BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Can You Hear Me Now?
December 05, 2006 3:38 PM
Cell phone users, beware. The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off.
A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery.
"The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
According to the recent court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan, "The device functioned whether the phone was powered on or off, intercepting conversations within its range wherever it happened to be."
The court ruling denied motions by 10 defendants to suppress the conversations obtained by "roving bugs" on the phones of John Ardito, a high-ranking member of the family, and Peter Peluso, an attorney and close associate of Ardito, who later cooperated with the government. The "roving bugs" were approved by a judge after the more conventional bugs planted at specified locations were discovered by members of the crime family, who then started to conduct their business dealings in several additional locations, including more restaurants, cars, a doctor's office and public streets.
"The courts have given law enforcement a blank check for surveillance," Richard Rehbock, attorney for defendant John Ardito, told ABC News.
Judge Kaplan's ruling said otherwise. "While a mobile device makes interception easier and less costly to accomplish than a stationary one, this does not mean that it implicated new or different privacy concerns." He continued, "It simply dispenses with the need for repeated installations and surreptitious entries into buildings. It does not invade zones of privacy that the government could not reach by more conventional means."
But Rehbock disagrees. "Big Brother is upon us...1984 happened a long time ago," he said, referring to the George Orwell futuristic novel "1984," which described a society whose members were closely watched by those in power and was published in 1949.
The FBI maintains the methods used in its investigation of the Genovese family are within the law. "The FBI does not discuss sensitive surveillance techniques other than to emphasize that any electronic surveillance is done pursuant to a court order and ongoing judicial scrutiny," Agent Jim Margolin told ABC News.
December 5, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (169)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I commend and applaud the FBI for following the laws of the United States of America by obtaining court orders and submitting to ongoing judicial scrutiny for all electronic surveillance it conducts. Maybee the White House, the NSA, and CIA will also start following the laws of the United States of America. Maybee not. The difference between the (White House, NSA, CIA)and the FBI is "THE LAW". The FBI follows it but the others arrogantly & flagrantly desecrate & destroy it.
Posted by: Todd Restelli | Dec 5, 2006 8:17:36 PM
wow....very scary...someone needs to do something about this!
Posted by: Dimebag | Dec 5, 2006 8:18:43 PM
I approve of cell phone eavesdropping on the Genovese crime family. There has to be some balance or recourse for the abuse that will happen, though. Perhaps a fine for illegal use, or the ability to civilly sue the agents who deploy it, their supervisor, department, and judge who approves it. Nothing restrains a person's behavior like having money removed from their wallet.
Ed
Posted by: Ed Lulofs | Dec 5, 2006 8:37:39 PM
this sounds like a lot of crap to me
Posted by: Matt Zorro | Dec 5, 2006 8:40:10 PM
This is way tooooo much. Enough spying on us...you can't have privacey in your own bedroom. The government needs to stop it.
Posted by: Sami | Dec 5, 2006 8:43:59 PM
Mr. Ross: The ability to use televisions has been extant for more than ten years here in Texas, and it is used indiscriminately, notwithstanding the protests of the FBI. In addition, these surveillance devices continue to be combined and used as weapons like in the movie Minority Report. Please help investigate and reveal. Be advised, you will become a target of these pain giving body interfering RF waves that are used as an RDIF system on our homes and our very living spaces even with protests to all in authority daily. Complaints do not work. The state/locals will not act against another unit of drug enforcement or other unit. The meters to prove this electronic assault are expensive, and the average person unaware of it anyway. Illness is being caused and disabled people are being harmed 100 percent of the time and the authority unable or unwilling to stop it. George Orwell didn't know the half of it.
Posted by: p.parent | Dec 5, 2006 9:37:11 PM
"The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct - in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and except in darkness, every movement scrutinised."
George Orwell, 1984
"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
George Washington, Circular to the States, May 9, 1753
It's not "You have nothing to fear unless you're doing something wrong".
It's "You have nothing to fear unless the government is doing something wrong."
SearingTruth
Posted by: SearingTruth | Dec 5, 2006 10:18:29 PM
Is this part of The Patriot Act Package?
Posted by: Bob King Neverland III | Dec 5, 2006 10:29:45 PM
WEll...it's not surprising that out government would take advantage of technology to spy on it's citizens; given the free reign that the judicial branch has given our "prezodent" to execute warrentless wiretapping on "people of interest".
It's just another tool to undermine the freedom they say they're trying to protect. It used to be freedom from oppression, to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but now it seems more and more like it's the freedom to control the every movement of it's citizens. Are we free anymore?
With this new development, anyone with a cellphone has to wonder if the government is listening to them and judging the life they live.
I see us decending into a world where every word and thought is broadcast to those in power, robbing us of the freedoms that our constitution was supposed to guarantee. A sad day indeed.
Posted by: david | Dec 5, 2006 10:50:58 PM
I can't believe my eyes ..... there are people in this blog who APPROVE of these kinds of intrusions by the government !!!! Kudos to all who invent countermeasures to thwart the government !!!!
Posted by: NLightenedOne | Dec 5, 2006 10:56:28 PM
I feel this whole thing is wrong and should't be allowed to be done to anyone.It is an disshoner to be an American in this world today. Where will this world be in life in a few years. Nothing is yours, not even your own words and thoughts.
Posted by: Melissa | Dec 5, 2006 11:16:20 PM
Would people stop blaming the judge? I have to think, if I were in his shoes, I'd do the same thing. It'd spare me the countless hours of hearing Bush stumble through speeches about "inherent powers" and so on. Besides, a decision like this always opens up the door to appeals.
On the other hand, if enough of us think this is a bad idea (I certainly do), let's write our Representatives and ask them to impeach this rogue. After all, judges are the officials most often and most successfully impeached by Congress.
Posted by: Andrew Elgert | Dec 5, 2006 11:29:10 PM
What if... you can also be heard, or seen, through your TV or monitor via cable, internet or even AC power...?
Well... it's been posible for years!
Why be so paranoid? All you do is waste your life away in front of the TV anyway!
Posted by: TinkThank | Dec 5, 2006 11:36:03 PM
the problem i see are these phones are out in the public domain.to get a warrent to bug someone's office because you have evidence of criminal activity there ,is one thing.to have a bug that can be brought into unsuspecting third party homes is another
Posted by: james | Dec 5, 2006 11:46:11 PM
I don't agree with it unless it is used in the same way as wiretaps. As in, it requires a court order to allow this "celltap".
Posted by: AbusePotential | Dec 5, 2006 11:49:33 PM
I wonder about the implications worldwide? Is it possible for the CIA to turn on the microphone of the Canadian Prime Minister's cell phone? I mean they all use the same satellites right? And are there any other countries that have this capability?
Posted by: Peter Giesbrecht | Dec 6, 2006 12:02:14 AM
I would be more concerned with what the Angels hear you say than the FBI. The Government can kill your flesh but after that they can do nothing more. Oh, does your cell phone have a camera?
Posted by: Robert | Dec 6, 2006 12:42:19 AM
"Holy cow Batman, they know who you are"
Posted by: Richard | Dec 6, 2006 1:12:35 AM
I THINK THIS IS CRAZY WE HAVE NO PRIVACY I THINK THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO INVADE ON ANYBODY PRIVACY LIKE THAT WHAT GOES ON IN PEOPLE HOMES IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS
Posted by: shamirra | Dec 6, 2006 1:17:25 AM
Assuming that the article is correct about the FBI being able to listen in on _any_ recent cellphone, then I would say that the real story here is why manufacturers are complicit with this sort of spying.
Seriously - when the government is unable to pass laws directly enabling them to do something, they turn to big business and offer incentives (or extortion) in return for favors.
For example, look at PayPal. They have constantly lived under the fear of being regulated as a bank. So far, they haven't been. Notice that they also don't allow people to sell anything "morally objectionable" - even though the items in question may be perfectly legal. Why is that? Because the government essentially extorts companies like this - in PayPal's case, do things the government's way, or else get treated like a bank - and watch your business model dissolve.
This sort of thing happens all the time, and this is the real crime. Corporations should stand up for consumers and freedom. But they don't, and the government takes advantage of that.
Government manipulation of big corporations is a serious back-door to circumventing the constitution.
Posted by: Mike Mills | Dec 6, 2006 1:41:42 AM
Post a comment
