apparently. I knew this because they tried to order a convection oven (who'd have figured?) and have it shipped to my old address. My guess is that this is the address in whatever database that got cracked. When I did get my next statement, I noticed a few charges to some random "music store" .com that was based in the same state as this old address, and donations to a charity of a few cents.

        It turns out that credit card company had cancelled far more of these "song" purchases, and "donations." The thieves had made, over a few weeks, donations of varying amounts from a few cents to about $2, and random song purchases of about $1. It seems that they were trying to establish that I was "normally" spending money in the area where I used to live, and also verifying that my card was still legit.

        So yeah, some criminals are dumb. Others are not. The fraud detection systems we have are pretty good though.
  • by kbox (980541) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:42AM (#17097308) Homepage
    ... It's when your girlfriend, for no apparent reason, says: "who is nikki and why is she telling you to get tested for syphilis?"
  • Ultimately, the question in this scenario goes far beyond the immediate problem posed here (cell phones being used as bugs), but lends itself to the more interesting question about why privacy should be held as one of the most important things in our society. I am of the persuasion that the following quote from The United States constitution should stand as one of the most important parts of our society -- and if you're not from the United States, than imagine that I'm suggesting you include this in your Government's constitution/body of laws if it is not already there...

    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.
    This has always stood as one of those easily reinterpreted components of the constitution -- just look at the way the US Supreme Court enjoys reinterpreting [erowid.org] it. And, to some degree, I do see why this should be interpreted in a somewhat fluid way. There are terrorists/freedom fighters out there, and governments should be capable of protecting their citizens-- that is what they're ultimately designed to do.

    However, the egregious trampling of our right to privacy, as outlined in the US constitution, starts moving us very quickly in the direction of fascism [wikipedia.org]. And people tend to use the term fascism lightly, but you have to ask yourself how a state can move from one type of government to another? History has shown that this happens everywhere -- just [wikipedia.org] look [wikipedia.org] at [wikipedia.org] history [wikipedia.org]

    So, why would I take a break from my ultimate presentation on latency markers in tuberculosis? Well, I feel strongly that you (the person reading this, not just the general "you") should take it upon yourself to encourage those people that you vote for to stand up and strengthen the first levee against tyranny -- our right to privacy. The FBI may, at this point, consider using your cell phone to track you as a legitimate means to and end, but when the FBI cycles through it's current leadership/membership then we can only hope that these means lead to good ends.

    And the hope that people mean well is not something I am willing to risk.

  • by loraksus (171574) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:55AM (#17097360) Homepage
    It would seem to be much easier to have the phone record to its internal memory and then transmit later. Transmitting needs a fair bit of power (while recording to memory from the microphone doesn't take much and can be compressed) and I would think people would start to notice that their phone would be dead after powering it off for several hours.
    The amount of memory and processors in some modern phones makes this a possibility...
    • With the new phones you could probably go further then that. Have it randomly listen in and then parse the conversations heard for keywords and if a keyword happened within a set time then listen in more.

      Compress what you want and then send it as burst transmission.
  • by Toby The Economist (811138) on Monday December 04 2006, @06:09AM (#17097416)
    The RISKS digest [ncl.ac.uk] carried this news a few years ago.

    It's been long known that;

    1. some providers can download arbitrary software to some phones
    2. a phone can be running that software while appearing not to be making a call

    The potential for abuse is obvious.

    I gave up my mobile phone about a month ago now. I read through a full list of the ways in which the British State monitors me. When you read them all at once, it has quite an impact. The simple question I have is this: I am completely innocent. I have commited no crimes and am not suspected of committing any crimes.

    SO WHY AM I BEING WATCHED?
    • Re:Old, old news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0123456 (636235) on Monday December 04 2006, @07:02AM (#17097628)
      "I am completely innocent. I have commited no crimes and am not suspected of committing any crimes."

      I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that anyone can live in Britain today and not commit any crimes. You've never driven over 70mph on a motorway? You've never put recyclable waste in your dustbin?

      There are so many laws in Britain today that you're pretty much a criminal the instant you get out of bed; in fact, you're probably a criminal if you stay in bed all day too. The real problem is _too many laws_, not too many criminals; if the cops stopped chasing people for bullshit crimes with high-tech gadgetry they could get all the real criminals off the streets.
      • Re:Old, old news (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Toby The Economist (811138) on Monday December 04 2006, @07:08AM (#17097664)
        The calls I make from my home phone have the time of the call and the phone number called recorded.

        The calls I made from my mobile had the time of the call, my location and the phone number called recorded.

        All the websites I visit, have the domain name recorded.

        All the emails I sent have the time of sending and the receipient recorded.

        When I pay by credit card, the location, time and amount of the transaction are recorded.

        When I cycle into town, I go past about six cameras - I'm recorded by each one.

        All of this information is available to the State without any form of judicial oversight. A policeman on a whim could keep a very close watch on my life.

        So I'm not being paranoid here - this list *IS* the list of the monitoring conducted on all of us.

        I've committed no crime. I'm totally innocent.

        Why am I being monitored? why does the State have to keep records of who I talk to and when I talk to them and where I am when I talk to them? am I suspected of something? I'm not. So why? because I *might* do something? that's outrageous! and in fact it's proper tantamout to suspecting me of something - it is suspected that I *might* commit a crime, which is just a weaker version of we *do* suspect you comitted a crime.

        What people don't realise is that although the State has always recorded plenty of information on us, the game has changed because of computers. Computers plus surveillance isn't just more of the same; it's something utterly new and *different*.

          • Re:Old, old news (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jtheletter (686279) on Monday December 04 2006, @10:08AM (#17099122)
            So the reason they monitor you is to keep you innocent.

            That's it, you win the doublespeak award this week and it's not even Tuesday yet. Your extremely light two sentences about Belgium announcing "mobile control" whatever that is, doesn't defend the above quote in the least. It's also a logical fallacy. People are not innocent only because they are being watched, they can be innocent just because they ARE, they don't need to be monitored to force them into that state. Others may (or may not) check their behavior knowing they are under surveillance, but being watched is certainly not a prerequisite for obeying the law.

            The reason 'they' - the state - monitor you is to catch you doing something wrong, anything. Maybe it wasn't even illegal last week, but it is this week and now you're guilty. With the huge numbers of laws on the books everyone is almost guaranteed to be guilty of something at some point, the only problem has been catching everyone in the act of breaking some law. With ubiquitous surveillance, monitoring algorithms, etc. the state now, more than any other time in history, can keep a dirty file on everyone. The state can only punish criminals, but if everyone is a criminal then the state has achieved another level of control and can selectively enforce prosecution at will to manipulate, coherce, and consolidate more power. That particular 'power' may even be something as minor as increasing traffic ticket revenue, but the result is the same.
  • er, tin-foil hat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aryeh Goretsky (129230) on Monday December 04 2006, @06:10AM (#17097418) Homepage

    Hello,

    Just as an experiment, I tried placing my cell phone into an anti-static mylar baggy and the signal went from 100% to 40% (or five bars to two). Repeating this with tin foil with a small opening to see the LCD (about 1cm^2) reduced the signal to 20% (or one bar).

    I am wondering that if someone wants to have a private verbal conversation sans listeners on the cell phone, all they have to do is place their cell phone in metal box?

    This would seem much more convenient than having to pull the battery out, as well as reduce wear and tear on the contacts or thin plastics of today's cell phones.

    Perhaps someone who is a bit more familiar with electronics could explain whether or not a "tin foil hat" (or a metal box or foil bag, ala Enemy of the State) for a cell phone would work?

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

    • Re:er, tin-foil hat (Score:4, Informative)

      by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Monday December 04 2006, @07:11AM (#17097678)
      First, a bugged phone could still record what you were saying and transmmit that later. Remember that the people who bug phones don't want them to drain their batteries dry in only a couple of hours, it would be suspicious.

      Secondly, those bars are more a qualitative information than a quantitative one, at 4 or 5 bars, the signal is clear with low power, with less bars, it means that there are transmition errors or that the radio needs a boost, either way, it is an indication to the phone it might be a good idea to look for another base station, but only a "no signal" notification will prove (if you can trust your phone display) that it is incapable of communication. If you shield your phone, it won't see any good base station and will lose a lot of energy scanning the frequencies looking for one.

      You can try to shield your phone, but then, you need to test its effciency. I once tried to put a phone in a tin box and I still could call it. Of course, grounding that box terminated the call.

      So I would say shielding is a lot of effort for what you want, if you are only slightly paraniod, shut the bugger down, if you are a real paranoid, leave it at your place with the TV on (during a movie you already saw, in case they will check your alibi) then use the bus to meet whoever you need in a parking lot.
  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Monday December 04 2006, @06:16AM (#17097434)
    You could tell that your phone was bugged, because you had an extra wardrobe in your room.
  • by ettlz (639203) on Monday December 04 2006, @06:31AM (#17097476) Homepage Journal
    Gangster 1. OK, so I'll just phone [insert non-ethnocentric name here] to confirm the date of the shipment. How many kilos again?
    Gangster 2. NO! Shh! Keep your voice down until you dial out — that thing could be bugged.
    Phone. "This phone is not being used as a covert surveillance device. Please continue to arrange your morally and/or legally questionable activities as normal."
    Gangster 1. Muh?!
    Phone. "Please ignore this message."
  • by hey! (33014) on Monday December 04 2006, @07:34AM (#17097780) Homepage Journal
    If we are concerned with the ability of somebody to alter the phone's behavior sufficiently to initiate a call without your intervention, then we shouldn't assume too much about what other things can or cannot be done.

    For example, not being able to make a call when a call is in progress. In time division multiplexing, you're taking one or two timeslots out of eight or sixteen. However, it's pretty clear that if we have modified the phone ostensible behavior enough to use it as a bug, it could also take more than one half channel at a time.

    Checking the warmth of the phone is good idea, but not perfect either. The assumption is that the phone is transmitting your words live. What if the phone recorded your conversations at a reduced bit rate, say 3kb/sec, using voice activiation. It could the be stored and dribbled out intermittently, particularly when close to a cell tower. This would reduce telltale power effects. This might not be enough to monitor your every waking moment, but it could be used to monitor snatches of your conversation, particularly as part of a surveillance program.

    Even if the phone doesn't transmit your speech, it could use the signally channel to record that you are talking, combined with the GPS or wi-fi snooping, over time the network of people you talk to could be recontructed.

    It's a bit paranoid to worry about these things, unless you think the government has a compelling reason to snoop on you. But if you do have such a reason, then you shouldn't make too many assumptions about what they could do with a phone, particularly a "smart" phone which might have megabytes of storage. A simpler phone with a removable battery would be a good choice.
  • Zing! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Monday December 04 2006, @07:54AM (#17097918) Homepage
    If your phone is warm to the touch even when not in use, is that an indication of bugging or a battery designed by Sony?
  • How to tell (Score:4, Funny)

    by thaig (415462) on Monday December 04 2006, @08:37AM (#17098218) Homepage
    Just phone your own land-line and then say, "Binladenbinladenbinladen" 10 times.

    Wait 30 minutes.

    If there are no black helicopters after 30 minutes then you probably aren't being bugged.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2006, @05:30AM (#17097240)
      I have a pay-as-go phone they are not anonymous. In many places (e.g. Germany), you have to register your details to get it, in other places your purchase details are used from the credit card to register it.

      When I bought one with cash, just after I bought it, I received wrong number calls, but the people involved didn't seem to want to hang up like normal wrong number calls.

      Them: "Is Mark there?"
      Me: "I'm sorry, there's no Mark here, you must have a wrong number."
      Them: "I'm sorry, are you sure you're not mark"
      Me: "you have a wrong number"
      Them: "Oh my mistake, thanks again erm Mr erm...." pauses to see if you'll complete the sentence.

      This happened again and again and again, different scripts, but always a wrong number guy who just wouldn't go away. Until one day my wife answered and said my name.
      Her: "No this is ???????'s phone"
      After that I never received another wrong number call.

      Now I put that down to random chance, since I'm not worth spying on. But then my wife got a new pre-pay mobile, again she paid cash, and sure enough she got the same pattern of calls. We were talking about it yesterday, when the phone rang, and it was woman this time, who again was a wrong number, but didn't seem to want to hang up.

      Many different phone numbers used each time, we're building a list.

    • by cronius (813431) on Monday December 04 2006, @05:38AM (#17097282)
      Yes, I recommend everyone to do this. I also recommend everyone to change the apperance of their face with plastic surgery once a year, just in case. Also, only use rental cars, and change these just as often. Only pay by cash, change what appartment you're living in as often as you can. Sleep with a gun underneath your pillow, have few friends, and don't tell them much about yourself. It's all about protecting yourself from the government, we're all suspects until proven guilty after all.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Just use a pay phone. Get rolls of dimes from the bank.
      • by sbryant (93075) on Monday December 04 2006, @06:35AM (#17097496)
        Just use a pay phone. Get rolls of dimes from the bank.

        It's easier said than done. There aren't as many payphones about as there used to be*, and a lot of those that are left require phone cards.

        Then, when you do find a suitable one, how do you know it isn't bugged already?

        Lastly, getting a roll of dimes from the just isn't that easy in most of the countries in the world. Of course, most of the world's payphones don't accept dimes either...

        -- Steve

        * The UK has a unique situation: while the number of payphones in the UK may have decreased, the number of British Telephone Boxes has remained about the same - they've just moved to more exotic locations in other countries. The same goes for British Police Boxes, except that their movements appear not to be limited to the first three dimensions.

    • by ahillen (45680) on Monday December 04 2006, @07:47AM (#17097876)
      Well, if They have ordered the phone company to intercept your call, why would they bother with turning off encryption anyway? IIt's not like the phone company needs to break it to intercept your call. f state authorities want to listen in to a conservation, they surely don't have to tune in on the air interface between mobile phone and base station. The call has to be routed through a phone network anyway.