Jump to content

NSA stole millions of sim cards...


Recommended Posts

 


The hack was perpetrated by a joint unit consisting of operatives from the NSA and its British counterpart Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. The breach, detailed in a secret 2010 GCHQ document, gave the surveillance agencies the potential to secretly monitor a large portion of the world’s cellular communications, including both voice and data.

 

The company targeted by the intelligence agencies, Gemalto, is a multinational firm incorporated in the Netherlands that makes the chips used in mobile phones and next-generation credit cards. Among its clients are AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint and some 450 wireless network providers around the world. The company operates in 85 countries and has more than 40 manufacturing facilities. One of its three global headquarters is in Austin, Texas and it has a large factory in Pennsylvania.

 

*******************

 

With these stolen encryption keys, intelligence agencies can monitor mobile communications without seeking or receiving approval from telecom companies and foreign governments. Possessing the keys also sidesteps the need to get a warrant or a wiretap, while leaving no trace on the wireless provider’s network that the communications were intercepted. Bulk key theft additionally enables the intelligence agencies to unlock any previously encrypted communications they had already intercepted, but did not yet have the ability to decrypt.

 

A long but worthwhile read.

 

The more that comes out, the more chilling it becomes. 9/11 justified these measures to many in power and in the electorate, what will be the cost of defending ourselves against the flavor of the month ISIS?

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/19/great-sim-heist/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about SIMs is that they're so easy to swap among devices, unless those devices are locked. And for $25 or a visit to a cellular store they can be unlocked. Hacking a SIM doesn't allow you to eavesdrop on voice calls, but you could track data usage and location. For telemetric devices (what they call today the IoT) you could track location an movement which might be of interest. Can't see they'd care about what Aunt Tillie's wireless heart monitor is sending. SIMs are programmable and I would have to imagine Gemalto has a plan or method to change the key? Even if they're not admitting it...

 

Seems like there might be easier methods of eavesdropping if that's the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about SIMs is that they're so easy to swap among devices, unless those devices are locked. And for $25 or a visit to a cellular store they can be unlocked. Hacking a SIM doesn't allow you to eavesdrop on voice calls, but you could track data usage and location. For telemetric devices (what they call today the IoT) you could track location an movement which might be of interest. Can't see they'd care about what Aunt Tillie's wireless heart monitor is sending. SIMs are programmable and I would have to imagine Gemalto has a plan or method to change the key? Even if they're not admitting it...

 

Seems like there might be easier methods of eavesdropping if that's the goal.

 

Eavesdropping is at the bottom of their desired goals list for an operation like this. Access to the sim card information allows them to unfettered access to any Time Machine type device hooked to your smart phone or computer, meaning they have access to all your information from the past and future: where you've been, who you've called, every email and text you've ever sent -- all without having to go through the telecom corporations or a judge to get a warrant. It also allows them to track this info without leaving any sort of digital footprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A long but worthwhile read.

 

The more that comes out, the more chilling it becomes. 9/11 justified these measures to many in power and in the electorate, what will be the cost of defending ourselves against the flavor of the month ISIS?

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/19/great-sim-heist/

I get your concerns but calling 9/11 or ISIS the flavor of the month is off base IMO. Lots of people have died at the hands of these monsters and whether or not it justifies all of the stuff the NSA has done is one thing....minimizing it by calling it flavor of the month is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your concerns but calling 9/11 or ISIS the flavor of the month is off base IMO. Lots of people have died at the hands of these monsters and whether or not it justifies all of the stuff the NSA has done is one thing....minimizing it by calling it flavor of the month is another.

Do you know when he'll quit calling it the flavor of the month?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your concerns but calling 9/11 or ISIS the flavor of the month is off base IMO. Lots of people have died at the hands of these monsters and whether or not it justifies all of the stuff the NSA has done is one thing....minimizing it by calling it flavor of the month is another.

 

Flavor of the month may be glib, but that was the intent. In order to justify this extreme level of surveillance, the state needs a boogeyman. Some are more real than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flavor of the month may be glib, but that was the intent. In order to justify this extreme level of surveillance, the state needs aboogeyman. Some are more real than others.

Shirley you can argue against the NSA without having to call 9/11 no big deal.

Edited by 4merper4mer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Never called it no big deal.

 

There are basically three camps:

 

1 - Freedom is unbound, and the price of that freedom includes sacrifice, which means a handful or more deaths at the hands of fanatics who take advantage of that freedom

 

2 - Freedom has some boundaries, because if you want to stop the fanatics before they strike, you have to cross a privacy line

 

3 - You believe that freedom unbound, but then you get angry at the authorities who didn't stop a fanatic who took advantage of that freedom.

 

Where do you fall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are basically three camps:

 

1 - Freedom is unbound, and the price of that freedom includes sacrifice, which means a handful or more deaths at the hands of fanatics who take advantage of that freedom

 

2 - Freedom has some boundaries, because if you want to stop the fanatics before they strike, you have to cross a privacy line

 

3 - You believe that freedom unbound, but then you get angry at the authorities who didn't stop a fanatic who took advantage of that freedom.

 

Where do you fall?

 

Most reasonable people would fall into the second camp, but not without limits or any definition of what privacy actually means in the digital age. The issue is that there has never been a public debate, or even discourse, about this issue. It was decided for us by the government without any recourse for the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most reasonable people would fall into the second camp, but not without limits or any definition of what privacy actually means in the digital age. The issue is that there has never been a public debate, or even discourse, about this issue. It was decided for us by the government without any recourse for the electorate.

 

What's your biggest worry here? If the government wants to listen to my phone conversations I have to admit I don't really care. Not saying there can't be abuse, black mail or whatever, but I never would think that something I sent out over the airwaves or on the net was private.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your biggest worry here? If the government wants to listen to my phone conversations I have to admit I don't really care. Not saying there can't be abuse, black mail or whatever, but I never would think that something I sent out over the airwaves or on the net was private.

Telephone calls do no go out 'over the airwaves'. They are not broadcast, whether wireless or not. Intercepting them is illegal without a warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your biggest worry here? If the government wants to listen to my phone conversations I have to admit I don't really care. Not saying there can't be abuse, black mail or whatever, but I never would think that something I sent out over the airwaves or on the net was private.

 

There can be abuse? There already has been abuse. Many abuses. This is just the beginning too. Every cell phone, let alone smart phone, in this country is a tracking device with a microphone and window into your entire life. You might not think twice about emails being read or even texts (which is actually incredibly sad to begin with, but you're not alone I do it too), but they have the tech now to see inside your home, whenever they wish, without your knowledge. If even local police have heat scanners in their cruisers that can see through walls -- imagine what the federal agencies have.

 

This was never meant to be a country without privacy from the state, in fact quite the opposite. Right now we're living in an era where privacy isn't a right, it isn't even expected... that was a choice that the government made for the citizens, not one the citizens made themselves. After almost 15 years of living in a surveillance state, things are only becoming more ingrained in our culture and expectations. Another decade of this and everyone under the age of 30 will have no concept of the meaning of privacy and the state will have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be abuse? There already has been abuse. Many abuses. This is just the beginning too. Every cell phone, let alone smart phone, in this country is a tracking device with a microphone and window into your entire life. You might not think twice about emails being read or even texts (which is actually incredibly sad to begin with, but you're not alone I do it too), but they have the tech now to see inside your home, whenever they wish, without your knowledge. If even local police have heat scanners in their cruisers that can see through walls -- imagine what the federal agencies have.

This was never meant to be a country without privacy from the state, in fact quite the opposite. Right now we're living in an era where privacy isn't a right, it isn't even expected... that was a choice that the government made for the citizens, not one the citizens made themselves. After almost 15 years of living in a surveillance state, things are only becoming more ingrained in our culture and expectations. Another decade of this and everyone under the age of 30 will have no concept of the meaning of privacy and the state will have won.

Can you present some of the abuses you say are happening? I've not kept up on this debate and would be interested to see the abuses

 

I agree there will be an end to privacy in most cases and not just from this stuff, but as drones get smaller and smaller and other things. But aside from ending our wonderful telecommunications system we have created, what needs to be done that won't slow access to information?

Telephone calls do no go out 'over the airwaves'. They are not broadcast, whether wireless or not. Intercepting them is illegal without a warrant.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument me and you decide to burn down Greg's barn. Ok, so we do it. I would not be ok with sending me a text message saying "Ha ha, loved seeing that barn burn, glad we got the Greg! Maybe we'll burn his house down next!"

 

 

But! If you did and it was used as evidence against us in court, sure, I'd fight to keep it out as an invasion of our fourth amendment rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say for the sake of argument me and you decide to burn down Greg's barn. Ok, so we do it. I would not be ok with sending me a text message saying "Ha ha, loved seeing that barn burn, glad we got the Greg! Maybe we'll burn his house down next!"

But! If you did and it was used as evidence against us in court, sure, I'd fight to keep it out as an invasion of our fourth amendment rights

Wait a minute. Movie boy has a barn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...