5 ms·

Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces? They will get all the data. Not only voice, data and SMS/RCS. All modern smartphones (like

Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces? They will get all the data. Not only voice, data and SMS/RCS. All modern smartphones (like Pixels) allow you to switch off 2G. They even warn if you want to activate it.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
Who says they aren't?
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces? They may not want to leave a paper trail. “To obtain a [legal] wiretap order, law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause to a judge” [1]. Given ICE has been arresting Americans, they probably aren’t bothering with cause. Legal intercepts also require “minimization procedures to limit the interception of conversations unrelated to the investigation,” which ICE may not want to do. And perhaps most importantly, “violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 are considered federal felonies,” with those convicted facing criminal penalties and being subject to civil liability. I hate to make this analogy, but it’s akin to the Gestapo’s NBH obsession. They knew they were acting illegally, and didn’t want to leave the evidence that would convict them. [1] https://legalclarity.org/what-is-wiretapping-and-when-is-it-legal/ https://legalclarity.org/what-is-wiretapping-and-when-is-it-...
- nulbyte 1y ago
  But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?
  - selectodude 1y ago
    Of course it is. But good luck proving how they got the information.
    - scaramanga 1y ago
      Assuming there is even a venue where evidence would be provided for the purpose of being looked at
  - gruez 1y ago
    >But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap? The article doesn't actually mention what ICE is actually using the cell site simulators for. It's possible that they're only collecting IMSIs and not text/voice traffic, which might still be wiretapping, but it'd be more difficult to argue in front of a judge.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - jfyi 1y ago
    Are you familiar with the concept of parallel construction? If evidence of the wiretap never needs to be entered into the official record, did it really exist in the first place?
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    I wonder if there's an argument that mobile phones are using publicly-owned broadcast spectrum, and therefore, like when walking around in public, there isn't an expectation of privacy. Ham radio rules for example prohibit encryption because they are using public airwaves. It used to be possible to just set up an analog receiver and you could listen to nearby cell phone calls.
    - maxlybbert 1y ago
      I actually find that a decent argument, but I believe it’s already been shut down. When police used thermal imaging to “observe” a house, without doing anything they thought required a warrant, the Supreme Court decided it was too intrusive ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opinion-1960955 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin... ). But if I understand the ruling correctly, if the police make it well-known that they have the ability to do something intrusive, then they don’t need a warrant.
    - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
      Intercepting cell phone communications is restricted by law. This was enacted when public officials had their clear AMPS phone calls recorded with legally owned passive radios.
  - Zetaphor 1y ago
    We're far beyond the point of them caring about the laws. Judges are granting temporary residency to immigrants in court proceedings, and then those same people are detained and deported by ICE as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
- myko 1y ago
  > They may not want to leave a paper trail. This makes sense, considering the regime is hiring Jan 6th insurrectionists like Jared Wise. Legality has gone out the window.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JohnTHaller 1y ago
> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces? Probably for the same reason they're wearing masks
jeroenhd 1y ago
Lawful interception requires things like paperwork, warrants, probably cause, and some kind of reason why you need to tap cellular comms in the first place. If you're operating a deportation agency in the style of roaming gangs of officers, you're probably not going to want to wait for the courts to dismiss your brute-force attempts to find illegals behind every door you break down. The anti-2G security measure is pretty much exclusive to a few high-end phones as far as I can tell. iPhones can enable it with lockdown mode (which also disables things like JIT and can make websites and app run slower), Google has added a toggle, and I think a few other manufacturers have it too, but you need support in the modem firmware to actually do anything with it. Even then, 3G and 4G can also leak identifiers if you can fake being a base station. The identifiers are not as easy to obtain as on 2G, but there's a reason 5G added a masking feature to LTE. Especially combined with access to an SS7 capable line, you can pretty much replicate all of the 2G hacks with cellular tech at least up to 4G, maybe even newer than that. Cellular firmware protection mechanisms seem to be targeting 2G exploitation so far. It'd be extremely unpractical (and probably impossible) to enforce some kind of "5G NR only" mode, but without such a mode you're going to be at risk of Stingray-like devices.
- tdeck 1y ago
  > Lawful interception requires things like paperwork, warrants, probably cause, and some kind of reason why you need to tap cellular comms in the first place. In case folks hadn't been paying attention, probable cause isn't even worth their trouble when arresting someone these days. > “DHS law enforcement uses ‘reasonable suspicion’ to make arrests,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-race-baiting-lawsuit-workplace-ice-raids-10817755 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-race-baiting-lawsuit-wo...
- toast0 1y ago
  > The anti-2G security measure is pretty much exclusive to a few high-end phones as far as I can tell. I've got it on my phone which I think is mid-market at best: moto g stylus 5g - 2023. Snapdragon 6 Gen 1. ~ $250 in 2023.
  - 1y ago
scaramanga 1y ago
Another possibility not mentioned here is simply demonstrating that they can get away with not doing so.

cosmicgadget 1y ago

Who says they aren't?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces? They may not want to leave a paper trail. “To obtain a [legal] wiretap order, law enforcement must demonstrate probable cause to a judge” [1]. Given ICE has been arresting Americans, they probably aren’t bothering with cause. Legal intercepts also require “minimization procedures to limit the interception of conversations unrelated to the investigation,” which ICE may not want to do. And perhaps most importantly, “violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 are considered federal felonies,” with those convicted facing criminal penalties and being subject to civil liability. I hate to make this analogy, but it’s akin to the Gestapo’s NBH obsession. They knew they were acting illegally, and didn’t want to leave the evidence that would convict them. [1] https://legalclarity.org/what-is-wiretapping-and-when-is-it-legal/ https://legalclarity.org/what-is-wiretapping-and-when-is-it-...

nulbyte 1y ago
But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap?
- selectodude 1y ago
  Of course it is. But good luck proving how they got the information.
  - scaramanga 1y ago
    Assuming there is even a venue where evidence would be provided for the purpose of being looked at
- gruez 1y ago
  >But, isn't intercepting communications using a fake cell tower a wiretap? The article doesn't actually mention what ICE is actually using the cell site simulators for. It's possible that they're only collecting IMSIs and not text/voice traffic, which might still be wiretapping, but it'd be more difficult to argue in front of a judge.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- jfyi 1y ago
  Are you familiar with the concept of parallel construction? If evidence of the wiretap never needs to be entered into the official record, did it really exist in the first place?
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  I wonder if there's an argument that mobile phones are using publicly-owned broadcast spectrum, and therefore, like when walking around in public, there isn't an expectation of privacy. Ham radio rules for example prohibit encryption because they are using public airwaves. It used to be possible to just set up an analog receiver and you could listen to nearby cell phone calls.
  - maxlybbert 1y ago
    I actually find that a decent argument, but I believe it’s already been shut down. When police used thermal imaging to “observe” a house, without doing anything they thought required a warrant, the Supreme Court decided it was too intrusive ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opinion-1960955 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/#tab-opin... ). But if I understand the ruling correctly, if the police make it well-known that they have the ability to do something intrusive, then they don’t need a warrant.
  - kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
    Intercepting cell phone communications is restricted by law. This was enacted when public officials had their clear AMPS phone calls recorded with legally owned passive radios.
- Zetaphor 1y ago
  We're far beyond the point of them caring about the laws. Judges are granting temporary residency to immigrants in court proceedings, and then those same people are detained and deported by ICE as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
myko 1y ago
> They may not want to leave a paper trail. This makes sense, considering the regime is hiring Jan 6th insurrectionists like Jared Wise. Legality has gone out the window.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

JohnTHaller 1y ago

> Why aren't they using the official lawful interception interfaces? Probably for the same reason they're wearing masks

jeroenhd 1y ago

Lawful interception requires things like paperwork, warrants, probably cause, and some kind of reason why you need to tap cellular comms in the first place. If you're operating a deportation agency in the style of roaming gangs of officers, you're probably not going to want to wait for the courts to dismiss your brute-force attempts to find illegals behind every door you break down. The anti-2G security measure is pretty much exclusive to a few high-end phones as far as I can tell. iPhones can enable it with lockdown mode (which also disables things like JIT and can make websites and app run slower), Google has added a toggle, and I think a few other manufacturers have it too, but you need support in the modem firmware to actually do anything with it. Even then, 3G and 4G can also leak identifiers if you can fake being a base station. The identifiers are not as easy to obtain as on 2G, but there's a reason 5G added a masking feature to LTE. Especially combined with access to an SS7 capable line, you can pretty much replicate all of the 2G hacks with cellular tech at least up to 4G, maybe even newer than that. Cellular firmware protection mechanisms seem to be targeting 2G exploitation so far. It'd be extremely unpractical (and probably impossible) to enforce some kind of "5G NR only" mode, but without such a mode you're going to be at risk of Stingray-like devices.

tdeck 1y ago
> Lawful interception requires things like paperwork, warrants, probably cause, and some kind of reason why you need to tap cellular comms in the first place. In case folks hadn't been paying attention, probable cause isn't even worth their trouble when arresting someone these days. > “DHS law enforcement uses ‘reasonable suspicion’ to make arrests,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-race-baiting-lawsuit-workplace-ice-raids-10817755 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-race-baiting-lawsuit-wo...
toast0 1y ago
> The anti-2G security measure is pretty much exclusive to a few high-end phones as far as I can tell. I've got it on my phone which I think is mid-market at best: moto g stylus 5g - 2023. Snapdragon 6 Gen 1. ~ $250 in 2023.
- 1y ago

scaramanga 1y ago

Another possibility not mentioned here is simply demonstrating that they can get away with not doing so.