Feds Have a High-Speed Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier 229
An anonymous reader writes "An unnamed U.S. wireless carrier maintains an unfiltered, unmonitored DS-3 line from its internal network to a facility in Quantico, Virginia, according to Babak Pasdar, a computer security consultant who did work for the company in 2003. Customer voice calls, billing records, location information and data traffic are all allegedly exposed. A similar claim was leveled against Verizon Wireless in a 2006 lawsuit."
Talk is Cheap (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CALEA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Talk is Cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that, with this administration, any claims of domestic spying are hardly "extraordinary". It's more like "business as usual" - to be assumed unless there's evidence to the contrary.
And the loyal opposition, the Democrats, will... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want to know why Bushco thinks it's above the law? Because until you fucking cowards grow a goddamn spine and stand up to their evil, corrosive attitude towards the rule of law THEY ARE.
Why is it that in 8 years, I have never, EVER heard of a major Democrat standing up and saying outright, without analogy, subtlety or tact, that thanks to Bush the terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams? That thanks to him, 19 insane religious fanatics have gone from "attacked three buildings and got their organization crushed like a bug for it's trouble" to "shook the rule of law, the foundation of the most powerful country in the world, to it's base?" That thanks to him and the Republican fear machine, bin Laden has changed and hurt American society in ways he never could have dreamed of? That thanks to him, the terrorists have won in every way that matters?
Why are people surprised by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Opposition? You've been deceived... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CALEA (Score:4, Insightful)
" Because the data center was a clearing house for all Verizon Wireless calls, the transmission line provided the Quantico recipient direct access to all content and all information concerning the origin and termination of telephone calls placed on the Verizon Wireless network as well as the actual content of calls.
The transmission line was unprotected by any firewall and would have enabled the recipient on the Quantico end to have unfettered access to Verizon Wireless customer records, data and information. Any customer databases, records and information could be downloaded from this center."
Since the tech was at the telco & not at Quantico, he was referring to security on the telco side. There was no firewall on the telco side.
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? You're going with that argument?
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
You think all those people in Chinese prisons who were arrested for speaking out against the government 'did evil shit'?
Not that we live in China, but thinking that this can't turn against you...
Re:everyones an expert (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think that out of that 1.2 MILLION of mostly geeks many of us don't work in the datacom industry?
And that out of those, many of us see the stupid games the government plays with the second biggest near monopoly/cartel on the planet?
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, while a court order is still legally required, it is no longer technically required. The FBI need only press a button to start wiretapping. Not only is there no one outside of the organization verifying that the FBI has a legitimate need to know, there is no one keeping records of the wiretaps other than the FBI itself. Our American system has been subverted in the name of safety.
Second problem - what the FBI can use, criminals can abuse. And I'm not talking about criminal behaviour by the FBI itself, I mean unauthorized users with the smarts to co-opt the backdoors that the FBI uses. See this paper from the January/February 2008 issue of IEEE Security and Privacy. [crypto.com]
Third problem - what's your definition of "evil shit?" Does it include breaking up with your boyfriend, the federal agent? [informationweek.com]
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
You should seriously spend some time learning about the principles this country was founded on, because the concept of monitoring interpersonal communications of American citizens would have been an appalling affront to the people who founded it and gave their blood and lives for it. Frankly I find it shameful that so many Americans are willing (if not overjoyed) to hand over their Constitutional rights.
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to be a dooms-day preacher, saying that we're going to start killing our own citizens for exercising their freedom of speech, but the fact of the matter is, as seen in your circular logic (someone correct me if that's not what it is) in the quote above, that by the time it is a problem, you're not going to be able to fix it by voting.
I feel like I understand your argument; I'm not doing anything wrong in my house, so why do I care if the government puts cameras up and watches everything I do? Honestly, I don't care one bit. Until someone decides to pass a law that makes copying a CD illegal, or being gay (just an example... I'm not) illegal, or decides they don't want to count my vote in the next election because I'm a Democrat (again, just an example), or decides that I should be put in jail where my anti-government ideas can't influence other people. And by then, voting isn't going to do me much good.
Re:And the loyal opposition, the Democrats, will.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats are no better than Bush? Then why is it Bush, and the party which routinely condemns "tax-and-spend liberals" and trumpets itself as the bringer of small government and fiscal responsibility, the one which has in 8 years saddled us and our children with more debt than every other president combined, and doubled the size of the federal budget whose cancerous growth he and the Republicans so vehemently denounce?
Neither party is at all better than the other? Since when have the Democrats proclaimed themselves to be the sole beacon of light, Moral Decency, and the Traditional American Family in the smothering night of evil secularism, only for one Democrat after another to turn out to be those gays or adulterers whom they so ardently and stridently insist are going to be the downfall of America?
What Democratic or Republican president before Bush has taken that fabled shining city upon a hill, and desecrated it such that his supporter's defense in a debate is no longer "Because we are better than they are," but "We aren't the worst human rights violator on Earth?"
No, the Democrats have a very long way to go before they are as bad as Bush has been, for both his party and the nation.
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
But I guess if the only thing that matters to you is "government power", then yes, you might think they're the same, because you're ignoring all the substantial differences.
Re:And the loyal opposition, the Democrats, will.. (Score:3, Insightful)
To every complex question, there is an answer that is simple, concise, and wrong - paraphrase of H.L. Mencken.
Re:CALEA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, one might argue that the main reason the US government has been so bad at making positive change is that there are so many people here who believe, as a matter of principle, that government can't do anything well - and when those people are elected, they use their power to prove themselves right.
Government is really just an alternate way to get things done. Private industry and the free market are excellent at getting things done efficiently, but the other side of that coin is, they don't even try to get anything done that isn't going to be profitable. If you want something done, period, whether or not it's profitable, that's where government is useful. For example, look at phone and electrical service in rural areas: it didn't exist before the government stepped in, because it wasn't profitable to build phone infrastructure where there were only a few potential customers, but We The People decided that infrastructure was important enough that it should be built anyway.
On the other hand, I'd rather have a government that does good things, like make medical care and education available to people who can't afford to pay for it, than one that's stagnant and unable to do anything.
DS-3 = high bandwidth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Small steps like these make a totalitarian state make.
Do you think our Founders were stupid to abolish domestic spying?
It is people like you who form the remaining 22% support base for Bush & Co.
Perhaps if you are shown on your DVD player all (i mean ALL) that you have said, done and possibly non-being-able-to-do, i guess you will understand...Or probably you would shrug it off when Eva Longoria comes about in Desperate Housewives.
Re:Going to Prison now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now wait a second! whose side am i on....is this the Empire or USA?
Oh yeah, right, such oaths mean nothing, since its the President.
Re:CALEA (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly how is our entire election system privatized? Are you referring to the volunteers and government workers at the polling stations? According to you they work for Coca-Cola... or Halliburton? The county employees counting the votes? They must be working for Ford I guess.
If you're referring to the voting machines then yes. Those are privately manufactured and sold to the local governments. And aside from the Deibold machines, they're not built to easily allow rigging of elections. That is, unless you have idiots in Florida that can't punch a hole in a piece of paper. Damn those hanging, dimpled, and pregnant chads!
Re:CALEA (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an unlikely scenario anyway. Given the typical behaviour of the US, you're far more likely to start killing your own citizens because it's cheaper than figuring out whether they've done anything. That's more or less what's happening in Gitmo to non-citizens already; it is a small step to start doing it to your own citizens as well (while claiming that "of course" they're all really guilty and the handful of innocents reported by the minor media are just exceptional cases where you "don't have all the facts" - but you can't know the facts for national security reasons, just accept that it's better these people are dead).
Re:CALEA (Score:3, Insightful)
Prove it.
Re:CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think this administration gives a flying fuck whether or not evidence is admissible in court?
Once the government started holding people indefinitely without trial, the whole concept of admissibility went right out the fucking window. Prisoners in Gitmo don't even have the right to know what the evidence against them is at all, much less whether or not it's admissible in a court of law. (Hell, they don't even have access to lawyers to tell them whether or not the evidence is admissible.)
Concern for this sort of infrastructure and its potential for abuse isn't tinfoil-hat paranoia, the abuse can and has happened. (If you haven't been paying attention, google 'warrant less wiretapping' for further information.)
The checks-and-balances part of the Constitution has been slaughtered in the name of 'protecting our citizens from the terrsts' and 'national security'. While the latter is nothing new, the former is a recent development.
Trusting this government (or any likely future one) with this kind of potential for abuse is kind of like putting a junkie in a room with a kilo of heroin and his 'works', and telling him only to shoot up if the withdrawal symptoms become impossible to bear. It doesn't matter IF they abuse the system, the problem is that they ARE the system, and will do whatever they feel is necessary to protect the system, and therefore themselves (and the multinational corporations that pull their strings.) Even when they DO get called on something that's obviously an abuse of the system (if not black-letter-law illegal) they stamp their feet, throw a tantrum, and refuse to do ANYTHING until the multinationals get immunity for their self-serving rape of their customers' privacy rights.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: If you can convince a judge that I'm obviously engaged in illegal activity, wiretap away. Until then, get the fuck off my phone lines. While I understand the need for expedience in an emergency situation, there is no reason for these lines to be active at all until there's a signed warrant. If you think that's too much bureaucracy or an unnecessary burden on law enforcement, go find another country, because this one requires it by Constitutional order. The only way we can avoid a police state (well, a more obvious one) is to not allow this sort of shit to go unquestioned.
Re:Talk is Cheap (Score:-1, Insightful)