Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AT&T Communications Privacy

US Telcos Are Selling Access To Their Customers' Location Data, and That Data Reaches Bounty Hunters and Others Not Authorized To Possess It (vice.com) 128

T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T are selling access to their customers' location data, and that data is ending up in the hands of bounty hunters and others not authorized to possess it, letting them track most phones in the country, an investigation by news outlet Motherboard has found. From the report: Nervously, I gave a bounty hunter a phone number. He had offered to geolocate a phone for me, using a shady, overlooked service intended not for the cops, but for private individuals and businesses. Armed with just the number and a few hundred dollars, he said he could find the current location of most phones in the United States. The bounty hunter sent the number to his own contact, who would track the phone. The contact responded with a screenshot of Google Maps, containing a blue circle indicating the phone's current location, approximate to a few hundred metres. [...] The bounty hunter did this all without deploying a hacking tool or having any previous knowledge of the phone's whereabouts. Instead, the tracking tool relies on real-time location data sold to bounty hunters that ultimately originated from the telcos themselves, including T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint, a Motherboard investigation has found. These surveillance capabilities are sometimes sold through word-of-mouth networks.

[...] Motherboard's investigation shows just how exposed mobile networks and the data they generate are, leaving them open to surveillance by ordinary citizens, stalkers, and criminals, and comes as media and policy makers are paying more attention than ever to how location and other sensitive data is collected and sold. The investigation also shows that a wide variety of companies can access cell phone location data, and that the information trickles down from cell phone providers to a wide array of smaller players, who don't necessarily have the correct safeguards in place to protect that data.
"Blade Runner, the iconic sci-fi movie, is set in 2019. And here we are: there's an unregulated black market where bounty-hunters can buy information about where we are, in real time, over time, and come after us. You don't need to be a replicant to be scared of the consequences," Thomas Rid, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, told Motherboard.

Ron Wyden, a senator from Oregon, said in a statement, "This is a nightmare for national security and the personal safety of anyone with a phone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Telcos Are Selling Access To Their Customers' Location Data, and That Data Reaches Bounty Hunters and Others Not Authorized T

Comments Filter:
  • I'm not surprised. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @02:25PM (#57926170) Homepage Journal

    Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and even Ray Bradbury predicted the world that we are steaming in to. Even Max Headroom is to some extent surpassed.

    • by stilrz ( 5232331 )
      Those guys were optimists.
  • by psergiu ( 67614 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @02:36PM (#57926244)

    As long as you can find out in which mobile network that phone is registered, you can take a SIM from the same provider, pop-it into a mobile modem, enable basic network tracing and call that number. As soon as the called number begins to ring, you'll get a packet back from the network listing among other stuff the CELLID where that phone is registered.
    And there are a bunch of websites where you can plug a CELLID which will show that "hunder meter circle" where that cell's antenna has coverage.

    • So that plus an autodialer and a phone number/name database and an arbitrary person can have realish time data on everyone's location?
      • by psergiu ( 67614 )

        If you have that modem dialing out to automatically play a sound file of "You have been approved for medical insured pain relief press one to talk to a operator ..." if the other party manages to pick up - then yes, you can do that. :-)
        But expect your SIM to get disconnected and the IMSI of your modem blocked the next day (if the mobile operators are smart enough to count the number of "debug" messages running over the network and report on that)

    • Or even cheaper yet, just record their checkins from facebook.

    • Citation needed ... it seems unlikely.

  • How it's done (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @02:44PM (#57926300)

    Having worked for one of these Telco's (admitedly before LTE) I can tell you how it's likely done.

    Your cell phone must register with a tower, so the "contact" inside the wireless telco looks up the customer's phone number directly in the switching system so that they leave no fingerprints in the CRM system. So the HLR will say where the mobile device is presently located by the tower's id number, and then you cross reference that with the actual geographic location of the tower.

    That's how it's done, and customers, pre-smartphones who have had their devices lost or stolen have routinely called in to ask where their device is and at best, the rep can say it's somewhere near X (where the HLR says it was last seen) often by using a tool designed to check if the phone is roaming. If the phone is roaming on another carrier's tower, then the carrier will actually have more information available since the roaming database on the phone will only try to connect to certain towers it's been authorized to. So if your phone is in Dallas, which has a lot of cell sites, its much easier to figure out where someone is because one tower might only serve an area of 300ft, where as a tower out in Anchorage, might literately serve half the city, so the precision is much lower.

    The on-device A-GPS is more accurate because it can use multiple cell sites and actual GPS line-of-sight to determine where it is. But this information isn't typically relayed back to the cell carrier unless the carrier provides A-GPS service in the first place. LPP (LTE Positioning Protocol) is some fancy level of A-GPS that utilizes multiple sources. If the carrier has A-GPS, then yes, the carrier knows within 100ft of where the phone is.

    The question is how much data does the carrier actually need though? If you turn A-GPS off, which you typically can't do without turning all location services off entirely, then you're stuck.

    If you turn location services off, you can still be found as long as the phone is powered on since it's still registered in the HLR. Just it can only be narrowed down to the last tower seen for the most part.

    • by psergiu ( 67614 )

      Well ... the "HLR boys" can send a few network commands to force that phone to try and register with another tower ... then another one ... if they have your EIRP from at least 3 tower locations, you're triangulated to about ~15m (down to ~5m in cities with lots of towers).

      Hint: if you see the signal bars on your phone jumping up and down for a minute or two without a reason ( phone idle, no apps downloading data, no high movement of devices in network (rush hour or concert) ) - then guess what just happene

    • Re:How it's done (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @03:20PM (#57926564)

      I believe you are mostly correct about the HLR/VLR, but I think the cell company has more information than just what tower you are hitting or which MSC you happen to be in. (BTW, it's really the MSC's VLR that has this information, the HLR is where your handset is registered and it knows what MSC you are in so inbound calls can be routed to the right MSC to be delivered to your handset. The local MSC to your handset has a VLR (Visitor Location Register) which is about where your handset happens to be right now so when that call arrives they know what cell gets the call so they can assign a slot and deliver it to your phone.

      These days they have quite a bit more information about the handset's location, including a signal strength and apparent direction from the cell tower, from which they can make a pretty good estimate of your location. They need this information to more accurately transmit and receive from your handset at the higher data rates while not consuming excessive expensive spectrum space. These days cell towers have electronically steerable arrays for antennas, so they can better use their available spectrum space to service more phones at higher data rates.

      • These days cell towers have electronically steerable arrays for antennas, so they can better use their available spectrum space to service more phones at higher data rates.

        They've had that for at least 15 years.

    • IIRC, A-GPS can be turned back on remotely by the carrier. Theoretically, it's supposed to happen in response to something like a warrant.

      (Or at least I've read articles that make this claim)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Hey tony, we gotta get in on dis...thinks of the people we might finds that owes ya money.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @03:03PM (#57926442) Journal

    Warning to telecoms: if you don't like being regulated, don't invent reasons to get regulated.

    Get together and come up with a mutual industry agreement on when and how to share customer data in a way that's not confusing or misleading to customers. Sign the agreement and hold each other accountable. The alternative is that the gov't will do such for you after you play fast and loose for short-term profits and bungle it one day.

    • by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @03:26PM (#57926598)

      Your logic is bad.

      If your solution to problems that businesses have is to run to regulators to solve them then you are going to lose. Or have you not looked at the past Century of the FCC itself? One hardly needs to look at only that industry either to see the same effect.

      The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses... o wait... sorry you effectively prevented that proper "control" by letting the regulators do that for you and subsequently allowed them to be bought off by the industry to put in regulations that make it very difficult for you to challenge incumbents with new services making it difficult for even super rich businesses to compete.

      People like you are the exact reason why Google Fiber failed and the problem is that you don't know why or how that is and when you are told how or why you start calling it victim blaming. Well if you help create support an institution that is oppressing you, you are not exactly a victim.... more like someone getting their comeuppance for being taken for a fool. You can't walk off a cliff and legitimately bitch about gravity pulling you to your doom!

      In no uncertain terms... They will buy your "regulators" and "own you" as you "grin from ear to ear" thinking you put them in their places with so called "regulation". It has happened so many time they now tell you to your face how they are going to take advantage of you and you don't even believe it! Even if you substitute capitalism for socialism or even communism they will still be ruling over you, no exception, no mistake. The history is there for everyone to see! The poor endlessly whine about the bourgeoisie ruling over them and what is the first thing the poor do when a problem occurs? They run to the bourgeoisie that control their lives over here and ask them to control their lives over there.

      • The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses... o wait... sorry you effectively prevented that proper "control" by letting the regulators do that for you and subsequently allowed them to be bought off by the industry to put in regulations that make it very difficult for you to challenge incumbents with new services making it difficult for even super rich businesses to compete.

        The preferred "free market" solution does not automatically happen for free in all markets.

        Telecommunications companies started off big, because they had to have the economic muscle to negotiate with many private and gov't entities to achieve a network of sufficient scale to be economically viable. At this size, pure free market solutions are fantasy.

        Of course, we, as consumers, do have options. We could choose to not be a part of a cell system at all, and use apps that connect through wifi to make and re

        • "Telecommunications companies started off big, because they had to have the economic muscle to negotiate with many private and gov't entities to achieve a network of sufficient scale to be economically viable."

          This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big. Additionally, the government helped them to create this problem by let

          • This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big

            Didn't think this through much, did you?

            So you start your little telco, with your 10 customers.

            Why does AT&T route any calls to you? Or any calls from your customers to AT&T customers? Keep in mind we're in your ideal world without telecom regulations, so "common carrier" doesn't exist.

            Or such regulations do exist, and AT&T just decided to route a few petabytes of traffic through your network, utterly swamping your network and crippling your service. Causing 8 of your customers to cancel serv

            • This conversation goes better when you use your brain a little.

              "Why does AT&T route any calls to you?"

              There already are regulations that prevent that without calling up congress to for them to also stop them from invading your privacy. There really is such a thing as too much regulation but it sounds like for people like you anything less than total regulation is zero regulation at all.

              "The poles don't belong to the telephone companies. They belong to the power companies. The telephone companies are le

              • I guess what I said flew right over your head. No private company providing utilities of any kind should own private property on public lands, this naturally includes more than just ISP's, but it seems you don't get that.

                Without a bit more concrete details on how that framework could work for the various kinds of utilities and telecomms, I do not think you have an argument here at all.

                In the real world, these services are provided with a messy combination of public property, publicly owned easements, private property, privately owned easements, and various leases for all of the above, the exact details of which vary by state and county and city. And while you may have fine ideas of what a better approach would be, it actua

          • But since you brought that up as well. Let me ask you this. Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.

            Ultimately you are dependent on gov't honesty and competence to some degree, even if not exactly the same in both cases.

            In the case of more direct gov't involvement, I can vote with my vote.

            In the case of less direct gov't involvement, I vote in the hope the gov't will protect me when my little startup is visited by hired goons who rough me up and smash my equipment.

            That was not a theoretical concern, in the real world. There are two reasons that Hollywood is in California, BTW. First the land and (sun)l

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        If your solution to problems that businesses have is to run to regulators to solve...

        Where did I say or imply that?

        The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses...

        They can spend billions of dollars to keep the little guy little. It's like fighting a fire-hose with a squirt-gun. It's a wonderful ideal, but often fails in practice. I can convey dozens of historical Microsoft/IBM/AT&T/etc. shannegins (and

    • What is this "companies accountability" for misuse of data collected about their prod..., I mean consumers I've been hearing about, you mean like the Equifax?
    • by qubezz ( 520511 )
      And the scumbag middlemen reselling scumbag provider's customer's info are also liars. "âoeillegal access to data is an unfortunate occurrence across virtually every industry that deals in consumer or employee data, and it is impossible to detect a fraudster, or rogue customer" - it is not illegal, it at most breaks some backroom handshake deal between mobile providers and the tiers of companies that resell data. If you've got some investigative business which are already operate on the fringe of legal
    • >Warning to telecoms: if you don't like being regulated, don't invent reasons to get regulated.

      or get your puppet lead FCC, seems cheraper

  • The person who wrote the article.
  • I have no objections to the telcos making it easier for bounty hunters to track down fugitive criminals. The faster those get caught, the better off the rest of society is. The fact that there are no controls in place to keep this data from getting in the hands of stalkers, burglars, jealous spouses, and nosy neighbors is the far bigger concern.
  • Burglars might like to know who is traveling and on the other side of the country.
    Or people doing corporate espionage might like to poke around in the target's home computer and have time to clean up their traces.

  • People with outstanding warrants know that the police can track them, so they use throwaway phones, so that the cops don't know their number.

    I don't see how bounty hunters would get to know that number unless they criminals are so stupid to call acquaintances with it.

    Then they deserve it.

    It's simple, if you don't want to get found, don't use a phone.

  • Can't you protect yourself from this by never giving out your direct number? Just give people a number from a service like Google Voice that allows you to forward calls to your real number.

  • Ron Wyden, a senator from Oregon, said in a statement, "This is a nightmare for national security and the personal safety of anyone with a phone."

    So let's hurry up and do nothing about it!

  • Easy Manipulation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by forkfail ( 228161 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2019 @07:06PM (#57927940)

    If nothing else, this article shows how easy it is to manipulate people's views.

    Had this article been about how anyone, such as a connected stalker, could for a few hundred dollars, track your location through your phone, there would have been almost universal outrage in the comments.

    But because it is framed in terms of bounty hunters catching bad guys, there are an awful lot of comments in support of this capability. Even if it is illegal and can be used by anyone with the dollars to buy the services.

    Does not give hope for the future.

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Working...