Why aren't Vodafone running end to end encryption to prevent this kind of thing?
We could have private communications. We just don't.
Vodafone has published a report detailing how cops, g-men and spies around the world tap into its systems – in some cases, directly hooking into phone networks without a warrant. The dossier covers the 29 countries in which the mobile telco operates, including joint-ventures in Australia, Kenya and Fiji. The document [PDF] …
You mean the kind of end to end encryption where the governments tap in after the end? Of where they've installed backdoors in the crypto kit?
Glad Vodafone and other companies are finally starting to make a noise against government wiretapping... yes, it is massively hypocritical but at least they're doing something...
IANAL but the monitoring appears to be a legal requirement for operating in some (all?) of these countries.
While end-to-end encryption sounds nice, I can understand Vodafone's reluctance to ignore the law in case they were shut down. Or is that just my pragmatic streak?
The trouble with Hollywood is that they sometimes have to hold back from showing how easy it is to spy on the people. Frankly if you can imagine it, the alphabet agencies have probably done MORE than you can imagine.
I remember when ECHELON was first initiated, the domestic spying started on the ISP's. In fact THEY strongarmed the ISP's into allowing permanent servers on the network INSIDE the ISP. without any legal requirement.
"What do you mean NO? You must be hiding something. Is that kiddie porn on your servers?"
What would you do?
I suspect this really means, "If we receive a demand we can issue a quote and make sure we get paid for granting access"
That is a start. After all, the closest thing to democratic oversight of security agencies is budget control. Making sure that excessive surveillance costs considerable money would help to limit it.
>That is a start. After all, the closest thing to democratic oversight of security agencies is budget control.
Yeah how has that worked for the US which is now 18 trillion plus in debt? Never mind the fact they will just hide the costs in the black ops budget which for the US if I remember right is bigger than the entire military budget of all but a few large countries. I know what you are saying but the NSA for example exists to protect government not the people and as such probably would be one of the last agencies to be truly starved of funds.
Well I guess this is something at least, a telco trying to appear to be on its customers side.... I just assume that every word I write, every word I say and everything I do is monitored by GCHQ & the NSA..... for anything I would rather they not see, I use a VPN, sure its not foolproof, but it helps stop my damned ISP from intercepting and traffic shaping!
"I'm not sure I'd describe someone else reading my quite frankly rather banal email traffic "terrifying"."
I think their concerns have passed over your head with quite some clearance. I doubt my web activity is of much interest, but I *do* find it terrifying (1) that the state considers it necessary and appropriate to have absolute access to what I read, write, watch of listen to on line, or say over phone lines or even VOIP. And that the fuckers record and store this whenever they can in as much volume as the hardware I've paid for them to have allows.
Considering that the state rarely backtracks, is a serial offender when it comes to both mission creep or outright incompetence, and will not allow itself to be held to account, the last people on earth I want to have oversight of my in and outbound communications are my own government. It's a sorry state of affairs when I'm more relaxed about the Chinese or Russian government's ability to spy on me than my own or "allied" governments.
(1) Admittedly in an arm chair manner, rather than an "about to be eaten by a lion" manner.
What terrifies me most isn't that the government have full unaccountable access to your banal emails: it's that you don't understand quite how horrifying that is. Don't worry though, because you're not alone - most of the public are as ignorant of the risks as you are.
Let's suppose you're right: your emails are utterly banal and uninteresting. But then let's suppose that, in a few years time, you decide to write a political article... or go on a protest... or lobby a government minister. Oh dear, you're a troublemaker now: better find some way to get rid of you! Let's see, what dirt can we find? *scan through the communications history of you, your family and everyone you know* Aha! Perfect. Found some leverage. Can use that to shut you up, or pressure people around you to do that for me. Or, if needs be, find something to damage your credibility.
Perhaps you're the sort who'd never raise your head above the parapet. Perhaps you're not worried about the government ever trying to find some leverage over you, or trying to damage your credibility. But shouldn't you be worried that they might do that against someone who's standing up for your rights? Someone who is brave enough to speak out? What if they suppress his voice? What if they silence every dissident?
It's not hard to imagine what it would be like to live in a country like that, because countries like that exist today. One only need look at such oppressive totalitarian regimes to see how awful it would be for the state to have unlimited access to every citizens' private communications. Today is the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings, and the veterans who fought against precisely that sort of tyranny deserve better than to have their work undermined by their own governments.
"Oh, but it's different", I hear you say. "GCHQ aren't the Stasi. The NSA isn't the SS." But ask yourself, what is the difference? Is it that "our" governments are full of nice friendly people who are on our side and would never turn horrible like those nasty chaps? Are you really willing to simply take it on trust that our governments are today (and forever will be) thoroughly honest and decent people? Personally, I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw the moon...
What about the access controls within these organisations? What's to stop your mate who has a friend in the agency from getting a bunch of dirt on you coz he's pissed that you flirted with his girlfriend? What's to stop some bored analyst from trawling through random people's sex lives for fun? Think it doesn't happen? How do you know, when we're not even told what controls are in place to prevent it? What happens when the government decide they want to start pulling the plugs on these projects or curtailing the intelligence agency budgets? What's to stop the spooks from finding some dirt on the respective decision makers and forcing their hand? What's to stop it going further: say, a spook who wants to manipulate government policy on other matters - immigration, education, healthcare...? What makes you think that doesn't already happen? What would stop someone in that position from taking complete control of the country (whether covertly or overtly)?
It's absolutely shocking - no, horrifying - that intelligent people say "oh, what's the big deal?" to these issues. The "big deal" is that this goes to the very heart of our democracy and, unless we're extremely careful, it has the potential to destroy everything that we know and love.
Call me a paranoid reactionary if you want. But just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not coming for you. We ignore lessons from history at our peril.
@AC -- you are quite right about people not understanding why freedom from surveillance is critical. My "road to Damascus" monent came when looking around the Stasi museum in Leipzig and realising just how close the Stasi came to being able to stop the "Monday demonstrations" (which led to the fall of the Berlin wall, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_demonstrations_in_East_Germany) due to their mass surveillance -- and they were using manual processes not computerised processing and tracking. The people at those demonstrations were not rebels or activists -- they were ordinary people who's emails "no one would be interested in".
Imagine if a small party (like UKIP, or the Greens -- whichever is your particular demon) was able to hold the balance of power after the next election, formed a coalition, acquired a strong, charismatic leader and started forcing through policies "for the country's good". All very sensible, honest and decent, no doubt. But isn't there a risk that real debate and substantial protest would not be allowed once they had got the national security apparatus to believe they were doing the right thing for the country?
"Imagine if a strong, charismatic leader started forcing through policies which were genuinely for the public's good".
Then their googol-scale slurping just needs to locate the already-filed goods on the newly arrived "charismatic leader". (yes, googol-scale not just google-scale)
Jason Bourne has been mentioned already. What happened to the Guardian reporter in that series?
Closer to home, see also: Harry Perkins in A Very British Coup (written by Chris Mullin MP, in 1982, TV series in 1988 with Alan Plater as scriptwriter).
See also: Edge of Darkness (original Troy Kennedy Martin version - anyone know if there's a searchable/downloadable script anywhere?)
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Very_British_Coup
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/a-very-british-coup/4od (free, but registration needed)
Broadcast 1985, conceived over thirty years ago:
(EMMA) What does the word " azure" mean?
(CRAVEN) "Azure" is a police intelligence term.
It means the room is bugged or under some sort of electronic surveillance.
The word " cinnamon" denotes the use of microphones inside telephones or junction boxes.
"Tow rope" is the raw material gathered by telephone intercepts at the post office.
F Branch is the office in MI5 in London that analyses the material.
R2 is the MI5 computer that logs the material.
We have a link with R2 but it's difficult to get at.
That's where all the Gaia stuff will be.
Yeah.
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/episode_scripts.php?tv-show=edge-of-darkness&season=1
"Imagine if a small party ... started forcing through policies 'for the country's good'".
I imagine it would not be much of a barrier, or take very long, for them to build a surveillance structure from scratch if it did not already exist, and likely enough a better and more efficient one than any that may exist now. The apparently inexhaustible obsession with state surveillance misses the point.
The real problem is not the information as much as it is the government's operation. I do not see that the UK or US governments (or those of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe) do anything significant to suppress opposition, despite having legal or extralegal access to a great deal of information about their citizens. Neither does any of them show much movement toward tyranny - The Guardian, Washington Post, and the Intercept still publish without reported interference, for example. In some other countries the citizens are not so fortunate, but the difference is not a function of the extent of communication surveillance.
"I imagine it would not be much of a barrier, or take very long, for them to build a surveillance structure from scratch if it did not already exist, and likely enough a better and more efficient one than any that may exist now."
Certainly a more efficient surveillance infrastructure could be assembled from scratch in the future (though I am not sure it could be done quite as quickly or easily as you suggest), but it would never be able to recover communications from today. The problem is that they are not only listening to everything right now, but they are storing it all too! This enables them, in the future, to go on fishing expeditions back through everything that everyone has done in the past. THAT is where the problem lies: from now on, one will never be able to escape.
"The Guardian, Washington Post, and the Intercept still publish without reported interference"
You're right. Trying to prevent The Guardian from publishing information by destroying their computers, arresting their couriers and seizing their documents, and exerting tremendous pressure that limits the level of information that is released... no interference whatsoever! And those are the things that we know about.
I'd bet my right arm that the interference is considerably greater than that. The legal and administrative pressure on these media outlets and their reporters must be unimaginable.
Plus, of course, if the police are prepared to place long-term undercover spies into environmental groups (to the extent that they marry and father children with targets in order to develop cover) or the families of murder victims who are trying to expose police corruption, lie on the stand under oath, then destroy all evidence of that taking place... or make up stories about government ministers in order to forward a political agenda... I'm quite sure they will go to some considerable lengths to infiltrate and manipulate a few journalists. We just don't know the full extent of it yet.
"Started forcing through policies "for the country's good". All very sensible, honest and decent, no doubt. But isn't there a risk that real debate and substantial protest would not be allowed once they had got the national security apparatus to believe they were doing the right thing for the country?" sums up the Labour Party more than anything else.
So leave UKIP and the Greens alone.
".....Let's see, what dirt can we find? *scan through the communications history of you, your family and everyone you know....." Which is where the whole paranoid delusion falls down, unless you are in the habit of periodically recording all your sins in an email. What, you're a Catholic and do confession via Gmail? TBH, just baaaah-lieving that kind of stupidity just makes you a menace to yourself, and very unlikely to be clever enough to be a danger to anyone in power. A Chinese finger trap will be sufficient to render you completely incapacitated.
"Which is where the whole paranoid delusion falls down, unless you are in the habit of periodically recording all your sins in an email."
Right. And if a person is having marital difficulties, they're supposed to contact their counsellor/mistress/etc without using email? If a person has sensitive healthcare issues, they're supposed to arrange appointments with their doctors without using the telephone? If a person wishes to speak with their legal advisers, they're supposed to do that without using any form of electronic communication? And you dare to call ME a fantasist?!
Get a grip, man: if you're so convinced that there is nothing in your personal communications that could ever embarrass you or that you'd ever mind strangers reading, you won't mind posting your login credentials in this forum. Once you go ahead and give everyone here an opportunity to read through your life, I'll be happy to consider that your opinion MIGHT be valid. Until then, I doubt anyone will be able to take your position seriously.
".....And if a person is having marital difficulties, they're supposed to contact their counsellor/mistress/etc without using email? If a person has sensitive healthcare issues, they're supposed to arrange appointments with their doctors without using the telephone? If a person wishes to speak with their legal advisers, they're supposed to do that without using any form of electronic communication? And you dare to call ME a fantasist?!...." Yes, you are a compete fantasist. For a start, any moron that contacts their mistress by email is simply too stupid for words as it is just too easy for their partner to find the evidence. But you also fail to explain how that would be so destructive a secret that it could make someone into Big Brother's unquestioning slave. If you haven't noticed, people get divorced all the time, it's hardly front page news even for senior politicians. And medical issues? Please do explain what possible medical issue could be so implausibly destructive that you would buckle at it's revealing? Before you bleat the usual tosh about transgender or the like, please do look at how incredibly rare that is, even in today's liberal society. And then you suggest you are going to have long, in-depth conversations on legal issues over the phone? Get real - if it was that big a secret you'd only use the phone for arranging a face-to-face meeting. In short, you are not just a fantasist but also a dreadfully unimaginative one at that.
And the you want me to post my details? Seriously? There is a massive difference between the carefully screened and overseen surveillance of trained spooks and the idea of giving details to complete morons like you. Get over yourself, you are simply not of interest to anyone.
"For a start, any moron that contacts their mistress by email is simply too stupid for words as it is just too easy for their partner to find the evidence."
Whether that is true or not (and I will only posit that it depends upon the sophistication and precautions taken by the parties concerned), it has absolutely nothing at all to do with a government's mass surveillance of its entire populace. FAIL.
"But you also fail to explain how that would be so destructive a secret that it could make someone into Big Brother's unquestioning slave. If you haven't noticed, people get divorced all the time, it's hardly front page news even for senior politicians."
Er, no I didn't. My original post talked, at some length, about how leverage can be used to yield influence. Going public with that leverage is the "nuclear option". Far more often, the information would be used to exert pressure on the individual and/or their confidantes. FAIL.
"And medical issues? Please do explain what possible medical issue could be so implausibly destructive that you would buckle at it's revealing? Before you bleat the usual tosh about transgender or the like, please do look at how incredibly rare that is, even in today's liberal society."
Believe it or not, many medical issues carry significant social stigma. Drug addiction, HIV, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction, cancer... FAIL.
"And then you suggest you are going to have long, in-depth conversations on legal issues over the phone? Get real - if it was that big a secret you'd only use the phone for arranging a face-to-face meeting."
The mere fact and timing that one is arranging legal meetings could in itself provide significant information. But that's besides the point: conversations with one's legal advisers are PRIVILEGED and it is unlawful for the government to intercept them. Yet they do so. FAIL.
"In short, you are not just a fantasist but also a dreadfully unimaginative one at that."
You're welcome to your opinions.
"And the you want me to post my details? Seriously? There is a massive difference between the carefully screened and overseen surveillance of trained spooks and the idea of giving details to complete morons like you."
Carefully screened and overseen? Really? Care to point to evidence of that?
"Get over yourself, you are simply not of interest to anyone."
Of course, you're welcome to your opinion. As, actually, am I (even though you apparently wish that everyone would hold the same opinion as yourself: Friedrich Nietzsche had a thing or two to say about people like that). However, for what it's worth, it appears from my vote count alone that my post *was* of interest to more people than yours - so I'm really not sure upon what you base your hypothesis.
And in any event, your totally unnecessary recourse to childish namecalling ("moron", "cluetard", etc) thoroughly demonstrates the maturity and competence of your own thought processes. For that rudeness alone, I shan't reply to you any further. Good day, sir.
The Force is seriously weak with this one, the 'arguments' are limper than five-day-old lettuce! It's probably good you post AC to avoid the embarrassment of people laughing at you.
"....Whether that is true or not (and I will only posit that it depends upon the sophistication and precautions taken by the parties concerned), it has absolutely nothing at all to do with a government's mass surveillance of its entire populace. FAIL....." You are desperately trying to avoid admitting that (a) the people likely to be emailing their mistresses are really too stupid to be foreign spies, serious criminals or terrorists, so it was a stupid example to make, and (b) it would be far too likely that people of conviction would reject and report the attempted blackmail, exposing the NSA process - where has this happened, please do provide an example? - and (c) you are wrong again.
".....Er, no I didn't. My original post talked, at some length, about how leverage can be used to yield influence. Going public with that leverage is the "nuclear option". Far more often, the information would be used to exert pressure on the individual and/or their confidantes. FAIL...." Again, you avoid admitting (a) it was a stupid example because it really does not hold enough threat for the majority of people to actually make them unquestioningly comply, and (b) it would be far too likely that many would reject and report the attempted blackmail, exposing the process - where has this happened? - and (c) you are wrong AGAIN!
"....Believe it or not, many medical issues carry significant social stigma. Drug addiction, HIV, mental health issues, erectile dysfunction, cancer... FAIL...." And now you are just avoiding admitting (a) that HIV is still very rare, as is drug addiction, mental health issues, etc., so the chances of a member of the public having any of those conditions is so laughably remote as to make the idea too impractical for mass blackmail and too stupid for words, and (b) that none carry enough stigma for the majority of people to make them unquestioningly compliant, which means people would reject and report the attempted blackmail and expose the blackmailers - where has this happened? - and (c) you are wrong again, again!
"....The mere fact and timing that one is arranging legal meetings could in itself provide significant information....." Yes, that's the targeting information the NSA and GCHQ would be looking for on the tiny minority of calls they are actually interested in intercepting AFTER they have sifted the wheat from the chaff. But that's not what you insisted. You insisted that EVERYONE was having their privacy 'invaded' because they were having their secrets 'exposed' by being caught up in the trawling exercise. Again, you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.
"....conversations with one's legal advisers are PRIVILEGED and it is unlawful for the government to intercept them. Yet they do so. FAIL....." And your proof that they are deliberately intercepting and listening to such conversations? Oh, you don't have any, it's just more of your hysterical bleating. If you read the article on the Bahaman wiretaps, the NSA admitted that, if they realised a recording was of an US citizen and outside their warrant then they deleted it. They would do the same for any conversations covered by US law, but conversations between foreign criminals and their foreign lawyers are not always covered. Oh, but you didn't know that, because you prefer bleating to reading. For privilege to apply under US law, the conversation must be between an US citizen and a foreign lawyer OR between a foreigner and a qualified and registered US legal representative (a member of the US bar or an US court or their subordinate) and for the purpose of legal advice. For example, if an US citizen rings up a foreign lawyer and just brags about a crime as part of a conversation, and that foreign lawyer is not involved in defending an US case against that specific crime, and the call was not regarding legal advice, privilege does not apply. What's more, if the purpose of the call was to commit a crime, then it may also not be covered by privilege even if the call was actually for legal advice. You seem to like throwing around legal terms without actually knowing SFA about them.
"....You're welcome to your opinions....." The problem for you and the rest of the sheeple is my opinions come backed by facts, whereas yours are based on whimsy and wanting to baaaah-lieve.
"....it appears from my vote count alone that my post *was* of interest to more people than yours...." Well, you sheeple do like to flock together. I find it very amusing that you base the value of an argument not on its merits but how many sheeple agree with it. Very illuminating as to your desire to 'belong' and your limited ability for independent thought.
"....your totally unnecessary recourse to childish namecalling...." Aw, don't cry. I find it very hard to believe you have led such a sheltered life that someone hasn't called you out on the stupidity that you present as 'thought' before. Maybe you need to grow up a bit more?
"....For that rudeness alone, I shan't reply to you any further...." Because you know you've lost the argument, so now you're pretending at offence to get out of being exposed for an idiot. Enjoy!
"I'm not sure I'd describe someone else reading my quite frankly rather banal email traffic "terrifying"."
So you're saying that the equivalent of a gang of masked persons of unknown provenance following you around everywhere, taking copious notes of everything you say and do, however banal and ordinary, is is no way unsettling?
Dude, I am in awe of your nerve!
".....the equivalent of a gang of masked persons of unknown provenance following you around everywhere, taking copious notes of everything you say and do...." Which is not what is happening. The GCHQ and NSA will scan through the metadata to find the very small number of targets for the kind of surveillance you want to baaaaah-lieve is happening to everyone.
I can think of one company that will be happy that they can advertise their largest deployments "we're able to monitor in excess of one million concurrent calls in our deployment for Vodafone Australia" rather than using a much smaller scalability number for an enterprise deployment....
Note: that number was from about 4 years ago - it's probably higher now...
"British national telco BT, referred to within GCHQ and the American NSA under the ultra-classified codename “REMEDY”, and Vodafone Cable (which owns the former Cable & Wireless company, aka “GERONTIC”) are the two top earners of secret GCHQ payments running into tens of millions of pounds annually"
If we all switched to Tesco, Three or O2 would we be any better off Folks?
If we all switched to Tesco, Three or O2 would we be any better off Folks?
No. This is about fibre networks. BT and Vodafone (the former Cable & Wireless business) are the UK's biggest operators of fibre networks so it's hardly surprising they get the most money for allowing their networks to be tapped.
This is all very disturbing. I hope it finally shuts up the nothing to hide brigade. It looks like the government response to all this is ignore it and it will go away. I for one donate to Privacy International who are fighting this in court. Its one extra step we all can do over just making angry comments on forums. Donate to them now!
I can see an argument that Vodafone should be applauded for making a stand. But IMO it's too little too late. They - and all telcos - should have been shouting about this the moment governments made them install the mystery black boxes (or, as I read in the Graun, mystery locked rooms). And then there's Vodafone's involvement in these ultra-secret monitoring bases as bravely reported by El Reg this week.
It's just too much - as a Vodafone customer I requested and used a PAC code this morning. Maybe punishing them for (belatedly) starting to do the right thing isn't right. And yes, whoever I switch to will doubtless be up to the same heinous underhand bullshit. But they can't act as government spying proxies if they have no business remaining...
Maybe it's a pointless gesture, but I'll save over £25 a month so not totally so.
This post has been deleted by its author
Is to vote in a Government that will pass a law that criminalises the directors of UK companies if they fail to disclose providing access (or knowingly facilitating such access) to private communications of an individual to said individual, in the absence of a warrant identifying that individual.
That is of course a laughably implausible scenario.
... but make sure it's a cash only purchase for both and not your address supplied if requested. Hoodie and baseball cap recommended for CCTV reasons when buying items or top-up.
Remember to only have it switched on when out and about not at home. Also don't have a registered phone with you when using the 'burner' as they won't take long noticing your phone being close to the burner when activated. Hey ho what fun!
theres a clause in the phone companies contract with the government that says something along the lines of
"The carrier must provide slots for an authorised government agency to install wire taps, if said carrier does not provides such slots , then the carrier will no longer be allowed to use the UK for its services"
Vodafone is not and never has been anyone's friend, if they are trying to give the impression of being open and honest and having their customer's best interests at heart, it's because they are worried their revenues may be affected.
If they took a moral stand and refused the millions they are paid for allowing access to customer info I would be more inclined to think they are genuinely on the customer's side.
Somehow I don't think that is likely though!
but I bet it never works
This whole snoopology sort of thing seems so universally ill that perhaps it really is a manifestation of insecurities by the insecure and unfortunately with budgets to spend.
The whole thing reminds me of colleagues over the years who wanted to know all but in the process were incapable of retaining or using that information.
Maybe a bit like torture in Guantanimo Bay?
(never happens, never stops anything but sure as eggs is eggs makes a lot of people happy it is ongoing?)
Why do I need them at all to snoop on people I know to give me the dirt I may find useful. Most idiots wash their dirty laundry in public on social sites anyway. This said I don't want the likes of the governments knowing my private financial life or my login details/phone calls as they are totally inept at internal data security
For example if I wrote to a friend "Is it just me or does everyone want to punch David Cameron in the face whenever they see him?" That's nobody else's business but me and my friend.
Not to be recorded and scanned later, along with everybody else
Not to be key word searched, along with everybody else
Because I have not done anything.
And 1 RIPA warrant --> 1 transatlantic cable? WTF's that "oversight."
I am actually quite amazed Vodaphone has published this. I thought they were hand in blouse with the last government on implementing the Snoopers Charter.
".....Not to be recorded and scanned later, along with everybody else......" You fail to supply any detail as to why you think your dribblings would not be ignored by the spooks. Let's suppose they are using the keyword Cameron for example, it would generate thousands of hits daily just from news articles being emailed about. The idea that your bleating would get some special attention just because you want to baaaah-lieve it would is moronic. I would suggest the spooks, having had decades of practice, and obviously having put more than the five minutes of limited 'thought' you put into the matter, are using far more sophisticated filters for even the first pass of the probably very extensive sifting that happens before any such conversation gets to be actually seen/heard by an analyst.
You mean sophisticated filters that look for words like this:
Waihopai, INFOSEC, Information Security, Information Warfare, IW, IS, Priavacy, Information Terrorism, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, Reno, Compsec, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, ISS, Passwords, DefCon V, Hackers, Encryption, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secert Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP, PEM, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, COSMOS, DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, JICC, ReMOB, LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, Active X, Compsec 97, LLC, DERA, Mavricks, Meta-hackers, ^?, Steve Case, Tools, Telex, Military Intelligence, Scully, Flame, Infowar, Bubba, Freeh, Archives, Sundevil, jack, Investigation, ISACA, NCSA, spook words, Verisign, Secure, ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, Lacrosse, Flashbangs, HRT, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN, FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, NAVWAN, NRL, RL, NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, LABLINK, USACIL, USCG, NRC, ~, CDC, DOE, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, SGC, UNCPCJ, CFC, DREO, CDA, DRA, SHAPE, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO, HAHO, FKS, 868, GCHQ, DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, SAS, SBS, UDT, GOE, DOE, GEO, Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR, GSG-9, 22nd SAS, GEOS, EADA, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA, MYK, 747,777, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz, Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, Duress, RAID, Psyops, grom, D-11, SERT, VIP, ARC, S.E.T. Team, MP5k, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM, GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV, NACSI, PSAC, PTT, RFI, SIGDASYS, TDM. SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, TEXTA. ELF, LF, MF, VHF, UHF, SHF, SASP, WANK, Colonel, domestic disruption, smuggle, 15kg, nitrate, Pretoria, M-14, enigma, Bletchley Park, Clandestine, nkvd, argus, afsatcom, CQB, NVD, Counter Terrorism Security, Rapid Reaction, Corporate Security, Police, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security Consulting, High Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic Surveillance, MI-17, Counterterrorism, spies, eavesdropping, debugging, interception, COCOT, rhost, rhosts, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, Gamma, Gorizont, Guppy, Ionosphere, Mole, Keyhole, Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Cornflower, Daisy, Egret, Iris, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile, Vinnell, B.D.M.,Sphinx, Stephanie, Reflection, Spoke, Talent, Trump, FX, FXR, IMF, POCSAG, Covert Video, Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope, csystems, passwd, 2600 Magazine, Competitor, EO, Chan, Alouette,executive, Event Security, Mace, Cap-Stun, stakeout, ninja, ASIS, ISA, EOD, Oscor, Merlin, NTT, SL-1, Rolm, TIE, Tie-fighter, PBX, SLI, NTT, MSCJ, MIT, 69, RIT, Time, MSEE, Cable & Wireless, CSE, Embassy, ETA, Porno, Fax, finks, Fax encryption, white noise, pink noise, CRA, M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security, Macintosh Internet Security, Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD, TDR, sweeping, TELINT, Audiotel, Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite imagery, force, Cypherpunks, Coderpunks, TRW, remailers, replay, redheads, RX-7, explicit, FLAME, Pornstars, AVN, Playboy, Anonymous, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20, subversives, SLIP, toad, fish, data havens, unix, c, a, b, d, the, Elvis, quiche, DES, 1*, NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, counterintelligence, industrial espionage, PI, TSCI, industrial intelligence, H.N.P., Juiliett Class Submarine, Locks, loch, Ingram Mac-10, sigvoice, ssa, E.O.D., SEMTEX, penrep, racal, OTP, OSS, Blowpipe, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class, squib, primacord, RSP, Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, Comirex, GPMG, Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS, SORO, M5, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS, S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand Corporation, Wackenhutt, EO, Wackendude, mol, Hillal, GGL, CTU, botux, Virii, CCC, Blacklisted 411, Internet Underground, XS4ALL, Retinal Fetish, Fetish, Yobie, CTP, CATO, Phon-e, Chicago Posse, l0ck, spook keywords, PLA, TDYC, W3, CUD, CdC, Weekly World News, Zen, World Domination, Dead, GRU, M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick, Glock, Ft. Meade, press-release, Indigo, wire transfer, e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge, Digicash, zip, SWAT, Ortega, PPP, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN, MCI, Blacknet, Middleman, KLM, Blackbird, plutonium, Texas, jihad, SDI, Uzi, Fort Meade, supercomputer, bullion, 3, Blackmednet, Propaganda, ABC, Satellite phones, Planet-1, cryptanalysis, nuclear, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears Tower, NORAD, Delta Force, SEAL, virtual, Dolch, secure shell, screws, Black-Ops, Area51, SABC, basement, data-haven, black-bag, TEMPSET, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5, IDEA, garbage, market, beef, Stego, unclassified, utopia, orthodox, Alica, SHA, Global, gorilla, Bob, Pseudonyms, MITM, Gray Data, VLSI, mega, Leitrim, Yakima, Sugar Grove, Cowboy, Gist, 8182, Gatt, Platform, 1911, Geraldton, UKUSA, veggie, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul, Oratory, Pine Gap, Menwith, Mantis, DSD, BVD, 1984, Flintlock, cybercash, government, hate, speedbump, illuminati, president, freedom, coc aine, $, Roswell, ESN, COS, E.T., credit card, b9, fraud, assasinate, virus, anarchy, rogue, mailbomb, 888, Chelsea, 1997, Whitewater, MOD, York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN, Nike, Atlas, Delta, TWA, Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i, PGP 5.1, siliconpimp, Lynch, 414, Face, Pixar, IRIDF, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton, LUK, Cohiba, Soros, Standford, niche, 51, H&K, USP, ^, sardine, bank, EUB, USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell, Glock 26, snuffle, Patel, package, ISI, INR, INS, IRS, GRU, RUOP, GSS, NSP, SRI, Ronco, Armani, BOSS, Chobetsu, FBIS, BND, SISDE, FSB, BfV, IB, froglegs, JITEM, SADF, advise, TUSA, HoHoCon, SISMI, FIS, MSW, Spyderco, UOP, SSCI, NIMA, MOIS, SVR, SIN, advisors, SAP, OAU, PFS, Aladdin, chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, Peering, 17, 312, NB, CBM, CTP, Sardine, SBIRS, SGDN, ADIU, DEADBEEF, IDP, IDF, Halibut, SONANGOL, Flu, &, Loin, PGP 5.53, EG&G, AIEWS, AMW, WORM, MP5K-SD, 1071, WINGS, cdi, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, THAAD, package, chosen, PRIME, SURVIAC,UFO - See more at: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread36584/pg1#sthash.lzuS6HcA.dpuf
"....A "trollbot" ? Just a thought...." It really says a lot about the low level of intellect involved in your 'thought process' if a bot was able to so easily and regularly tear apart what you post, and counter with facts you are completely unable to deal with.
The facts (in the UK) are :
(1) All tier 1 telecoms companies have to allow the spooks access to call trace/monitor, it's part of the license they have to operate. I assume a similar thing is in place for ISPs too. If you want to use phones/email then you have to accept this.
(2) All requests to monitor/trace have to come via well defined legal routes with necessary warrants in place. This is primarily to stop 'rogue' employees and government officials from tracking whoever they want. There are plenty of stories of network engineers getting the sack for tracking their errant girlfriends.
(3) There is a network overhead to monitoring traffic, meaning that at any one time only a fraction of numbers can be activiely monitored. Also, when you've got the (mostly useless) data, where are you going to store it and for how long?
(4) Requests for finding 'phones' can also be used for the forces of good, i.e. tracking missing people.
To summarise, the spooks just cannot hoover up every piece of information about every communication that the millions of subscribers make every day, it's just not practical. The truth is, that this is only done for those people that the authorities have an active interest in.
I assume this move by Vodafone is an attempt to either (a) try and get more money from the government for this activity or (b) trying to differentiate themselves in the market by attempting some transparency. It's obiviously got nothing to do with peoples rights, but everything to do with make money.
"I assume this move by Vodafone is an attempt to either (a) try and get more money from the government for this activity or (b) trying to differentiate themselves in the market by attempting some transparency. It's obiviously got nothing to do with peoples rights, but everything to do with make money."
That last paragraph earns you an upvote.
The issue is the intelligence community and law enforcement are STEALING valuable intel from companies instead of PAYING for it. No one in the aforementioned groups raised this concern because
1. It would make UKUS companies look self interested instead of 'valuing privacy,' of which the latter is a part of salvaging their public image (think international image, please Brazil and Germany buy our stuff). IC/LE doesn't want to harm business, but catch the bad guys and know who the potential bad guys are.
2. It would make IC/LE look like modern day thieves stealing business intelligence and (in some cases) business 'products'...instead of paying ~$100 for a persons cell location, ~$75 text messages, etc. for the last month/year, they can take it for free. Consider even WITH a warrant IC/LE still has to pay, and if not for the data then for some tool/piece of software to 'make sense of the data' (or however these companies are selling it). On top of that, they have to wait for the data to get sorted/aggregated/delivered.
Taking it allows them to be in charge of the collection process from sift to aggregation to delivery of an intelligence product.
Ultimately, it shows actionable information wants to be free on all sides of the 'cyber' debate.