Your Cell Records For Sale Online, Cheap 431
AviN456 writes "The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that your phone records are for sale online to the general public. From the article 'The Chicago Police Department is warning officers their cell phone records are available to anyone -- for a price. Dozens of online services are selling lists of cell phone calls, raising security concerns among law enforcement and privacy experts.' One of these sites is selling cell phone records for $110 for a month's worth of calls. No court order needed, no credentials required. If they want your records and have the money, they get 'em."
Why pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why pay? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why pay? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that people are way too easily bribed into this sort of thing, and the information is just lying around at the cell phone provider for people to send out.
Old news, new info. (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, this issue is nothing [washingtonpost.com] new [go.com].
Lots of good info on this problem can be found here [epic.org], courtesy of the good folks at EPIC [epic.org].
And finally, you can choose to opt-out of the releasing of your phone data here [privacyrights.org] (at least you can try...opt-out information isn't listed for many of the companies). Also, many of these data brokers employ less-than-legal means to obtain the phone data anyway.
Re:Old news, new info. (Score:5, Interesting)
Beautiful way to make a point.
Re:Old news, new info. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old news, new info. (Score:3, Informative)
http://phone.ioerror.us/2005/09/verizon-wireless-g ets-injunction-to-stop-data-thieves [ioerror.us]
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT= 104&STORY=/www/story/12-09-2004/0002592069&EDATE= [prnewswire.com]
If you want to pick on someone, pick on someone other than Verizon Wireless... they're trying to protect you.
Re:Old news, new info. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was just thinking that it might be a worthwhile investment to buy a copy of my Senators' phone records and mail it to them. It might be the best way to make a point about privacy.
Re:Old news, new info. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why call this a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, anyone can do it. Turnabout's fair play - as far as I'm concerned. I like seeing rich pols exposed.
I've been busy lobbying to get the video archives of the New York Police made public as well.
Why should the police be the only ones with access to this footage? (I'll tell you why... if enough of it was made public, lots of NY's finest th
If they are doing nothing wrong ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they are doing nothing wrong ..... (Score:4, Informative)
$110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive (Score:5, Funny)
Re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive (Score:2, Funny)
Re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive (Score:2, Funny)
Better than that. The calls have already been transcribed
Re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive (Score:2)
Better than that. The calls have already been transcribed
So that's why he never reads his Presidential Daily Briefings! He's too busy reading our phone calls.
Re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive (Score:3, Funny)
And open doors [google.com]
re: $110 a month's worth of calls sounds expensive (Score:4, Funny)
you're obviously not a libertarian.
ed
good news, everyone! (Score:3, Funny)
That's absolutely stalk-tastic. So, in addition to being able to buy SS#, satellite images of their house, and public property information, we can get phone records now. Sweet.
Anyone want to see what 1-900 numbers Jack Thompson's been calling?
Re:good news, everyone! (Score:2)
Caution for everyone, not just cops (Score:4, Funny)
Depending on how paranoid you are, this information could be interesting. Worried about a partner cheating? Worried about your partner finding out? Worried your boss will find out you have frequent calls to your Cylon agent (or is she just in your head?) (Okay, the last one was a joke.)
But I wanted to make sure it was clear, this applies to everyone. Not just police.
Re:Caution for everyone, not just cops (Score:5, Interesting)
Just think: you're a gang leader and suspect that someone in your organization is a narc. You have all of their cell phone numbers, because that's how you communicate, so you call up Locatecell and get the logs. The one who has the local PD in their logs gets a pair of cement shoes for Christmas.
While the rest of us could certainly be inconvenienced, or perhaps lose our jobs / marriages / etc., because of this, probably we won't have the same risk of ending up dead.
Re:Caution for everyone, not just cops (Score:5, Insightful)
Sucks for the cop. If only there was some way he could have *two* cell phones: one for gang business and one for personal/police use...
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
So What? I'll tell you what! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm one of those people that doesn't have too much trouble with the Patriot act's purpose and typical use. But I think I do have trouble with my customers, suppliers, or competition being able to see who I'm talking to. In a competitive industry (I don't know, say wholesaling wine to restaurants in a busy city), being able to look over which restaurants of "yours" that a rival wine rep has suddenly been making a lot of calls to would be seriously helpful/evil business intel.
On a more serious note, say a foreign or criminal entity was shopping around for people to blackmail/extort. Just the ability to use evidence of a stock broker's calls to his mistress as a way to get him to distort the value of some penny stock, etc... well, it's all bad movie-type stuff, except it's real. And real cheap.
I do have a problem with it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a problem in that it was sold to the congress as a way of fighting terrorism, but in fact is used as an excuse to do warrentless wiretaps domestically without judicial oversight.
In fact, as it turns out, the "Patriot" act has nothing to do with terrorism.
I have a problem with any law that mentions that you can be subject to investigation *and not be allowed tell anyone about it*. It flies direc
I wish you were correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress passed it because they were fearful of being painted soft on terrorists. None of them read the act prior to its passage.
Most of the more draconian parts of it, the parts that erode our rights, have been attempted legislation in the past. But without a national crisis such as 9/11 it wasn't going to pass. Why do you think that is?
WRT investigations - the concern is a military tribunal can seize you, try you, and execute you, without telling anyone they've even taken yo
Re:So What? I'll tell you what! (Score:2)
Knowing that, say, your competition can stand on the street and watch you walk in and out of a prospect's business is one t
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Yea, or your local WalMart and get a TracPhone. They don't ask you who you are. When that number is traced, where is it going to go? I think real criminals will just go to this method.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I can get prepaid sim cards to use in serveral unlocked GSM phones that have no link back to me easily.
If I swap the sim around in 2 different phones and use different sims it makes it really easy to screw with those trying to track you and makes this topic of getting phone records pretty darn useless against the tactic.
The above is one tactic that Mitnick should have used instead of being stupid and using the same cellphone over and over and over so they could find him easier.
FBI Eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Frank Bochte, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he was aware of the Web site.
"Not only in Chicago, but nationwide, the FBI notified its field offices of this potential threat to the security of our agents, and especially our undercover agents," Bochte said. "We need to educate our personnel about the dangers posed by individuals using
no, it's a tool for finding undercover agents (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's why it's threat to the safety of undercover agents.
What records? (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with me? Why doesn't the corporate oligarchy like me? Why haven't I been offered to enlarge my reproductive tool, invest in Nigerian projects, or enroll in the US Gubmint Green Card lottery?
It is so fucking unfair.
Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
The downside is offcourse that if this will be allowed, every phone company will make it their standard, and if you want out of it you have to pay more for the priviledge. So maybe restricting them from both ways (the info only goes out with a search warrant) is a better solution.
And now on to RTFA...
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed (Score:2)
Content versus caller data? (Score:4, Insightful)
My bigger concern has always been who could have the content of any calls recorded. I know the phone companies "don't" and I doubt government has any concern for what I talk about, but there is proprietary information we all discuss on the phone (nothing illegal, just ideas and other information I'd rather not share). Digital cell transmissions are already nicely compressed for transmission and those data streams are just perfect to stick on a huge hard drive and use in the future.
I have no political aspirations, so I guess my information would be totally useless in order to try to hurt me publicly, but for those who do think about the future -- is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?
Re:Content versus caller data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do your contracts include a confidentiality clause that this violates?
" is the cell phone a safe way to communicate?"
No. Not if you have information you want kept secret. No transmitted communication is entirely safe, and some are less safe than others.
I have mixed feelings (Score:4, Funny)
On the one hand, I am appalled at the erosion of our civil liberties and the almost-sedated non-response from the public. It reminds me of the way in which cancer kills you (the body ignores it when it's small, and as it only grows a little bit each day, the problem is put off until it's too late; a tumor that would have been actively fought if implanted full grown kills an otherwise health person because it's never that much worse than it was the day before).
But on the other hand, I'd love to see someone try to decipher my cell phone calls:
Me: Could you repeat that? ...other...erver room...ception in here...od damn fans...!
Them:If...the...ine when I...ick.
Me: No! Don't click on that! We need to log the error message.
Them:Hog...any..sausage?
Me:Not sausage. Message. Error message. Error message. Error message.
Them:...ot an err...hat about...age?
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:Could you...that?
Me:Write it down. Write it down. Write it down.
Them:...I just read...you? Zero zero...eff as in...apple, zero, ze...two. Got that?
Hey, maybe I could just ask the NSA for a cleaned up transcript!
--MarkusQ
Re:Content versus caller data? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Content versus caller data? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sprint had a checkbox for not sharing info (Score:2, Informative)
Maclean's covered this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's embarrassing (Score:5, Interesting)
"Her mouth hangs open, and she appears near tears. 'Oh my God," she says finally. "I didn't realize this was possible. This is really alarming.'"
The underlying problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, the underlying problem is far deeper than many will admit. I believe that we in the United States have a certain right to an expectation of privacy, but at the same time we cannot rely on that expectation to safeguard information regarding ourselves. Information exists beyond the scope of your personal effects, and you cannot reasonably expect others to protect it for you.
The problem is that most financial and personal transactions here rely almost entirely on security through obscurity: the identity thief can't steal your identity... until he gets ahold of your (trivial to obtain) SSN, and so forth. We rely on hiding information about ourselves as a means of securing our effects, despite the fact that such information is all but unprotectable in the face of modern technology.
No amount of legislation is going to stop people from uncovering information: the only way to mitigate this is to make the information on its own worthless.
A social security number should be useless to anyone but me. Same with a bank account number. The security needs to be seperate from the identification.
Re:The underlying problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The underlying problem (Score:3, Informative)
Dunno where you live...but I as a normal citizen (none of what you listed) can perfectly legally carry a concealed gun. Many states have CC licenses you can get quite easily.
Why can't you reasonably expect? (Score:2)
Now, if quaint, olde worlde countries like Britain can succeed in offering a high l
Who sells these logs? Where are they? (Score:2)
Dirty bastards (Score:2)
Where do these people come from? Whatever happens to these people that's bad, I hope it happens soon because they definitely deserve it... those people, and people who operate tow services with questionable tactics... these kinda people just get under my skin. If wishin' were killin' I'd be among America's most wanted right now.
If anyone wants... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If anyone wants... (Score:3, Funny)
Steal my privacy, I dare you. (Score:3, Funny)
I sleep well at night not worrying about privacy concerns or any of the other issues that are out there, and it helps me live in the modern age.
The first is to live an exceedingly dull life. My cell phone records, if anyone bothered to pay for them, would provide a list of short calls to other dull people, usually to arrange meetings to do dull things such as 'play skee ball' or 'watch star trek'. If someone wanted to invade my privacy, the would end up spending hours on end trying to figure out what I was hiding, because nobody's life is that boring. The jokes on them, because mine is.
The second is to have an abysmal credit rating. Go ahead and steal my identify. Trust me, you won't be getting any credit cards using *my* name.
The third is to have completely bizar purchasing habits. If you want to collect market data on me, fine. You'll think your computers, which approximate consumer behavior are broken with me. It's not that I try hard to be weird, it's just that, well, I'm going to purchase a DVD of Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries' in the same order as 'Dude, Where's My Car', and you'll jut have to live with it.
So go ahead, steal my data. Take my information. I'm just going to make your magin of error bigger.
Story idea for budding journalists (Score:2)
Stung (Score:2)
Information wants to be free (Score:2)
None the less I'm quite appalled this can be legal or, even worse, common in any developed country.
OK, maybe it's a little (hidden) check box on the contract that makes it possible but such an option should be off by default.
After all, it's not just the phone's owners information that is disclosed but as well info on the innocent people he talked with.
I could imagine that people from countries where privacy is of hi
Prepaid cell phones (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prepaid cell phones (Score:5, Informative)
You're not paranoid enough. The phone's serial number (the IMEI) is transmitted with the call. So even though you've changed your number, it can be associated with the old one because the IMEI hasn't changed.
Illegal or not? (Score:5, Informative)
The top article [suntimes.com] implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data. They point to unscrupulous insiders, and acts of fraud on the part of private investigators and data miners.
But the information from EPIC [epic.org] and the FCC [fcc.gov] suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out. Well, of course most people have never heard of this and so they have not opted-out. Therefore it is completely legal for the companies to share your phone call lists!
I'm annoyed and frustrated that the press reports are getting this so wrong (as usual). By implying that the problem is a few illegal acts, necessarily commited furtively and relatively rarely, they hide the fact that this is a perfectly legal, above-board business which is presumably going along at a brisk rate selling everyone's call info!
Just as you can form a google page rank... (Score:3, Interesting)
Social Engineering? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen the bulletin. In it they indicate that they conducted a test and placed an order to get the records of one of the agency's own cell phones. A little while later an unknown person called that cell number and said they worked for the cell phone provider. The person then asked for some information about the subscriber. Some time later they got an email with "call records".
A little social engineering can go a long way. If a "service technician" calls asking me for information, I'm going to tell him I'm George W. Bush.
dupe (Score:2)
Question: (Score:2, Funny)
For another $120 + $12.95(TIVO)/month, they can pay my cable/tivo bill for me and I'll tell them everything I watched on all my TVs.
For about $320 I'll detail for them every Kw/h of power I used in a month.
Kick in a final $400 amonth for gasoline, and I'll gladly catalogue everywhere I've driven.
Even wired Bell Co's are dangerous (Score:2)
Law enforcement has almost always had back doors into both the wired and wireless systems in the United States. They are the only entity I know of authorized to see this data.
So what we have here is either a) The cell carriers which are pretty much wholly owned by Bell Co's selling this info
or
b) Someone illegaly getting the data and selling it.
I'd lay my money on b.
You need data protection laws (Score:2)
In France this government commission [wikipedia.org] is responsible for overseeing such rules. Everybody listed in any (government or otherwise) name database has a right to read his entry and modify or delete it.
this is a good thing (Score:2)
Called Sprint - Results (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Called Sprint - Results (Score:4, Interesting)
Something we ALL can do about this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh no!! (Score:5, Insightful)
As if it's ok to snoop on regular people but you go too far snooping on FBI agents!
Re:Oh no!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to call names here, but that's sort of how a salesman works - he gives you a problem you don't usually think about, then says "This thing will solve your problem". Never thought of it like that before.
Re:Oh no!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't mean it's not a problem for everybody, just that it's a REALLY BIG problem for undercover agents.
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
Who said anything about "undercover"?
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
It's even a problem for non-undercover agents (though less severe), as they're more likely to have someone they've busted in the past (or someone who knows a person they've busted) with a grudge than somebody who's not in law enforcement.
Re:Oh no!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think "decent chance" is a pretty strong term. Even most low-life scum will think long and hard before killing a federal officer. I'm not saying there isn't a risk, but I think the chance of someone killing their cheating spouse is a lot higher than the chances of a mobster whacking a federal agent. Generally, to be a serious enough criminal to hav
Re:Oh no!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post is a troll, to be sure... but yes. You do have such a civil right. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it reads:
"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."
The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.
Just because the current administation (and to be fair, many past administrations) has wiped their collective asses with the 4th Amendment doesn't mean that it no longer applies.
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
This has nothing to do with Bush... this time. But it again shows the erosion of our personal liberties. And your flippant response notwithstanding, you're going to regret it one day when you wake up and wonder why you can't do or say the things you used to be able to do and say in this "free country".
It didn't start under Bush.. but it's not being rolled back by the current crowd in Washington either. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, with the very notable exception of Russ Feingold, are fighting for our freedoms anymore.
Re:Oh no!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
Can I buy my neighbor's last grocery checkout receipt? There's something other than business records at work here.
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2, Interesting)
I can follow you, right? So, I can sit outside your house, wait for you to come out, follow you to the store, your office, etc, and wait outside until you come out and then follow you some more. I didn't impinge on your privacy because I didn't follow you _in_ or watch what you were doing or listen to your conversations.
So it is here. I can purchase a list of your telephone calls - in other words, follow the path your phone took. But, I'm not purchasing recordings or transcripts of the c
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
The telephone records are generally regarded by people as private data. There is an expectation of privacy about who you've communicated with and when. You may give that up when you agreed to the phone contract, but that could be struck down, potentially.
There are many things that the government prevents you from doing. You can contractually give your
Re:Oh no!! (Score:4, Informative)
For that reason, we have a wide array of law with regards to tresspass, publication of personal records of various sorts, etc. It just so happens that cell phone records are not yet covered. That said, the described activity cited as "pretexting" is probably illegal since it involves a fraudulent transaction (if you had an arrangement with your carrier to keep the information private, and a thrid-party was subverting that arrangment by pretending to be you).
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
If true, then the government can sidestep 4th Amendment protections by farming out the snooping to private companies . . .
Re:Oh no!! (Score:3, Informative)
A police officer can't ask someone else to do something (perform a search) that they are not permitted to do. IANAL but I assume any evidence gained in this fashion would be thrown out of any court trial.
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
That's not the way the courts interpret it, though. The government is
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2)
That being said, what we need here is a law or an extension of a law to incorporate that it is illegal to give out records, and to only make them available, via print, to the owner of said phone, or via the internet with a safegaurds inplace to allow only the owner to access.
Howe
Re:Oh no!! (Score:4, Informative)
That's not a very good generalization. In fact, in 1972 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's presumptive requirement of a judicial warrant applied to wiretaps in terrorism investigations involving purely domestic groups. The Court, however, took pains to the note that it was not purporting to define, much less restrict, the "scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.)
...
To get a broader view of the issue I suggest reading:
Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051220094 6.asp [nationalreview.com]
September 10 America
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200 512210614.asp [nationalreview.com]
Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20051219133 4.asp [nationalreview.com]
and best of all: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200 512201735.asp [nationalreview.com]
Warrantless Searches of Americans? That's Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.
What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?
I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car -- regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search -- including a strip search -- at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
Re:Oh no!! (Score:2, Interesting)
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
In the case of phone records, I think it would be more accurate to describe them as historical records, in which the telephone company, the caller and the call recipient have all played a role.
If the telephone company chooses to release the information about the call later, for profit, it doesn't seem like they under a strong ethical bond not to. Yes, it would be more discreet of them not to sell the information, but in this context, I don't think not be
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be another matter entirely if getting caught using the service involved jail time or whatnot.
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Re:Of course (Score:2)
Heck, I'll sell you my old phone bills for half that
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how Ernie would feel if someone purchased his phone records and found out who his client is? Since he is aware that phone records are for sale, isn't his statement the same thing as releasing his client's name and identifying her husband? If that is the case, it seems like she (or her husband) could sue the living daylights out of him.
Re:What? Cell phone companies need the money? (Score:5, Informative)
- selling the organs of their customers would make them a lot of cash but is considered to be *really* bad almost everywhere;
- selling every little bit of data they have about their customers is considered bad in much fewer places (and is apparently quite accepted in the US) so although it's not as lucrative, they went with that.
It's probably safe not to let them know you still have both your kidneys though.
Second to last (Score:2)
When pagers came out i was in the building trades, (with a crazy wife at the time), she paged me so many times one day I flushed the pager in the toilet.
another time I was so fed up trying to concentrated I dropped it in a nearby storm drain.
Instead of simply replacing it they wanted me to carry the first model Motorolla Mobile phone (kinda like a brick with buttons) I refused and have not been leashed since.
Re:I don't use Cell Phones (Score:2)
I don't want to look like people I hate in the first place with their pathetic nothingness talking bullshit over the phone too hard...
re: convenience has its price (Score:2)
If the general public got irritated enough with tracking of their spending habits when using credit cards, for example, they could boycott their use and cause a change. But the convenience vs. perceived threat doesn't motivate mo
Re:Server not found! (Score:2)
Re:Not in Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Desposable phones. (Score:3, Funny)
(sorry, I could not resist)