Cell-Site Simulators Can Disrupt 911 Calls and Are Untested with Real-Time Text

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,969
Cell-site simulators (CSS and also known as IMSI catchers or Stingrays) can disrupt 911 service and text messaging for the targeted phone and even block internet access. Senator Ron Wyden has raised concerns about the technology in a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice. The manufacturer, Harris Corporation claims that 911 service can be permitted, but it is untested. Also untested is Real-Time Text technology that deaf, hard of hearing or speech impaired citizens would use in an emergency. Furthermore, these devices can disrupt service for other phones in the area and send all calls to a fake base station in search of the target phone. The devices can't be independently tested as non-disclosure agreements prohibit the publishing of tests.

Furthermore, even if Harris' technology works the way they claim it does, they are far from the only manufacturer of CSS devices. There are several other companies that manufacture such technology and we know even less about the workings of their technologies or whether they have any protections against blocking 911 calls. Cell-site simulators are now easy to acquire or build, with homemade devices costing less than $1000 in parts. Criminals, spies, and anyone else with malicious intent could easily build a CSS specifically to disrupt phone service, or use it without caring whether it disrupts 911 service.
 
This is just an enforcement issue. You can't run a CSS without the real cell site getting indications of the CSS's presence. Then it's easy for the cell site to locate the CSS, report it to the police, and have them take it down.

The problem is that the government wants to make unwarranted covert use of these things. They don't want to have to tell the wireless carriers "Don't worry, that's just us listening in on someone we're trying to entrap."
 
pcgeekesq said:
This is just an enforcement issue. You can't run a CSS without the real cell site getting indications of the CSS's presence. Then it's easy for the cell site to locate the CSS, report it to the police, and have them take it down.

The problem is that the government wants to make unwarranted covert use of these things. They don't want to have to tell the wireless carriers "Don't worry, that's just us listening in on someone we're trying to entrap."
Click to expand...

As long as you accept that these devices are not only employed within the United States, and understand that you don't always need a warrant to use these devices, then we can go on from there.

The "government" is a very wide brush. Not all of "the government" is doing law enforcement. Some of "the government" is specifically restricted from using such devices against US Persons. And if one enters a US Military reserve, just entry constitutes a willingness to allow unwarranted searches.

If you don't want to be searched don't enter a military base.

Lastly, these devices may legally constitute a search, but no one has ruled that they are an "unreasonable" search. As long as the devices tricks other devices into connecting just long enough to determine of the device is the "targeted" device, and then immediately releases the extraneous non-targeted devices without gathering any data beyond what is needed to make that determination, it's going to be hard to swing "unreasonable".

The government already can make unwarranted covert use of these devices as long as;

1. they are Intelligence Collection and not Law Enforcement
2. they are targeting a foreign national or non-US Person entity
3. If they collect any data from a US Person, they stop as soon as it is clear that this person is a probably a US Person
4. And that any data collected from a probably US Person is not data-based and no analysis is performed against the data

Under these rules, what I have described above is perfectly legal already.
 
This is a bigger issue then just searching. Though warantless searches is big by itself.

One of these devises can jam all cell activity in an area. Rob bank block 911 calls.

These devices can reroute all cell including data activity - hack your phone, dns poisoning - and tethered devices.

Stalker with $1k to burn can truly invade and follow a victim.

Yes all illegal and likely immoral - when has either or both stopped anyone?
 
Here's hoping they ban them for non warranted use. Wonder if they would mind a citizen using one outside the oval office?
 
gtrguy said:
And of course the rules are always followed... /s
Click to expand...

You can't run the world on the supposition that because someone can violate the rules, that rules are useless or not required.

Do you work somewhere that if you don't follow the rules, you can be sent to prison?

Not laws, just rules. But then again, these "rules" I was talking about above are laws. Violations can and have sent people to prison.

What I am trying to say is that when you are talking about these subjects just keep in mind that there is a world of difference in the laws regulating law enforcement vs intelligence services, and both are part of the government. If you don't specify which you are talking about, then you can't possibly get on the right page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top