[HN Gopher] Documents reveal scale of US Government's cell phone... ___________________________________________________________________ Documents reveal scale of US Government's cell phone location data tracking Author : DamnInteresting Score : 114 points Date : 2022-07-18 20:30 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com) (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com) | lrvick wrote: | Among the many reasons I choose not to own a cell phone. | tomohawk wrote: | When it came out that government was looking at all of the data | on the internet, there was a massive effort to move to https. | Everyone got involved. | | Why can't these same companies and organizations push for phones | to be anonymous? | | Why should a 'phone' be primarily a person tracker that happens | to have voice communications built in? | salawat wrote: | In order for info to get from _here_ to _there_ : | | The phone network requires a geophysical route/medium across | which to shluff a packet. Said packet is destined for an | endpoint. Said endpoint is associated with a payer. Said payer, | in order to pay, is virtually guaranteed to have had to do KYC | at some point. | | Ergo, if you can call, you can be tracked with only knowledge | of the endpoint, and the topology of the networking medium. | | Nature of the beast I'm afraid. Your forebearers wanted this. | Are you not pleased? Does this mot make you feel safe? They | worked very hard on it... For your safety, you see! | gruez wrote: | It's literally not possible because the mobile network needs to | know where your phone is so it can route packets to the tower | that you're connected. | slackfan wrote: | The Federal Government purges data that was non-encrypted after | a number of years. | | The Federal Government retains a copy of all https-encrypted | communications indefinitely on the understanding that the | encryption may be broken at some point. | | The push to HTTPS was gleefully supported by the US federal | government. HTTPS is not a panacea, and is generally useless | for most non-sales applications. | mjparrott wrote: | A large portion of the market for anonymous phones are for | illegal purposes. For any company doing this at scale, they are | inevitably confronted with this fact and can get in a lot of | trouble if they are proven to be knowingly supporting crime | groups/individuals. | photochemsyn wrote: | Note that this is just records of some of the federal agencies, | not all of them, according to the linked ACLU report: | | > "Although the litigation is ongoing, we are now making public | the records that CBP, ICE, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. | Coast Guard, and several offices within DHS Headquarters have | provided us to date." | | The NSA is still vacuuming up all the metadata and a good | fraction of the content from the main nodes where it put those | fiber-optic cable splitters on the main trunk lines what, 20 | years ago or so? Under the Patriot Act provisions, pushed through | Congress in late October 2001 wasn't it? Just a few days after | the Senate got shut down by those anthrax letter attacks sent to | Daschle and Leahy (no, it wasn't Bruce Ivins). | | Then you've got the backdoors into Google and Apple, the whole | PRISM thing... I doubt they've shut any of that down. See Yasha | Levine's "Surveillance Valley" for more on that. | | https://yashalevine.com/surveillance-valley | | It's not quite China yet, but I'm pretty sure that when our | politicians and bureaucrats and their corporate masters look at | China's system, their main emotion is one of envy. | tremon wrote: | _It 's not quite China yet_ | | What do you mean with this, specifically? Do you mean that | China has a more comprehensive data collection apparatus, that | the Chinese government has easier access to commercially | collected data, or maybe that they exert their control more | overtly than the US? | ok_dad wrote: | Funny thing is, they started the surveillance in late-2001 to | suck all the records up. Where did they get the computers and | storage devices to do that all at once? They must have been | installing equipment for months or years, especially since I am | pretty sure they even built a new data center on Fort Mead for | it around that time. Now, this is 2001, when building a | datacenter didn't just involve spinning up 1000 AWS EC2's and | opening the spigot to S3, so this type of thing would have | taken some time. | | So the question is: did they pass a law to allow data | collection because of 9/11 and other attacks, or did they pass | a law because they wanted the NSA to be able to collect this | data using computer systems they had been planning for years, | and used those attacks as a pretext? | vorpalhex wrote: | I legit don't believe they can store all that data. Youtube | alone creates too much data for them to process and handle. | | They must be storing either a subset or only partial | metadata. | flerchin wrote: | If I have no choice about the ubiquitous surveillance, I'd at | least like some positives like stopping the school shootings. | | As it is, they're watching, but clearly not doing anything | useful. | g8oz wrote: | I'm wondering when citizen vigilante groups will start buying | location data from these brokers to solve crimes. | encryptluks2 wrote: | More like malicious criminal organizations that want to ensure | you pay off your gambling debts | corrral wrote: | Or foreign governments or corporations (think: taking down a | competitor or extorting business favors) for blackmail | purposes. | hunglee2 wrote: | I used to be skeptical of the skeptics, thought they were | paranoid to worry about 'big tech' snooping and tracking our | lives. Turns out it is not big tech but 'big govt' that I | should've been worried about. We are in danger of turning into a | surveillance state | time_to_smile wrote: | I've worked for the Federal Government and for a variety of ad- | tech companies. I am still _much_ more terrified of "big tech" | (and small tech) than "big government". | | When I worked for the government I wanted to scrape some | publicly available data from the web. Because the data involved | information about people I had to write up a document | explaining exactly what I was using the data for, exactly what | information I would be collecting and why it was necessary, | explain where the data was to be stored, and most importantly | specify exactly how long I needed the data and when and how it | would be safely removed. This had to be approved by a privacy | officer. | | I was shocked, because this is data that I, as a private | citizen, could easily scrape. I asked why I had to do something | so involved for a project I could easily do in my spare time. | The answer I got was this: Because the government has extra | authority they also have extra responsibility. As government | employees we have more power to impact people's lives so it is | our responsibility to be very explicit is what we do and why we | are doing in. | | In ad-tech there are oceans of data that are _not_ publicly | available, and in the US virtually zero restriction who looks | at that data and what they can do with it. I 've watched people | move around town via trackers when the use they web, seen where | they got coffee and seen which doctor they go to. I used this | information to demonstrate to the legal team at previous | company to care about user privacy. They were shocked but in | the end made no real policy decision. Some of the big players | likely have tighter security but only for business/PR reasons. | I can assure you that a random data engineer at a mid-sized | tech company has far more access to your personal secrets than | an FBI agent. | | Don't get me wrong, there are agencies in the government that | have more surveillance power than they should and it is ripe | for abuse. But don't think "it's not big tech", especially | since there is a ultimately a thin line between big tech and | big govt. | encryptluks2 wrote: | The government is humongous. It would be naive to think all | of government worked that way. There are certainly parts of | the government that essentially answer to no one. There are | trillion dollar black holes that still can't be explained. | yupper32 wrote: | > Because the data involved information about people I had to | write up a document explaining exactly what I was using the | data for, exactly what information I would be collecting and | why it was necessary, explain where the data was to be | stored, and most importantly specify exactly how long I | needed the data and when and how it would be safely removed. | | This just sounds like a design doc, which I do regardless of | if it has to get reviewed by a privacy team or I'm doing | anything sensitive. Maybe it's because I've worked for mostly | google & ex-googler run companies, but this is just standard | practice for me. | buscoquadnary wrote: | I'll agree with you that big tech is largely just an | extension of big government. But I fear the government more | than a large corporation because the government is the only | agency with the authority to use lethal force. | | That being said my understanding is that there were | organizations that have ties back to 3 letter agencies that | helped put up capital for several of the big tech companies | back in the day. | slackfan wrote: | To quote the late Steve Jobs: "Government is the biggest | monopoly of them all". | | Considering most data collection firms will happily sell to the | feds, it's really not that much of a difference in the end. | freeAgent wrote: | I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that there's not | much difference between "Big Tech" and "Big Government." As | this article makes clear, they have a symbiotic relationship | with each other. Big Tech makes money from Big Government, | which uses Big Tech to get around restrictions on what it's | allowed to do on its own. | api wrote: | One thing I'd love to know is whether there is an upside and if | so how much. | | How many kidnapping victims get found or violent plots foiled | by this tech vs old school police work? | | Of course I suspect this info would be hard to get. Authorities | would likely cook the books to make these things look more | valuable than they really are. | fsflover wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes | 01100011 wrote: | We are a surveillance state. We(geeks) all made a fuss over it | about 20 years ago and no one seemed to care so here we are. | Every so often someone new realizes it, freaks out, and not | much changes. I wish I weren't so cynical but at some point I | just got tired of losing sleep over it. | neilalexander wrote: | Making a fuss just isn't enough when the majority of people | still want the devices that are being used to spy on them. | Retric wrote: | The difference is surveillance states have historically | leveraged people rather than passive tracking. It's wildly | different knowing your friends, family, even children are | being indoctrinated to report you for things that may or may | not have happened at which point you just disappear like many | people you never heard from again. | | It's actively stressful in a way that cellphones just don't | evoke. | asdff wrote: | People with a bag of weed in their pocket in middle america | probably feel the same way | encryptluks2 wrote: | Not if they're white and middle class | Mo3 wrote: | Damn, even most of what we know is already a decade old | information. I wouldn't be surprised if the intelligence | agencies had much more crazy new projects going on the last few | years. | | I also suspect there will be a point in the future where | they'll break encryption and we won't find out until years | later.. they already started looking into building a quantum | computer in 2014, and I'd bet it's not necessarily for morally | acceptable research. | gruez wrote: | >I wouldn't be surprised if the intelligence agencies had | much more crazy new projects going on the last few years. | | except this isn't even from "the intelligence agencies", it's | from data brokers: | | >The bulk of the data that CBP obtained came from its | contract with Venntel, a location data broker that aggregates | and sells information quietly siphoned from smartphone apps | Mo3 wrote: | What I meant is, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual | intelligence agencies themselves had much more crazy | projects going on. | aaaaaaaaata wrote: | > I wouldn't be surprised if the intelligence agencies had | much more crazy new projects going on the last few years. | | You mean like flying surveillance helicopters with really, | really nice gear in them over major cities for days/weeks? | aaaaaaaaata wrote: | s/helicopters/planes | sva_ wrote: | I wonder why are we so complacent with these kind of things? Is | it really just the fact that we got our bellies full, and live in | climate-controlled homes? Or has there been some degeneration of | the human body brought upon us with all kinds of new artificial | materials we use, that might affect our bodies in ways we can't | yet comprehend; or is it a psychological thing based on the | results of technological achievements we consume? | | Looking back at some of the European revolutions, it doesn't seem | like so much is missing to cause an urge to revolt in people. So | what is different? Why do we repeatedly allow this to happen? | jandrewrogers wrote: | People have no intuition for what is technically possible or | its implications in cases like this, including most people in | tech. So they fallback to mentally modeling these cases in | terms of things they are familiar with, without any sense of | the inadequacies of the model. You can tell people these facts | all day but they don't grok it, really, and it would be hard | work to _try_ to grok it, which few people have either time or | inclination for. They may feel uneasy about it in some abstract | sense but as far as they are concerned it doesn 't affect them | in a material way. | | Humans make decisions based things they can imagine and | effectively reason about. Humans struggle to incorporate | elementary probability theory into their reasoning; anything | that requires complex systems thinking, which these kinds of | topics do, is only going to be practically accessible to a | small percentage of the population. | bwestergard wrote: | "Is it really just the fact that we got our bellies full" | | Among sociologists and political theorists, this is known as an | "embourgeoisement thesis". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embourgeoisement | thr0wawayf00 wrote: | > I wonder why are we so complacent with these kind of things? | | There are many reasons for this. It's partly due to the | illusion that the current internet culture has created that | expressing one's voice on a social media platform is an | effective form of protest. It is not. How many change.org | petitions are people going to sign until they realize that it | means absolutely nothing? | | I think this one of the biggest and least-discussed erosions of | public discourse and assembly. By fostering an online | conversation at the expense of an in-person one, we wind up | shouting into the abyss instead of at the people who deserve to | feel the pressure. | conception wrote: | >we got our bellies full, and live in climate-controlled homes | | I think it's this plus we have no time and the time we have is | preyed upon. So, you're fed and more or less comfy, but you're | also stressed and tired about that next paycheck. And if you | don't get that next paycheck, then you will no longer be fed | and more or less comfy. | rglover wrote: | > So what is different? Why do we repeatedly allow this to | happen? | | It's not so much an "allow" as it is a "what's the | alternative?" The problem at this point is so deeply rooted (in | the form of life-long politicians and bureaucrats), the only | solution is a full-blown reset. Unfortunately, there's no way | to do that without violent revolution. Considering the scale | and diversity of thought in the U.S., doing that effectively | with the least amount of damage is next to impossible (too many | loose cannons with mental issues). It also requires violence, | which, if you take a non-aggression stance on problem solving | (my own POV) then it's a stalemate. | | At this point, the only "fix" seems to be atrophy and | circumvention. Atrophy in the sense that you just let it all | run its course and meet its eventual demise (anticipating pain | and suffering as the system collapses) and circumvention in the | sense that you look for ways to excuse yourself from it. | | Earlier revolutions happened as part of much smaller | civilizations (exactly why the American Revolution was possible | --far less variables and far more homogenous thinking among the | dissenting class). In a country of 300M+ people, any | "revolution" is likely to dissolve into chaos no matter how | well-organized or how principled its ideology. | shadowgovt wrote: | > Is it really just the fact that we got our bellies full, and | live in climate-controlled homes? | | Why would it need to be more? People feel no need to fear their | government when they are content. | asdff wrote: | I think the problems affecting the system are just too | widespread and bespoke for the individual to resolve. To | actually understand fully the scope of tracking etc, you | probably need to be qualified to be a computer engineer or | someone with a similar resume. That limits the amount of the | population that is even capable of comprehending the news to a | small sliver. Extend that to any field: biology, law, physics, | economics, etc. Popular science reporting is terrible because | the writers and the readers both lack sufficient debth to put | things in context. Earnest law reporting is going to take a law | degree as well as a stack of books to put things in their | actual context. Economics is even worse; they say a grand | unifying theory of economics is impossible because of the time | it takes to study all its various schools of economic theory | means it cannot be done in a single human lifetime. | | The great danger of having the knowledge of all things in our | society be limited to a handful of siloed specialists is that | it leaves a lot of room for placing opinion, biased, or slanted | reporting to the same weight as the actual facts, since no one | is qualified to see what is true and what isn't. It allows | people who have no experience on a given issue to be in control | of its outcomes, which invites graft sooner than learned | experience. | encryptluks2 wrote: | > To actually understand fully the scope of tracking etc, you | probably need to be qualified to be a computer engineer or | someone with a similar resume. | | I think it is much more severe than that. To understand the | full scope you'd be labeled a conspiracy theorist. | thereare5lights wrote: | People would rather point at other countries and virtue signal | about how bad they are rather than care about what's happening | in their own country. | | Couple that with brain dead nationalism about how the US is the | best despite the fact that we're very much behind in many areas | and it's not surprising that so many Americans blindly allow | their own government to do so many outrageous things. | newsclues wrote: | Identity politics is a distraction from class struggle. | | Marxist theory acknowledges that capitalism provides too much | to the proletariat to desire revolution, thus the focus on | destroying capitalism and society. | openfuture wrote: | To answer your question you only need to investigate under | which conditions coercion succeeds in changing behaviour. | | I believe that we can dismantle the current world order by | providing a more persuasive alternative. Legitimacy is not | absolute, but rather relative, and currently the things built | on coercion are more legitimate, that is not a law of physics | (thankfully it seems to be the other way around actually). | nixpulvis wrote: | We need to demand more options on technology platforms! We cannot | impose effective consumer pressure when we are forced to choose | between two locked down App Stores which make it impossible to | categorically prevent these kinds of malicious actions. | | How long do you think it would take for a "Little Snitch"-like | application to pop up that firewalls location API access if the | platforms were more open? | ramoz wrote: | It's important everyone becomes educated about the fact that | virtually every mobile app sells some part of your data that | leads to some private company possessing the ability to draw a | circle around your house on map and then detect all patterns of | life without any PII. | | I don't think it's fair to pit this as a US gov't surveillance | problem. It's true though - the Government missions involved, | where this type of data is relevant, face rather compelling | offerings especially in complex times; e.g. immigrant/refugee | surges where understanding the flow of people up to the border is | important for stability. | | All of this data comes from Big/Small/all tech; usually branded | as "ad tech" or "mobility data". And the supply chain is rather | murky, masked, and rebranded/repackaged numerous times between a | network of data providers & downstream businesses. | | Working close to Government... I've never seen any mission | specifically seeking large-scale citizen-based tracking | capabilities. US government in recent timeframes have seemed | adamant about not purchasing any US-based location data & are | cautious even for non-US based monitoring; especially as they | learn more about the origins & scale of mobility data. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-18 23:00 UTC)