Read the book “Three Felonies A Day” by and then do a little research on the now disbanded East German Secret Police formerly known as “The Stasi” and you will better understand what I am about to tell you.
I am being followed around everywhere I go (COINTELPRO Gang Stalked) by entities that I don’t know. Why would they be interested in me you ask? My best guess would be that it is because I am an Activist (The All Star Activist) and have stood up to the wrongdoings of both private industry, non-profits and Politicians alike. That does not explain everything however, it is still a very valid and accurate answer. A broader answer would be that they are watching and manipulating all of us, Edward Snowden among others have proven that.
In short, I keep seeing places that I have been to, the exact locations in fact, on local broadcast television news. This has happened twice now within the space of a year. At first I thought it was just a fluke that when I turned on the TV news only to see a story of some huge, horrific criminal incident that took place right at the exact spot where my Mom and I had just parked our car. The first time it happened I said to Ma, “Ma, look! We were just at that place yesterday! We were parked right at that exact spot!”
Because I am being stalked by just about every government entity known to man (the definition of Gang Stalking), I of course have my radar up constantly. It took a while for me to figure out since, I am just an ordinary guy just trying to live in a world full of corruption and evil, and I speak out about it from time to time. So when I see this extremely weird “coincidence” on the TV news I start wondering. My first thought was “No, that can’t be possible. What kind of crazy shit is that and who would authorize such an operation. More importantly why??”
This simple answer is that I have pissed off some very powerful people who have unlimited resources and no accountability.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Click image to be taken to Amazon.com
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague.
In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.
The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets.
The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.
We’ve seen it recently (and I’ve posted on it) with the California Highway Patrol. These people ARE above the law usually (law enforcement/corporations) and do whatever they want with both “Black Budgets” and your tax dollars. We’ve seen it with the IRS and the targeting of Tea Party groups to deny them non-profit status, then destroy email evidence of their crimes. We’ve seen it with former Attorney General Eric Holder and the “Fast & Furious” operation that gave US purchased assault weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels. Most importantly, we’ve been told by Edward Snowden that both the American People and people the world over are nothing more than pawns to be spied upon, manipulated and sold out by our own “Intelligence” agencies.
We live in a prison that you can’t escape where the “Overseer’s” are watching everything we do and listening to everything we say. This type of a prison is known as a “Panopticon“.
Now, here we go again. I have just seen the second (possibly third) instance where a “crime” has occurred at some location that I stopped at in San Francisco, while driving with my mom.
The TV news has this story splashed all over the place in big headlines, with “in-depth” reporting. A group of volunteers has been assembled to spread the word about this “tragedy” and bring it to a quick resolution. I don’t believe that any of it is real (save for the clueless and distraught victims, I feel sorry for them). It has all the hallmarks of a Gang Stalking “False Flag” (staged event meant to justify actions that would otherwise be unjustifiable).
The first time I saw this type of operation it had to do with terrorism. The second time it had to do with a missing person. This time, it’s a missing person again.
Let me just say now that I think that all of this stuff is absolutely HORRIBLE. If it’s real, it’s horrible. If it’s fake, its horrible. Either way, real or fake, it has horrible implications for the condition of our society. The mother’s pain when she was crying and pleading on TV looked pretty damn horrible to me. I thought to myself, “Does this poor lady realize that this is all staged? Do any of the friends know? Are they all just pawns being used as convincing props in this sick ass play??”
As far as the particular case in question goes, I don’t know. I tend to think that their distress is real and I hate that, it means innocents are being harmed. That is what makes me so mad, these evil Gang Stalkers (law enforcement/CIA) do this crap and hurt decent people in the process. They don’t care, all they care about is vengeance, control and money.
Read “Three Felonies A Day” and do just a little research on “The Stasi” and how they controlled people in the former Communist East Germany. Hell, just Internet search Gang Stalking and illegal surveillance for that matter, then you will understand. You will understand how they control almost every aspect of our lives.
That’s the problem with eyes watching you everywhere you go, ears listening to everything you say, it makes setting you up by a criminal organization easy. They just go behind you and make a mess, then try to blame you for it. You should really ask yourself, why?
I think they are doing this to me so that they can justify keeping me under constant surveillance. All the FBI has to do is produce an image or video of my Mom’s car stopping at the location where they staged their fake “crime” to a judge. That judge is then going to give them any warrant they want to do anything they want to me, all under the ruse of an “investigation”. Yeah, right. More like collect false evidence, stage a “crime” and then plant the false evidence at the scene of their fake “crime”. They have already broken into my room, sawed off the locks and burglarized, maybe even planted false evidence. Who knows? I don’t have absolute control of it anymore.
Hey, didn’t they do that to OJ the first time?
Didn’t they just do that with another activist in Oakland, Ca. named Stephen Peterson
Charges Against Arson Suspect Dropped
A string of seven separate fires early in the morning on Sept. 28 caused $3 million in damage.
This is animal rights activist Stephen Peterson who just happned to be caught walking on camera in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Law enforcement probably used a snitch or paid informant to set the fires Mr. Peterson was accused of setting, right after he had been caught on camera at that location. You can believe that as an animal rights activist, he is on a “Domestic Terrorist” watch list and followed everywhere he goes. This is the type of guy Edward Snowden was talking about, as am I.
By Bea Karnes (Patch Staff)
Updated October 31, 2014 at 6:11 pm
Prosecutors dropped three felony charges of arson today against one of the two men accused of setting off a string of fires in Alameda in September.
Stephen Peterson, 27, walked out of the Alameda County Superior Court scot-free, according to Alameda County District Attorney spokeswoman Teresa Drenick.
Friends of the animal rights activist and musician had expressed disbelief at the accusations against him, saying he had been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What’s Wrong With Public Video Surveillance?
February 25, 2002
The Four Problems With Public Video Surveillance
Make a Difference
Your support helps the ACLU defend privacy rights and a broad range of civil liberties.
Video cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV), are becoming a more and more widespread feature of American life. Fears of terrorism and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the trend even more. The use of sophisticated systems by police and other public security officials is particularly troubling in a democratic society. In lower Manhattan, for example, the police are planning to set up a centralized surveillance center where officers can view thousands of video cameras around the downtown – and police-operated cameras have proliferated in many other cities across America in just the past several years.
Although the ACLU has no objection to cameras at specific, high-profile public places that are potential terrorist targets, such as the U.S. Capitol, the impulse to blanket our public spaces and streets with video surveillance is a bad idea. Here are four reasons why:
1. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN EFFECTIVE
The implicit justification for the recent push to increase video surveillance is the threat of terrorist attacks. But suicide attackers are clearly not deterred by video cameras – and may even be attracted to the television coverage cameras can ensure – and the expense of an extensive video surveillance system such as Britain’s – which sucks up approximately 20 percent of that nation’s criminal justice budget – far exceeds the limited benefits that the system may provide in investigating attacks or attempted attacks after the fact (see fact sheet on Surveillance Cameras and the Attempted London Attacks).
The real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. But it has not even been demonstrated that they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found that they have not reduced crime. “Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences,” criminologists found in one study, “reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre.” A 2005 study for the British Home Office also found that cameras did not cut crime or the fear of crime (as had a 2002 study, also for the British government).
In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting that “monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing,” have found in experiments that “after only 20 minutes of watching and evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has degenerated to well below acceptable levels.”
2. CCTV IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABUSE
One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that experience tells us it will inevitably be abused. There are five ways that surveillance-camera systems are likely to be misused:
Surveillance systems present law enforcement “bad apples” with a tempting opportunity for criminal misuse. In 1997, for example, a top-ranking police official in Washington, DC was caught using police databases to gather information on patrons of a gay club. By looking up the license plate numbers of cars parked at the club and researching the backgrounds of the vehicles’ owners, he tried to blackmail patrons who were married. Imagine what someone like that could do with a citywide spy-camera system.
Sometimes, bad policies are set at the top, and an entire law enforcement agency is turned toward abusive ends. That is especially prone to happen in periods of social turmoil and intense conflict over government policies. During the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, for example, the FBI – as well as many individual police departments around the nation – conducted illegal operations to spy upon and harass political activists who were challenging racial segregation and the Vietnam War. This concern is especially justified since we are in some respects enduring a similar period of conflict today.
Abuse for personal purposes
Powerful surveillance tools also create temptations to abuse them for personal purposes. An investigation by the Detroit Free Press, for example, showed that a database available to Michigan law enforcement was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses.
Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all their existing prejudices and biases. In Great Britain, camera operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of color. According to a sociological study of how the systems were operated, “Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population.”
Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons, the researchers found. Many incidents have been reported in the United States. In one, New York City police in a helicopter supposedly monitoring the crowds at the 2004 Republican Convention trained an infrared video camera on an amorous couple enjoying the nighttime “privacy” of their rooftop balcony.
3. THE LACK OF LIMITS OR CONTROLS ON CAMERAS USE
Advanced surveillance systems such as CCTV need to be subject to checks and balances. Because the technology has evolved so quickly, however, checks and balances to prevent the kinds of abuses outlined above don’t exist. Two elements in particular are missing:
A consensus on limits for the capability of public CCTV systems.
Unfortunately, history has shown that surveillance technologies put in place for one purpose inevitably expand into other uses. And with video technology likely to continue advancing, the lack of any clear boundaries for what CCTV systems should be able to do poses a significant danger.
In just the past several years, many cities, including Washington, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, have for the first time installed significant numbers of police-operated cameras trainined on public spaces. And once these surveillance facilities are put in place, police departments will be in a position to increase the quality of its technology and the number of its cameras – and will inevitably be tempted or pressured to do so. Do we want the authorities installing high-resolution cameras that can read a pamphlet from a mile away? Cameras equipped to detect wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, allowing night vision or see-through vision? Cameras equipped with facial recognition, like those that have been installed in airports and even on the streets of Tampa, Florida? Cameras augmented with other forms of artificial intelligence, such as those deployed in Chicago?
As long as there is no clear consensus about where we draw the line on surveillance to protect American values, public CCTV is in danger of evolving into a surveillance monster.
Legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems.
A societal consensus about how cameras should be used is important, but in the end we are a nation of laws and rights that have their root in law. While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems. Rules are needed to establish a clear public understanding of such issues as whether video signals are recorded, under what conditions, and how long are they retained; what the criteria are for access to archived video by other government agencies, or by the public; how the rules would be verified and enforced; and what punishments would apply to violators.
There have long been well-established rules governing the audio recording of individuals without their consent (there is a reason surveillance cameras never have microphones). It makes no sense that we don’t have equivalent laws for video recording.
4. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PUBLIC LIFE
The growing presence of public cameras will bring subtle but profound changes to the character of our public spaces. When citizens are being watched by the authorities – or aware they might be watched at any time – they are more self-conscious and less free-wheeling. As syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum has pointed out, “knowing that you are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on things. You don’t want to offend them or otherwise call attention to yourself.” Eventually, he warns, “people may learn to be careful about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles that might alarm unseen observers. They may also put more thought into how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies or hookers.” Indeed, the studies of cameras in Britain found that people deemed to be “out of time and place” with the surroundings were subjected to prolonged surveillance.
THE BOTTOM LINE: A LACK OF PROPORTION BETWEEN BENEFITS AND RISKS
Like any intrusive technology, the benefits of deploying public video cameras must be balanced against the costs and dangers. This technology (a) has the potential change the core experience of going out in public in America because of its chilling effect on citizens, (b) carries very real dangers of abuse and “mission creep,” and (c) would not significantly protect us against terrorism. Given that, its benefits – preventing at most a few street crimes, and probably none – are disproportionately small.
Full article in .pdf
rom the Fourth Amendment to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to films like Minority Report and The Lives of Others, our law and culture are full of warnings about state scrutiny of our lives. These warnings are commonplace, but they are rarely very specific. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we don’t really know why surveillance is bad and why we should be wary of it. To the extent that the answer has something to do with “privacy,” we lack an understanding of what “privacy” means in this context and why it matters. We’ve been able to live with this state of affairs largely because the threat of constant surveillance has been relegated to the realms of science fiction and failed totalitarian states.
But these warnings are no longer science fiction. The digital technologies that have revolutionized our daily lives have also created minutely detailed records of those lives. In an age of terror, our government has shown a keen willingness to acquire this data and use it for unknown purposes. We know that governments have been buying and borrowing private-sector databases, and we recently learned that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been building a massive data and supercomputing center in Utah, apparently with the goal of intercepting and storing much of the world’s Internet communications for decryption and analysis.
Although we have laws that protect us against government surveillance, secret government programs cannot be challenged until they are discovered. And even when they are, our law of surveillance provides only minimal protections. Courts frequently dismiss challenges to such programs for lack of standing, under the theory that mere surveillance creates no harms. The Supreme Court recently reversed the only major case to hold to the contrary, in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, finding that the respondents’ claim that their communications were likely being monitored was “too speculative.”
But the important point is that our society lacks an understanding of why (and when) government surveillance is harmful. Existing attempts to identify the dangers of surveillance are often unconvincing, and they generally fail to speak in terms that are likely to influence the law. In this Article, I try to explain the harms of government surveillance. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I offer an account of what those harms are and why they matter. I will move beyond the vagueness of current theories of surveillance to articulate a more coherent understanding and a more workable approach.
At the level of theory, I will explain why and when surveillance is particularly dangerous and when it is not. First, surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties. With respect to civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about political and social issues. Such intellectual surveillance is especially dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state over-sight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called “intellectual privacy.” A second special harm that surveillance poses is its effect on the power dynamic between the watcher and the watched. This disparity creates the risk of a variety of harms, such as discrimination, coercion, and the threat of selective enforcement, where critics of the government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for wrongdoing unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.
At a practical level, I propose a set of four principles that should guide the future development of surveillance law, allowing for a more appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of government surveillance. First, we must recognize that surveillance transcends the public/private divide. Public and private surveillance are simply related parts of the same problem, rather than wholly discrete. Even if we are ultimately more concerned with government surveillance, any solution must grapple with the complex relationships between government and corporate watchers. Second, we must recognize that secret surveillance is illegitimate and prohibit the creation of any domestic-surveillance programs whose existence is secret. Third, we should recognize that total surveillance is illegitimate and reject the idea that it is acceptable for the government to record all Internet activity without authorization. Government surveillance of the Internet is a power with the potential for massive abuse. Like its precursor of telephone wiretapping, it must be subjected to meaningful judicial process before it is authorized. We should carefully scrutinize any surveillance that threatens our intellectual privacy. Fourth, we must recognize that surveillance is harmful. Surveillance menaces intellectual privacy and increases the risk of blackmail, coercion, and discrimination; accordingly, we must recognize surveillance as a harm in constitutional standing doctrine. Explaining the harms of surveillance in a doctrinally sensitive way is essential if we want to avoid sacrificing our vital civil liberties.
I develop this argument in four steps. In Part I, I show the scope of the problem of modern “surveillance societies,” in which individuals are increasingly monitored by an overlapping and entangled assemblage of government and corporate watchers. I then develop an account of why this kind of watching is problematic. Part II shows how surveillance menaces our intellectual privacy and threatens the development of individual beliefs in ways that are inconsistent with the basic commitments of democratic societies. Part III explores how surveillance distorts the power relationships between the watcher and the watched, enhancing the watcher’s ability to blackmail, coerce, and discriminate against the people under its scrutiny. Part IV explores the four principles that I argue should guide the development of surveillance law, to protect us from the substantial harms of surveillance.
Google Maps Has Been Tracking Your Every Move, And There’s A Website To Prove It
Google is tracking wherever your smartphone goes, and putting a neat red dot on a map to mark the occasion
by ELIZABETH FLUX | JUNKEE.COM | AUGUST 17, 2014
Remember that scene in Minority Report, where Tom Cruise is on the run from the law, but is unable to avoid detection because everywhere he goes there are constant retina scans feeding his location back to a central database? That’s tomorrow. Today, Google is tracking wherever your smartphone goes, and putting a neat red dot on a map to mark the occasion.
You can find that map here. All you need to do is log in with the same account you use on your phone, and the record of everywhere you’ve been for the last day to month will erupt across your screen like chicken pox.
We all know that no matter what ‘privacy’ settings you may try and implement, our information is all being collected and stored somewhere. That knowledge sits in the back of our minds, and is easy to drown out by shoving in some headphones and watching Adventure Time on repeat until everything stops being 1984. But it’s a sharp jolt back to reality when you see a two dimensional image marking your daily commute with occasional detours to the cinema or a friend’s house.
Looking at mine, I realised that a) I live my life in a very small radius, and b) there are places on my map that I don’t remember going. One of them I’ve apparently visited three times on different days. Once whilst “Biking” and twice while “Stationary”. All at times I wouldn’t usually be awake. I’m not sure what’s happening on Wood Street in North Melbourne, or why my phone apparently travels there without me, but I’m not going to rule out secret alien conspiracies.
This never happened. UNLESS IT DID.
Apparently this record only happens if you have ‘location services’ switched on in your phone; if you do and you’re finding you have no data, then it means that either you don’t exist or you’ve beaten the system. If it’s the latter, please teach me your ways; I know for a fact that I switched my phone’s location detection off, but apparently it somehow got switched back on.
All Star Activist here… This is ONE of the solutions that Elizabeth was asking to be informed of. These pouches are known as “Faraday Cages” and block radio signals. You can even make them yourself although, it’s a lot of trouble. Just easier to buy one. I advocate their use heartily since I have had government agents follow me and commit crimes in the places I had been to in order to set me up for the blame. GET THIS TO PROTECT YOURSELF!
Oh well. Perhaps this month I’ll take some inspiration from the runner who used Nike+ draw dicks – except this time when the dots are joined, they’ll just form a huge, unblinking eye. With occasional side trips to Wood Street.
Elizabeth is the editor of Voiceworks, and has been published in Film Ink, Metro, The Punch, and Lip Magazine. She tweets terrible puns @ElizabethFlux.
How It Works
Cell phones can operate with as little as 1-millionth of a normal signal! A minimum of 80 dB attenuation (blocking) material is required to achieve blocking, as well as a complete (no leak) seal. The Block-it Pocket works by incorporating pure silver onto a high quality nylon ripstop fabric equaling 100+ dB attenuation. Which is then hand sewn into the inner pocket, extending beyond the cover to create a complete faraday enclosure. This is how the Block-it Pocket works!
Our entire product line incorporates this technology
to maximize the protection each product is intended to provide. Extensive testing has proven that Block-it Pocket products work!
Many people also do not know that virtually all new devices can be accessed remotely, even with the device powered off and the battery removed! It’s true! Just read this article we found recently to illustrate the remote, illegal accessing of wireless devices.
A Simple But Effective Demonstration.
Demonstrates The “Deflective” Properties.
- Provides shielding from: Microwaves, RFs, EMFs, E-Fields and more.
- You will not receive calls, texts or email while storing in the pocket but all of your messages will be waiting for you when you need them.
- While we cannot guarantee 100% shielding/blocking 100% of the time due to potential damage or misuse, we have had 100% success in all controlled tests! The Block-it Pocket Works!
- Simply make sure the clasp is securely fastened for complete signal blocking. That’s it!
- Eliminates outside entities from tracking or hacking you!
- Avoid annoying phone calls or texts at just the wrong moment!
- No more damaging radiation while carrying your device!
- Provides Protection From EMPs!
- Protects RFID Passports, Credit Cards and Transponders!
- Water Resistant!
- Machine Washable – gentle.
Money Back Guarantee
We are proud of the products we’ve developed and we know you will be satisfied too.
If you are not completely satisfied with the quality and performance of any Block-it Pocket product, simply return it within 30 days for a full refund.
Even Powering Down A Cell Phone Can’t Keep The NSA From Tracking Its Location
from the making-a-strong-case-for-Snowden’s-fridge-logic dept
We know how much information the NSA can grab in terms of cell phone usage — namely, calls made and received and length of conversations, along with phone and phone card metadata like IMSI and IMEI numbers. It can even grab location data, although for some reason, it claims it never does. (No matter, plenty of law enforcement agencies like gathering location data, so it’s not like that information is going to waste [bleak approximation of laughter]).
According to Ryan Gallagher at Slate, the NSA, along with other agencies, are able to something most would feel to be improbable, if not impossible: track the location of cell phones even if they’re turned off.
On Monday, the Washington Post published a story focusing on how massively the NSA has grown since the 9/11 attacks. Buried within it, there was a small but striking detail: By September 2004, the NSA had developed a technique that was dubbed “The Find” by special operations officers. The technique, the Post reports, was used in Iraq and “enabled the agency to find cellphones even when they were turned off.” This helped identify “thousands of new targets, including members of a burgeoning al-Qaeda-sponsored insurgency in Iraq,” according to members of the special operations unit interviewed by the Post.
Normally, turning a cell phone off cuts the connection to towers, effectively taking it off the grid and making it only traceable to the last point it was connected. The Post article doesn’t explain exactly how the NSA accomplishes it, but other incidents over the past half-decade offer a few indications of how this might be done.
In 2006, it was reported that the FBI had deployed spyware to infect suspects’ mobile phones and record data even when they were turned off… In 2009, thousands of BlackBerry users in the United Arab Emirates were targeted with spyware that was disguised as a legitimate update. The update drained users’ batteries and was eventually exposed by researchers, who identified that it had apparently been designed by U.S. firm SS8, which sells “lawful interception” tools to help governments conduct surveillance of communications.
The FBI’s use, in which cell phones’ microphones were remotely activated to record conversations (even with the phones turned off), probably had some bearing on Snowden’s request that journalists power down their phones andplace them in the fridge.
According to Gallagher, the NSA may be using mass updates to infect phones of targets overseas (and presumably, any “non-targets” applying the same faux update). This would be difficult, but not impossible, and considering what we’ve learned about the NSA’s far-reaching surveillance net, certainly not implausible. A couple of details in support of that theory:
First, two telcos that provide service to millions of cell phone users are known to be overly cooperative with intelligence agencies. You may recall the fact that Verizon and AT&T notably did not sign the collective letter asking the government to allow affected companies to release information on government requests for data. Given this background, it’s not unimaginable that Verizon and AT&T would accommodate the NSA (and FBI) if it wished to use their update systems to push these trojans.
Add to this the fact that Microsoft and others have allowed intelligence agencies early access to security flaws, allowing them to exploit these for a certain length of time before informing the public and patching the holes. Add these two together and you’ve got the means and the opportunity to serve snooping malware to millions of unsuspecting cell phone users.
Sparing usage, properly targeted isn’t really an issue. But if updates containing spyware have been pushed to the thousands of non-targeted individuals just to ensure the targets are included, it becomes more problematic, and the track record of the two agencies who have used this technology is far from pristine.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in…
Reader Comments For TechDirt Article Above (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Another excellent book, click to go to Amazon.com