The FBI uses spyware to activate microphones in phones and computers to listen in....

[n2doc]

FBI Taps Hacker Tactics to Spy on Suspects
by JENNIFER VALENTINO-DEVRIES and DANNY YADRON


Law-enforcement officials in the U.S. are expanding the use of tools routinely used by computer hackers to gather information on suspects, bringing the criminal wiretap into the cyber age.

Federal agencies have largely kept quiet about these capabilities, but court documents and interviews with people involved in the programs provide new details about the hacking tools, including spyware delivered to computers and phones through email or Web links—techniques more commonly associated with attacks by criminals.

People familiar with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's programs say that the use of hacking tools under court orders has grown as agents seek to keep up with suspects who use new communications technology, including some types of online chat and encryption tools. The use of such communications, which can't be wiretapped like a phone, is called "going dark" among law enforcement.

A spokeswoman for the FBI declined to comment.

The FBI develops some hacking tools internally and purchases others from the private sector. With such technology, the bureau can remotely activate the microphones in phones running Google Inc.'s GOOG +0.26% Android software to record conversations, one former U.S. official said. It can do the same to microphones in laptops without the user knowing, the person said. Google declined to comment.

more

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323997004578641993388259674-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwMTEwNDEyWj.html

[NightWatcher]

1. And if you're watching a show about pressure cookers, the swat team will come to your house

Uh huh, ok

[n2doc]

2. I'm sure you will be trotting out that canard for every spying post in the next 10 years

That dog won't hunt.

[NightWatcher]

3. Since it was overblown bullshit fear mongering? Yes I will

There's no need for terra terra terra and fictitious stories about the police state.

[dipsydoodle]

12. What have ducks got to do with it ?

[Jenoch]

57. Are you in France?

[leveymg]

4. Why don't you just make that phrase your Signature Line

You seem to be repeating it. It was, I admit, the one bright spot in what has been a very bad week for the deniers.

[NightWatcher]

7. Are you mad because you fell for the story of the big bad police state?

Maybe next time you'll exercise a little critical thinking and or check the source before you fall hook, line, and sinker for complete and utter bull shit. The NSA doesn't care about 99.999% of us (that includes you). To think that "they" are watching everything you do is quite conceited on your part. Either that or you might be suffering delusions of grandeur and persecution.

[leveymg]

15. Not mad. I even apologized for being condescending toward a skeptic.

Congratulations, you won one battle in a political war that isn't going well.

I agree that typing in a few search terms like "backpack" and "pressure cooker" isn't going to get anyone's attention, particularly in April right after the Boston bombing.

But, I do know that published words critical of CIA counterterrorism policy can land you a series of visits by members of a JTTF/Fusion Center at your place of work, and that can can have consequences for one's continued employment.

[Hekate]

31. "Critical" in what way? DU's culture during Bush Jr's reign was to disallow....

.... any remarks approving assassination, and I think armed insurrection. But we sure as hell were critical of everything to do with Baby Caligula and his cabal.

That's my benchmark. So I am curious about what constitutes crossing the line with the CIA at this point in time?

[leveymg]

42. I was referring to series of unfortunate events a decade ago.

In my case, beginning in 2002, I published a series about why US Counterterrorism failed on 9/11, the Agency's loss of control over double-agents within AQ, and subsequent CYA perjury committed by Bush Administration, the DCI and CIA-CTC senior managers. I discussed that experience with a JTTF and the Naval Investigative Service in the discussion thread here: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1014385756

At this point, the threat seems to be directed more toward whistleblowers than outside critics of the Agency, (e.g., John Kirikaou).

[nebenaube]

36. I don't care if they are interested, I care

if my next big ideal falls into the hands of a private contractor who in turn sells it to someone else who has the resources to file for patent protection before I do. I also think that a permanent record in a computer is as volatile as information gets. Nothing, not even the NSA is perfectly secure. How would you defend yourself from accusations based on synthetic data? Hmmm?

[rhett o rick]

11. Or if you mention the P word in your blog post. nm

[GiaGiovanni]

5. K & R

!

[pnwmom]

6. They can't do anything like that

without a warrant. And then what's the difference between that and old fashioned bugging?

[n2doc]

8. No real difference

The warrant part, however, is getting a bit less well enforced among agencies.

[Skittles]

10. you really are naive, aren't you?

[pnwmom]

13. If by "naive" you mean "not as paranoid as some people" then yes, I'm naive. n/t

[Skittles]

14. yes, you are VERY naive, and I think I am done

if this was a republican president would you really think everything was peachy keen? FUCK THAT.

[randome]

48. Why is that? You think LE agencies only use this technology when a Republican is President?

Of course they use it. Now show some evidence they are using it illegally or abusively. And I don't mean the possible one case you can dig out of the files of five hundred thousand cases.

I mean, show us that this technology is being used to routinely spy on people.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[KoKo]

55. Randome...the evidence has been in your face with links and folks being

kind enough to keep trying to explain it to you. But, you repeat the same thing over and over. At some point even the most patient and tolerant...start to wonder why you can't read a link and discuss. It's as if it's the same set of replies you have that get posted constantly. It gets boring...and after awhile...not worth reading.

[randome]

56. So you have evidence that the FBI is bugging everyone's phones and computers.

Where is it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

64. I assume your evidence is more claims without something to back them up with.

Admittedly, someone's claims are evidence insofar as they can lead to the truth. But so far, all these claims of mass spying are just that. They have not led to anything more concrete.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

16. When you say "they can't" do you mean that an invisible hand reaches out and stops them?

Or do you mean "they arent SUPPOSED TO do anything like that." A stop sign doesnt mean you can't drive thru the intersection.

And the argument that "they have always done it." isnt much of an argument either.

[pnwmom]

18. I mean "legally." And that it would be worthless in court if they did. n/t

[rhett o rick]

23. So you concede that it can be done, just not "legally". So what does the law say that makes it

illegal? Do you know or are you guessing? I bet you'd be surprised what is legal. I think Gen Clapper said that collecting data wasnt illegal if you used a warrant to actually look at it. You have a great deal more faith in what the FBI considers "legal". Bush had lawyers claim that torture was legal.

I am actually astounded that you and others here dont care about personal privacy. Apparently having faith that your government will do what's legal by your definition.

[pnwmom]

26. The law requires that a warrant be obtained for eavesdropping with electronic or other devices.

I never said I don't care about personal privacy. I just don't see an important difference between the FBI getting a warrant for placing bugs around an apartment (the old-fashioned way), and the FBI getting a warrant for doing something to computers or cell phones so they can eavesdrop on people.

[rhett o rick]

28. I bet the law you are talking about doesnt cover planting spyware in people's computers.

I say error on the side of freedom and liberty.

[pnwmom]

30. Of course it does. Computers are electronic devices and so are cell phones. n/t

[randome]

49. So how are you going to prevent spyware being planted on people's computers?

Make it illegal to do so?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

68. Yes. I doubt the law covers planting spyware or hacking. The law needs to cover that

specifically and then and most important, making it illegal isnt the end-all as some seem to think. You must have enforcement.

That's one of the problems with then NSA spying. They have no oversight. Sen Wyden points out that there is nothing Congress can do because they are held to secrecy. And the FISA courts with their judges appointed by extreme conservatives have demonstrated that they dont give a crap about the rights of the people.

Some of you think that just because it's a law that it will be honored. That all you need is a stop sign and everyone will stop. But if it's know that no police monitor the intersection, people will drive thru w/o stopping.

You are arguing so hard, but why? What is it that you want? Do you think the NSA and Booz-Allen should have carte blanche to do what ever they want?

[randome]

70. Of course there needs to be enforcement. There needs to be oversight.

And conducted more in public than in secrecy. I have no problem with changing things to accommodate technology or even changing things simply because we all of a sudden decide it needs to be changed.

I simply don't like seeing people automatically accept that we are all being spied on. It smacks too much of knee-jerk fear-mongering to me. And laws should never be made in a climate of fear.

Witness the Patriot Act itself.

We need to calmly assess what all these intelligence agencies are doing and make the required changes. Shut some of the operations down, even shut some of the agencies down if necessary. The crazy patchwork of intelligence agencies looks like it was sewn together by a blind man.

I even see Snowden as responsible for bringing all this to public awareness but I really dislike his methods and his running off to hide. Not the mark of a 'hero' to me. There were better ways to bring this about. He could have quit the NSA and written anonymously about it. He could even have engaged the public about demanding more accountability without revealing secrets. Hell, he was allied with a journalist who at least knows how to write. They could have both been heroes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

72. There have been a number of people that have tried to get the

calm assessment that you describe. Funny thing is that no one listened. Even when Snowden dropped the bomb many here in DU took the attitude that he was crazy and the only thing needed doing was shut him us. When repeated efforts to get a calm assessment dont work, you need to drop a bomb. Sen Wyden has for years tried to get a calm assessment but to no avail.

With an unlimited budget, no oversight and extreme conservative running the programs, I bet they are pushing the envelop way beyond what we Americans want.

Snowden, Greenwald, and The Guardian, forced this national discussion that Pres Obama NOW agrees we need. Apparently he didnt think we needed it before Snowden.

[randome]

75. Without evidence of abuse, politicians normally look elsewhere.

Maybe the NSA isn't 'broken' at all. But it does operate in too much secrecy. I just imagine that Obama has a lot on his plate and 'fixing' an agency that appears to be working isn't one of them he chose to deal with.

And, really, with basic voting and reproductive rights under assault, as well as the stranglehold the GOP has on the economy, putting the NSA on the back burner -again, absent evidence of abuse- seems like the right thing to do.

That's no longer the case now, of course. It's on his plate but I still don't think it should be his #1 priority. OTOH, he could establish a commission of some sort to evaluate the secrecy and see where it can be reduced or eliminated.

He established the National Declassification Center which has been busy declassifying documents left and right. Unfortunately, so many more documents are being tagged as 'Confidential', they can't keep up. That's another activity that should stop.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[OilemFirchen]

69. Ya know, that's a fantastic question.

One that really helps establish parameters for the argument. Since a warrant is already required for wiretapping, and given that the reactionaries assume that the law requiring said warrants is either too broad or generally breached, what exactly do they want? The technology exists, presumably, and that's not going to disappear, and there are laws preventing its misuse. Will another law do the trick? If so, how and why?

[randome]

71. Giving us details on how oversight and accountability actually work would help.

That way we can decide if they need to be strengthened, left alone, or have additional layers added.

There is definitely too much secrecy involved in all these agencies, not just the NSA. This is the 21st century.

Despite all the tragedies and upheavals, the world is comparatively peaceful and the Internet makes us even more connected. It's time to stop acting like we aren't.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[OilemFirchen]

73. I hear you, and I think that's inevitable.

The upside to all this caterwauling is that there clearly will be more transparency.

That said, however, how will it change anything? Those who are convinced the gummint is, by its nature, duplicitous, will settle, I presume, for nothing short of the total dismantlement of our intel systems... and then cynically dismiss that even that as believable.

[randome]

74. In this limited instance I would agree that making government smaller would be a good thing.

I find it hard to believe we need so many intelligence agencies. Why not one to make it easier to coordinate and self-monitor?

But that's perhaps a Utopian dream of organization and purpose. Still, if it could be done -a long-term 10 year plan, perhaps?- then perhaps those of us who think the government is always up to no good might feel less fearful.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[KoKo]

19. People keep asking that of this Poster and Others...but, it's only Attacks

against every revelation that comes out...and they DENY without any LINKS to Counter?

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. And therein lies the rub... "they can't" doesn't mean "they don't". Gotta love it.

But... but... but... that's illegal! As if that ever stopped anyone from anything, anywhere.

[GoneFishin]

38. Just like speed limit signs stop you from driving over the posted speed. n/t

[randome]

51. Do you have a better way to stop people from speeding?

Speed limit signs, like all laws and regulations along with punitive fines, make it much less likely that the law will be broken.

There is no law that will prevent anyone from doing what they want. All we can do is make the laws and regulations as fair and encompassing as possible.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[GoneFishin]

61. Bingo. You make my point for me. Thanks.

[randome]

62. Oh. Sorry. I assumed -wrongly- that you were being sarcastic.

Stupid me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[GoneFishin]

65. True : "There is no law that will prevent anyone from doing what they want."

Either on the roads, or at the desk of some intelligence analyst.

[randome]

66. Bureaucrcy serves a -gulp- purpose.

Any of us could cobble together a listening device and put it on someone's phone. What prevents us from doing so?

The 'invisible hand' of the law. Fear of punishment. It's all we have absent a government agent in every home.

And government agents have more monitoring of their activities than any individual. The more monitoring, the better.

Maybe it would be a good idea to make known what type of self-monitoring goes on to allay people's fears or to push for tighter controls.

It's all good to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

67. Law is the only restraint on the government. nt

[KoKo]

17. Do you have a LINK? that's what I'd like to see. Tell me WHY they are NOT

Doing what is said by folks who Work in the System...what the REAL REGULATIONS ARE?

I never hear any REAL DATA about why what Snowdon revealed is NOT TRUE?

[pnwmom]

20. It's not logically possible to prove a negative, as you know.

But, as you also know, the law requires a warrant before any action like this can be taken. If it's done anyway, that's against the law.

[rhett o rick]

24. What requires a warrant is most likely heavily "interpreted". You cant believe they dont push the

limit of legality. As far as warrants, we've seen some of the blanket, rubber stamped warrants issued by the kangaroo FISA courts.

[pnwmom]

27. Eavesdropping with electronic or other devices always requires a warrant.

The Bush administration disagreed, but was forced to stop.

[rhett o rick]

32. So do you think that affects what the FBI is currently doing? If the worse punishment for

illegally eavesdropping is to be made to stop, I bet the FBI is willing to take the risk.

[totodeinhere]

34. But getting a warrant is a rubber stamp process. Very rarely are

requests for warrants ever rejected. So even if it's true that they can't do it without a warrant, so what?

[pnwmom]

35. The police don't go to a judge for a warrant with no evidence in their hands.

So that's probably why they usually get the warrants they ask for.

But please explain to me what the legal or effective difference would be between doing old-fashioned bugging with a warrant and new-fangled bugging with a warrant?

[totodeinhere]

37. Because now thanks to technology they have the capability to do it on a massive scale,

unlike in the old days when it was a much more tedious process. When I called it a rubber stamp process I was referring to the FISA courts.

[rhett o rick]

43. Police always seem to know a "friendly" judge that may not require as much convincing.

"But please explain to me what the legal or effective difference would be between doing old-fashioned bugging with a warrant and new-fangled bugging with a warrant? " I think you can see that whatever the law specifically says, a good lawyer could probably find ways to classify computer or cell phone spying as not being included. And if there is no punishment for getting it wrong, I hope you understand that the FBI would push it to the limit and beyond.

[pnwmom]

44. I still don't understand how this is different than getting warrants for other forms of bugging. n/t

[randome]

52. So outlaw 'good lawyers'?

'Punishment for getting it wrong' is not always as clear-cut as you might think. There are situations where an officer or agent or whatever oversteps his/her authority without even realizing it.

A judge was recently sentenced to decades in prison for overstepping his authority and allowing black kids to be sent to prison.

I bet the same thing occurs for egregious violations of ethics and law. If not by a judge then by an aggrieved citizen with a 'good lawyer' as a representative.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

58. Your rational that the government obeys the laws is naive. Have you not learned from history? nm

[randome]

63. Abuse will occur in all areas of human behavior. All.

The best we can do is make the laws clear and appropriate. One way to do that is by forcing multi-levels of approval before wiretapping can be done.

Bureaucracy actually serves a purpose, as much as that pains me to admit.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rosa Luxemburg]

41. Whatever happened to the Magic Lantern?

[arely staircase]

9. I hope al quaeda, Los Zetas and the cosa nostra have idiots checking their e-mail.

only an idiot opens attachments from strange e-mails

[ceonupe]

45. What if the gov

Intercepts a message from a known source lets say spouse sends u a picture of the kids a soccer practice. They load the payload in to that attachment. (They use zero day and custom hacks along with undisclosed holes in software, firmware and operating systems) your norton won't alert you.

They even send back their data using other trusted sources they have compromised. They can leak data back slowly over time or use other methods to transmit data back. How many of you know your iphone contains a chipset that is capable of fm transmission (yeah it lacks the antenna to be FCC compliant and its not active in the firmware supposedly but how do u know there is no back door way to activate it).

So to recap that attachment u thought was from a trusted source may have been compromised. If they want inside your electronic world they can get inside.

[arely staircase]

46. that would work better nt

[Warren DeMontague]

22. ANOTHER ESSENTIAL TOOL TO KEEP US SAFE

FROM CHEMO-SICK POT GROWING GRANNIES

[rhett o rick]

25. Why does Obama hate cancer patients? nm

[Incitatus]

29. They have been using cell phones as bugs for years.

December 1, 2006 2:20 PM PST
FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool

By Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache
Staff Writers, CNET News
Last modified: December 1, 2006 6:35 PM PST

The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.

Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html

[arely staircase]

47. been bugging phones for decades

better part of a century

[Incitatus]

53. I was aware of that. It's the turning on of the microphone when the phone isn't in use.

That is more recent than just bugging phone calls.

[arely staircase]

54. they used to have to place one manually in a building

I guess mafia guys and Zeta's etc., will just leave their iphones in the car during the big meeting now. since they can just be turned on..

[Xithras]

33. Meterpreter

There's nothing new about this type of software, and it's fairly well known in security circles. Idiots have been using it for some time now to catch nudie shots in front of webcams for blackmail or their voyeuristic jollies, or to steal personal information. If you can get the computer hooked, you can access nearly every device attached to it.

[pnwmom]

40. Welcome to DU! n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

50. Sorry, won't work on my comp.

[Trillo]

59. Did you desolder the microphone?

Or something simpler, like not loading drivers?

[PowerToThePeople]

60. No

but there will not be drive by installs occurring on my computer.