Feeling paranoid? Think about your cellphone for a while....

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'll just go ahead and assume that Canada is no more scrupulous here than our neighbours.

Sprint spread GPS data to cops over 8 million times

A blogger has released audio of Sprint's Electronic Surveillance Manager describing the carrier's cooperation with law enforcement. Among the revelations are that Sprint has so far filled over 8 million requests from LEOs for customer GPS data.

By Jon Stokes | Last updated December 1, 2009 5:38 PM

Christopher Soghoian, a graduate student at Indiana University's School of Informatics and Computing, has made public an audio recording of Sprint/Nextel's Electronic Surveillance Manager describing how his company has provided GPS location data about its wireless customers to law enforcement over 8 million times. That's potentially millions of Sprint/Nextel customers who not only were probably unaware that their wireless provider even had an Electronic Surveillance Department, but who certainly did not know that law enforcement offers could log into a special Sprint Web portal and, without ever having to demonstrate probable cause to a judge, gain access to geolocation logs detailing where they've been and where they are.

Through a mix of documents unearthed by Freedom of Information Act requests and the aforementioned recording, Soghoian describes how "the government routinely obtains customer records from ISPs detailing the telephone numbers dialed, text messages, emails and instant messages sent, web pages browsed, the queries submitted to search engines, and geolocation data, detailing exactly where an individual was located at a particular date and time."

The fact that federal, state, and local law enforcement can obtain communications "metadata"—URLs of sites visited, e-mail message headers, numbers dialed, GPS locations, etc.—without any real oversight or reporting requirements should be shocking, but it isn't. The courts ruled in 2005 that law enforcement doesn't need to show probable cause to obtain your physical location via the cell phone grid. All of the aforementioned metadata can be accessed with an easy-to-obtain pen register/trap & trace order. But given the volume of requests, it's hard to imagine that the courts are involved in all of these.

Soghoian's lengthy post makes at least two important points, the first of which is that there are no reliable statistics on the real volume and scope of government surveillance because such numbers are either not published (sometimes in violation of the legally mandated reporting requirements) or they contain huge gaps. The second point is that the lack of reporting makes it difficult to determine just how involved the courts actually are in all of this, in terms of whether these requests are all backed by subpoenas.

Underlying both of these issues is the fact that Sprint has made it so easy for law enforcement to gain access to customer data on a 24/7 basis through the use of its Web portal and large compliance department. Regarding the latter, here's another quote from Paul Taylor, the aforementioned Sprint/Nextel Electronic Surveillance Manager:

"In the electronic surveillance group at Sprint, I have 3 supervisors. 30 ES techs, and 15 contractors. On the subpoena compliance side, which is anything historical, stored content, stored records, is about 35 employees, maybe 4-5 supervisors, and 30 contractors. There's like 110 all together."

All of those people are there solely to serve up customer data to law enforcement, and other comments by Taylor indicate that his staff will probably grow. Sprint only recently made the GPS data available through the Web portal, and that has caused the number of requests to go through the roof. The company apparently plans on expanding the menu of surveillance options that are accessible via the Web. Taylor again:

"[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just [because of] the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in."

I'm sure they'll find some way to deal with the "millions and millions" of warrantless surveillance requests, and no one will bother to even curb the practice, much less stop it. I've been reporting on this exact metadata/surveillance issue for years now, and it just gets worse. The stressed, jobless, indebted public doesn't care, and Congress doesn't either. If I'm still on this beat in 5 years, I'm sure I'll still be rewriting this same story for the thousandth time.

Original article: Eight Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight

[nibbler]

Even before 9/11 many cel phones were gps enabled. After 9/11, laws were passed in the US and the rest of the world soon after to make all new cel phones manufactured gps enabled; the phone's batteries were to be designed to maintain enough charge to the gps chip so that it was active regardless if the battery was "dead".

Today's phone's chips allow real time 3 dimensional locating with amazing accuracy, can even show which floor of a building you're on- works pretty much anywhere there is either cel phone reception or satellite line of sight.

For more info- look into venture capital investments post 911

Only took until 2009 for the wireless providers to offer this gps service for public use eh?

[Esau.]

No paranoia here. The public has had web access to gps cell service for a few years (ever since cell phone users got younger), so its shouldn't be a big surprise (as the article states) that these providers hand even more info over to the police or govt's without a thought or care. But, if your really worried about this shit I'd recommend not using cell phones, the internet, banks, the postal service, credit cards etc. The list goes on....

[SaggyBalls]

If anyone has a real reason to be worried they probably have an RFID chip somewhere on their clothing they'd never expect.

[nibbler]

I quit the cel phone a few years ago. Disgusting habit.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Guest

[phishtaper]

i like to track where my dog wanders around to in the neighbourhood. of course, we got her a Fido phone.

[hamilton]

Har-har-har....

[Thorgnor]

No paranoia here. The public has had web access to gps cell service for a few years (ever since cell phone users got younger), so its shouldn't be a big surprise (as the article states) that these providers hand even more info over to the police or govt's without a thought or care. But, if your really worried about this shit I'd recommend not using cell phones, the internet, banks, the postal service, credit cards etc. The list goes on....

I'm with the not so paranoid guy. They've got bigger fish to fry. Not to mention this would be handy in a building collapse or any other time where you actually wouldn't mind getting rescued. But it's more likely that you're gonna get arrested all Gene Hackman-Will Smith style.

[nibbler]

When it comes to cel phones- its the EMF they generate and how the brain is used as an amplifier for the signal that I'd be paranoid about. The fine print which ships with phones tells you in legalese that even if future studies conclude that EMF fields from the phones are dangerous, cause cancer etc- you have no legal recourse with the makers of the technology or the carriers of the signals. One of those sneaky contracts you "sign" by buying the product.

Of course, if you live in a highly urbanized area- don't worry about wether or not you use a cel phone- unless you're well underground, you're swimming in cellular EMF fields.

[Asparagus]

....how the brain is used as an amplifier for the signal that I'd be paranoid about.

That must be some interesting physics. Could you elaborate?

[nibbler]

I would love to find the paper which caused me to shut down the cel for good- but I cant. I researched this years ago with access to scientific journals. I do not have access to those journals from this computer. However this Wikipedia page is a good start for someone interested in the cel phone radiation subject.

[phishtaper]

coincidentally, there was an article just published this week in the journal of the national cancer institute (THE top cancer journal) by some danish researchers that shows no increase in brain cancer rates in scandinavia as cell phone use rose dramatically. although epidemiological, rather than clinical, it certainly suggests that cell phones dont 'cause' brain cancer.

[nibbler]

There's all sorts of studies on both sides of the issue- far from a consensus.

FYI The most common type of cancer directly linked to cel phone use affects the saliva glands.

[phishtaper]

im curious, nibbler. do you read these various studies or do you rely on others' summaries of them?

[Asparagus]

I would love to find the paper which caused me to shut down the cel for good- but I cant. I researched this years ago with access to scientific journals. I do not have access to those journals from this computer. However this Wikipedia page is a good start for someone interested in the cel phone radiation subject.

I'm actually curious as to exactly how the brain is used as an amplifier rather than an attenuator of radiation. The wikipedia page you linked to does not clarify this. In fact nowhere in the article is the word amplifier even used. If you could give me a journal name or even an author, it would help me in my research.

[Esau.]

Whenever I read about the cell phone EMF/cancer argument I notice they never seem to include the amount of EMF those studied for this research were exposed to within their own homes from wiring, electronics, appliances etc or even their jobs. (like in my case, I'm an electrician,lol )

Unless you spend the entire day with a cell phone pressed against your head, the EMF levels you come in contact with daily and considerably more frequently just living in a home will be higher.

[nibbler]

im curious, nibbler. do you read these various studies or do you rely on others' summaries of them?

Neither- I just skim the titles...

[phishtaper]

im curious' date=' nibbler. do you read these various studies or do you rely on others' summaries of them? [/quote']

Neither- I just skim the titles...

i was actually asking seriously, but that's ok.

[nibbler]

I'm actually curious as to exactly how the brain is used as an amplifier rather than an attenuator of radiation. The wikipedia page you linked to does not clarify this. In fact nowhere in the article is the word amplifier even used. If you could give me a journal name or even an author, it would help me in my research.

I did not infer that page would give you answers about amplification, rather I suggested that its a good starting point for someone interested in researching the radiation issues with cel phones.

Next time I find myself at a library computer with access to scientific journals Ill try and look into it.

Dr. Ross Adey has been studying cel phones from the beginning. He's worth looking into, no guarantee you will find anything on amplification/attenuation, lots of his work has been classified.

Dr Nick Begich has done a lot of research into EMF and ELF concerns, again, not sure if he covers the amplification/attenuation angles- but youll find him easily on the web wether you have access to scientific journals or not-

[Esau.]

I quit the cel phone a few years ago. Disgusting habit.

Just noticed this tucked above the picture. I agree it's a disgusting habit if your the type who spends hours on the thing, although a home or business telephone can emit even more EMF depending on the type of unit a person uses. But neither emit the same levels as a computer monitor.

I can say with all honesty since being laid off that I spend more time in front of a computer monitor in a single day then I spend using a telephone (cell or landline) in a month or more. Then again, if I was working I would be spending 8-12 hours a day surrounded by extreme high EMF levels that would make a cellphone or monitors seem insignificant.