Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

U.S. Wiretapping Surges 19% 274

linuxwrangler writes "Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged 19% in 2004 to 1,710. Court orders relating to terror-related investigations are not included in the wiretap statistics and those warrants reached a record 1,754 last year. Apparently judges have found that law enforcement is unbelievably perfect as they rubber-stamped approvals on every single request they received."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Wiretapping Surges 19%

Comments Filter:
  • by to_kallon ( 778547 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:28PM (#12378045)
    Can they 'tap' a cell phone?

    they don't have to. all they have to do is listen. hence, few criminals use cell phones for communications which they'd prefer remain confidential.
    ........
    or so i've....heard......:-/
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:28PM (#12378049)
    They are doing a lot more taps than they are admitting. I was aware of that many taps in (Insert large city name here) during just a few months in the early '90's.
  • Skype myth-busting (Score:5, Informative)

    by js7a ( 579872 ) <`gro.kivob' `ta' `semaj'> on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:29PM (#12378055) Homepage Journal
    Skype Privacy FAQ [skype.com] vs. Skype Privacy Policy [skype.com]:
    FAQ: Is Skype secure?
    Yes. When you call another Skype user your call is encrypted with strong encryption algorithms ensuring you privacy. In some cases your Skype communication may be routed via other users in the peer-to-peer network. Skype encryption protects you from potential eavesdropping from malicious users.

    Policy: Please be informed that, notwithstanding the abovementioned, in the event of a designated competent authority requesting Skype or Skype's local partner responsible towards such authority, to retain and provide Personal and/or Traffic Data, or to install wiretapping equipment in order to intercept communications, Skype and/or its local partner will provide all necessary assistance and information to fulfil this request.

    If you want real privacy, use SpeakFreely [speakfreely.org] with your own choice of encryption library.

  • by karvind ( 833059 ) <karvind@gm a i l . com> on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:31PM (#12378075) Journal
    A good introduction to Wiretapping and Outside Plant Security [tscm.com]

    Our old story on VoIP Wiretapping [slashdot.org]

    Interestingly in U.S., there are serious legal restrictions on the use of wiretaps by police agencies. The Supreme Court has consistently held that wiretaps qualify as searches under the Fourth Amendment.

    Article on related topic of Open Internet Wiretapping: Carnivore [crypto.com]

    IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) policy on wiretapping [faqs.org] which says: The IETF restates its strongly held belief, stated at greater length in [RFC 1984], that both commercial development of the Internet and adequate privacy for its users against illegal intrusion requires the wide availability of strong cryptographic technology.

    Another issue: Is Dialing Into a Conference Call an Interception? [virginialaw.com]

  • by JenovaSynthesis ( 528503 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:32PM (#12378091)

    I find it hard to believe that these are just "rubberstamps" seeing aswithout any concrete evidence to justify the wiretap, any evidence they would gather from one or as a direct result from one would be not be admitted as evidence due to that whole 4th Amendment thingy.

    Plus the article gives a plausible technological reason the increase given that it takes more stuff these days to nail people. Can't exactly bust someone plotting over blackberry, etc through pre-blackberry techniues.

  • by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:35PM (#12378121) Journal
    As soon as even low grade encryption becomes common the police are going to be screwed. The only reason normal phone lines arn't encrypted phone-to-phone is because it would be a hassle and would lower the quality (some sort of 56k modem in your phone, unless you can do some other trickery modulating with noise). As soon as you get to the realm of VoIP and phones have some processing power encryption starts to become something a system just 'might as well do'. Obviously man-in-the-middle would be a possibility but its trivial to just make a call and at the start read out a portion of your key and let the other person confirm it.
  • Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Informative)

    by AlexB892 ( 221143 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:37PM (#12378143)
    I have a few friends in law enforcement, and they tell me the reason such a high percentage of warrants are approved is because it is seen as bad for one's career to request a warrant and be denied. If a detective keeps asking for warrants that aren't justified, supervisors see it as a sign of poor quality police work, so many officers are reluctant to ask a judge for a warrant unless they know they have a nearly air-tight case.

    Also, if a large percentage of warrants were denied by the courts, people would spin the statistics to say that police are trying to over-exert their powers by asking for illegal searches. The police don't want to create that image for themselves.
  • by CosmeticLobotamy ( 155360 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:39PM (#12378177)
    As fun as it is to reduce judges to idiots and cartoon villians, a whole bunch of them actually are competent. These things are granted because that's what's done. Judges don't assume cops are full of shit. But the system still works. It keeps the numbers down to 2,000 warrants that someone keeps track of instead of 200,000 searches whenever a cop feels like it that no one hears about.
  • by Monf ( 783812 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @07:42PM (#12378200)
    cell phones are tapped using the EIN number, it gets provisioned to the cop's equipment, kind of a man in the middle thing...

    not that i would know or anything, I think I saw the lone gunmen (the 3 geeks on X-Files) do it in an episode...

    they can customize the dial error messages you receive, they can route your cell-phone web browser through whatever proxy server they want, they can shut off your cell phone to piss you off, reprovision on the fly, etc... The hardest thing is to find your physical location, and thats using good old triangulation if you turn off the location awareness thingie (which isn't actually turned off, just restricts it to "Law Enforcement Personnel" or their close personal friends), and yes, they can create a hidden three-way call to a third party to listen in, or store the conversations digitally...

    Anyways, the point is that cell phones are tapped with computers, after it the signal hits the tower and gets on the land lines, not with radio receivers...

  • Re:OMG!!!! 19%!!!! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Phillup ( 317168 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @08:07PM (#12378449)
    Did you take into account that it rose 48 percent during the previous 10 years?

    That is 4.8 percent a year if figured without compounding from year to year.
  • by Husgaard ( 858362 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @08:15PM (#12378519)
    Since the advent of digital cellular, though, you need more equipment and expertise needed to tap a cellphone.
    Modern digital cellular systems like GSM are designed from the start to facilitate wiretapping. It is extremely simple for the network provider and the authorities to listen to your conversations.

    And even if you do not worry about your network provider and authorities listening, you should be aware that the GSM encryption was deliberately designed to be weak, and that it has been broken [datashopper.dk].

  • by mikael ( 484 ) on Thursday April 28, 2005 @08:18PM (#12378547)
    Of course they can.

    Apart from your voice and data traffic, the 'mobile' part of your connection also keeps track of the signal strength from the nearest cell phone towers. This allows the operator to give an estimate of your location, the accuracy of which is dependent upon the number of towers within range.

    Since each cell phone tower is going support hundreds of phone calls simultaneously, this requires a high-speed digital data link to the nearest trunk exchange, where the call can be routed to other telephone networks, as well as the operators accounting system.

    Since the data is digital it can be multiplexed or diverted and split off in any direction. Particularly useful for voice-mail, three way calling and group conferences.

    Your mobile phone is always in communication with the nearest cell phone tower, even if it isn't actively handling a telephone call.

    There have been several cases where a suspect had been incriminated by the times and locations that a mobile phone has been used and switched off.
  • KLOC (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2005 @09:12PM (#12378948)

    Maybe we need a law that says judges who approve 80%+ of the requests for warrents they recieve in a year, must have those cases reviewed to see if they all panned out.

    If a judge approves a wire tap, and only 60% or less of those warrents lead to convictions (not just an arrest), then we have a problem. A Judge needs probable cause, and for me probable cause means the police already has strong evidence the person is going to break a crime.

    The statistics approach to performance evaluation has proven destructive everywhere it's been tried, in every field. Look at what's happening in the UK, where police simply ignore problems in order to keep their statistics looking good. It sounds appealing, but it's not the answer.

    By the way, "probable cause" usually means they have compelling reason to believe you already did commit a crime, not that they figure you're thinking real hard about it. Not that the latter won't do just as well, if you've taken concrete steps towards doing it. Like going ahead and building a bomb, maybe. That usually makes a bad impression.

    In general, you do have a point: The cops know the system and they can abuse it. So could you, if you knew it as well as they do, but you don't, because that's not your job. This has been going on as long as there have been police. There's no cure; all you can do is try to keep it under control. Life sucks.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2005 @09:41PM (#12379151)
    I just heard the end of this story on ABC news last night. When I saw this topic, I knew I had to bring it up.

    A former CIA agent, Ed Wilson, was released from jail after 22 years because he was able to show that the government lied about his case. One of the charges that he was convicted on was selling 20 tons of C-4 to Libya.

    He claimed that, even though he was no longer employed by the CIA, that he was working with them at the time. The prosecution produced a document that said he had no substantail contact with the agency after he left it. This was a lie. He had more then 80 'non-social contacts' after he left and the gonvernment knew this. The railroaded him.

    His conviction on the explosive charge was overturned and he is now out of jail. He is currently involved in legal action over his false conviction.

    Wilson is a scumbag. It is also likely that he was involved in running drugs for the CIA before Iran-Contra. Even so, he was raped by the CIA and DOJ. An investigation is in the works, but Wilson is already 71 and I expect that they will drag it out until he dies.

    Now think about all those wire taps and how they were justified.

    Check out http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id334 /pg1/ [disinfo.com] and http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/stor y?id=708779&page=1 [go.com]

  • Wiretap Reports (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2005 @10:47PM (#12379537)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2005 @11:14PM (#12379714)
    please mod as appropriate.

    stupid trolls. probably thinks he's a clever subversive now.
  • Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Informative)

    by demachina ( 71715 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @12:50AM (#12380206)
    Yea but Nazi's won the election that brought them to power, though not a clear majority. They consolidated their power largely thanks to winning control of the legislature and passing laws that gradually decimated or outright outlawed all opposition. They used the Reichstag fire to justify many of their greater excesses as the Republican's today use 9/11.

    "the nazis were socialist as are most Democrats"

    They were Fascists which isn't exactly the same as classic Socialists. The Nazi's created a giant interventionist government but it worked hand in hand with giant corporations and industrialists much like today's Republican party. Wealthy industrialists brought him to power, in fact bankrolled his rise to power, in particular the Thyssen family, and wealthy capitalists don't normally support real socialists. The Thyssen family is interesting because George. W's grandfather Prescott was their banker in America and his bank, Union Banking, was seized for trading with the enemy when war was declared much to the embarrassment of the Bush family. They had extensive financial dealings, along with their wealthy benefactors the Harrimans, with Nazi Germany.

    Today's neo con Republicans are also big fans of aggressive warfare, you know unilaterally invading countries who haven't attacked you under false pretenses, like Nazi Germany.

    I'm guessing your suggesting today's Republican's are free market conservatives and the antithesis of all this Nazi, Democrat Socialism, well I guess you haven't noticed but the new Republican party has been growing the government, its intrustion in and control of our lives, and its deficit spending at a furious pace, they are just growing it in a way that favors the wealthy and their corporate friends.

    I really wish we did have a conservative government that did what all the Republican's have said they were gonna do if they gained power, cut government spending, cut the size of govermment and limit its intrustion in our lives, but today's Republican party is more Fascist than it is conservative. Certainly its velvet gloved, compassionate fascism and nothing close to Germany in the 30's but give it time and one more 9/11 scale attack.

    "we still have elections"

    So did Germany, they did gain power through elections, laced as they were with Brown shirt intimidation, and they held elections for most of their rise to power, they just used their control of the government to pass laws that marginalized or outright outlawed of all their opposition.

    After a stolen presidential election in 2000 and a suspicious election in 2004, remember the exit polls that said one thing and the official results that said another I don't think just having elections proves anything. Unless they are fair and above reproach which America's haven't been since 2000. If they are vulnerable to manipulation they are meaningless.

    "free press"

    Heh, most people are getting their news from TV networks controlled by a tiny handful of giant corporations. Rupert Murdoch's global empire in particular, is anything but "free", "fair" or
    "balanced" and is dominating cable news, maybe you've heard of them, Fox News, they own like a third of the world's media, Viacom, Time/Warner, GE and Disney round out the list, none of which are exactly fans of controversy. Radio is controlled largely by Clearchannel and dominated by right wing extremists. Newspapers are also massively consolidated and simply don't have any traction with most people any more.

    So our media has been stampeded in to being anything but free. CBS has been thoroughly spanked for its "liberal bias", FOX's right wing bias is blatant, unchecked and its all angry white men watch. CNN used to balance FOX but since November when they got their new chief and the Republican's swept the elections I barely recognize it, they are pandering to the Christian right so much to try to salvage their ratings. There was a time after the Atlanta shooting they were plugging "The Purpose Driven Life" so
  • by leonmergen ( 807379 ) <lmergenNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 29, 2005 @02:41AM (#12380662) Homepage

    ... or they're using the cryptophone [cryptophone.de]...

    If I understand it correctly, that telephone uses a sort of ssh-like connection for normal calls... sounds pretty cool :)

  • easily. (Score:2, Informative)

    by jms1 ( 686215 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:30AM (#12381520) Homepage
    I have a friend who works for a large US company (no names, but it sounds a bit like "moo-sent") which makes the cell tower equipment used by several of the large american carriers, especially Verizon with their new high-speed data service. The last time I visited his office, he showed me the CALEA (Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994) box from their in-house system mock-up (used for training Verizon's techs.)

    In a normal market area, all of a carrier's towers are linked back to a single facility for the entire market, and that facility contains the links to the wireline carriers. Inside this data center, the sound channels of all of the calls on all of the towers are sorted out and routed to the appropriate wireline ports. The equipment which does this knows how to do a "wiretap"- as a call starts, if either the caller's number or the number being called are listed in a certain database, the call is set up with a copy of the audio being routed to what is essentially a WAV file. When the call is done, that WAV file is immediately emailed to whatever law enforcement person is interested.

    IN THEORY, the law enforcement types are supposed to show a court order before being able to add numbers to the database. IN REALITY, the carrier (at least Verizon) provides an SSL-secured web interface where law enforcement can just go and enter the number and an email address. The carrier does not perform any verification of whether or not there is a valid court order, they stay as close to hands-off as they can.
  • Re:Not Surprising (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29, 2005 @10:07AM (#12382958)
    Thank you for this post. I am extremely happy to see someone on Slashdot actually use little known and easily verifiable historical facts to back up an argument, instead of blather on blindly like a typical alt-media parrot. But I do have one comment to make:

    "[media] ...are also massively consolidated and simply don't have any traction with most people any more."

    The problem, the real and specific problem, is that they DO have traction. If they didn't, to paraphrase an early president, "If the people knew... there would be a revolution in the morning".

    The sad truth is, most people simply are not thinking and drawing their own conclusions, nor do most even know how to. And there is plenty of reason to believe that includes you and me, to a lesser extent, so no this is not blanket Joe-sixpack bashing. We live in the world Mr. Orwell warned us about, and that world was not a hypothetical 1984, it was a veiled attack on the society from which he wrote it in 1948. And once you start looking closer, you'll see that we can never really know how deep the rabbit hole goes, Alice (how far back in time). I think that was part of the authors point.

    I've heard that the average American is told what to think, by means of advertising, tv, movies, music, etc, no less than 25,000 times per year.

    Welcome to the modern world, where there are so many distractions that no one has the time to think even if they had trained their minds to do so. Fuck iPods, cell phones, movies, tv's and instant messengers, and goddam 9to5 jail cells for that matter. Give me hours of free uninterrupted time and I can find a plenty of uses for it that dont include laying back and taking a thought injection.

    Is it any fucking wonder that there are soccer moms out there complaining about terrorists and other made for tv pap? Hook, line and sinker, man. Get out and rap with a mall wallowing suburbanite and you will be petrified at the sheer ignorance and hate that is cultivated amonst the multitudes.

    So again, thank you for your comment, and thanks for reading my post.

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...