WhatsApp Ordered To Help US Agents Spy On Chinese Phones (forbes.com) 87
New submitter HillNKnowlton22 writes: U.S. federal agencies have been using a 35-year-old American surveillance law to secretly track WhatsApp users with no explanation as to why and without knowing whom they are targeting. In Ohio, a just-unsealed government surveillance application reveals that in November 2021, DEA investigators demanded the Facebook-owned messaging company track seven users based in China and Macau. The application reveals the DEA didn't know the identities of any of the targets, but told WhatsApp to monitor the IP addresses and numbers with which the targeted users were communicating, as well as when and how they were using the app. Such surveillance is done using a technology known as a pen register and under the 1986 Pen Register Act, and doesn't seek any message content, which WhatsApp couldn't provide anyway, as it is end-to-end encrypted.
As Forbes previously reported, over at least the last two years, law enforcement in the U.S. has repeatedly ordered WhatsApp and other tech companies to install these pen registers without showing any probable cause. As in those previous cases, the government order to trace Chinese users came with the statement that the Justice Department only needed to provide three "elements" to justify tracking of WhatsApp users. They include: the identity of the attorney or the law enforcement officer making the application; the identity of the agency making the application; and a certification from the applicant that "the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by that agency." "Other than the three elements described above, federal law does not require that an application for an order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register and a trap and trace device specify any facts," the government wrote in the latest application.
As Forbes previously reported, over at least the last two years, law enforcement in the U.S. has repeatedly ordered WhatsApp and other tech companies to install these pen registers without showing any probable cause. As in those previous cases, the government order to trace Chinese users came with the statement that the Justice Department only needed to provide three "elements" to justify tracking of WhatsApp users. They include: the identity of the attorney or the law enforcement officer making the application; the identity of the agency making the application; and a certification from the applicant that "the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by that agency." "Other than the three elements described above, federal law does not require that an application for an order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register and a trap and trace device specify any facts," the government wrote in the latest application.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need to know the message content. They have a "five dollar wrench" for that job.
Yeah 0.00000035% sounds about right (Score:3)
Indeed they do - that's their job.
Whatsapp reports two billion monthly active users. Of those two billion, the feds got metadata on seven of them, in China.
That's 0.00000035%. I'm quite sure that for 0.00000035% of users, there is good reason to see who they are sending messages to.
And they get offended? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
very soviet
Very CApitalist.
Re: (Score:1)
And they get offended if chinese track someone?
Well obviously. It's illegal to track Americans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they get offended if chinese track someone?
Well obviously. It's illegal to track Americans.
Laughs in Edward Snowden.
Why be a WuMao when you can be a 100kUSD? (Score:1)
HillNKnowlton22, you are a WuMao because you try to expose truth of the US. But we will mod you down no matter how true your facts are. And naming your handle after Hill & Knowlton [wikipedia.org] won't save you!
I give you a better business plan: why earn only 50 cents Yuan while you can make US$400k+ badmouthing China [ned.org], paid for by my tax dollars [wikipedia.org], instead?
Re: (Score:3)
Fentanyl. That was easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be the FDA making sure the fentanyl is clean and doesn't poison people?
Re: (Score:2)
And they get offended if chinese track someone?
Yes because when the CCP tracks someone it's to steal trade secrets or a precursor to that person "disappearing".
Re: (Score:2)
Without identification. A badge number is identification. Thus the underlying premise of the article is entirely false.
Re:And they get offended? (Score:4, Informative)
Without identification. A badge number is identification. Thus the underlying premise of the article is entirely false.
There are many sources on this incident, not just the one AC posted. The various articles on this say that the unidentified officers did not have badges, or any form of identification, or any indication of what agency they worked for.
Later information shows that Customs and Border Patrol agents (part of DHS) had been called into the area (despite it being far from any borders). CBP claimed that their agents identified themselves, although they also stated "The names of the agents were not displayed due to recent doxing incidents against law enforcement personnel who serve and protect our country."
Here is a discussion by Forbes (hardly a left wing rag) of a different incident that was caught on video. In this case, the kidnappers did have the word "police" marked but no information about what kind of police. Forbes wrote: "
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/e... [forbes.com]
Some other sources: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/20/... [vox.com]
https://www.opb.org/news/artic... [opb.org]
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> The various articles on this say that the unidentified officers did not have badges,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
and also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, poor choices were made by a past administration and we've resolved to not do such things in the future. That said, the only people remaining there are known to be terrorists, so their own countries refuse to take them back.
Re: (Score:1)
How many have been released because ZERO facts supported that claim?
Re: (Score:2)
You should read up on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
"Worst of the worst" is a lie and even the DOJ admits it...NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep reading.
"By May 2011, 600 detainees had been released. Most of the men were released without charges or transferred to facilities in their home countries."
"As of June 2013, 46 detainees (in addition to two who were deceased) were designated to be detained indefinitely, because the government said the prisoners were too dangerous to transfer and there was insufficient admissible evidence to try them."
Re: (Score:1)
Puhhlease, we have NOTHING to crow about here.
Re: (Score:2)
You are equivocating the unjust treatment of 650 prisoners of war with the abduction and execution of thousands (millions?) of dissidents?
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, your "moral indignation" is shit.
BTW, OUR evil is OUR business. Theirs is not our issue.
Your so called argument is "we're as bad as them, LESS often", right?
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, OUR evil is OUR business. Theirs is not our issue.
False. Everyone's evil is everyone's business. Always has been and always will be.
Your so called argument is "we're as bad as them, LESS often", right?
No, I'm saying we are far from perfect but equivocating is dishonest.
Re: (Score:1)
It's dishonest to pretend America needs to clean up other's errors and ignore our own until it is quite convenient to do so!
Re: And they get offended? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
100% is more than 0% (Score:3)
The Chinese government tracks the communications of ALL of their people.
The US Government got metadata on seven users out of 2 billion. That's 0.00000035%. The 0.00000035% they had probable cause for, they got the meatadata.
You understand the difference between 100% and 0.00000035%, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Need a new messaging app (Score:2)
We really need a messaging system controlled by an organization based somewhere with proper laws that don't have exemptions for the secret police.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what that has to do with finding a country that doesn't have secret exemptions to its laws.
Re: (Score:2)
What we really need are decentralised messaging systems not controlled by a single organization regardless of where they might be located.
Re: (Score:2)
We have one. Its called e-mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there such a place? At least is there such a place with the infrastructure to support a messaging system.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe co-owners, one from the US and one from China, then they can snitch on each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Might work, OTOH, might just team up.
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, in any properly run fascism, of course the GeStaPo must be allowed to track anybody they like!
End-to-end encryption (Score:2)
Before someone points out that WhatsApp employs end-to-end encryption, please remember that key distribution is performed from WhatsApp servers, and they might perfectly store a copy of each key so they might decrypt each conversation. In fact, this is probably required for some of their functionality.
In these systems, end-to-end encryption projects from third parties, but not from the servers providing the service (and the key distribution).
No key distribution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
"There is no server distributing keys even for group chats."
So true. Come to think of it, I have not seen them landing on the moon either.
Re: (Score:2)
Bloody brainlets who know theory, but lack ability to build even a basic model to apply this theory in real life. When you start a chat with new person, how do you deliver the keys? Do you have the send them a text message, email, snail mail or call them and say the key?
That's right, you don't. Whatsapp handles everything in the background. From creating the keys, to distributing the keys. They have everything from your keys to your messages.
Re: (Score:2)
Bloody brainlets who know theory, but lack ability to build even a basic model to apply this theory in real life. When you start a chat with new person, how do you deliver the keys? Do you have the send them a text message, email, snail mail or call them and say the key?
That's right, you don't. Whatsapp handles everything in the background. From creating the keys, to distributing the keys. They have everything from your keys to your messages.
For group chats the setup varies between messaging apps. The simplest way to do it is to have the group creator, create a symmetric key for the entire group. The creator then encrypts the symmetric key with each group members private key and sends the key to them in the group invite. The app server only relays the encrypted keys and doesn't know their true values.
For individual one to one messages I would suggest you look up Diffie-Hellman key exchange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You can suggest all you want, just like I can suggest that facebook donate all their proceeds to charity.
See, suggestions are like holes. Everyone has a lot of them. They're also utterly irrelevant to how things actually work.
Re: (Score:1)
They could still spoof, i.e. introduce different keys to each side, without subjects noticing it.
Though in this case US was only tracking IPs and timing.
The difference is (Score:4, Insightful)
China will monitor you, and if you have the gall to attend a protest, write an article in the local paper, or crack a joke about winnie the poo, you'll disappear for 6-12 months, and show back up VERY contrite, TOTALLY supportive of the great Chinese communist party. Oh, and you're 20 pounds lighter and won't talk about where you were.
These things are NOT equivalent. I'll pick the US system and all it's flaws. Any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
What you fail to understand is that while the US today is less of a Big Brother state than China, by going down this road with such enthusiasm, it is making a strong case that it will not be less of a Big Brother state in the future.
After decades of steadily strengthening political, educational and commercial ties, do you think China has become more like the US, or that the US has become more like China?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant! You may have predicted the next great international intellectual property showdown.
If we were allowed to moderate conversations we're participating in, I'd definitely give you a +1.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm...
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Everything is illegal in the US. If you piss off the wrong people in China (like McCartyism?), you might disappear.. but it's not common. In the US, they'l
Re: (Score:2)
Well, China is clearly not a good place to be, but neither is the US. Both invest considerable propaganda effort in telling their people that everywhere else it is worse though. Both are masters of the "Big Lie" technique.
Re:The difference is (Score:4, Informative)
I'll pick the US system and all it's flaws.
That's the system that applies on US soil. Once you step off that, you're liable to drone strikes and extraordinary 'rendition', courtesy of the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The difference is (Score:2)
That's the system that applies on US soil. Once you step off that, you're liable to drone strikes and extraordinary 'rendition', courtesy of the USA.
Not for attending a "USA sucks" rally, and we haven't even "extraordinarily renditioned" Snowden, so, hyperbole much?
Re: (Score:1)
The US will disappear you (usually perm) on domestic soil (or have someone else do it, or start a fake "war" if its on foreign soil). China will do the same thing... Except China tells you up front, "Don't do X".. the US claims "freedom" (with a lot of hidden asterisks).
Pretty much par for the course when one is a country of lawyers (ALWAYS READ THE FINE PRINT) and the other is not.
Re: (Score:2)
They are mostly the same, except one is a little more "hidden".. and one is pretty in your face.
The US will disappear you (usually perm) on domestic soil (or have someone else do it, or start a fake "war" if its on foreign soil). China will do the same thing... Except China tells you up front, "Don't do X".. the US claims "freedom" (with a lot of hidden asterisks).
Pretty much par for the course when one is a country of lawyers (ALWAYS READ THE FINE PRINT) and the other is not.
Actually China does not tell you upfront what many of the "Don't do X" are.
For example, there is no official reason about Winnie the Poo. Same for many other things which are not officially listed.
What about Huawei? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't disagree. But the other fact is that US has hit Huawei very hard claiming, without evidence, that their gear is used to spy. No evidence. While in the mean time as it turns out, attempting to spy with every possible mean.
I'll let you draw you own conclusion about damning hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments, without exception, have no collective honor or decency. They will always go to the limits of what their citizens will let them get away with.
Re: (Score:1)
It's very rare that the US will take action unless they are pretty damn sure that a person is doing something pretty damn dangerous or illegal.
"Illegal" as in "exposing [wikipedia.org] US [wikipedia.org] atrocity [wikipedia.org]"?
And rarity due to intimidation [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between China and the US is that chinese services are not widely used outside of china, so the chinese are generally only able to monitor their own citizens.
American operated services are used in many countries, giving their government the ability to monitor foreigners.
Re: (Score:2)
TikTok is widely used outside of China. The owners partitioned it so that non-Chinese user data is not stored in China, mostly because of fears that the Chinese government could get it.
Similarly, the EU puts restrictions on what data can be exported to the US, because the US lacks the same privacy and access rights that the EU has. China also limits what foreign companies operating in China, like Apple and Microsoft, can export in terms of user data, so that other governments can't get at it.
Re: (Score:1)
So, what would be the US diplomatic as well as media reaction to the equivalent monitoring request of Chinese law enforcement to TikTok?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably that jurisdiction matters so they can't get that data.
The EU takes the same position, e.g. data held in Ireland is not available to the US, even with a court order. There was a case a few years back where they tried to argue that because US staff can order subordinates in Ireland to produce it they should, but I think they lost because it would have been illegal for the Irish staff to do so anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that. Or it is a person they pretty well damn not like or a person that has pretty well damn ideas that the government would like to see suppressed.
So, yes, the US is not a full-blown surveillance state unlike China. But some people with power are doing their pretty well damn best to change that. If the citizens sleep, or worse, cheer this on, these people will pretty well damn succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "fuck them both"?
Wow (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Asking WhatsApp to decrypt messages (which they can't do without hacking the code) is wrong.
However, asking for metadata is has a long precedent, and is information that WhatsApp does have, and as a US company, may be supoenaed, or forced to disclose under warrant.
This is no different than law enforcement asking the phone company for your calling records.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, they're supposed to have probable cause and a Judge sign a search warrant, not, from the summary,
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably also FISA.
A warrant is required for a wiretap. A pen trap/pen register does not require a warrant, it does not require the probable cause that a warrant does.
1986 Pen Register Act (Score:4, Informative)
Re: 1986 Pen Register Act (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why you use a VPN. They can only get an IP address from WhatsApp, so better make sure it's useless to them and your VPN provider is in another jurisdiction where they can't demand data from it.
Re: (Score:1)
However, person monitored is not on the US territory.
That's how Huawei is a security threat to the US (Score:2, Interesting)
because they would not have obeyed such an order. Hence no one should be allowed to use Huawei equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, pretty much looks like that is the actual reason behind the war on Huawei.