SMS interception - how?

Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.

The possibilities are:
- Authorities are looking for evidence against an individual, after
already having suspicion.
- People are dobbing in other people to police.
- (tin-foil hat on) Authorities are receiving a full feed of SMSs from
telco's SMSCs and then data-mining to gain suspicion.

The former's pretty simple under the Telco (Intercept) Act of 1979. The
latter isn't. Sedition is defined as: "an intention to... (d) promote
feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to
threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."
which, as I see it, includes inciting racial violence. Do the new
counter-terrorism laws allow the latter?

Media comments like:
- "VICTORIA Police have successfully intercepted a text message calling
for race riots in Melbourne." (Daily Telegraph)
- "Meanwhile, Queensland Police said text messages calling for people to
start "cracking skulls" had surfaced on the Gold Coast." (Daily
Telegraph)
- "And Victorian police, who have intercepted text messages inciting
people to violence," (NEWS.com.au)
- "Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today confirmed two text
messages had turned up in WA this morning." (Herald Sun)
- "In Victoria, police have intercepted a text message inciting race
violence and tracked down the person who sent it." (Australian IT)

....make me wonder if it's number 2 or 3.

(It should be noted that all four of those sources are Fairfax)

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.bur.st/~paul/

---

› See More: SMS interception - how?

Paul Day wrote:
> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
> incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.
>
> The possibilities are:
> - Authorities are looking for evidence against an individual, after
> already having suspicion.
> - People are dobbing in other people to police.
> - (tin-foil hat on) Authorities are receiving a full feed of SMSs from
> telco's SMSCs and then data-mining to gain suspicion.
>
> The former's pretty simple under the Telco (Intercept) Act of 1979. The
> latter isn't. Sedition is defined as: "an intention to... (d) promote
> feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to
> threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."
> which, as I see it, includes inciting racial violence. Do the new
> counter-terrorism laws allow the latter?
>
> Media comments like:
> - "VICTORIA Police have successfully intercepted a text message calling
> for race riots in Melbourne." (Daily Telegraph)
> - "Meanwhile, Queensland Police said text messages calling for people to
> start "cracking skulls" had surfaced on the Gold Coast." (Daily
> Telegraph)
> - "And Victorian police, who have intercepted text messages inciting
> people to violence," (NEWS.com.au)
> - "Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today confirmed two text
> messages had turned up in WA this morning." (Herald Sun)
> - "In Victoria, police have intercepted a text message inciting race
> violence and tracked down the person who sent it." (Australian IT)
>
> ....make me wonder if it's number 2 or 3.
>
> (It should be noted that all four of those sources are Fairfax)
>
> PD

I don't really care how they are obtaining the information as long as
they use the full force of the law against the scum.

My guess is that they have a list of suspects, obtain the relevant
warrants and take to the carriers for them to provide relevant information.

Whether these suspects appear on the list trough being dobbed in or just
come to the attention of Police because of their behaviour is irrelevant.



--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/cl...IENT_NO=157452

In aus.comms.mobile Paul Day <[email protected]> may have written:
> (It should be noted that all four of those sources are Fairfax)

Sorry, NewsCorp - not Fairfax.

PD

--
Paul Day
Web: http://www.bur.st/~paul/

Paul Day <[email protected]> wrote

> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs
> that incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.

Completely routine when the telco gets involved.

> The possibilities are:
> - Authorities are looking for evidence against
> an individual, after already having suspicion.
> - People are dobbing in other people to police.
> - (tin-foil hat on) Authorities are receiving a full feed of SMSs
> from telco's SMSCs and then data-mining to gain suspicion.

Or the telcos are doing keyword searches
on the SMS traffic for the cops.

> The former's pretty simple under the Telco (Intercept) Act of 1979.
> The latter isn't. Sedition is defined as: "an intention to... (d)
> promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so
> as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the
> Commonwealth." which, as I see it, includes inciting racial violence.
> Do the new counter-terrorism laws allow the latter?

Yep.

> Media comments like:
> - "VICTORIA Police have successfully intercepted a text message
> calling for race riots in Melbourne." (Daily Telegraph)
> - "Meanwhile, Queensland Police said text messages calling for people
> to start "cracking skulls" had surfaced on the Gold Coast." (Daily
> Telegraph)
> - "And Victorian police, who have intercepted text messages inciting
> people to violence," (NEWS.com.au)
> - "Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today confirmed two text
> messages had turned up in WA this morning." (Herald Sun)
> - "In Victoria, police have intercepted a text message inciting race
> violence and tracked down the person who sent it." (Australian IT)

> ...make me wonder if it's number 2 or 3.

> (It should be noted that all four of those sources are Fairfax)

On 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day wrote:

> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
> incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.

According to some media reports of last weekend's police blitz in Sydney,
cars were stopped at roadblocks and searched, and police were "going
through the text messages on people's phones".

That's a more likely scenario.

On 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day <[email protected]> wrote:

>Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
>incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
>service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.
>
>The possibilities are:
>- Authorities are looking for evidence against an individual, after
>already having suspicion.
>- People are dobbing in other people to police.
>- (tin-foil hat on) Authorities are receiving a full feed of SMSs from
>telco's SMSCs and then data-mining to gain suspicion.
>
>The former's pretty simple under the Telco (Intercept) Act of 1979. The
>latter isn't. Sedition is defined as: "an intention to... (d) promote
>feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to
>threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."
>which, as I see it, includes inciting racial violence. Do the new
>counter-terrorism laws allow the latter?
>
>Media comments like:
>- "VICTORIA Police have successfully intercepted a text message calling
>for race riots in Melbourne." (Daily Telegraph)
>- "Meanwhile, Queensland Police said text messages calling for people to
>start "cracking skulls" had surfaced on the Gold Coast." (Daily
>Telegraph)
>- "And Victorian police, who have intercepted text messages inciting
>people to violence," (NEWS.com.au)
>- "Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today confirmed two text
>messages had turned up in WA this morning." (Herald Sun)
>- "In Victoria, police have intercepted a text message inciting race
>violence and tracked down the person who sent it." (Australian IT)
>
>...make me wonder if it's number 2 or 3.
>
>(It should be noted that all four of those sources are Fairfax)
>
>PD

GSM had this built in from the start. Here are some of the standards,
http://www.gliif.org/standards.htm

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day wrote:

> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
> incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.

Also, apparently, a charge of print or publish to incite the commission of
a crime. I reckon they've got buckley's of making that one stick - if it
relates to SMS messages, that is.

Will

Paul Day wrote:
> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
> incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.
>
> The possibilities are:
> - Authorities are looking for evidence against an individual, after
> already having suspicion.
> - People are dobbing in other people to police.
> - (tin-foil hat on) Authorities are receiving a full feed of SMSs from
> telco's SMSCs and then data-mining to gain suspicion.
>
> The former's pretty simple under the Telco (Intercept) Act of 1979. The
> latter isn't. Sedition is defined as: "an intention to... (d) promote
> feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to
> threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."
> which, as I see it, includes inciting racial violence. Do the new
> counter-terrorism laws allow the latter?
>
> Media comments like:
> - "VICTORIA Police have successfully intercepted a text message calling
> for race riots in Melbourne." (Daily Telegraph)
> - "Meanwhile, Queensland Police said text messages calling for people to
> start "cracking skulls" had surfaced on the Gold Coast." (Daily
> Telegraph)
> - "And Victorian police, who have intercepted text messages inciting
> people to violence," (NEWS.com.au)
> - "Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today confirmed two text
> messages had turned up in WA this morning." (Herald Sun)
> - "In Victoria, police have intercepted a text message inciting race
> violence and tracked down the person who sent it." (Australian IT)
>
> ...make me wonder if it's number 2 or 3.
>
Most of it is #2. Plus a bit of luck where they've got someone and a
phone check revealed msgs on his phone.

Anthony Horan wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day wrote:
>
>> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs
>> that incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a
>> carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a
>> Sydney man.
>
> According to some media reports of last weekend's police blitz in
> Sydney, cars were stopped at roadblocks and searched, and police were
> "going through the text messages on people's phones".
>
> That's a more likely scenario.

Yup - apply Occam's Razor - "given two equally predictive theories, choose
the simpler" - monitoring of SMSs by telcos based on keywords or mobile
number, or cops going through the phones of likely suspects they've stopped
and searched. The former is complex and challenging for police to pursue,
the latter is far more likely.

" Or the telcos are doing keyword searches on the SMS traffic for the cops."

Does this include 'fully sick' ?.

"Intel Inside" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> " Or the telcos are doing keyword searches on the SMS traffic for the
cops."
>
> Does this include 'fully sick' ?.


Fully Sick = Rod Speed


HTH

Simon VK3XEM wrote:

> Paul Day wrote:
> > Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
> > incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> > service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.
> >
> > The possibilities are:
> > - Authorities are looking for evidence against an individual, after
> > already having suspicion.
> > - People are dobbing in other people to police.
> > - (tin-foil hat on) Authorities are receiving a full feed of SMSs from
> > telco's SMSCs and then data-mining to gain suspicion.
> >
> > The former's pretty simple under the Telco (Intercept) Act of 1979. The
> > latter isn't. Sedition is defined as: "an intention to... (d) promote
> > feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to
> > threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth."
> > which, as I see it, includes inciting racial violence. Do the new
> > counter-terrorism laws allow the latter?
> >
> > Media comments like:
> > - "VICTORIA Police have successfully intercepted a text message calling
> > for race riots in Melbourne." (Daily Telegraph)
> > - "Meanwhile, Queensland Police said text messages calling for people to
> > start "cracking skulls" had surfaced on the Gold Coast." (Daily
> > Telegraph)
> > - "And Victorian police, who have intercepted text messages inciting
> > people to violence," (NEWS.com.au)
> > - "Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today confirmed two text
> > messages had turned up in WA this morning." (Herald Sun)
> > - "In Victoria, police have intercepted a text message inciting race
> > violence and tracked down the person who sent it." (Australian IT)
> >
> > ....make me wonder if it's number 2 or 3.
> >
> > (It should be noted that all four of those sources are Fairfax)
> >
> > PD
>
> I don't really care how they are obtaining the information as long as
> they use the full force of the law against the scum.
>
> My guess is that they have a list of suspects, obtain the relevant
> warrants and take to the carriers for them to provide relevant information.
>
> Whether these suspects appear on the list trough being dobbed in or just
> come to the attention of Police because of their behaviour is irrelevant.




Just to be difficult but what about the Privacy Act and breaching
their right to privacy?

will kemp wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day wrote:
>
> > Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs that
> > incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a carriage
> > service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a Sydney man.
>
> Also, apparently, a charge of print or publish to incite the commission of
> a crime. I reckon they've got buckley's of making that one stick - if it
> relates to SMS messages, that is.



Why do you think that?

John wrote:
>
> Just to be difficult but what about the Privacy Act and breaching
> their right to privacy?

If they have reason to believe the person has committed an offence, then
why would it be a breach of the Privacy Act.

Reminds me of years ago a mate used to ring me on an AMPS phone and
dribble **** for 10 min. about bringing a load of weapons and munitions
into the country for people with scanners to listen to. Imagine doing
that sort of **** today, I reckon you would disappear for the two weeks
or however long they can hold you for under the new anti-terror laws.


--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/cl...IENT_NO=157452

Poxy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anthony Horan wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2005 09:09:51 +1000, Paul Day wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone else wondering how exactly the police are intercepting SMSs
>>> that incite racial violence? They've just layed charges of "using a
>>> carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence" against a
>>> Sydney man.
>>
>> According to some media reports of last weekend's police blitz in
>> Sydney, cars were stopped at roadblocks and searched, and police were
>> "going through the text messages on people's phones".
>>
>> That's a more likely scenario.

> Yup - apply Occam's Razor

Its completely irrelevant to this particular situation.

> - "given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler"
> - monitoring of SMSs by telcos based on keywords or mobile
> number, or cops going through the phones of likely suspects
> they've stopped and searched. The former is complex and
> challenging for police to pursue,

But not for the telcos and they are required by law
to keep the SMSs for a while for just that reason.

> the latter is far more likely.

Likely is completely irrelevant to what actually happens with
something as spectacular as that with the massive resources
require to have apes perving at mobile handsets, particularly when
anyone with a clue deletes SMSs like that from their handsets.